Best way to lose faith is to read the Bible

[HansMustermann]

I think most people would try to save those daughters, even if they had to sacrifice themselves for it. "Oh well, I'll just kill them myself and save the Gestapo the effort," is not the first thought for most people.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Vixen

<snip>

This is considered more gracious than someone who keeps the law but never comes to any wisdom. For example, an ordinary German citizen acting as a prison camp guard was entirely obeying the law and following orders (one reason eight million Germans could not be tried for war crimes is because it was not against the law at the time).

<snip>

You might want to check yourself on this one.

One of the enduring legal precedents established at Nuremberg was that obeying the law and following orders was not a defense against a war crime.

Prison camp guards actually were convicted (and some executed) even after fruitlessly trying that defense for their actions.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

I think most people would try to save those daughters, even if they had to sacrifice themselves for it. "Oh well, I'll just kill them myself and save the Gestapo the effort," is not the first thought for most people.

That is not the issue. There is no way, in the conditions of Masada, that parents could have saved their children by sacrificing themselves. If there had been, of course that is what they should have done.

By killing their children, the occupants of Masada were not primarily saving the Romans some irksome effort. The Romans were happy to take prisoners, whom they could enslave, or torture to death on the cross or in the arena, as an example and deterrent to other potential rebels.

[Zivan]

Originally Posted by Vixen

As for Isaac, he was Abraham and Sara's first child. We may recall Sara was barren and laughed when God with the two angels said she would bear a son in old age (old then, no doubt being circa >40).

IF you had read your bible, you would see were it specifically gives the age of Sarah as 90 years old.

Genesis 17:17
"And Avraham fell on his face and rejoiced, and he said to himself, "Will [a child] be born to one who is a hundred years old, and will Sarah, who is ninety years old, give birth?"

Genesis 17:19
"God said, "Indeed, your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac, and I will establish My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his seed after him."

Genesis 17:21
"My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this time next year."

Also, IF you had read the bible, you would see that in verse 1 it is YHVH who is speaking and not angels.

Originally Posted by Vixen

The point being about sacrifice was that in the Bible whether human/animal was that it was to be (a) a first born and (b) free of any flaw.

Animal sacrifices did NOT need to a "first born". IF you read your bible you would know this. First born animals were to be given to god. That does NOT mean that all other sacrifices were first born animals. They were NOT.

You can huff and puff and rant that everyone is lying about you not having read your own holy book, but you have proven over and over again in your posts that you do not know what is actually written in it.

And you REFUSE to answer the questions in this thread about WHERE in the bible you got your false beliefs from.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Craig B

That is not the issue. There is no way, in the conditions of Masada, that parents could have saved their children by sacrificing themselves. If there had been, of course that is what they should have done.

By killing their children, the occupants of Masada were not primarily saving the Romans some irksome effort. The Romans were happy to take prisoners, whom they could enslave, or torture to death on the cross or in the arena, as an example and deterrent to other potential rebels.

Actually, the issue is that we're going deeper and deeper down a red herring.

See, we started from religious human sacrifice, and more specifically child sacrifice. Which wasn't done (at any age) to save them from some enemy, but to appease a god.

Incidentally once you do read the (possibly libellous, but still the only ones we have) accounts of such sacrifices, it's hard to imagine WHAT worse fate were they saving them from. E.g., the kids sacrificed to Tlaloc first had their fingernails pulled out (to make sure they cry, because Tlaloc was a god of water and rain,) before being marched crying and terrorized to have their hearts cut out from their living body. Meanwhile for the phoenicians we're told that babies were burned alive, or actually even more horrifically, GRILLED alive by being placed well above the fire pit in the hands of a bronze statue. Even accounting for the smaller mass and volume of a kid, it would take probably something like half an hour to an hour to die that way, so WTH was the worse alternative they were saving them from? Being dashed on the rocks or run through by some invader would have actually been the more merciful alternative.

But anyway, it was done because some god would hopefully like it. And to return to the bible, Abraham also wasn't saving Isaac from anything. It was just to show God that he's really THAT obedient.

But anyway, THAT was what we were talking about. And THAT was the context in which it was argued that only religion could make someone do something that horrible to their children.

Vixen pulled a bit of sleight of hand, as apologists tend to, and replaced that with the red herring of saving kids from the Gestapo. They tend to do that. When they can't argue what's actually the topic, they substitute it with some red herring that they can justify.

And your "issue" is nothing more than a case of "oh, look, I can do a better red herring than Vixen's." Well, of course you can. You're a smart guy. And generally it's not hard to outdo those who just reach for the first irrelevant idiocy that lets them go back to faith instead of thinking. Of course you can do better -- including a better red herring -- if you use your brain, than someone who just did the first red herring that lets them go back to NOT using their brain. It's the nature of the beast that using your brain > not using it.

But... what's the purpose of helping with a better red herring?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

You might want to check yourself on this one.

One of the enduring legal precedents established at Nuremberg was that obeying the law and following orders was not a defense against a war crime.

Prison camp guards actually were convicted (and some executed) even after fruitlessly trying that defense for their actions.

I have the paperback The Nuremburg Trials and iirc only about 300 were hanged.

The vast majority of German citizens (of whom eight million were card carrying NAZI party members [say that was one per family, that is a huge proportion of active supporters] and very few were found guilty of any crime.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Zivan

IF you had read your bible, you would see were it specifically gives the age of Sarah as 90 years old.

Genesis 17:17
"And Avraham fell on his face and rejoiced, and he said to himself, "Will [a child] be born to one who is a hundred years old, and will Sarah, who is ninety years old, give birth?"

Genesis 17:19
"God said, "Indeed, your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac, and I will establish My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his seed after him."

Genesis 17:21
"My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this time next year."

Also, IF you had read the bible, you would see that in verse 1 it is YHVH who is speaking and not angels.






Animal sacrifices did NOT need to a "first born". IF you read your bible you would know this. First born animals were to be given to god. That does NOT mean that all other sacrifices were first born animals. They were NOT.

You can huff and puff and rant that everyone is lying about you not having read your own holy book, but you have proven over and over again in your posts that you do not know what is actually written in it.

And you REFUSE to answer the questions in this thread about WHERE in the bible you got your false beliefs from.

I said God [who was] with the two angels. You seem determined to misquote me.

Incidentally lambs were purchased or brought with the hordes travelling to Jerusalem precisely for sacrifice on the altar by the priest/kohain/rabbi or whatever he is called. No, these would not have been first born, but I suspect the criterion they had to be male was largely fulfilled.

[Zivan]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I said God [who was] with the two angels. You seem determined to misquote me.

I quoted chapter 17.

God was not with two angels. That is in chapter 18.

IF you had read chapter 17, you would know that it gives Sarah's age as 90, and you would not "guess" it to be about "40".

[Zivan]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Incidentally lambs were purchased or brought with the hordes travelling to Jerusalem precisely for sacrifice on the altar by the priest/kohain/rabbi or whatever he is called.

Again, IF you had read your bible, you would know that it was the priests that made the sacrifices. The hebrew word for "priest" is "kohen" and has NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING to do with a rabbi. A rabbi is a teacher, not a priest.

Originally Posted by Vixen

No, these would not have been first born, but I suspect the criterion they had to be male was largely fulfilled.

Then why did you keep insisting (falsely) that animal sacrifices had to be "first born"?

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I have the paperback The Nuremburg Trials and iirc only about 300 were hanged.

The vast majority of German citizens (of whom eight million were card carrying NAZI party members [say that was one per family, that is a huge proportion of active supporters] and very few were found guilty of any crime.

Which does nothing to support your claim that "an ordinary German citizen acting as a prison camp guard was entirely obeying the law and following orders" and could not be convicted of war crimes.

Very few of those 8 million were prison camp guards.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Which does nothing to support your claim that "an ordinary German citizen acting as a prison camp guard was entirely obeying the law and following orders" and could not be convicted of war crimes.

Very few of those 8 million were prison camp guards.

It is a basic tenet that you cannot apply the law in retrospect. For example, suppose tomorrow it becomes law in England we must all drive on the right.

You would not be able to prosecute all those people who drove on the left yesterday, as it simply wasn't on the statute as of that date.

The Nuremberg trials had to bring in a special war crimes category to deal with those at the top responsible for the third reich policies and management.

However, the ordinary German - ordinary like you and me - who just carried out orders from their government did not break the law in the true meaning of the word as it was statute that certain groups of persons were to be eliminated.

So back to the issue: if you are born into an oppressive regime, how do you effectively 'choose to do good'?

The vast majority of Germans had no problem doing evil. A good Christian, Bonhoeffer, a pastor, stood up to it. He was executed.

What would an atheist do?

How would an atheist stand up to it?

Bear in mind vast tracts of the world are atheist. Russia, China (only 7% profess a religion, mostly Buddhism [although 'ancestor worship' is popular]), a large part of Africa.

OK so they have laws. But where is the moral code. How do you find one, if you are inculcated into a culture that has no respect for other people beyond your own group.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Zivan

Again, IF you had read your bible, you would know that it was the priests that made the sacrifices. The hebrew word for "priest" is "kohen" and has NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING to do with a rabbi. A rabbi is a teacher, not a priest.




Then why did you keep insisting (falsely) that animal sacrifices had to be "first born"?

It is stated in Leviticus.

In fact it is stated in quite a few places, including the New Testament.

Quote:

25'Every valuation of yours, moreover, shall be after the shekel of the sanctuary. The shekel shall be twenty gerahs. 26However, a firstborn among animals, which as a firstborn belongs to the LORD, no man may consecrate it; whether ox or sheep, it is the LORD'S. 27But if it is among the unclean animals, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation and add to it one-fifth of it; and if it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your valuation.…
New American Standard Bible
Cross References
Exodus 13:2
"Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast; it belongs to Me."

Exodus 13:12
you shall devote to the LORD the first offspring of every womb, and the first offspring of every beast that you own; the males belong to the LORD.

Numbers 3:13
"For all the firstborn are Mine; on the day that I struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I sanctified to Myself all the firstborn in Israel, from man to beast. They shall be Mine; I am the LORD."

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Zivan

I quoted chapter 17.

God was not with two angels. That is in chapter 18.

IF you had read chapter 17, you would know that it gives Sarah's age as 90, and you would not "guess" it to be about "40".

I said >40. Stop twisting my words.

[Zivan]

Originally Posted by Vixen

It is stated in Leviticus.

In fact it is stated in quite a few places, including the New Testament.

None of what you posted says "Leviticus"

[Zivan]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I said >40. Stop twisting my words.

No one needs to "twist" your words. Your posts speak for themselves. Loud and clear.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Zivan

None of those are Leviticus

Soz, missed it out: Lev 27:26

Quote:

'No one, however, may dedicate the firstborn of an animal, since the firstborn already belongs to the LORD; whether an ox or a sheep, it is the LORD's.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Zivan

No one needs to "twist" your words. Your posts speak for themselves. Loud and clear.

Then why the intellectual dishonesty in putting words and phrases in my mouth? For example your false claim I said all ancient Hebrew tribes sacrificed their first born.

And now another fake claim that I said Sara was 'about' 40.

It happens too regularly to be simple miscomprehension. As a debating technique it is horrible.

[Zivan]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Then why the intellectual dishonesty in putting words and phrases in my mouth? For example your false claim I said all ancient Hebrew tribes sacrificed their first born.

And now another fake claim that I said Sara was 'about' 40.

It happens too regularly to be simple miscomprehension. As a debating technique it is horrible.

I told you before, your gaslighting does NOT work here.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Zivan

I told you before, your gaslighting does NOT work here.

I beg your pardon?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I said >40. Stop twisting my words.

While 90 is indeed greater than 40, it is also greater than 50, 60, 70 and 80. Why did you choose such a low number for it to be greater than?

As it turns out, the low average age at death was mainly a result of high child mortality. If you made it to age 20, you were fairly likely to make it into your 60s or 70s, especially if you existed during the Old Testament (in which people routinely lived for hundreds of years). The idea that ancient people generally only lived until about age 40 is a myth.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Vixen

The vast majority of Germans had no problem doing evil. A good Christian, Bonhoeffer, a pastor, stood up to it. He was executed.

What would an atheist do?

How would an atheist stand up to it?

You're telling us that no atheists stood up to the Nazis and were executed? Where do you get that from? It's simple nonsense.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Vixen

It is a basic tenet that you cannot apply the law in retrospect. For example, suppose tomorrow it becomes law in England we must all drive on the right.

You would not be able to prosecute all those people who drove on the left yesterday, as it simply wasn't on the statute as of that date.

The Nuremberg trials and the ones that followed quite cheerfully convicted people for acts which followed the law when they were committed. This was, in fact, the strongest of the criticisms against the proceedings. For just the reasons you mention.

None the less the precedent was established.

And is enshrined in international law and even in many military codes of conduct.

Quote:

The Nuremberg trials had to bring in a special war crimes category to deal with those at the top responsible for the third reich policies and management.

It wasn't just "those at the top".

Quote:

However, the ordinary German - ordinary like you and me - who just carried out orders from their government did not break the law in the true meaning of the word as it was statute that certain groups of persons were to be eliminated.

<snip; much stuff unrelated to your claim that "an ordinary German citizen acting as a prison camp guard was entirely obeying the law and following orders" and could not be convicted of war crimes.>

Except that there were Germans who were not "those at the top" who were convicted for acts which were considered legal by their government at the time they were committed.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Masada is really odd. It was impossibly heroic in terms of their resistance to the Romans, yet parents killed their children before killing themselves in the end.

I guess god was just so much more important.

Goebbels also killer their children in April 1945. That is, Magda did - Joseph was too chicken. And, going out on a limb, they would have not been (horribly) murdered by the Soviets.

I don't think you need to be particularly religious for such an act, just a fanatic. It's not even clear if the Sicarii, a subset of the Zealots, were that religiously fanatic. But they were fanatic enough to start their own little civil war within the Jewish War.

ETA: that said, the mass suicide at Masada was rational IMHO. Their fate at the hands of the Romans would have been much, much worse.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Zivan

I quoted chapter 17.

God was not with two angels. That is in chapter 18.

IF you had read chapter 17, you would know that it gives Sarah's age as 90, and you would not "guess" it to be about "40".

Ah. Right. You see the vast majority of christians have not read their own holy book and are encouraged not to do so. Certain "nice" passages are freely wheeled around, but those are the "best" bits. Reading the lot would paint a very different picture and we can't have that, right? Speaking personally, I have read it cover to cover and it is a cavalcade of horror.

We further know that our protagonist has not read all of it or even parts of it given the gross errors posted.

The simple fact is that most christians rely on a Walt Disney version of the bible and accept what the priest claims is contained therein without actually reading the risible book for themselves.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I have the paperback The Nuremburg Trials and iirc only about 300 were hanged.

The vast majority of German citizens (of whom eight million were card carrying NAZI party members [say that was one per family, that is a huge proportion of active supporters] and very few were found guilty of any crime.

Having been a member of the NSDAP was not considered a crime in itself. Many of those were inactive members, e.g., Kurt Georg Kiesinger, the German chancellor 1966-1969 in the first grand coalition of CDU and SPD.

But quadraginta is fully correct that "just following orders" has not been considered a defence. In the first time after WW2, only the top dogs were prosecuted and the most egregious cases of lower-ranked officials. It was not considered opportune to prosecute everyone who had been involved in the Nazi crime machine; there also had to be a country rebuilt. The last 10, 20 years, German justice has also turned to the smaller cogs in the machine, e.g., Oskar Gröning, the "bookkeeper of Auschwitz".

[sphenisc]

Originally Posted by ddt

I don't think you need to be particularly religious for such an act, just a fanatic. .

...or you could be a good man... a hard worker and a good man, like John Frobisher.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY2N8JvOEFw

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

While 90 is indeed greater than 40, it is also greater than 50, 60, 70 and 80. Why did you choose such a low number for it to be greater than?

As it turns out, the low average age at death was mainly a result of high child mortality. If you made it to age 20, you were fairly likely to make it into your 60s or 70s, especially if you existed during the Old Testament (in which people routinely lived for hundreds of years). The idea that ancient people generally only lived until about age 40 is a myth.

The fact Sara was aged and barren and laughed with incredulity that she would have a baby as told to her by God, who came to her tent with two angels, was what led me to say that she must have been >40 to be 'too old to have a baby'.

Not really sure why this should be controversial.

If you want to point out she was actually 90 it can be done nicely.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Vixen

The Nuremberg trials had to bring in a special war crimes category to deal with those at the top responsible for the third reich policies and management.

Waging aggressive war was against the Briand-Kellog pact. Mass murder was still not allowed under German law.

Originally Posted by Vixen

However, the ordinary German - ordinary like you and me - who just carried out orders from their government did not break the law in the true meaning of the word as it was statute that certain groups of persons were to be eliminated.

I didn't know there was an actual statute that said that Jews, disabled, gypsies, etc., had to be mass murdered. Can you point me to it?

Originally Posted by Vixen

So back to the issue: if you are born into an oppressive regime, how do you effectively 'choose to do good'?

The vast majority of Germans had no problem doing evil. A good Christian, Bonhoeffer, a pastor, stood up to it. He was executed.

What would an atheist do?

How would an atheist stand up to it?

Are you really trying to argue that atheists can have no moral code? Must I remind you that the most dedicated in the resistance against the Nazi regime were godless communists? And for your one Bonhoeffer, or Niemöller, the vast majority of the German protestants remained within the Nazi-sympathizing German Evangelical Church.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Craig B

You're telling us that no atheists stood up to the Nazis and were executed? Where do you get that from? It's simple nonsense.

But how? How would they organise? I haven't said atheists do not resist evil - that would be nonsense. I was just curious if their only moral code is the state and 'laws'. There was a student group called the 'White Rose', which was comprised of students, who also were executed but made a difference.

Quote:

White Rose survivor Jürgen Wittenstein described what it was like for ordinary Germans to live in Nazi Germany:

"The government – or rather, the party – controlled everything: the news media, arms, police, the armed forces, the judiciary system, communications, travel, all levels of education from kindergarten to universities, all cultural and religious institutions. Political indoctrination started at a very early age, and continued by means of the Hitler Youth with the ultimate goal of complete mind control. Children were exhorted in school to denounce even their own parents for derogatory remarks about Hitler or Nazi ideology."

— George J. Wittenstein, M. D.,"Memories of the White Rose", 1979[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Vixen

The fact Sara was aged and barren and laughed with incredulity that she would have a baby as told to her by God, who came to her tent with two angels, was what led me to say that she must have been >40 to be 'too old to have a baby'.

Not really sure why this should be controversial.

If you want to point out she was actually 90 it can be done nicely.

I don't need to point that out - the Bible does so. What I want to know was that when the Bible says she was 90, why did you characterise that as "over 40"? Do you know of any other 90-year olds you would describe as "over 40"?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

The Nuremberg trials and the ones that followed quite cheerfully convicted people for acts which followed the law when they were committed. This was, in fact, the strongest of the criticisms against the proceedings. For just the reasons you mention.

None the less the precedent was established.

And is enshrined in international law and even in many military codes of conduct.

It wasn't just "those at the top".


Except that there were Germans who were not "those at the top" who were convicted for acts which were considered legal by their government at the time they were committed.

The fact of the matter is, the wide scale atrocities and genocide could not have happened so effectively without the mass cooperation and collusion of the general population. It is wholly falling short to wave it away 'as just a small handful and they got convicted'. (The average sentence BTW was just three years jail, as I recall.)

It is also important to recall that the terms of the Geneva Convention came in AFTER the war and as a result of it:

Quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_ConventionsThe Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for humanitarian treatment in war. The singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–45), which updated the terms of the two 1929 treaties, and added two new conventions.

The Geneva Conventions extensively defined the basic rights of wartime prisoners (civilians and military personnel); established protections for the wounded and sick; and established protections for the civilians in and around a war-zone. The treaties of 1949 were ratified, in whole or with reservations, by 196 countries.[1] Moreover, the Geneva Convention also defines the rights and protections afforded to non-combatants, yet, because the Geneva Conventions are about people in war, the articles do not address warfare proper—the use of weapons of war—which is the subject of the Hague Conventions (First Hague Conference, 1899; Second Hague Conference 1907), and the bio-chemical warfare Geneva Protocol (Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gasses, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, 1925).

[Zivan]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Ah. Right. You see the vast majority of christians have not read their own holy book and are encouraged not to do so. Certain "nice" passages are freely wheeled around, but those are the "best" bits. Reading the lot would paint a very different picture and we can't have that, right? Speaking personally, I have read it cover to cover and it is a cavalcade of horror.

We further know that our protagonist has not read all of it or even parts of it given the gross errors posted.

The simple fact is that most christians rely on a Walt Disney version of the bible and accept what the priest claims is contained therein without actually reading the risible book for themselves.

Originally Posted by Vixen

The fact Sara was aged and barren and laughed with incredulity that she would have a baby as told to her by God, who came to her tent with two angels, was what led me to say that she must have been >40 to be 'too old to have a baby'.

Not really sure why this should be controversial.

Vixen, please see post by abaddon quoted above yours.

There is nothing "controversial". Your critics can OBVIOUSLY see by your posts, and can agree that you have NOT read the bible through.

Originally Posted by Vixen

If you want to point out she was actually 90 it can be done nicely.

Yes. It can be pointed out by anyone who has read the bible.

That, obviously, does not include you.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Vixen

But how? How would they organise? I haven't said atheists do not resist evil - that would be nonsense. I was just curious if their only moral code is the state and 'laws'. There was a student group called the 'White Rose', which was comprised of students, who also were executed but made a difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

What difference did they make?
Did they hide Jews from the Gestapo?
Did they forge ID cards or ration stamps?
Did they sabotage the war effort?
No, no, no.

It may feel good to distribute pamphlets at the university (and so carelessly they got caught), but it didn't save a single life and didn't make the war a minute shorter.

The sad fact is that German resistance was little. The communist Rote Kapelle was ineffectual, the Stauffenberg clique was a joke. If you're looking for an effective person among German resistance, I fear you have to choose between Oster and Canaris.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I don't need to point that out - the Bible does so. What I want to know was that when the Bible says she was 90, why did you characterise that as "over 40"? Do you know of any other 90-year olds you would describe as "over 40"?

Because I was writing on a chat forum, not writing up a research thesis.

Are there any other minor details I overlooked in the story?

If so, it costs nothing to say so politely.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Zivan

Vixen, please see post by abaddon quoted above yours.

There is nothing "controversial". Your critics can OBVIOUSLY see by your posts, and can agree that you have NOT read the bible through.


Yes. It can be pointed out by anyone who has read the bible.

That, obviously, does not include you.

I think it is terribly rude of you to make such an unwarranted claim.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Because I was writing on a chat forum, not writing up a research thesis.

Are there any other minor details I overlooked in the story?

If so, it costs nothing to say so politely.

I wouldn't say that describing someone who is 90 as being "over less than half their age" is a minor point. There's a significant difference between a person in their 40s - which is what most people will think of when you say "over 40" - and a nonagenarian.

Even on a discussion forum, it is incumbent on people to choose their words carefully to avoid being misinterpreted.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Actually, the issue is that we're going deeper and deeper down a red herring.

See, we started from religious human sacrifice, and more specifically child sacrifice. Which wasn't done (at any age) to save them from some enemy, but to appease a god.

Incidentally once you do read the (possibly libellous, but still the only ones we have) accounts of such sacrifices, it's hard to imagine WHAT worse fate were they saving them from. E.g., the kids sacrificed to Tlaloc first had their fingernails pulled out (to make sure they cry, because Tlaloc was a god of water and rain,) before being marched crying and terrorized to have their hearts cut out from their living body. Meanwhile for the phoenicians we're told that babies were burned alive, or actually even more horrifically, GRILLED alive by being placed well above the fire pit in the hands of a bronze statue. Even accounting for the smaller mass and volume of a kid, it would take probably something like half an hour to an hour to die that way, so WTH was the worse alternative they were saving them from? Being dashed on the rocks or run through by some invader would have actually been the more merciful alternative.

But anyway, it was done because some god would hopefully like it. And to return to the bible, Abraham also wasn't saving Isaac from anything. It was just to show God that he's really THAT obedient.

But anyway, THAT was what we were talking about. And THAT was the context in which it was argued that only religion could make someone do something that horrible to their children.

Vixen pulled a bit of sleight of hand, as apologists tend to, and replaced that with the red herring of saving kids from the Gestapo. They tend to do that. When they can't argue what's actually the topic, they substitute it with some red herring that they can justify.

And your "issue" is nothing more than a case of "oh, look, I can do a better red herring than Vixen's." Well, of course you can. You're a smart guy. And generally it's not hard to outdo those who just reach for the first irrelevant idiocy that lets them go back to faith instead of thinking. Of course you can do better -- including a better red herring -- if you use your brain, than someone who just did the first red herring that lets them go back to NOT using their brain. It's the nature of the beast that using your brain > not using it.

But... what's the purpose of helping with a better red herring?

Well actually, abaddon said he was enjoying some quality time with his kids and he could not imagine doing what people may have done in days of yore. I brought up the point that you cannot assume it is ceteris parabus for all people. That we enjoy a highly civilised lifestyle, does not mean that it is 'natural' or 'normal'. It has taken at least 10K years to get to this level of comfort.

Not so long ago children were being brutally killed and I used that as an example to abaddon to help him understand that not all societies have had sentimental feelings towards children.

[Zivan]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I think it is terribly rude of you to make such an unwarranted claim.

Which of my claims is "unwarranted"?

You have proven over and over again, in countless post on this thread and others, that you do not know what the bible actually says.

You keep saying people are "wrong" or "rude" to point that out, but you keep making mistaken claims about what is actually in the bible.

And you still have not answered specific questions asked of you in this thread, about WHERE in the bible your mistaken claims (that you claim are true) are.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by ddt

Waging aggressive war was against the Briand-Kellog pact. Mass murder was still not allowed under German law.


I didn't know there was an actual statute that said that Jews, disabled, gypsies, etc., had to be mass murdered. Can you point me to it?


Are you really trying to argue that atheists can have no moral code? Must I remind you that the most dedicated in the resistance against the Nazi regime were godless communists? And for your one Bonhoeffer, or Niemöller, the vast majority of the German protestants remained within the Nazi-sympathizing German Evangelical Church.

The older Germans I know - who were put into POW camps in the UK and their children were bullied terribly at (English) school for being German - come from generations of pastors and they certainly did resist the nazis by holding secret church services and carrying out acts of charity and subversion.

Of course plenty of atheists and civil rights activists are atheists and have strong moral codes. However, say you were born into a so-called IS family. You are brought up to regard the west as your enemy. You reach adulthood. How do you get away from brutal oppressive fundamentalism unless you have some kind of external help?

ETA It was a military regime and thus a military command. I did do some research into WWII re the Germans and Russians. I forget the German word for the lightning raids on villages, etc.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Zivan

Which of my claims is "unwarranted"?

You have proven over and over again, in countless post on this thread and others, that you do not know what the bible actually says.

You keep saying people are "wrong" or "rude" to point that out, but you keep making mistaken claims about what is actually in the bible.

And you still have not answered specific questions asked of you in this thread, about WHERE in the bible your mistaken claims (that you claim are true) are.

Rubbish. So I omitted to say Sarah was 90.

Big deal.