Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (589551)	7/10/2004 6:00:52 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"Again it's in the passage" I understand the passage. But your inference is different (you call it "in the name of God"). I wanted the anwer for YOU. To see if I can figure out why you change the wording. I think I know. "How can you say that when i've specifically told you my views on this? I've said i have trouble with a moral code that can't say genocide is always wrong. Isn't that clear?" Here's one way you have said it: "some Christians condone genocide if they believe that genocide to be God's will". So no, it is not clear. It still seems to me that you judge people by their beliefs, which I believe is prejudiced. Some non Christians condone genocide too. I would say it is a VERY VERY small minority of Christians that condone genocide. It is loaded rhetoric you use, and I am almost sure that you realize that, and do it on purpose. It is possible that you are oblivious to this subtle change in wording, but I doubt it. "How is a man-led invasion an act of God like a hurricane or an earthquake?" It is ordered by God (in their belief). Pretty simple. And this is a GREAT argument to not believe in the bible imo. But it is not a great argument to argue that people that believe the biblical text condone genocide. "Some are in a position of saying all genocide is not wrong" This is your incorrect (and likely dishonest) way of wording something that puts down the person on the other side of the argument. I know for instance that Pilch does not think genocide is acceptable, ever. But you characterize him as someone who believes what you are saying. He doesn't, and it doesn't matter how he refutes that. You will TELL him what HE believes based on your logic that lead you not to believe. Mean spirited Steve. "Very few consider those stories to be literally true." True. But I don't say the ones who do believe the story are true condone genocide. Get it? "Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God." There is the reason for the killing (God's reasoning to believers). Doesn't mean the believers would do it, or support someone else for doing it. "The golden rule pre-dates Jesus by some 700 years" It's a good one. Like I said, no biblical scholar here. Read some of Pilch's answers to me too if you are interested. Has good explanations from a believer's stand point. No condemneation for asking questions.