Do all forms of Christianity support genocide?

[Jester]

It came up in another topic that some consider Christians to universally support genocide.

Is this the case, do no Christians support genocide, or is there a mix?

As this is a touchy subject, please careful to remain civil, and provide evidence for your conclusions.

[Jester]

This is not 'Darwinism'. This is the philosophy of Herbert Spencer who was contemporary with Darwin, and whose many ideas predated Darwin.
Spencer might have jumped on Darwin to justify some of his concepts, but
they weren't from Darwin. Spencer is the one that coined the phrase 'Survival of the Fittest' after reading Darwin, but his concept of evolving a society was independent from Darwin, and Darwin had very little influence on it.

I don't make, nor have I ever made, the claim that this is proper Darwinism. What I have said is that nearly any idea, including Darwinism, can be twisted and parodied in order to provide a "justification" for evil acts.
While my comment above does not comment on Darwinism proper, it is good evidence of the aforementioned point.

[Goat]

This is not 'Darwinism'. This is the philosophy of Herbert Spencer who was contemporary with Darwin, and whose many ideas predated Darwin.
Spencer might have jumped on Darwin to justify some of his concepts, but
they weren't from Darwin. Spencer is the one that coined the phrase 'Survival of the Fittest' after reading Darwin, but his concept of evolving a society was independent from Darwin, and Darwin had very little influence on it.

I don't make, nor have I ever made, the claim that this is proper Darwinism. What I have said is that nearly any idea, including Darwinism, can be twisted and parodied in order to provide a "justification" for evil acts.
While my comment above does not comment on Darwinism proper, it is good evidence of the aforementioned point.

And I am saying it's not Darwinism at all. .. it is Spencerism, and a distorted version of it at that.

[Jester]

And I am saying it's not Darwinism at all. .. it is Spencerism, and a distorted version of it at that.

I can understand that (though I'd also mention Haeckel myself).
I am saying that the horrible things done by "Christianity" is not Christianity at all, but a denominational interpretation/tradition, and a distorted version of it at that.
Hence, I used Darwin as an example of how this happens in non-religious ways.

[Greatest I Am]

And I am saying it's not Darwinism at all. .. it is Spencerism, and a distorted version of it at that.

I can understand that (though I'd also mention Haeckel myself).
I am saying that the horrible things done by "Christianity" is not Christianity at all, but a denominational interpretation/tradition, and a distorted version of it at that.
Hence, I used Darwin as an example of how this happens in non-religious ways.

Darwin deals in animals, not non corporeal super beings.

What animal is powerful enough to drown all other life except for a minute % ?

You try to get away from the religious part of discussion because you will not admit that the flood was genocide.

Regards
DL

[Jester]

And I am saying it's not Darwinism at all. .. it is Spencerism, and a distorted version of it at that.

I can understand that (though I'd also mention Haeckel myself).
I am saying that the horrible things done by "Christianity" is not Christianity at all, but a denominational interpretation/tradition, and a distorted version of it at that.
Hence, I used Darwin as an example of how this happens in non-religious ways.

Darwin deals in animals, not non corporeal super beings.

My point was about rationalization, not supernaturalism. I don't see that this is a relevant distinction regarding the topic.

What animal is powerful enough to drown all other life except for a minute % ?

I'm not sure what this has to do with my point.

You try to get away from the religious part of discussion because you will not admit that the flood was genocide.

I have given answers to this accusation multiple times, which have been completely ignored. If you take issue with my doing so, please explain what you believe to be the flaws in my reasoning, so that we can continue the religious part of this discussion. Simply reasserting your position neither adds to the debate nor gives me a valid reason to change my stance.

[Greatest I Am]

As you will notice, we went nowhere.

If as scripture says, God creates us all and gives us free will.
In theory only because, do it my way or burn forever, is not really free will at all. It is an ultimatum. Regardless.

IYO, would God be in a moral position if He took back His gift of free will and drowned those people at the time of Noah. This would include innocent children and babies who could not be evil.

What about all the animals. Is it moral to just kill without reason all but a few that were on earth at that time?

Regards
DL

[Jester]

If as scripture says, God creates us all and gives us free will.
In theory only because, do it my way or burn forever, is not really free will at all. It is an ultimatum. Regardless.

I agree in principle here.
My only major disagreement is with the "my way or burn forever" stance. It seems more like God is saying "I won't make you live with me, but going elsewhere is a bad idea".

IYO, would God be in a moral position if He took back His gift of free will and drowned those people at the time of Noah. This would include innocent children and babies who could not be evil.

I'm not sure why you continue to tell me what my opinion is.
First, I'm not sure what makes you feel like you know how I interpret the Bible. Have we met offline somewhere, without my knowing it, and I explained my interpretation to you?
Second, if this were my position, shouldn't I know that? What's the point of telling me unless you suspect that this isn't really what I'm trying to claim?

As it turns out, it isn't. I make no claim that God took back his gift of free will. I didn't read anything about mind-control in the story of Noah, and don't see the issuing of consequences as a contradiction of free will. People are still allowed to think for themselves, every bit as much as a child who is in trouble is not placed under mind-control or brainwashed by good parents. Essentially, I disagree with the equation:
Bringing negative consequences for negative behavior = removing free will

What about all the animals. Is it moral to just kill without reason all but a few that were on earth at that time?

I don't remember there not being a reason for the flood. I definitely read it differently in this respect.

[Greatest I Am]

I see that you are not ready for honest discussions.

I did forget a ? on my question but IYO means in your opinion. I followed this with the word would and this clearly shows a question.

You do support the notion that it is ok for God to kill men and are too hypocritical to say the words. We are done .

Regards
DL

[Fallibleone]

Moderator Warning: it is against the rules of the forum to make personal attacks on other members. Please refrain from doing so.

You do support the notion that it is ok for God to kill men and are too hypocritical to say the words.

[Jester]

I see that you are not ready for honest discussions.

This assumes a great deal about my personal life and positions. I feel that if you read my comments elsewhere on this site, you will find that my understanding of God is not violent, but loving.

I did forget a ? on my question but IYO means in your opinion. I followed this with the word would and this clearly shows a question.

I am sorry for missing that, then.
I did give a clear answer to that question, but it now seems that you have changed it from a question to a statement. Please do not do so.

You do support the notion that it is ok for God to kill men and are too hypocritical to say the words. We are done .

Why am I not allowed to present my own opinion here? I gave reasons why I believe this passage to not make God out to be genocidal. If you believe those reasons are wrong, then say so.
I will also add that I never claimed that God does not kill in the technical biological sense. I claimed that he does not murder, that he does not commit genocide, and that, when he kills, he sees to it that the person is brought into the spiritual realm. I think this is a very different situation than the picture of a bloodthirsty God some try to paint.
So, that was me saying that God sometimes kills. Also, if you re-read post 3 of this topic, you will find a similar comment. I argue with the notion that God commits genocide, but not with the notion that God kills in the biological sense.
However, the word implies more than the biological, doesn't it? Killing the body while keeping the person alive in the spiritual realm doesn't sound at all like the deeply evil thing we usually think of as killing.
I mainly wanted to make it clear that this shouldn't at all imply that "tyrant", "maniac", "Hitler", and other such words could be applied here. Also, my comment in my last post was not about God killing, but about his removing free will. In previous times it has not been about killing but about murder and genocide. These are different questions, to which I will give different answers.

I do have another question, though.
If you feel that the world is exactly as God wants it, and that is good, why would you be outraged by his actions? I'm sure I missed something at some point about that, but would you mind letting me know what that is?