Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

QUESTION; How many of you think we should have acted as the god of the Bible suggests after World War II? The Germans and Japanese refused to "open their gates to us" and instead "offered battle."

When we defeated them...should we have gone in and killed every last male (of more than a child's age)...and put all the women and children into lifelong slavery?

How would you have felt if some leader of the Allies suggested such a course of action?

Frank,
I am not going to get into a long, drawn out and fruitless argument or debate on this topic. I will, however, make a couple of comments. You can take them or leave them. Or, as is your custom, you can reap profanity and harsh words upon me.

I wonder why you chose this particular chapter and I further wonder why you started at verse 10. Probably because it suited your purpose. Also, remember that this is not God talking here. It is Moses after spending 40 years trudging the desert.

This was a particular battle and time and was not meant to be the way forever. It speaks of horses and chariots. Do we have such things today Frank? Since this was the situation at the time of the words, why to you bring the Germans, Japanese and WWII into it? This is, in my opinion, just your usual way of laughing at, jumping on, ridiculing and spitting on Christians and Christianity. You keep talking about the Old Testament and ignoring anything about the New Testament. Frank... Christianity is taken from Christ. There has been much discussion on this, by several people, in other threads. If you hate Christianity and Christians so much, why do you constantly post about it. Is it that you want to gain a better understanding; you are getting older and are afraid of the future; you just want to cause trouble because you have nothing better to do? Nobody has tried to push Christianity on you.... why do you try to push your thinking on others?

This is your question, Frank and frankly...I find it appalling.

Quote:

QUESTION; How many of you think we should have acted as the god of the Bible suggests after World War II? The Germans and Japanese refused to "open their gates to us" and instead "offered battle."

When we defeated them...should we have gone in and killed every last male (of more than a child's age)...and put all the women and children into lifelong slavery?

How would you have felt if some leader of the Allies suggested such a course of action?

Not being a fan of organized religion, I still must note that you are using passages from the Old Testament. The New Testament supercedes the Old, does it not?

(Psalms is particularly nasty. "Blessed is he who dashes the children against the stones" or somesuch....)

No christians yet, Frank; does that mean you are winning?

This was a particular battle and time and was not meant to be the way forever.

Both Abraham and Habakkuk criticized God. Once again, the problem is that Frank is posting a straw man.

He guesses the bible is a fairy tale.
He uses his own guessing to judge biblical events.
He expects us to buy into that guess.

How can anyone succeed? (Nice try, Intrepid)

All of the severe judgements and punishments and executions of the bible are defined (guessed) by Frank as acts of cruelty. If you read the bible carefully, you will find that the bible says they are not. You may dismiss the entire bible on that observation alone and I could understand your position. I would disagree, but I would understand.

What amazes me is the number of folks who buy into the guess.

Frank, Frank, Frank... I thought you knew better than this.

This topic in its entirety, and the question you posed, can all be filed under the header of 'literal interpretation of the Bible,' which we all know is just a bad idea. It's only when a group of people decide to take the Bible literally that problems arise.

For example, let's say that a group of people decided to do exactly as it said in one particular passage in the Bible and kill all the firstborn males of a country that we have defeated in a war.

The more one reads the Bible, the more wholly obvious it becomes that its intent is to provide guidelines to live by and teach via parables (also not to be taken literally).

This particular passage, regarding war and victory in the name of God, is no different, particularly because it is incongruous with other passages in the Bible.

And, to avoid further confusion and negate pending arguments on what a Straw Man is, here is a Definition of the Straw Man Argument

Intrepid, Your last paragraph actually defines the god of the bible; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, and "filthy communication." I daresay, Frank is spot on! People seem to be in fear of criticizing their god, and the reasons are obvious. "Anger, wrath, and malice" characterizes the bible god very well.

1. Bible is the word of god is their first handicap.
2. Half-ass reading of the bible is their second handicap; who can decifer all the errors, contradictions, and misinterpretations?
3. Believing in the bible is the final handicap.

We write about it, because with Bush and Company with the support of the fundamentalist christians, they have taken over our government. That makes me real mad. What else can we do but write about it?


"That alone is a reason to be a Christian... to love our fellow man regardless of what failings they have or what they appear to have."

This is precisely the problem with christianity. You preach "love your fellow man," but you are the very people who would deny gays and lesbians equal treatment under the laws of the land. You are all hypocrites of the worst kind. You all preach one thing, then do another. Hell will freeze over before you christians realize the hypocrisy of it all.