Killing your enemies isn't murder. That's called doing the right thing. Leaving your enemies alive is murdering your children's future as evidenced by our current reality.
Also, yes. Virgin girls are meant to procreate with.
The Romans once completely dominated the jews but then didn't kill them all, they enslaved them... Not only that but the Roman leader who did that took a jewish queen who had slept with another man before as his wife and she was responsible for his death... and here we are.
No, you want to kill your enemies. That is the best thing to do for your own safety and prosperity as a people. Slaves are no good. Every empire that went that route, crumbled. No quarter is the right move for your people's interests.
The reason you impregnate only the virgin women after killing the men is generally speaking, that will be a relative minority of women compared to your majority of remaining men. You breed hybrids (race) that will eventually be gobbled up by your people's dominant DNA in a manner in which the new women don't have enough influence on your people's overall genetic code to have a significant impact to your people as a whole. You end your enemy's lineage, get to enjoy the spoils of war and add some biodiversity to your genetic line. Win-win.
I agree that the Bible is overhyped but probably not for the reasons you think. I actually think the parts of the Bible that you likely would consider not virtuous and not applicable to modern day is in fact very much both those things.
For example the part about paying a fine and having to take a woman as your wife that you rape. Great practice. I think we'd be better off with this sort of law in place. Same with stoning adulterers to death. Oh, and not accepting whores, etc...
However, I do agree much of the Bible is trash, especially the New Testament. Some of the stuff Jesus talked about like that whole Parable of the Growing Seed. Absolute trash.
My problem with Christianity is that the New Testament is too egalitarian and "diverse and inclusive" for me. I think the Old Testament is the far better book. Saint Paul literally sounds like he was on magic mushrooms when he was writing half his shit.
Thank you sir. I know you are doing this to mock the other guy doing it. (As is your right in this forum) but it reminds me I haven’t read Numbers in a very long time
Don’t work yourself too hard for this guy, he’s “asked” much the same “questions” on places like c/Christianity and gotten good answers every time (to which he replies with inflammatory non-sequitors, before downvoting himself)
If you don't believe in God then by what authority would you condemn this? If there is no ultimate arbiter of morality then there really isn't such thing as good and evil and all morality is free to be changed and discarded as any individual or group sees fit.
you don't hear us atheists say "hey! look at this book made by an atheist about morality. you christians should totally read it to become a better person
Richard Dawkins and the other "new atheists" do this with their books all the time.
morality was... pretty bad back than
Again, bad by what standard? There is no objective morality in your worldview. No morality is any worse than any other.
if you were a true christian you would be doing what that verse says.
No, I'm not, because that is an old testament law. The law has been fulfilled by Jesus and we are no longer bound by it.
instead... your morality matches the current times we live in today
No it doesnt.
if you were consistent with your morals. you'd be in jail right now. for man slaughter. rape. statutory rape. and kid napping, just to name a few
These things are wrong in Christian morality. They are illegal in western law because laws in western nations are largely based on Christian morality.
i think as humans. we need to have an internal monologue. and determine, what is, and isn't wrong. and agree on a consensus on these feelings. so we as humans can create this... "objective morality"
Yeah modern "civilized" societies just indiscriminately kill children by dropping nukes on them. Or was that somehow more moral because it was non-discriminatory?
Perhaps we could ask the virgin girls of Hiroshima if they would have preferred to be taken as war brides.
So, not only we got unironical bible thumper tradcons but also atheist debate-bros deboonking the bible? Man, time really is a fucking flat circle...
I just wanted to play videogames...
oh, fuck off. You are the retard who claims pozzedvania is good because it makes le christians angry
There is the hide/block option, no need to start a passive-agressive retard war. And I don't like the fundamentalist tier takes some people here have
That post? it was just incoherent ramblings, I didn't even got your point. Nazis are le bad?
"Thumper" the other dude is just posting a single Bible verse a day. Meanwhile atheist Dumbo is spamming.
That's the same argument leftards use against christians. hmm...
Based as fuck. If only we actually followed the bible.
Killing your enemies isn't murder. That's called doing the right thing. Leaving your enemies alive is murdering your children's future as evidenced by our current reality.
Also, yes. Virgin girls are meant to procreate with.
The Romans once completely dominated the jews but then didn't kill them all, they enslaved them... Not only that but the Roman leader who did that took a jewish queen who had slept with another man before as his wife and she was responsible for his death... and here we are.
No, you want to kill your enemies. That is the best thing to do for your own safety and prosperity as a people. Slaves are no good. Every empire that went that route, crumbled. No quarter is the right move for your people's interests.
The reason you impregnate only the virgin women after killing the men is generally speaking, that will be a relative minority of women compared to your majority of remaining men. You breed hybrids (race) that will eventually be gobbled up by your people's dominant DNA in a manner in which the new women don't have enough influence on your people's overall genetic code to have a significant impact to your people as a whole. You end your enemy's lineage, get to enjoy the spoils of war and add some biodiversity to your genetic line. Win-win.
I agree that the Bible is overhyped but probably not for the reasons you think. I actually think the parts of the Bible that you likely would consider not virtuous and not applicable to modern day is in fact very much both those things.
For example the part about paying a fine and having to take a woman as your wife that you rape. Great practice. I think we'd be better off with this sort of law in place. Same with stoning adulterers to death. Oh, and not accepting whores, etc...
However, I do agree much of the Bible is trash, especially the New Testament. Some of the stuff Jesus talked about like that whole Parable of the Growing Seed. Absolute trash.
My problem with Christianity is that the New Testament is too egalitarian and "diverse and inclusive" for me. I think the Old Testament is the far better book. Saint Paul literally sounds like he was on magic mushrooms when he was writing half his shit.
You are literally this meme.
Ok bigshot lets see your answer. You are in charge of an old testament times tribe. You just won a war of conquest.
What is the correct way to deal with the conquered population to guarantee they won't eventually become a threat to future generations of your people?
You attack a strawman of Christianity using out of context quotes, the tactics of subverters, then whine about the tone of the response you got.
Grow a spine and stand up for yourself instead of appealing to mercy at the slightest resistance.
This is from the Judeo part.
True. However, this contract which applied to the Israelites was fulfilled 2000 years ago.
Indeed, many Christians sadly misunderstand their own religion.
I'm a believer. I'm not critical of my religion, I'm critical of people who claim to be Christians.
With that said I am not perfect either.
Thank you sir. I know you are doing this to mock the other guy doing it. (As is your right in this forum) but it reminds me I haven’t read Numbers in a very long time
That was under the law. Christ fulfilled the law. I know that is a short answer because this would need to involve a lengthy discussion.
But no, we aren’t permitted to stone anyone like they did back then
Ok. I’ll get with my pastor about this and direct message you. I want to give you the best answer I can give.
Don’t work yourself too hard for this guy, he’s “asked” much the same “questions” on places like c/Christianity and gotten good answers every time (to which he replies with inflammatory non-sequitors, before downvoting himself)
If you don't believe in God then by what authority would you condemn this? If there is no ultimate arbiter of morality then there really isn't such thing as good and evil and all morality is free to be changed and discarded as any individual or group sees fit.
Richard Dawkins and the other "new atheists" do this with their books all the time.
Again, bad by what standard? There is no objective morality in your worldview. No morality is any worse than any other.
No, I'm not, because that is an old testament law. The law has been fulfilled by Jesus and we are no longer bound by it.
No it doesnt.
These things are wrong in Christian morality. They are illegal in western law because laws in western nations are largely based on Christian morality.
We've kinda already done that.
Yeah modern "civilized" societies just indiscriminately kill children by dropping nukes on them. Or was that somehow more moral because it was non-discriminatory?
Perhaps we could ask the virgin girls of Hiroshima if they would have preferred to be taken as war brides.