US Forces fighting Chrisitian Organisation in Uganda

[Charles Darwin]

[youtube][/youtube]

How dare he!?

Funny how christians are all for killing muslim terrorists but boy when the terrorists are christians..whole nother story!

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Clearly God commands his followers to commit genocide, he explicitly commands the killing of women and children.

So killing children = genocide? Are you a supporter of abortion? Look, I believe God orchestrated the Flood to punish that evil generation, and will do much the same at the final judgement. That must really blow you away.

No, genocide is the destruction of an ethnic group. When God commands his followers to kill an ethnic group including women and children, he is commanding genocide.

Once again we seem to have a case where a clear reading of the text is avoided in favour of an obscure modern esoteric interpretation that better suits your personal political ideology. And guess what? Driving an ethnic group out of their land and killing all those who remain behind is still genocide.

Nonsense, you're contradicting yourself. Which is it, driving a group from the land or killing all who remained behind? Neither is genocide.

What? I am directly referencing the argument you just linked to.

...it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=8973

Yes, this is genocide. Read Lemkin on this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions

East of Eden made the claim, hence it is his job to meet the burden of proof. Wikipedia has this to say on the issue:
"The "eye of a needle" has been interpreted as a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could only pass through this smaller gate if it was stooped and had its baggage removed. This story has been put forth since at least the 15th century, and possibly as far back as the 9th century. However, there is no evidence for the existence of such a gate."

So, does East of Eden actually have any evidence to support his claim?

It is speculation, but see this: http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/mag/MAen9906.html for evidence of the eye of the needle way before the 1500s.

The disciples saw it as impossible, but I see you ignore the follow-up by Jesus, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.' Or is reading the next verse 'finding an obscure alternative interpretation that avoids the plain words of Jesus'? My guess is you avoid seeing things in context as it would destroy your many simplistic straw-man arguments against Christianity. Then what would you do?

So am I to take this as an admission that you have no evidence whatsoever that the "eye of the needle" is a gate? You admit that your position is based on pure speculation? Or was there some evidence in the presented link that I am missing?

Do you realize that "context" is not a buzzword that can be used instead of providing an argument? What point about the context are you trying to make?

Also, you have completely contradicted yourself. Why, if the "eye of the needle" is a gate that is not impossible for a camel to pass through, would Jesus say it was impossible? You defeat your own interpretation.

Or is this another case like "turning the other cheek" where he finds an obscure alternative interpretation that avoids actually following the plain words of Jesus?

See above. Since you like Wikipedia so much, here you go:

"Jesus was not changing the meaning of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said" which means that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written" which would be a reference to scripture. The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. In this context, the command to "turn the other cheek" would not be a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person, but a command not to take vengeance."

You quoted this several pages ago. I responded to it. You ignored my response. Have you forgotten?

Is there any particular reason you have cited one of three interpretations given on the Wiki page as authoritative? Is there any particular reason you have cited as authoritative the one interpretation that is lacking in references? Is there any particular reason that you have cited as authoritative this interpretation even though it disagrees with your interpretation (it mentions beating or robbing, not insulting as you claim the passage is really about)?

I don't think that posting arguments, ignoring counterarguments, and then reposting the same arguments several days later is an effective debate tactic.

[JohnPaul]

Clearly God commands his followers to commit genocide, he explicitly commands the killing of women and children.

So killing children = genocide? Are you a supporter of abortion? Look, I believe God orchestrated the Flood to punish that evil generation, and will do much the same at the final judgement. That must really blow you away. If you can create life you have a right to take life. Ironic that many who argue for a 'woman's right to do with her own body as she wills' deny God that same right with His creation.

Were our actions in WWII at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden also genocide? Lots of women and children, and male noncombatants were killed there. I would like a yes or no answer to that question.

Once again we seem to have a case where a clear reading of the text is avoided in favour of an obscure modern esoteric interpretation that better suits your personal political ideology. And guess what? Driving an ethnic group out of their land and killing all those who remain behind is still genocide.

Nonsense, you're contradicting yourself. Which is it, driving a group from the land or killing all who remained behind? Neither is genocide.

East of Eden made the claim, hence it is his job to meet the burden of proof. Wikipedia has this to say on the issue:
"The "eye of a needle" has been interpreted as a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could only pass through this smaller gate if it was stooped and had its baggage removed. This story has been put forth since at least the 15th century, and possibly as far back as the 9th century. However, there is no evidence for the existence of such a gate."

So, does East of Eden actually have any evidence to support his claim?

It is speculation, but see this: http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/mag/MAen9906.html for evidence of the eye of the needle way before the 1500s.

The disciples saw it as impossible, but I see you ignore the follow-up by Jesus, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.' Or is reading the next verse 'finding an obscure alternative interpretation that avoids the plain words of Jesus'? My guess is you avoid seeing things in context as it would destroy your many simplistic straw-man arguments against Christianity. Then what would you do?

Or is this another case like "turning the other cheek" where he finds an obscure alternative interpretation that avoids actually following the plain words of Jesus?

See above. Since you like Wikipedia so much, here you go:

"Jesus was not changing the meaning of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said" which means that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written" which would be a reference to scripture. The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. In this context, the command to "turn the other cheek" would not be a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person, but a command not to take vengeance."

Hello, East of Eden,

This is certainly one of the weakest and stutteringly floundering rationalizations and defenses of God's evil I have ever seen. Are you having a bad night?

You are essentially saying that anyone who disagrees with you has simply read the Bible wrongly, and that God has a "right" to do any evil he pleases, simply because he is the creator. Never mind the he claims (or you claim) that he is infinitely just and good. Apparently you rationalize and interpret this to mean that no matter what God does, it is automatically defined as good (although not for us mere humans).

I suggest you get a good night's sleep and try again tomorrow.

John

[East of Eden]

Clearly God commands his followers to commit genocide, he explicitly commands the killing of women and children.

So killing children = genocide? Are you a supporter of abortion? Look, I believe God orchestrated the Flood to punish that evil generation, and will do much the same at the final judgement. That must really blow you away. If you can create life you have a right to take life. Ironic that many who argue for a 'woman's right to do with her own body as she wills' deny God that same right with His creation.

Were our actions in WWII at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden also genocide? Lots of women and children, and male noncombatants were killed there. I would like a yes or no answer to that question.

Once again we seem to have a case where a clear reading of the text is avoided in favour of an obscure modern esoteric interpretation that better suits your personal political ideology. And guess what? Driving an ethnic group out of their land and killing all those who remain behind is still genocide.

Nonsense, you're contradicting yourself. Which is it, driving a group from the land or killing all who remained behind? Neither is genocide.

East of Eden made the claim, hence it is his job to meet the burden of proof. Wikipedia has this to say on the issue:
"The "eye of a needle" has been interpreted as a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could only pass through this smaller gate if it was stooped and had its baggage removed. This story has been put forth since at least the 15th century, and possibly as far back as the 9th century. However, there is no evidence for the existence of such a gate."

So, does East of Eden actually have any evidence to support his claim?

It is speculation, but see this: http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/mag/MAen9906.html for evidence of the eye of the needle way before the 1500s.

The disciples saw it as impossible, but I see you ignore the follow-up by Jesus, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.' Or is reading the next verse 'finding an obscure alternative interpretation that avoids the plain words of Jesus'? My guess is you avoid seeing things in context as it would destroy your many simplistic straw-man arguments against Christianity. Then what would you do?

Or is this another case like "turning the other cheek" where he finds an obscure alternative interpretation that avoids actually following the plain words of Jesus?

See above. Since you like Wikipedia so much, here you go:

"Jesus was not changing the meaning of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said" which means that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written" which would be a reference to scripture. The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. In this context, the command to "turn the other cheek" would not be a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person, but a command not to take vengeance."

Hello, East of Eden,

This is certainly one of the weakest and stutteringly floundering rationalizations and defenses of God's evil I have ever seen. Are you having a bad night?

You are essentially saying that anyone who disagrees with you has simply read the Bible wrongly, and that God has a "right" to do any evil he pleases, simply because he is the creator. Never mind the he claims (or you claim) that he is infinitely just and good. Apparently you rationalize and interpret this to mean that no matter what God does, it is automatically defined as good (although not for us mere humans).

I suggest you get a good night's sleep and try again tomorrow.

John

First of all, I would like to ask you on what basis does an atheist believer in random chance declare anything evil? If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

If God exists, do you really think fallen and finite human beings are in a position to judge him? And maybe you can answer my question others on this thread have been dodging: Does the US have the right to execute criminals and kill foreign enemies? Would not the 'evil' term you throw around so often apply to us? If we do, why didn't ancient Israel have a similar right to defend herself? And do you not believe it is possible for the Bible or any other book to be read wrongly? Perhaps you think I am the only one that can possibly do that.

[East of Eden]

Clearly God commands his followers to commit genocide, he explicitly commands the killing of women and children.

So killing children = genocide? Are you a supporter of abortion? Look, I believe God orchestrated the Flood to punish that evil generation, and will do much the same at the final judgement. That must really blow you away.

No, genocide is the destruction of an ethnic group. When God commands his followers to kill an ethnic group including women and children, he is commanding genocide.

Once again we seem to have a case where a clear reading of the text is avoided in favour of an obscure modern esoteric interpretation that better suits your personal political ideology. And guess what? Driving an ethnic group out of their land and killing all those who remain behind is still genocide.

Nonsense, you're contradicting yourself. Which is it, driving a group from the land or killing all who remained behind? Neither is genocide.

What? I am directly referencing the argument you just linked to.

...it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=8973

Yes, this is genocide. Read Lemkin on this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions

East of Eden made the claim, hence it is his job to meet the burden of proof. Wikipedia has this to say on the issue:
"The "eye of a needle" has been interpreted as a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could only pass through this smaller gate if it was stooped and had its baggage removed. This story has been put forth since at least the 15th century, and possibly as far back as the 9th century. However, there is no evidence for the existence of such a gate."

So, does East of Eden actually have any evidence to support his claim?

It is speculation, but see this: http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/mag/MAen9906.html for evidence of the eye of the needle way before the 1500s.

The disciples saw it as impossible, but I see you ignore the follow-up by Jesus, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.' Or is reading the next verse 'finding an obscure alternative interpretation that avoids the plain words of Jesus'? My guess is you avoid seeing things in context as it would destroy your many simplistic straw-man arguments against Christianity. Then what would you do?

So am I to take this as an admission that you have no evidence whatsoever that the "eye of the needle" is a gate? You admit that your position is based on pure speculation? Or was there some evidence in the presented link that I am missing?

Do you realize that "context" is not a buzzword that can be used instead of providing an argument? What point about the context are you trying to make?

Also, you have completely contradicted yourself. Why, if the "eye of the needle" is a gate that is not impossible for a camel to pass through, would Jesus say it was impossible? You defeat your own interpretation.

Or is this another case like "turning the other cheek" where he finds an obscure alternative interpretation that avoids actually following the plain words of Jesus?

See above. Since you like Wikipedia so much, here you go:

"Jesus was not changing the meaning of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said" which means that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written" which would be a reference to scripture. The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. In this context, the command to "turn the other cheek" would not be a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person, but a command not to take vengeance."

You quoted this several pages ago. I responded to it. You ignored my response. Have you forgotten?

Is there any particular reason you have cited one of three interpretations given on the Wiki page as authoritative? Is there any particular reason you have cited as authoritative the one interpretation that is lacking in references? Is there any particular reason that you have cited as authoritative this interpretation even though it disagrees with your interpretation (it mentions beating or robbing, not insulting as you claim the passage is really about)?

I don't think that posting arguments, ignoring counterarguments, and then reposting the same arguments several days later is an effective debate tactic.

I will be happy to continue this dialogue when you stop dodging and give me a yes or no answer to this question:

"Were our actions in WWII at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden also genocide? Lots of women and children, and male noncombatants were killed there. I would like a yes or no answer to that question."

While you're at it, why not address Jesus' statement that 'with God, all things are possible', which kind of blows your theory that nobody rich (which would include about everyone in the USA) can enter heaven.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I will be happy to continue this dialogue when you stop dodging and give me a yes or no answer to this question:

"Were our actions in WWII at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden also genocide? Lots of women and children, and male noncombatants were killed there. I would like a yes or no answer to that question."

This question obviously requires a definition of genocide...

By 'genocide' we mean the destruction of an ethnic group . . . . Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups . . ..

The crime of genocide should be recognized therein as a conspiracy to exterminate national, religious or racial groups. The overt acts of such a conspiracy may consist of attacks against life, liberty or property of members of such groups merely because of their affiliation with such groups. The formulation of the crime may be as follows: "Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of such groups is guilty of the crime of genocide.

I do not believe that it was ever the goal of the allied forces to exterminate the Germans or Japanese as an ethnic group. So no, I do not believe these are cases of genocide.

While you're at it, why not address Jesus' statement that 'with God, all things are possible', which kind of blows your theory that nobody rich (which would include about everyone in the USA) can enter heaven.

I am not sure which theory of mine you are referring to. The only theory I have presented with regard to this passage is that your "eye of the needle" interpretation is completely unsupported by evidence.

I do not think that the passage is saying that it is impossible for a rich man to enter heaven. I think it is saying that it is very difficult for a rich man to enter heaven. It is encouraging the rich to give away their belongings and follow Jesus if they really want to get into heaven.

[JohnPaul]

East of Eden wrote:

First of all, I would like to ask you on what basis does an atheist believer in random chance declare anything evil? If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

If God exists, do you really think fallen and finite human beings are in a position to judge him? And maybe you can answer my question others on this thread have been dodging: Does the US have the right to execute criminals and kill foreign enemies? Would not the 'evil' term you throw around so often apply to us? If we do, why didn't ancient Israel have a similar right to defend herself? And do you not believe it is possible for the Bible or any other book to be read wrongly? Perhaps you think I am the only one that can possibly do that.

This may come as a shocking surprise to you, but atheists are just as moral and capable of distinguishing right and wrong as Christians or theists of any other ilk are. In fact, judging from the history of religion, perhaps much more so. Atheists have their own internal sense of right and wrong and do not need some supernatural being watching over their shoulder and threatening them with terrible punishment if they do not obey his (often evil) commands.

I have looked in a dictionary for a definition of evil and found many circular definitions depending on other undefined words, but I think the most relevant ones here are "Characterized by anger or spite, malicious" and "causing undeserved suffering."

It is clear from your words that you believe that "Might makes right." and that God is "right" simply because "fallen and finite" human beings are not in a position to judge him. On the contrary, human beings are in an excellent position to judge him, just as the Jews in concentration camps were in the best possible position to judge the Nazis. They simply lacked the power to implement their judgments.

Of course I believe it is possible for the Bible to be read wrongly. I simply do not believe that Christians have some magical power to always read it rightly while all others always read it wrongly.

Israel defend herself? Now it is obvious you have not even been reading the same Bible. Israel was the invader, remember? The Israelites came out of Egypt, wandered around for many years, and then descended on Canaan, slaughtered the people and stole their lands, committing many horrible atrocities directly ordered by their evil God in the process. I suggest you go back and read your Bible again.

A society has a "right" to pass laws and impose them on all who voluntarily choose to live in that society and benefit from it. If the laws impose the death penalty and the citizens know it and are free to leave that society, then they must suffer the penalties, but only through a carefully defined and implemented legal process.

The same applies in a much more limited way to international law, but is much more difficult to define. If you are referring to things like the recent assassination of Osama bin Laden, then I think that was deliberate murder by any law. The US had a perfect opportunity to bring him in for public world trial. Why was he arbitrarily killed instead? Perhaps the US was afraid he would say something embarassing in court?

John

[East of Eden]

This may come as a shocking surprise to you, but atheists are just as moral and capable of distinguishing right and wrong as Christians or theists of any other ilk are. In fact, judging from the history of religion, perhaps much more so.

Only if you ignore the body count of Communism within living memory, 100 million according to 'The Black Book of Communism'. And don't tell me Communists weren't really atheists.

Atheists have their own internal sense of right and wrong

Yes, the Bible says God implanted His truth in the human heart, even professed non-believing hearts. Outside of that you have NO basis to say what is wrong. Stalin was able to murder millions because he believed man was the highest power, humans are an accident of no more intrinsic worth than a dog, and there are no eternal rewards and punishments. At one point he was killing 38,000 a week, twice the number that died in the entire history of the Spanish Inquisition over centuries.

I have looked in a dictionary for a definition of evil and found many circular definitions depending on other undefined words, but I think the most relevant ones here are "Characterized by anger or spite, malicious" and "causing undeserved suffering."

It is clear from your words that you believe that "Might makes right." and that God is "right" simply because "fallen and finite" human beings are not in a position to judge him. On the contrary, human beings are in an excellent position to judge him, just as the Jews in concentration camps were in the best possible position to judge the Nazis.

I still don't see on what basis you condemn the Nazis. If the Jews were inconvenient and in the way, why not dispose of them, much the same way people dispose of unborn humans today?

Of course I believe it is possible for the Bible to be read wrongly. I simply do not believe that Christians have some magical power to always read it rightly while all others always read it wrongly.

Christians believe a believer illuminated by the Holy Spirit will read Scripture way more accurately than a lost person dead in their sins.

Israel defend herself? Now it is obvious you have not even been reading the same Bible. Israel was the invader, remember? The Israelites came out of Egypt, wandered around for many years, and then descended on Canaan, slaughtered the people and stole their lands, committing many horrible atrocities directly ordered by their evil God in the process. I suggest you go back and read your Bible again.

They were defending themselves against the Amalekites, and if God wanted to give that land to Israel instead of Canaan what business is it of yours? He owns the whole earth. Israel being the vehicle for the Messiah was a more important use of that land.

A society has a "right" to pass laws and impose them on all who voluntarily choose to live in that society and benefit from it. If the laws impose the death penalty and the citizens know it and are free to leave that society, then they must suffer the penalties, but only through a carefully defined and implemented legal process.

The same applies in a much more limited way to international law, but is much more difficult to define. If you are referring to things like the recent assassination of Osama bin Laden, then I think that was deliberate murder by any law. The US had a perfect opportunity to bring him in for public world trial. Why was he arbitrarily killed instead? Perhaps the US was afraid he would say something embarassing in court?

John

I agree Bin Laden should have been captured, then waterboarded for info, tried before a military tribunal then executed.

Was Hiroshima genocide?

[East of Eden]

This question obviously requires a definition of genocide...
"Raphael Lemkin in 1944"]By 'genocide' we mean the destruction of an ethnic group . . . . Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups . . .. Raphael Lemkin in 1946"]The crime of genocide should be recognized therein as a conspiracy to exterminate national, religious or racial groups. The overt acts of such a conspiracy may consist of attacks against life, liberty or property of members of such groups merely because of their affiliation with such groups. The formulation of the crime may be as follows: "Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of such groups is guilty of the crime of genocide.

I do not believe that it was ever the goal of the allied forces to exterminate the Germans or Japanese as an ethnic group. So no, I do not believe these are cases of genocide.

And it was not the goal of Israel to exterminate the Canaanites, but to drive them from the land. Had they left the land none would have been killed. Israel did try and destroy the nation-state, just as we tried to destroy Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and fascist Italy. There is little difference between what we did in WWII and what ancient Israel did on a much smaller scale.

I am not sure which theory of mine you are referring to. The only theory I have presented with regard to this passage is that your "eye of the needle" interpretation is completely unsupported by evidence.

No it is not, I posted the link about the Russian archaeological team than found such an ancient gate.

I do not think that the passage is saying that it is impossible for a rich man to enter heaven. I think it is saying that it is very difficult for a rich man to enter heaven. It is encouraging the rich to give away their belongings and follow Jesus if they really want to get into heaven.

Then we don't really disagree, I think Jesus was saying to make God your God, not money, and as you said to be generous. There are wealthy Christians who give away 20-50% of their incomes annually. I personally have been increasing my giving every year, and strange coincidence, every year I make more money.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

And it was not the goal of Israel to exterminate the Canaanites, but to drive them from the land. Had they left the land none would have been killed. Israel did try and destroy the nation-state, just as we tried to destroy Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and fascist Italy. There is little difference between what we did in WWII and what ancient Israel did on a much smaller scale.

This is ridiculous. If the Allies, in WWII, invaded Germany to drive every German person from the land and killed all that remained behind it would have been genocide. Your comparison is absurd, not to mention anachronistic. The "nation state" is a modern concept that was unknown to the ancient Israelites. There was no "nation state", there was a tribe, an ethnic group.

Here is what the bible actually says:

They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

“Have you allowed all the women to live?� he asked them. “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

This is not what happened in WWII on a smaller scale, this is genocide. You might have a point if the Allies invaded Japan, killed every Japanese man, plundered everything that any Japanese person owned, burned down every town in Japan, captured the women and children, executed the boys and non-virgin women, and kept the virgins alive to have sex with. How can you possibly say there is "little difference"?

Driving an ethnic group from their homes through violence and slaughtering those that resist is genocide. Did you read the definitions I provided?

And this is of course setting aside the reason God chose such sadistic tactics. If, as you claim, he just wanted them off the land, he could have moved them. He could have picked them up and dropped them on an island somewhere. Instead he chose to have them slaughtered and plundered. You have to wonder about a god who solves his problems by killing children when he has much more peaceful methods at his fingertips.

I am not sure which theory of mine you are referring to. The only theory I have presented with regard to this passage is that your "eye of the needle" interpretation is completely unsupported by evidence.

No it is not, I posted the link about the Russian archaeological team than found such an ancient gate.

You are going to have to spell this out for me. A Russian archaeological team found an ancient gate, ok. How, in your mind, does this constitute evidence that the "eye of a needle" passage is referring to a gate?

I do not think that the passage is saying that it is impossible for a rich man to enter heaven. I think it is saying that it is very difficult for a rich man to enter heaven. It is encouraging the rich to give away their belongings and follow Jesus if they really want to get into heaven.

Then we don't really disagree, I think Jesus was saying to make God your God, not money, and as you said to be generous. There are wealthy Christians who give away 20-50% of their incomes annually. I personally have been increasing my giving every year, and strange coincidence, every year I make more money.

In which case I believe you are "the first" who Jesus said would be "last," and it will be very difficult for you to get into heaven. At least that's how I read it.

[Autodidact]

Basically the Israelites were commanded to drive the Canaanites out of the land, the nation-state was destroyed, not the individuals, hence no genocide.

And if all the babies, children and women (other than the virgins, whom you may keep for yourselves) have to be killed in the process, well, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, right?

slavery,

Did God command slavery?

He specifically authorized it.

That was a normal part of ancient life (not anything like the US Southern version we think of) and was regulated in a humane direction by God.

So you would consider owning someone as property you can leave to your children, whom you can beat and have circumcised, to be moral and humane?

Slavery is not unique to Christianity, what is unique is that Christianity was the force ending it, not secular humanists or Muslims.

Well this is just plain wrong. Slave-owning Christians quoted the Bible, as well they ought, to justify their actions and laws.

Here's a simple question for you: Is slavery right or wrong?