Killing in the Bible and Tanakh

[Atef]

Is this killing of children right?

[bluethread]

No one has to abide by anything. The violent, immoral, deviant and genocidal scriptures of the Tanakh of Judaism and the Bible of Christianity speaks for itself.

I think you are being disingenuous. I don't think you would be using judgmental terms, if you had no expectations. As to those terms. Sure the is violence in the Scriptures. I don't see that as inherently wrong. Immoral, according to whom? What moral code are you referring to? Deviant from what, what would be considered the norm and on what to you base that? Genocidal, well that could be merely a descriptive, however, that term was invented in 1944 as a cudgel with which to justify the prosecution of the defeated by the victors. So, you do expect people to abide by something, specifically, your preferred philosophy. All I am asking is why the double standard. Are atheists free to engage in violent, immoral, deviant and genocidal acts? If not, why not?

Right and wrong is right and wrong no matter the degree, level or circumstances. Showing respect and reverence for the dignity of life has no degree or level.

It has nothing to do with a visceral response, it has to with being consistent in the belief in civilized behavior and writings--versus uncivilized behavior and writings. It has to do with the intellectual and moral application of equality, justice, fairness, and upright-morality.

It has to do with the rejection of the use of barbaric, uncalled-for, unwarranted and unprincipled collective punishment that results in the death of millions and millions of innocent people, especially children and babies.

So, you believe in absolutes and state that they are not related to visceral response. You then refer to "being consistent in the belief in civilized behavior and writings". What 'civilized behavior and writings are you referring to". You have already stated that the Hebrew and Christian writings don't meet that standard. So, what standard are you referring to? You have provided positive and negative general principles. The only specific you refer to is the death of innocent people. However, you have not given a justification for why they would be considered innocent. What makes someone innocent?

The Geneva Convention considers "Collective Punishment" that results in the death of innocent people, to be a war crime, terrorism and crimes against humanity. The Geneva Convention is right.

No person with an upright moral compass needs the Geneva Convention to tell them that the use of "Collective Punishment" by the thank goodness, mythical God of Christianity and Judaism that resulted in the death of millions of innocent people, especially children and babies--is mass genocide, crimes against humanity and terrorism.

The is dogma supported by the true Scotsman fallacy. You state The Geneva Convention as the standard, then say it is not necessary, but declare anyone who does not inherently accept the principles there in has no "upright moral compass". If that is the case, why did mankind not abide by those principles to your expectations, before The Geneva Convention? Was all of mankind devoid of a "upright moral compass" for the ages upon ages before that?

You posted:

"Who says it is unnecessary and what does omnipotence and omnipresence have to do with non-violence?"

Well an omnipotent and omnipresent God of Judaism and Christianity, if said God is Omnipotent and Omnipresent, would have ultimate control over whatever violence or non-violence occurs.

Yes, but why would that obligate said deity to be nonviolent?

You posted:

"So, are they justified in continuing that behavior? If the other nations have been violent toward them and they are therefore justified in continuing that violence, doesn't that make my point? Humans are violent and human nation states even more so, especially in times of war."

I agree that human nation's in time of war are especially violent.

So, why the requirement that certain human nation's be nonviolent, when others are not?

You posted:

Are you saying that I am wrong with regard to the most nonviolent, civil societies in the world or are you saying the goodness does not matter as long as there is bad in the world?

Yes, Second we need more goodness in this world that currently is dominated by bad; with no regard for the lives and future of the children and babies of the world. That is however, something for another forum topic.

That is how it will always be. No matter how good things get, one can always complain about how bad things are, even when they are better than they have ever been.

You posted:

"I am aware of all of that and I said Torah, because it is in the first five books that one finds the laws regarding equal justice, murder and the cities of refuge for manslaughter. We can examine these once we have addressed the basic principle of "rules of war", which you have asserted, but have yet to justify."

We don't have to examine them, I know the Hebrew specific laws that are in the Tanakh regarding slavery; and they only add to my categorizing the Bible and Tanakh of Judaism as a "Operational Manual with Instructions and Guidelines for the Enslavement of Humans, Including Children and Babies."

Oh, you are so well versed in HaTorah that there is no need for examining what it says, interesting. So, you must disagree with the Shema. Also, you must know of any passage where the killing of children apart from war is commanded. Where might that be?

I haven't asserted or broached any "basic principle of rules of war" that would be you. As previously discussed: This forum topic is about "Killing in the Bible and Tanakh: Is the Killing of Children Right" not rules of war between human people or nations.

What is The Geneva Convention, if not rules of war?

You posted:

"Last time I checked niether history.com or that article were part of the Scriptures, nor did the part you quoted even refer to the Scriptures. Maybe we should deal with basic principle, before we start throwing around accusations. How is it that one can assure that "war crimes" will not be committed?"

I never posted anything citing "Manifest Destiny" as part of the scriptures of the Bible and Tanakh of Judaism.

You just chided me for focusing on rules of war, when you brought up The Geneva Convention and killings that happen in war time, because to OP does not mention war. Now, you brush of my noting that those sources are not part of the Bible or the Tanakh, when those are explicitly part of the OP, and "Manifest Destiny" in not in the OP. So, maybe we should pick an issue and stick with it, instead of wondering wherever your fancy takes you.

I will try again to communicate the relationship between "Manifest Destiny" and the God of Christianity using the same sourced article:

https://www.history.com/topics/manifest-destiny

People, theist and atheist, find all kinds of justifications for doing whatever it is they wish to do. However, that does not make them correct. That is why I find it best to stay focused on specific assertions and not just list objections, expecting them to be just accepted without justification.

[bluethread]

Oh, c'mon folks. When killing your enemies was the righteous thing to do, then God approved. When society evolved a different ethic (Although not all approved the change to be sure!) then God approved that. The Biblical God is like a politician, agreeing with what ever is popular. Or maybe, just maybe, it is the people misstating God's position, and writing it down in some [font=Courier New]HOLY BOOK[/font] that must not be questioned or doubted?

Or, maybe people just think they know what the Scriptures say and use them to justify their preferences, based on speculation and proof texting.

[Atef]

[Replying to post 20 by bluethread]

You posted:

I think you are being disingenuous. I don't think you would be using judgmental terms, if you had no expectations. As to those terms. Sure the is violence in the Scriptures. I don't see that as inherently wrong. Immoral, according to whom?

 
Well there you have it plain as day.

You don't believe the violent scriptures in the Bible and Tanakh of Judaism, which describe the God of Christianity and Judaism using "Collective Punishment" to murder innocent people, including children and babies to be genocide, immoral and deviant.

You posted:

"So, you believe in absolutes and state that they are not related to visceral response. You then refer to "being consistent in the belief in civilized behavior and writings". What 'civilized behavior and writings are you referring to". You have already stated that the Hebrew and Christian writings don't meet that standard. So, what standard are you referring to? You have provided positive and negative general principles. The only specific you refer to is the death of innocent people. However, you have not given a justification for why they would be considered innocent. What makes someone innocent?"

The topic of the forum is about Violence: Killing in the Bible and Tanakh of Judaism, is the killing of children right?

Again, you have no problem with and dismiss the God of Judaism and Christianity using Collective Punishment in the murder of innocent people, including children and babies.  

You posted:

"The is dogma supported by the true Scotsman fallacy. You state The Geneva Convention as the standard, then say it is not necessary, but declare anyone who does not inherently accept the principles there in has no "upright moral compass". If that is the case, why did mankind not abide by those principles to your expectations, before The Geneva Convention? Was all of mankind devoid of a "upright moral compass" for the ages upon ages before that?"

Anyone who supports the scriptures in the Bible and Tanakh of Judaism that attribute the use of Collective Punishment to murder innocent people including, children and babies does not have an upright moral compass.

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.�--Voltaire

You posted:

"Yes, but why would that obligate said deity to be nonviolent?"

The deity/God of Judaism and Christianity is not non-violent. The opposite is true; the diety/God of Judaism and Christianity is extremely violent with no respect or sense of obligation to save the lives of innocent people, including children and babies.

The diety/God of Judaism and Christianity is what the scriptures say he is, you can't dance around the actual extant scriptures. You can try but the extant scriptures speak for the themselves.

You posted:

So, why the requirement that certain human nation's be nonviolent, when others are not? 

I never made that requirement. That is your summoned argument with yourself. What nation's are you comparing when you cite requirements?

You posted:

"Oh, you are so well versed in HaTorah that there is no need for examining what it says, interesting. So, you must disagree with the Shema. Also, you must know of any passage where the killing of children apart from war is commanded. Where might that be?"

When I make a claim about the Bible and Tanakh of Judaism, I post the actual scriptures or sources. Why don't you do that.

You posted:

"What is The Geneva Convention, if not rules of war?"

I cited the Geneva Convention regarding individual responsibility i.e. the God of Judaism and Christianity, not "rules of war" regarding nations. I have now on multiple times said no one needs the Geneva Convention to know that Collective Punishment that results in death, is crimes against humanity, genocide and terrorism.

You are the one who keeps trying to validate the the God of Judaism and Christianity murdering innocent people including children and babies as somehow being justified under "rules of war."

The God of Judaism and Christianity is not at war when he Floods the Earth murdering millions of innocent people including children and babies. The God of Judaism and Christianity is not at war when he murders the first born of the Egyptians. The God of Judaism is not at war when he murders innocent children and babies in Sodom and Gomorrah. These are an individual act of genocide, terrorism and crime against humanity.

You can't defend a supposedly benevolent, loving and caring God who engages in the ultimate hypocrisy by using Collective Punishment to murder innocent people including children and babies.

The God of Judaism and Christianity is supposed to be omnipotent and omnipresent yet you raise off topic "rules of war" in discussion of the God of Judaism and Christianity murdering innocent people including children and babies. That should signal that the God and religion are mythological.

You posted:

"You just chided me for focusing on rules of war, when you brought up The Geneva Convention and killings that happen in war time, because to OP does not mention war. Now, you brush of my noting that those sources are not part of the Bible or the Tanakh, when those are explicitly part of the OP, and "Manifest Destiny" in not in the OP. So, maybe we should pick an issue and stick with it, instead of wondering wherever your fancy takes you."

Where did I bring up the Geneva Convention and killing that happen in war time?

Where did I post that Manifest Destiny or the Geneva Convention are a part of the Bible and Tanakh of Judaism?

You don't even understand the context in which I raised Manifest Destiny.

Again you cannot defend your God of Judaism and Christianity, so you go off topic and continue to bring up off topic and misunderstood screed about the Geneva Convention and now Manifest Destiny. Maybe you are the one who needs to learn to stay on topic; and work on your reading comprehension/understanding of the written word.

You posted:

"People, theist and atheist, find all kinds of justifications for doing whatever it is they wish to do. However, that does not make them correct. That is why I find it best to stay focused on specific assertions and not just list objections, expecting them to be just accepted without justification."

You posted the above response to this article about Manifest Destiny below:

https://www.history.com/topics/manifest-destiny

You just don't understand.

[Atef]

[Replying to post 21 by bluethread]

You posted:

"Or, maybe people just think they know what the Scriptures say and use them to justify their preferences, based on speculation and proof texting."

Or maybe just maybe they base their opinion on the plain, simple to understand and actual scriptures of the Bible and Tanakh of Judaism which you can't justify, prove or defend.