Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >>>> Then you have to ask yourself "is genocide really OK, ever?  Would I 
> >>>> actually participate in dashing the brains of infants against rocks if my 
> >>>> God told me to, and said 'you don't understand why, but do it anyway.'"
> >>>   Ah, that verse in that psalm is the favorite of atheists attacking the
> >>> bible, isn't it? Most people, including most christians, just don't
> >>> understand it. About the only people who understand it are the people who
> >>> wrote it, ie. the people in the semitic cultures.
> > 
> >> So you're saying that God's commandment to wipe out a neighboring country, 
> >> killing everyone but the young virgins, who are to be taken back to camp and 
> >> raped, that was just a really strong *insult*?
> > 
> >   Which part of "that verse in that psalm" did you not understand?

> The part where I point out maybe half a dozen places (out of dozens) where 
> God does seemingly bad things, and you avoiding answering the question about 
> it by pointing out *one* of the verses isn't saying what it looks like it 
> might be saying.

  So you *did* understand that I was talking exclusively about that one
single verse, yet you regardless went and accused me of trying to explain
*all* the verses related to the subject with the same explanation, even
though I did no such thing.

  I did not answer your question because I have already written in length
about it and I didn't want to write it again. However, I did point out
that one verse you referred to because it's one of the pet verses for
atheists when they want to mock the bible and christianity, and which
they just don't understand.

  If you want to think that I'm avoiding the question, that's your
prerogative.

> Plus, you don't seem to be reading what *I* am saying well. I didn't ask if 
> the verse said God told people to dash out the brains of infants against 
> rocks.

  Does that mean I cannot comment on that particular verse, as a side note?
I really think the comment was appropriate and valid in this context.

> It still seems to me that my earlier list of four possibilities hasn't been 
> addressed. Either God has ordered people to do what seems to me to be 
> unspeakably horrible things yet in reality are actually good for reasons we 
> can't comprehend

  You can't comprehend, or you are not willing to?

  The nazi regime and World War 2 was ended by a full-fledged attack on
Germany. Lots of civilians and innocent people died on that attack, and
one could argue that the attack was "unspeakably horrible". However, few
people would deny that in the grand scale of things it was a good thing
because it ended a reign of terror, oppression and mass killings. We can
only imagine how many lives were saved because of the attack, which killed
so many innocent people.

  If 3000 years ago there was a local nazi regime oppressing a region
and God ordered for it to be stopped by force, was it a good or a bad
thing? People were killed, yes, but how many were saved?

  It's easy to show outrage about some war which happened some 3000 years
ago when you don't have all the details nor the exact reasons why that
war was fought.

> or God has ordered people to do what seems to me to be 
> unspeakably horrible things that really are evil.

  Was the final attack on Germany an "evil" act? Technically speaking you
could say it was. However, I wouldn't say it's that black or white. It's
a complicated issue.

  I think that the question you posing at least borders the false dilemma.
You assume that an act must be either "good" or "evil", even though it's
not necessarily that simple. There may be additional options.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message