Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

[RandFan]

Logic and fallacy are proclaimed. Invoked. Promulgated. I get that this is the *thing* that you HAVE to be dogmatic about, as it enables the classifications of others as illogical, irrational, etc. Logic and fallacy are not disembodied entities that exist.

No. Logic is the only way to arrive at the truth. You either use it or you don't. If you choose to ignore it then there is no point of discussion. End of story.

It is what is, and what isn't. And there is a hell of a lot of controversy/mystery about what is and what isn't. You *prove* that by talking with me. I'd take you more seriously if you acted as if there was no controversy/mystery, but you prove the opposite by having a discussion. It strikes me as desparate. Your turn to invoke the phrase "canard" or "strawman" or "red herring". The ubermenschian playbook hasn't changed in the two years I've been here.

Logic and reason gave us the workings of the atom and DNA and the vast majority of all our discovery is due to logic. It is the only constant we have to reliably get to the truth. I will dogmatically cling to it because it is such a powerful tool and because those who fail to dogmatically cling to it flail about in the dark. Human progression, understanding and enlightenment exist due to rigorous and dogmatic adherence to logic and I won't apologize for choosing logic and reason over the alternative.

I would like to point out that there are many Christian philosophers and scientists who publish for Christian journals who agree with me as to the importants of rigirous adherence to logic. I stand in good steed I assure you.

You say there is no controversy/mystery about logic and fallacy, and human history proves otherwise.

Please to demonstrate this?

I don't accept you as the articulator of logic/fallacy, it's bluster, and I'll spare you my reactions to your bluster for the rest of this thread.

This is just rhetoric.

I don't think you're being patronizing, I just think you're being a blusterbuss.

This is more rhetoric.

I recognize my assumptions and understand that my beliefs may be wrong. I have zero expectation that anyone in this forum take my assumptions and beliefs as their own. You may or may not be implying that I don't seriously examine my held beliefs. If you aren't, fine, and if you are, there's an objective answer to the matter, but the result I think would determine whether or not you'd agree.

I have serious doubts as to the fruits of any examination due to your careless use of logic.

 

[RandFan]

Re: logic/fallacy, if you're talking about mathematical reasoning, I get yer point. I think we agreed that this stuff is not exactly the same (going back to the laws question, "gravity" laws vs. moral/legal laws).

I'm sorry but I don't know what this means.

Also, you're just saying Q.E.D. over and over again. You're saying you're being logical, others aren't, all that. Fine. Q.E.D. I'm not content with just that obviously.

? Could you demonstrate this? I use QED perhaps once or twice a year.

Well you're an intelligent designer, right? What you say works, works within the confines of your intelligent design. I get that. I don't know if the totality of the understanding which you have in the *world* of programming necessarily translates and dictates the totality of how logic/reason works, or ought to work, in this one. You can be adamant that it does, but I dunno.

I haven't the time to teach you logic. I loath to be patronizing but I beg you to learn. There are many Christian sources for logic. It is vitally important. FWIW, many of my favorite heroes of logic were religious and most of them Christian, Blasé Pascal, George Boole, Isaac Newton, Emanuel Kant, Saint Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis to name a few. Oh, and for what it's worth ceo_esq on this forum has an excellent grasp of logic. I have outright conceded an argument to him because he was better versed in the subject matter and was able to logically make his arguments.

Tickled that you would make a statement, but it's a manifestation of your particular faith.

I'm not questioning either your knowledge, or your foundation. I would disagree if you assert that certain things/opinions *necessarily* follow from your knowledge or your foundation.

Of course not. To claim so would be the height of arrogance and would be folly. It is only by admitting ones potential for bias and illogical thinking can one work against it.

I think that I was thinking that you were saying that all religious arguments are essentially the same and how the hell do you know which to go with, if Christianity why not elves or whatever.

I'm saying, and these aren't connected really...

1)If you examine Christianity closely, and examine elves closely, the differences are quite astounding, and you can probably figure out why people tend to go with Christianity and not elves, even if you have no use for either

2)There are specific dogmas that Muslims and Christians would mutually reject, but others can be harmonized. Kind of like how you actually can be a Christian and a Zen Buddhist at the same time.

3)I've been told that you can't understand the Koran unless you know Arabic and that it's a fool's errand to preach the Koran in English because the Koran can't be appreciated in English. I don't know if that's a majority or minority opinion in Islam.

4)Objections to my particular religion are real, and I recognize that if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. And if I'm right, then I'm right. If I'm right, I'm not going to taunt others (in the next one) for being illogical, unreasonable, irrational. Who the hell cares.

And finally, and in general, I have *never* had a problem, in this forum, of talking about *specific* points regarding what is reasonable, or rational, etc. Mantras invoking logic/fallacy as general rules are annoying.

They might be annoying but the are critically important.

RandFan

 

[Huntster]

Quote:
Because it's an issue that science apparently can't verify, and which requires either faith, rejection, or indifference.

That's not an answer to the question.

That's my answer.

Quote:
I don't believe any of them have truth caged. The best one can do is study and pray.

That doesn't inspire confidence.

Sorry about your inability to foster faith. What you're asking for is proof, guarantees, and "having-it-done-your-way", not confidence. It's my reckoning that you're not going to get what you desire.

Quote:
That is your opinion, and you are free to hold it dear.

More than mere opinion but you are free to think that it is.

Indeed.

Quote:
Physical science wasn't treated or exercised in the Dark Ages like it is today.

That's right. We gave up on pro-hoc reasoning. There is a message there for anyone willing to recieve it.

There are several messages.

Quote:
Your opinions are yours, but calling my reasoning "dangerous" is coming close to stepping over the line.

Faulty reasoning is dangerous which is why science has stopped using it. Faulty reasoning is the reason so many people died because their doctors removed the patients blood when doing so only made things worse.

When physically sick, doctors no longer bleed me like they would have 500 years ago.

When spiritually sick, maybe 500 years from now scientists can heal me, but I doubt it.

Quote:
No, it doesn't fully depend on how you are raised, although that is a significant factor. That's why raising children is such a critical effort.

I never said fully. But it is a fact that Muslims raise Muslims, Sikhs raise Sikhs, Buddhists raise Buddhists, Mormons raise Mormons, etc. This is a fact that can't be reasonably denied.

For the most part, that is correct.

Quote:
And who are you to determine what God should do and why?

I'm only noting that it is a poor way to do something.

Your opinion on how to do something is just that: your opinion.

Quote:
Ever consider the possibility that the religion people are familiar with is the one they have studied, understand, and otherwise are most knowledgable about?

Of course. That IS my point. The results still leave incompatible religions.

Quote:
Again, not necessarily. How we were raised will dominate our learning processes and what we learned at an early age, but it shouldn't necessarily be the "only way."

Of course not but it renders consistent results.

Fairly consistent, yes.

Quote:
But there are faulty superstitions that are recognized by many religious people.

One person's faulty superstition is another's religion.

Sometimes, yes. And vice versa.

Quote:
Maybe the person who claimed God told his "people" to slaughter men, women, and children was evil, and falsely claimed that "God told me to do it".

You've lost me, are you saying that the events depicted in the bible could have been the result of evil men?

I don't know.

Quote:
Maybe the people who were killed were evil, God did direct the massacre, and it was just.

(emphasis mine)

1.) Women, children and infants?

Yup.

2.) If you say yes to #1 then is it not reasonable that God directed the 9/11 conspirators to kill Americans because we are evil?

That's certainly the way the terrorists claim to see it.

Do you believe them?

Quote:
I don't know. Neither do you.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill" --6th Commandment.

In all honesty, I don't know. I do know that killing humans in the name of god is fairly universal.

Yup. So is killing for money and control, both en masse and as individual killings.

BTW, that's the 5th Commandment, not the 6th. Perhaps you're in need of some review?

Quote:
Yes. More precisely, since God is good, evil is the opposite of God.

Therein lies the problem. Since god is good (translated "allah akbar") killing infidels for allah and his one true prophet, Mohammad, is good. Nice.

Do you believe that?

You admit that god can't be proven, only believed.

More accurately: believe, reject, or indifference.

You stated "Maybe the people who were killed were evil, God did direct the massacre, and it was just."

Yup.

If the fact that god can't be proven and it can only be believed then we must accept that simply believing that god wants you to kill people is sufficient justification.

That is not sufficient justification, you and I both know that, that is clear in the Roman Catholic Catechism, and the rational behind the Catholic position is clearly published in that Catechism.

Huntster, I know that you don't like this and I'm sorry but there simply is no escape from your own logic. Either god can be proven or god can't. If god can't be proven then either belief is sufficient for killing or it isn't.

You're right: I don't like that "logic", you're very sorry, and God cannot be proven scientifically. I've already written that several times.

And you're also wrong: belief in God is not sufficient for killing.

I much prefer the "logic" and "reasoning" that is offered by my Church. It beats the kind of crap that people like you try to serve up to people on a regular basis.

For a very comprehensive review of what the largest church on Planet Earth has to say about killing (including war), please check this out.

Quote:
You call that intellectual honesty?

I don't simply call it intellectually honesty, the logic compels an intellectually honest person to accept the result of the logic. The choice is yours.

Damned right it is, and I choose to reject your "logic", "intellect", and "honesty."

Quote:
God is great.

Tell that to all who have died to please god.

If they are physically dead, they know it now better than both you and I.

Quote:
And that has nothing to do with killing innocent people.

Really?

Tell that to the baby boys killed by the destroying angel as a result of god's wrath against Pharaoh.
Tell that to the innocent children who were the victims of god's command to Moses "Kill every male among the little ones".

Tough stuff, huh? It's like war. Lots of innocent casulties. National sin. A good introduction into that phenomena can be reviewed here.

You can't reasonably have your cake and eat it to.

It's not my cake, and yes I can eat some of it and save the rest. It doesn't have to be either-or.

If you get to say that you don't have to prove that god lives and ordered these killings and therefore they are just then the terrorists get to say that they don't have to prove that god told them to kill innocents.

I don't have to prove the existence of God, and I couldn't if I wanted to.

I don't have to justify Islamic terrorists killing indescriminately, because I think that's a sin.

I don't have to justify the deaths of the first born of Egypt at the original Passover, because I didn't kill anybody, and I'm not in authority do determine the righteousness or evil of that event.

 

[davefoc]

Elliotfc,
Thank you for your responses to my previous posts. Several times I thought you had made relevant insightful comments that I wanted to respond to but the threads seemed to move beyond your posts before I had a chance to respond: From earlier in this thread:

Davefoc:

… For the most part people were making up Christianity in the first few centuries following the death of Jesus.

Elliotfc:

Certainly the religious dogmas developed over the first few centuries, but the basics of the life of Christ were established by the synoptic gospels 55-85 AD.

I agree with this. Although I think it is very significant that Mark was probably modified to add four verses describing the resurrection and the ascension. So it looks like one of the underlying source documents for Christian writings was modified to support developing ideas about the nature of Jesus and Christian theology. It is also somewhat significant that modifications to Christian scriptures continued to be made intentionally and accidentally all the way up until the invention of the printing press.

I think it is even more significant that the Christianity of about 100 AD had many theological theories about the nature of Jesus and about Christian theology in general. There were some such as Marcion that believed the entire Jewish bible should be rejected as it was in conflict with the teachings of Christ. There were some such as the Jewish Christians who thought that following Jewish religious laws was a requirement of Christianity. There were some that thought that God adopted Jesus after the baptism of Jesus.

So the picture for me is not of a religion that is founded and described by a single entity, supernatural or not, rather it is of a religion formed by people just making stuff up for several hundred years after Jesus lived.

I think your idea here, based on your previous responses would be that Christianity was created by a series of divinely inspired people that followed in the footsteps of Jesus. That is of course one interpretation. Another is that the people who were creating Christianity were people just like people who have lived more recently like the founder of Mormonism or the founder of scientology that just made stuff up and managed to convince other people to believe in the stuff they made up.

 

[RandFan]

That's my answer.

To be more precise that is your response. It makes no sense but that is fine..

Sorry about your inability to foster faith. What you're asking for is proof, guarantees, and "having-it-done-your-way", not confidence. It's my reckoning that you're not going to get what you desire.

This is just silliness. There are many religions that claim to know the truth. Many claim that there is only one way to salvation (assuming that it exists) and I'm supposed to just pick one? Huh? What I desire is to know the truth. The majority of the world claims that the majority of the world is going to hell. What am I to make of that?

There are several messages.

Sadly you are unwilling to grasp the most important one.

When physically sick, doctors no longer bleed me like they would have 500 years ago.

Thanks to jettisoning post-hoc reasoning.

When spiritually sick, maybe 500 years from now scientists can heal me, but I doubt it.

If there is such a thing and it is healed post-hoc reasoning sure as hell won't have anything to do with it.

For the most part, that is correct.

So we are back to square one, why do most people believe that most people are going to hell based on geography?

Your opinion on how to do something is just that: your opinion.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Emanuel Kant, George Boole and Blasé Pascal would all agree with me. That's an appeal to authority but since these are some of the finest Christian minds of all time it is a damn good appeal.

Sometimes, yes. And vice versa.

Which leaves the problem unsolved. How does one know when one is engaging in superstition?

I don't know.

Then what good is the information?

Yup.

How nice, yet we are supposed to be outraged that terrorists target innocent humans? Why?

That's certainly the way the terrorists claim to see it.

And why should we disagree?

1. Their belief cannot be proven or disproven.
2. All they have is faith and their claim that god tells them to kill Americans.
3. All anyone has is faith that god told Moses to kill women and children.

I can find no difference between the terrorists of today and the alleged divinely inspired genocide of the bible.

Do you believe them?

If there is a just and merciful god he/she/it would never order the killing of children. There is no logical reason or justification for it.

Yup. So is killing for money and control, both en masse and as individual killings.

So doesn't it make sense to condemn murder in the name of god, money and control?

BTW, that's the 5th Commandment, not the 6th. Perhaps you're in need of some review?

Perhaps you need to learn the history of the Ten Commandments. I have a protestant background. To Jews and Protestants it is the 6th.

Please don't be so smug and arrogant when in fact you are ignorant.

Do you believe that?

I don't believe god told Moses to kill children and I don't believe god told terrorists to kill children.

I consistently reject and condemn genocide or terror in the name of god.

More accurately: believe, reject, or indifference.

So then you agree that there is no more basis for Moses and other supposed prophets to kill children than there is for Muslim terrorists, right?

Yup.

Is there a difference in your mind between Moses killing women and children and Palestinians killing killing women and children? If so, what is it?

That is not sufficient justification, you and I both know that, that is clear in the Roman Catholic Catechism, and the rational behind the Catholic position is clearly published in that Catechism.

Ok then, answer the question, was it ok for Moses to kill women and children?

You're right: I don't like that "logic", you're very sorry, and God cannot be proven scientifically. I've already written that several times.

So will you condemn the atrocities in the bible?

And you're also wrong: belief in God is not sufficient for killing.

I condemn ALL murder and killing in the name of god. ALL.

Are we clear?

I much prefer the "logic" and "reasoning" that is offered by my Church. It beats the kind of crap that people like you try to serve up to people on a regular basis.

This is simply evasion and rhetoric. It doesn't answer the question. Do you condemn all killing in the name of god including that which is documented in the bible?

For a very comprehensive review of what the largest church on Planet...

Are you saying that the size of the church is proof of something?

Earth has to say about killing (including war), please check this out.

Is there something in there about Moses killing children?

Damned right it is, and I choose to reject your "logic", "intellect", and "honesty."

Rhetorical and non-responsive.

If they are physically dead, they know it now better than both you and I.

Really? This just sounds like justification to me. How do I know what they know? According to Muslim terrorists those who died in the 9/11 attack now know that they died because god wanted them dead.

Your answer is rather poor.

Tough stuff, huh? It's like war. Lots of innocent casulties. National sin. A good introduction into that phenomena can be reviewed here.

You are all over the board on this one. Can you make up your mind? I say killing in the name of god,

1.) Has always been wrong.
2.) Is wrong.
3.) Will always be wrong.

Which of the 3 do you believe?

It's not my cake, and yes I can eat some of it and save the rest. It doesn't have to be either-or.

Actually, yes it does. There is no escape from it.

I don't have to prove the existence of God, and I couldn't if I wanted to.

No one is asking you to.

I don't have to justify Islamic terrorists killing indescriminately, because I think that's a sin.

Are you consistent in your condemnation?

I don't have to justify the deaths of the first born of Egypt at the original Passover, because I didn't kill anybody, and I'm not in authority do determine the righteousness or evil of that event.

Again, you are contradictory, either killing is sin or it is not. No one is asking you to justify anything. You are being asked if there is a universal standard for the *6th commandment?

*The Jewish and protestant divisions lists murder as the 6th commandment.

 

[Huntster]

....So the picture for me is not of a religion that is founded and described by a single entity, supernatural or not, rather it is of a religion formed by people just making stuff up for several hundred years after Jesus lived....

Luke 1:1-4

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

The Gospel of Luke was a letter to a friend.

Those who wish to find inconsistencies and fault with human testimony can do so with much ease. It's more difficult to completely destroy the message.

I think your idea here, based on your previous responses would be that Christianity was created by a series of divinely inspired people that followed in the footsteps of Jesus. That is of course one interpretation. Another is that the people who were creating Christianity were people just like people who have lived more recently like the founder of Mormonism or the founder of scientology that just made stuff up and managed to convince other people to believe in the stuff they made up.

We are all free to believe either of your proposed scenarios, or any number of other propositions, because proof of any of them is not available.

I choose to believe that "Christianity was created by a series of divinely inspired people that followed in the footsteps of Jesus."

 

[davefoc]

I choose to believe that "Christianity was created by a series of divinely inspired people that followed in the footsteps of Jesus."

This strikes me as a completely rational approach to life. It would seem to eliminate the need for much discussion about the actual historical events or of the theology that arises out of those historical events. God has inspired some folks to write about Christianity and God has divinely inspired some others to select what of those writings will go forward and comprise Christianity. So the Christian theology that has withstood the test of time was divinely inspired.

How does this work today while the evolution and modification of Christianity continues? Every year some Christian sects decline and others grow. Christian theology is expanded in different directions by different Christian leaders. It used to be against Catholic rules to eat meat on Friday and now its ok. Which of these rules were divinely inspired? How do you choose? Pat Robertson says that Sharon was struck down because Israel abandoned the Gaza strip under his leadership. Was Robertson divinely inspired? Should a Christian now add into his faith the idea that Israel should not surrender land? The Jewish Christians seemed to favor circumcision as a requirement for Christianity. Were they divinely inspired on that? So does God want his flock to be circumcised? Was Paul divinely inspired when he said it wasn't necessary?

As an aside I had not seen the opening paragraph of Luke interpreted as you did. Normally, I thought, the interpretation was that Theophilus was Luke's benefactor or patron. Of course that doesn't preclude the possibility that Theophilus was a friend also. There is also the interpretation that Theophilus wasn't actually a name, it was just a term for a friend of God.

 

[Huntster]

Quote:
Sorry about your inability to foster faith. What you're asking for is proof, guarantees, and "having-it-done-your-way", not confidence. It's my reckoning that you're not going to get what you desire.

This is just silliness. There are many religions that claim to know the truth. Many claim that there is only one way to salvation (assuming that it exists) and I'm supposed to just pick one? Huh?

Not necessarily. You can choose more than one if you choose (and if they allow it). Or you can start your own if you wish (at least you can as long as you live in a nation like the United States). Or you can choose to disregard religion altogether if you wish.

I've chosen to adhere to Roman Catholicism because I don't see a better alternative out there, but I do enjoy learning about other religions, and thoroughly enjoy the similarities among different religions.

What I desire is to know the truth. The majority of the world claims that the majority of the world is going to hell. What am I to make of that?

You may not be able to secure the complete truth in this lifetime. Sorry about that.

The majority of the world says that the majority of the world is going to hell? I can't argue with that. That's one reason why I love Alaska and simply hate even visiting elsewhere. The world seems to be going to Hell in a handbasket to me.

And I don't know what to make of that at all, but keeping the TV off, staying here in Alaska, and spending as much time in the woods seems to help.

Quote:
There are several messages.

Sadly you are unwilling to grasp the most important one.

Their heirarchy of importance is a matter of opinion.

Quote:
When physically sick, doctors no longer bleed me like they would have 500 years ago.

Thanks to jettisoning post-hoc reasoning.

I'm not sure about "jettisoning post-hoc reasoning", but I will certainly jettison needless bleeding.

Quote:
When spiritually sick, maybe 500 years from now scientists can heal me, but I doubt it.

If there is such a thing and it is healed post-hoc reasoning sure as hell won't have anything to do with it.

I can agree with that.

My spiritual healing in the past has come from God.

Quote:
For the most part, that is correct.

So we are back to square one, why do most people believe that most people are going to hell based on geography?

If you're correct that this is a matter of geography, I would disagree with the belief.

I frankly believe that most people aren't going to Hell. RCC doctrine teaches that Hell is:

The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives

Quote:
Your opinion on how to do something is just that: your opinion.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Emanuel Kant, George Boole and Blasé Pascal would all agree with me.

Why do I find that claim downright hilarious?

Quote:
Sometimes, yes. And vice versa.

Which leaves the problem unsolved. How does one know when one is engaging in superstition?

When you believe others over your own spiritual experience and learning.

Quote:
I don't know.

Then what good is the information?

It's good to consider.

Quote:
Yup.

How nice, yet we are supposed to be outraged that terrorists target innocent humans? Why?

I'm not entirely positive, but perhaps because we're the innocent humans they are targetting?

Quote:
That's certainly the way the terrorists claim to see it.

And why should we disagree?

Because they are killing innocent people?

Their belief cannot be proven or disproven.

Nor can yours or mine.

All they have is faith and their claim that god tells them to kill Americans.

That's what some of them claim. Do you believe them? I don't.

All anyone has is faith that god told Moses to kill women and children.

As well as the Angel of Death in Egypt at the first Passover.

I can find no difference between the terrorists of today and the alleged divinely inspired genocide of the bible.

That's your opinion. Others opine differently.

Quote:
Do you believe them?

If there is a just and merciful god he/she/it would never order the killing of children. There is no logical reason or justification for it.

Sorry. I can't go there with you.

An innocent is an innocent, whether they're a fit, 20 year old male, an old woman, or a young mother. Yet a war or natural disaster can and will take any or them all.

Physical death is a reality. It's proven.

I say evil is a reality, too. And it can take many forms.

Quote:
Yup. So is killing for money and control, both en masse and as individual killings.

So doesn't it make sense to condemn murder in the name of god, money and control?

My! We finally agree on something?

Quote:
BTW, that's the 5th Commandment, not the 6th. Perhaps you're in need of some review?

Perhaps you need to learn the history of the Ten Commandments. I have a protestant background. To Jews and Protestants it is the 5th.

Please don't be so smug and arrogant when in fact you are ignorant.

Sorry. I really wasn't aware of that!

Quote:
Do you believe that?

I don't believe god told Moses to kill children and I don't believe god told terrorists to kill children.

I consistently reject and condemn genocide or terror in the name of god.

I consistently reject and condemn genocide or terror for any reason.

Quote:
More accurately: believe, reject, or indifference.

So then you agree that there is no more basis for Moses and other supposed prophets to kill children than there is for Muslim terrorists, right?

Let me put it this way:

War sucks.

Quote:
Yup.

Is there a difference in your mind between Moses killing women and children and Palestinians killing killing women and children? If so, what is it?

Initially, I see two differences:

1) Moses killed women and children thousands of years ago.

2) Palestinians are still killing women and children.

Quote:
That is not sufficient justification, you and I both know that, that is clear in the Roman Catholic Catechism, and the rational behind the Catholic position is clearly published in that Catechism.

Ok then, answer the question, was it ok for Moses to kill women and children?

I don't know. I'm not the authority or judge.

But I'm glad we both feel passionate that the event really occurred as it was written.

Quote:
You're right: I don't like that "logic", you're very sorry, and God cannot be proven scientifically. I've already written that several times.

So will you condemn the atrocities in the bible?

Hell, yeah! I'd like to even condemn things like the tsunami almost two years ago. An act of "God."

However, as much as I wish I could, I can't make them end for you.

Quote:
And you're also wrong: belief in God is not sufficient for killing.

I condemn ALL murder and killing in the name of god. ALL.

Are we clear?

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm.......................yeah.

Can I raise a toast and second that with:

I condemn ALL murder!?

Quote:
I much prefer the "logic" and "reasoning" that is offered by my Church. It beats the kind of crap that people like you try to serve up to people on a regular basis.

....Do you condemn all killing in the name of god including that which is documented in the bible?

I refuse to bend to your "authority" to define "all killing in the name of god." Nor will I play with the attempt to exploit the realities of war to destroy or even besmudge religion (especially mine).

No. Not only do I not condemn all killing in the name of god including that which is documented in the bible, I don't even condemn all killing.

Quote:
For a very comprehensive review of what the largest church on Planet...

Are you saying that the size of the church is proof of something?

Well..........................yeah.

It has more members than the others.

Duh...............?

Quote:
Earth has to say about killing (including war), please check this out.

Is there something in there about Moses killing children?

Nope.

Quote:
Damned right it is, and I choose to reject your "logic", "intellect", and "honesty."

Rhetorical and non-responsive.

Rhetorical or not, it is not non-responsive, because that's the response you're going to get from me.

Quote:
If they are physically dead, they know it now better than both you and I.

Really, sounds like justification to me.

Not justification. Belief.

How do I know what they know.

You don't. Neither do I.

Quote:
Tough stuff, huh? It's like war. Lots of innocent casulties. National sin. A good introduction into that phenomena can be reviewed here.

You are all over the board on this one. Can you make up your mind? I say killing in the name of god,

1.) Has always been wrong.
2.) Is wrong.
3.) Will always be wrong.

Which of the 3 do you believe?

Killing, according to human history, appears to be a necessary evil. Sometimes even mass killing.

Sorry about that. I wish it wasn't so.

With regard to "war" (mass casulties), civil or national, no matter who does it, when they do it, offensive or defensive, right or wrong, conducted justly or not, you can be sure both sides will claim that God (any God) was on their side.

So, you were asking?................................................

Quote:
It's not my cake, and yes I can eat some of it and save the rest. It doesn't have to be either-or.

Actually, yes it does. There is no escape from it.

There is always escape.

Quote:
I don't have to justify Islamic terrorists killing indescriminately, because I think that's a sin.

Are you consistent in your condemnation?

As much as I can.

Quote:
I don't have to justify the deaths of the first born of Egypt at the original Passover, because I didn't kill anybody, and I'm not in authority do determine the righteousness or evil of that event.

Again, you are contradictory, either killing is sin or it is not.

It can be a necessary evil.

No one is asking you to justify anything. You are being asked if there is a universal standard for the *6th commandment?

No, there is no "universal standard* for *killing.*

However, I've been instructed, trained, indoctrinated, and practiced in a few theories. They are remarkably similar, and as repulsive, regretable, difficult, and horrifying as killing is, I hold them to be acceptable.

Killing solely in the name of God isn't included.

*The Jewish and protestant divisions lists murder as the 6th commandment.

Got it.

Thanks for that. I really didn't know.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster

I choose to believe that "Christianity was created by a series of divinely inspired people that followed in the footsteps of Jesus."

This strikes me as a completely rational approach to life. It would seem to eliminate the need for much discussion about the actual historical events or of the theology that arises out of those historical events. God has inspired some folks to write about Christianity and God has divinely inspired some others to select what of those writings will go forward and comprise Christianity. So the Christian theology that has withstood the test of time was divinely inspired.

How does this work today while the evolution and modification of Christianity continues?...

I must state that Catholic evolution has been every bit as dynamic today as in the past, but that dynamism is different than what most people might think.

At least it has for me. I might be wrong. In fact, I will admit before challenge that some of what I see is cultural difference from the Church that I remember where you're at (Orange County, where I was raised) and where I'm at now (Alaska; been here over 30 years).

But even when I was young in Orange County, the Church was going through the Vatican II era. As an altar boy, I didn't understand or pay attention to the changes, but I sure see how dramatic it was today from what I remember.

Every year some Christian sects decline and others grow. Christian theology is expanded in different directions by different Christian leaders. It used to be against Catholic rules to eat meat on Friday and now its ok.

If I'm not mistaken (I might be), the sacrificing of Lent 9or any other sacrifice, self-originated or not) is that it's something that the individual must desire or accept for the sacrifice to have meaning. Thus, a Church imposed rule on sacrifice would be a meaningless regulation.

Which of these rules were divinely inspired?

I don't know.

How do you choose?

In prayer.

Pat Robertson says that Sharon was struck down because Israel abandoned the Gaza strip under his leadership. Was Robertson divinely inspired?

I don't know.

Should a Christian now add into his faith the idea that Israel should not surrender land?

I don't. I'm going by U.S. policy first, and U.N. policy second.

The Jewish Christians seemed to favor circumcision as a requirement for Christianity. Were they divinely inspired on that?

In accordance with their religious foundation, yes.

So does God want his flock to be circumcised?

I don't know.

Was Paul divinely inspired when he said it wasn't necessary?

I suspect so.

As an aside I had not seen the opening paragraph of Luke interpreted as you did. Normally, I thought, the interpretation was that Theophilus was Luke's benefactor or patron. Of course that doesn't preclude the possibility that Theophilus was a friend also. There is also the interpretation that Theophilus wasn't actually a name, it was just a term for a friend of God.

All true. Theophilus in the Greek of the era has been interpreted as "Friend of God" (which came first; the chicken, or the egg; especially in the year 175 AD?). The title "Most Excellent" has often been interpreted as one of Roman citizenry or position. It has also been interpreted as a title of a Bishop or Archbishop. Today, the title of RCC Bishop in the U.S. is "Excellence", and that of a U.S. Cardinal is "Eminence."

In all the above possibilities, I suspect Luke considered Theophilus his friend.

 

[Tony]

Thinking and living free must exclude God?

If your god demands unquestioningly obedience or else you burn, yes.

By not believing, you have rejected.

Non sequitur. How does it follow that by not believing I have rejected? I simply don't think there is anything to reject.

 

[RandFan]

Forgive me huntster but the thread is just growing too long. I did read the entire thread and I'm willing to let some of it go. If there is anything you want me to respond to let me know and I will. Again, I'm sorry but I haven't the time to respond to everything.

I refuse to bend to your "authority" to define "all killing in the name of god." Nor will I play with the attempt to exploit the realities of war to destroy or even besmudge religion (especially mine).

No. Not only do I not condemn all killing in the name of god including that which is documented in the bible, I don't even condemn all killing.

I'm not asking you to bend to any authority.

I just want you to understand that you can't reasonably condemn the killing that Muslims do in the name of god when you justify the attrocities commited by Moses and others of the Old Testament in the name of god.

You justify the killing that Moses says god told him to commit.
You condemn the killing that Muslims say god tells them to commit.

There is a problem there. You say Moses ordered the death of young boys because it was a war. Muslims claim that they kill Americans because they are in a war.

What's the difference?

Well..........................yeah.

It has more members than the others.

Duh...............?

{sigh} See, I got that. I'm really not stupid. WHY is it important for you to note that the information you provided was from a religion that has more members in it? It appears to be argument ad numerum. That is a fallacy. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt to explain yourself. Playing games isn't helping.

Rhetorical or not, it is not non-responsive, because that's the response you're going to get from me.

I'm afraid you don't understand the meaning of "non-responsive". If I ask you what color your eyes are and you respond "wet" that is non-responsive. It's the same as not responding.

Not justification. Belief.

What's the difference?

Killing, according to human history, appears to be a necessary evil. Sometimes even mass killing.

1.) Perhaps what the Muslim terrorists are doing now is necessary.
2.) This directly contradicts your earlier link.

With regard to "war" (mass casulties), civil or national, no matter who does it, when they do it, offensive or defensive, right or wrong, conducted justly or not, you can be sure both sides will claim that God (any God) was on their side.

Then let's get rid of the motive to use god as an excuse.

There is always escape.

While I avoid absolutes, unfortunately, I can't agree with this statement and I'm afraid that neither can any educated logician be they Christian or secular. You will find few if any allies from scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, programmers, etc. regardless of ideology or theology. You are, quite simply, wrong. And thank Ed that you are because it is the fact that you are that makes the world go round.

As much as I can.

Then the answer is no.

It can be a necessary evil.

Perhaps you need to look closer at that link you gave me earlier. Let me quote you.

For a very comprehensive review of what the largest church on Planet Earth has to say about killing (including war), please check this out.

You really can't seem to make up your mind.

Killing solely in the name of God isn't included.

I think you best re-read the bible. I see no difference between what god told Moses and what the god is telling the Muslims are doing now. What do you think is the difference?

I think the difference is that you don't believe that god is telling the Muslims to kill but that you do believe god told Moses to kill. So the killing will continue because everyone thinks there god is right and just and the other's is a whack job.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Thinking and living free must exclude God?

If your god demands unquestioningly obedience or else you burn, yes.

Didn't we already go through this?

Quote:
By not believing, you have rejected.

Non sequitur. How does it follow that by not believing I have rejected? I simply don't think there is anything to reject.

I apologize. There are three options:

1) Believe
2) Reject
3) Indifference

 

[Tony]

Didn't we already go through this?

I don't think we did.

I apologize. There are three options:

1) Believe
2) Reject
3) Indifference

According to whom? It can be argued that there are more than 3 options. However, for the sake of this argument, I'll go on record as coming closest to indifference.

 

[Huntster]

Forgive me huntster but the thread is just growing too long. I did read the entire thread and I'm willing to let some of it go. If there is anything you want me to respond to let me know and I will. Again, I'm sorry but I haven't the time to respond to everything.

Forgiven, and I understand. I'm getting lost here, too.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I refuse to bend to your "authority" to define "all killing in the name of god." Nor will I play with the attempt to exploit the realities of war to destroy or even besmudge religion (especially mine).

No. Not only do I not condemn all killing in the name of god including that which is documented in the bible, I don't even condemn all killing.

I'm not asking you to bend to any authority. You can't reasonably condemn the killing that Muslims do in the name of god when you justify your own killing.

I disagree. I can condemn the killing that Muslims do in the name of God, and I can justify my own killing (almost all of it, and thus far).

You justify the killing that Moses says god told him to commit.
You condemn the killing that Muslims say god tells them to commit.

I justify none of it specifically. I refuse to speculate on the killings you attribute to Moses, and I condemn the killing that I'm aware of today committed by what most of us in today's world recognize as "radical Islamic terrorism."

There is a problem there. You say Moses ordered the death of young boys because it was a war. Muslims claim that they kill Americans because they are in a war.

What's the difference?

(Didn't I already do this?):

1) A few thousand years
2) Other circumstances

Quote:
Well..........................yeah.

It has more members than the others.

Duh...............?

{sigh} See, I got that. I'm really not stupid. WHY is it important for you to note that the information you provided was from a religion that has more members in it? It appears to be argument

ad populum. A fallacy. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Again, that's the religion I write from. That's my foundation. It's my life (yesterday, today, tomorrow, and on unto eternity). You're trying to pin me down in shame and disgrace regarding Moses in Exodus, you're trying to pin me down with today's radical Islamic terrorism, yet when I mention my own religion (again, the largest on the planet), you want to find fault with that, too.

Quote:
Rhetorical or not, it is not non-responsive, because that's the response you're going to get from me.

I'm afraid you don't understand the meaning of "non-responsive". If I ask you what color your eyes are and you respond "wet" that is non-responsive. It's the same as not responding.

Yet if you ask me the condition of my eyes, "wet" may be perfectly accurate.

Quote:
Not justification. Belief.

What's the difference?

Do we need to go into another group session with the dictionary?

Quote:
Killing, according to human history, appears to be a necessary evil. Sometimes even mass killing.

1.) Perhaps what the Muslim terrorists are doing now is necessary.
2.) This directly contradicts your earlier link.

1) That's what they claim, and
2) I don't think so.

Quote:
With regard to "war" (mass casulties), civil or national, no matter who does it, when they do it, offensive or defensive, right or wrong, conducted justly or not, you can be sure both sides will claim that God (any God) was on their side.

Then let's get rid of the motive to use god as an excuse.

Believe me, I'd love that more than you would.

Unfortunately, I don't have control of propaganda.

Quote:
There is always escape.

While I avoid absolutes, unfortunately, I can't agree with this statement and I'm afraid that neither can any educated logician be they Christian or secular. You will find few if any allies from scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, programmers, etc. regardless of ideology or theology. You are, quite simply, wrong. And thank Ed that you are because it is the fact that you are that makes the world go round.

Ed Who?

Quote:
As much as I can.

Then the answer is no.

No, it's not. The answer is "as much as I can."

Quote:
It can be a necessary evil.

Perhaps you need to look closer at that link you gave me earlier. Let me quote you.

Quote:
For a very comprehensive review of what the largest church on Planet Earth has to say about killing (including war), please check this out.

You really can't seem to make up your mind.

Depends. I can make my mind up today based on the information available, and change it tomorrow if additional information is presented.

Damn. I hate when that happens..........

Quote:
Killing solely in the name of God isn't included.

I think you best re-read the bible. I see no difference between what god told Moses and what the Muslims are doing now. What do you think is the difference?

How many times must I type it?

See above................

 

[RandFan]

I disagree. I can condemn the killing that Muslims do in the name of God, and I can justify my own killing (almost all of it, and thus far).

Just understand that the Muslims can also justify their killings and therefore your link is worthless, cynical and hypocritical.

I justify none of it specifically. I refuse to speculate on the killings you attribute to Moses, and I condemn the killing that I'm aware of today committed by what most of us in today's world recognize as "radical Islamic terrorism."

There is nothing to speculate on. The battle was over.

Numbers 31:15-17

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

What is there to speculate on? This act was not war. This was murder pure and simple.

1) A few thousand years
2) Other circumstances

What does time have to do with anything? What other circumstances?

Again, that's the religion I write from. That's my foundation. It's my life (yesterday, today, tomorrow, and on unto eternity). You're trying to pin me down in shame and disgrace regarding Moses in Exodus, you're trying to pin me down with today's radical Islamic terrorism, yet when I mention my own religion (again, the largest on the planet), you want to find fault with that, too.

No. I want you to be consistent.

Yet if you ask me the condition of my eyes, "wet" may be perfectly accurate.

? That was not the hypothetical. That's not the way logic works. If I give you a hypothetical to demonstrate a point you don't change the hypothetical otherwise there is nothing to discuss.

Do we need to go into another group session with the dictionary?

1.) You didn't do very well the last time and I provided the definition. Please don't be arrogant.
2.) I'm not talking about definitions.

What effectively is the difference?

1) That's what they claim, and
2) I don't think so.

And you don't see the problem with that? Those who justify killing in the name of god always think the other side is wrong.

No, it's not. The answer is "as much as I can."

Which is the same as no.

Depends. I can make my mind up today based on the information available, and change it tomorrow if additional information is presented.

What new information? I've given you two examples.

After the army of Moses won the battle, Moses ordered his men to go back and kill women and children, what new information do you need?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I disagree. I can condemn the killing that Muslims do in the name of God, and I can justify my own killing (almost all of it, and thus far).

Just understand that the Muslims can also justify their killings and therefore your link is worthless, cynical and hypocritical.

I understand that fully. Very much so.

And, just so that you understand, I want to be assured that when I kill, it is "justified."

So let me understand your position (not mine, not Moses', not "Muslims", and not "God's"):

If I kill those who have fearlessly and defiantly announced that they would like to kill you (just because you are American, or atheist), am I wrong to kill them (even if I am under oath to do so, whether that oath is authorized by nation or religion)?

Quote:
I justify none of it specifically. I refuse to speculate on the killings you attribute to Moses, and I condemn the killing that I'm aware of today committed by what most of us in today's world recognize as "radical Islamic terrorism."

There is nothing to speculate on. The battle was over.

Which battle do you refer to?

Quote:
Numbers 31:15-17

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

What is there to speculate on? This act was not war. This was murder pure and simple.

This is war:

"So you have spared all the women!" he exclaimed.
"Why, they are the very ones who on Balaam's advice prompted the unfaithfulness of the Israelites toward the LORD in the Peor affair, which began the slaughter of the LORD'S community.

War is Hell.

What does time have to do with anything? What other circumstances?

Timing has everything to do with war.

Yes, there are other circumstances, as well.

Quote:
Again, that's the religion I write from. That's my foundation. It's my life (yesterday, today, tomorrow, and on unto eternity). You're trying to pin me down in shame and disgrace regarding Moses in Exodus, you're trying to pin me down with today's radical Islamic terrorism, yet when I mention my own religion (again, the largest on the planet), you want to find fault with that, too.

No. I want you to be consistent.

Sorry. I really don't give much of a damn what you want.

I will be true before consistent.

Quote:
Yet if you ask me the condition of my eyes, "wet" may be perfectly accurate.

? That was not the hypothetical. That's not the way logic works. If I give you a hypothetical to demonstrate a point you don't change the hypothetical otherwise there is nothing to discuss.

If you want to play with hypotheticals, you must play with hypotheticals. Let me know when you want to discuss reality.

Quote:
Do we need to go into another group session with the dictionary?

1.) You didn't do very well the last time and I provided the definition. Please don't be arrogant.
2.) I'm not talking about definitions.

1) I'm not keeping score, especially since there's no official scorekeeper
2) Arrogance is your term; I prefer bulldoggedness
3) Definitions define words, and I'm not about to allow you to redefine the English language.

Quote:
1) That's what they claim, and
2) I don't think so.

And you don't see the problem with that? Those who justify killing in the name of god always think the other side is wrong.

And you don't see the stupidity of that statement?:

Those who kill for any reason usually think the victim is wrong.

Quote:
Depends. I can make my mind up today based on the information available, and change it tomorrow if additional information is presented.

What new information? I've given you two examples.

After the army of Moses won the battle, Moses ordered his men to go back and kill women and children, what new information do you need?

Why.

 

[davefoc]

I notice that RandFan has brought up the moses stories of the OT.

I personally believe that the Moses stories are almost completely mythical. The historicity of the Moses stories was discussed in this threadL
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62213&highlight=moses

I mention this because I was wondering about how Huntster and catholics in general feel about the OT. The biblical stories set in time periods prior to Saul are considered mythological by the overwhelming majority of secular scholars. It seems like modern Catholics are fairly accepting of this notion. Is this true? I assume very little Christian theologiy hangs on the historcity of the old testament anymore. It seems like the OT is mined occasionally to support an anti-homosexual notion, but mostly the OT isn't very relevant to mainstream Christianity anymore.

 

[RandFan]

If I kill those who have fearlessly and defiantly announced that they would like to kill you (just because you are American, or atheist), am I wrong to kill them (even if I am under oath to do so, whether that oath is authorized by nation or religion)?

No. The person who ordered you to kill them would be guilty of an atrocity unless there was clear and present danger.

This is war:

The battle was over. There was no need to kill the women and children.

War is Hell.

When you intentionally target women and children after the hostilities are over it is murder, not war.

If Bush ordered soldiers to go into a village AFTER a battle and slaughter women and children would you call that war?

I will be true before consistent.

Otherwise known as hypocrisy. True to what?

If you want to play with hypotheticals, you must play with hypotheticals. Let me know when you want to discuss reality.

I apologize but this is an extremely ignorant thing to say. The great Christian logicians that I mentioned earlier all used hypothetical to explore logic and establish truth. Hypotheticals are not a game. They have been used to discover Newtonian Physics, Euclidean Geometry, the workings of the atom, DNA, medicine, space exploration, quantum mechanics, relativity, etc.

I'm disappointed. St. Thomas would be disapointed.

1) I'm not keeping score, especially since there's no official scorekeeper
2) Arrogance is your term; I prefer bulldoggedness
3) Definitions define words, and I'm not about to allow you to redefine the English language.

Again, I'm sorry but this is just an inability on your part to understand what I am saying. I'm not trying to redefine anything.

And you don't see the stupidity of that statement?:

There is nothing stupid about it. I stand by it.

Why.

?

After the army of Moses won the battle, Moses ordered his men to go back and kill women and children.

Is there really something that you don't understand about that statement?

 

[Huntster]

I notice that RandFan has brought up the moses stories of the OT.

I personally believe that the Moses stories are almost completely mythical. The historicity of the Moses stories was discussed in this threadL
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62213&highlight=moses

I mention this because I was wondering about how Huntster and catholics in general feel about the OT.

Here, I feel an anchor.

Spiritually, I see it as a foundation.

The biblical stories set in time periods prior to Saul are considered mythological by the overwhelming majority of secular scholars. It seems like modern Catholics are fairly accepting of this notion. Is this true?

My own feeling is that the OT books are similar to what is going on in the region today.

I assume very little Christian theologiy hangs on the historcity of the old testament anymore. It seems like the OT is mined occasionally to support an anti-homosexual notion, but mostly the OT isn't very relevant to mainstream Christianity anymore.

I agree. I see it as a tribal foundation. From it has come Judaism as we know it today, Christianity, and Islam.

The struggles between tribes continues along with the changes that have come with Christianity and Islam.

The Christianity I have grown up with is very, very distinct from the tribalism. It's very much American.

To expand, let me outline that the Hispanic parish I grew up in, which was influxed by us "refugees" of Los Angeles, is very much Vietnamese today.

In America. The parish I was raised in. A Vietnam vet. My mom is still alive there. She's still a parishioner there. The place is predominately Vietnamese. Santa Ana.

Those folks are great neighbors. As neighbors, they take great care of my mom.

And I think it's great. In fact, I'm indebted.

I guess things come full circle sometimes.

Yeah. I'm very, very happy to be a part of that religious community.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
If I kill those who have fearlessly and defiantly announced that they would like to kill you (just because you are American, or atheist), am I wrong to kill them (even if I am under oath to do so, whether that oath is authorized by nation or religion)?

No. The person who ordered you to kill them would be guilty of an atrocity unless there was clear and present danger.

So, I'm to accept the Biblical accounts or decide that you have determined otherwise.

Sorry. Moses is pretty well known, and among the vast majority of mankind. I've already noted that Christianity is the largest church in the world. That's not to include Islam and Judaism.

So I'm to reject the teachings and analysis of ages of sages to accept your condemnation?

I don't think so.

Quote:
War is Hell.

When you intentionally target women and children after the hostilities are over it is murder, not war.

I can assure you, all Viet Cong weren't male, nor were they all "adults."

If Bush ordered soldiers to go into a village AFTER a battle and slaughter women and children would you call that war?

The President isn't going to do that, and if he did, and I was among the soldiers, I might have a problem with it.

I've been a soldier. It never happened.

It isn't happening today.

Quote:
I will be true before consistent.

Otherwise known as hypocrisy. True to what?

1st) God
2nd) My family
3rd) My community
4th) My employer (which also happens to be my nation)
5) My friends
6) My nation

In that order.

I'm already under oath, for just about all of the above.

Quote:
If you want to play with hypotheticals, you must play with hypotheticals. Let me know when you want to discuss reality.

I apologize but this is an extremely ignorant thing to say. The great Christian logicians that I mentioned earlier all used hypothetical to explore logic and establish truth. Hypotheticals are not a game.

Then why do I feel like I'm playing?

They have been used to discover Newtonian Physics, Euclidean Geometry, the workings of the atom, DNA, medicine, space exploration, quantum mechanics, relativity, etc.

I'm disappointed. St. Thomas would be disapointed.

Sorry. I'm not playing.

I live in a real world.

Quote:
1) I'm not keeping score, especially since there's no official scorekeeper
2) Arrogance is your term; I prefer bulldoggedness
3) Definitions define words, and I'm not about to allow you to redefine the English language.

Again, I'm sorry but this is just an inability on your part to understand what I am saying. I'm not trying to redefine anything.

Then, at least where the English language is concerned, let's refer to the dictionary to decide what English words mean.

I've repeatedly referred to the RCC Catechism to illustrate doctrine. You've referred to little but your own interpretations and opinions.

I base my position on a foundation. I build from there.

After the army of Moses won the battle, Moses ordered his men to go back and kill women and children.

Is there really something that you don't understand about that statement?

There is a lot I don't know about that situation.

I'm not going to reject my faith in God by you harping on your version or interpretation on Old Testament stories. You can go on and on forever. I don't know you, and I know you even less than I know Moses, even though Moses may or may not have even lived, and that was thousands of years ago.

Give it up. I've been in a war zone. Innocents died. It sucks.

I'm not going to reject God because of it. In fact, I adhere to Him more because of it.