Incidentally, obi, I have stayed mostly out of the founders as Christians debate, but I must interject at this point to object to your referring to them as a class like this. Whatever you may end up concluding about Jefferson, some of the founders were CLEARLY Christian by any reasonable standard. Alexander Hamilton is the most prominent example. Sherman and many others as well.

Not that it matters, and these points have all been made. I just notice that increasingly you're taking to referring to them as non-Christian AS A CLASS.

As a historian, SC?

WELL!

How many times, Historian SC, has God been used to justify a genocide, hm?

You should know...flip on through those history books...

Tell me how many times, roughly...

And then tell me, again, why I shouldn't take issue at all with those claiming genocide in the Bible in the name of God is just, again?

"I have a LIFE outside these banalities, SC."

Highly doubt it. If you notice I drop in very irregularly now. I have been sick since Tuesday and have been on more. Meanwhile we have Obi who writes the great American novel a dozen times every day on here. I have no desire to get in a pissing match on who has a better "life" but I find this attack unusual coming from you.

"ncidentally, obi, I have stayed mostly out of the founders as Christians debate, but I must interject at this point to object to your referring to them as a class like this. Whatever you may end up concluding about Jefferson, some of the founders were CLEARLY Christian by any reasonable standard. Alexander Hamilton is the most prominent example. Sherman and many others as well."

Even if I granted those--haven't looked them up, so I'll grant them for now--

I'd still have Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Adams, Franklin, and Paine on the Deist side...with evidence for each case...

So that's still 6 Deists vs. 2 Christians, so my statement that most of the Founders were Deist still stands. :)

"taking to referring to them as non-Christian AS A CLASS.
obiwanobiwan Online (272 )
New 10:32 AM
+1
As a historian, SC?

WELL!

How many times, Historian SC, has God been used to justify a genocide, hm?

You should know...flip on through those history books...

Tell me how many times, roughly...

And then tell me, again, why I shouldn't take issue at all with those claiming genocide in the Bible in the name of God is just, again?"

How about you take issue with real genocides, not literary genocides.

"So that's still 6 Deists vs. 2 Christians, so my statement that most of the Founders were Deist still stands. :) "

Sorry, I know you're bad at math (your words), so let me explain this. I said:

"Alexander Hamilton is the most prominent example. Sherman and many others as well."

Obviously, you took "and many others as well" to mean "and zero others." In fact, that is not a fair interpretation of the words.

For a while, it was fun crazy, now it's boring crazy :(

"Meanwhile we have Obi who writes the great American novel a dozen times every day on here. I have no desire to get in a pissing match on who has a better "life" but I find this attack unusual coming from you."

The fact I can type a lot and type it fast is a drawback against me, now?

Odd, that's usually a plus...

But yeah:

I'm in class/commuting to classes 6am-4pm...and I sleep generally 6-10pm.

That's 14 hours of my day just commuting, in class, or asleep.

Doesn't count writing, reading, talking with friends...

So yeah, I do NOT spend most of my time here.

I just try and give a good showing or at least bang for my time here post-wise when I DO show up.

And...I'm not sure why I should be ashamed or sorry of that fact, or that I can type fast...???

Actually, "and many others" means "I have no idea if there are any more, but maybe he won't notice."

The idea that the abolitionists were 'largely Christian' is Christian propaganda used to absolve themselves of their legendary and lengthy record of evil. It's not true and the so-called "Christians" who were abolitionists (namely Quakers & Unitarians) were considered heterodox atheists by the main churches.

For my part, I trust Frederick Douglass's assessment of who was on the side of abolition vs who was on the side of slavery.

"The church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors. It has made itself the bulwark of American slavery, and the shield of American slave hunters. Many of its most eloquent Divines . . . have shamelessly given the sanction of religion and the Bible to the whole slave system. They have taught that man may, properly, be a slave; that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God; that to send back an escaped bondman to his master is clearly the duty of all followers of the Lord Jesus Christ; and this horrible blasphemy is palmed off upon the world for Christianity. For my part, I would say, welcome infidelity! Welcome atheism! Welcome anything! In preference to the gospel as preached by those Divines!"

"How about you take issue with real genocides, not literary genocides."

How about you flip through and quote me when I DID list all those real-life genocides...

And I'll take issue with a literary one when it encourages people TODAY to say "And I'd kill in a second too, if I heard God's voice, it says I can, right there!"

Sorry, that just seems a tad bit dangerous and unhinged thinking as far as I'm concerned...

@Zmaj:

That it is, Zmaj... :/

Note: When Putin says "Christian", he means Western Christianity. Never would he touch the Orthodox Church. Not because he's religious, but because it makes him feel all warm and fuzzy.

And just to throw in something i have meaning to throw in, it was NOT a Genocide.

The bible says that All the Amalakites were killed besides the King. And then the King was brought to Saul who kills him soon after the battle. The Amalakites should be annihalated. But Saul was killed later BY AN AMALAKITE. Then, later on a tribe of Israel fought another war against THE AMALAKITES.

So, basically, there was no genocide, and it seems that god didn't even want a full genocide, he wanted a massacre in which a certain group of amalakites (probably the royal house and family.) would be killed.

@ZMaj,

"Actually, "and many others" means "I have no idea if there are any more, but maybe he won't notice.""

No, what it actually means is that I'm getting vague on some of the details of the delegates to the Constitutional convention and don't feel like looking it up, but am well aware that a good few of them were well-documented devout Christians. (Also, I left my primary source on the convention at home, and am not there right now).

that is from memory, someone correct me if I am wrong

"The church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors."

Which church of which country?

Quakers, New England clergymen and others were certainly not. Perhaps he is talking about the episcopelian clergy or baptists.

"As a historian I know that." --SantaClausowitz

(namely Quakers & Unitarians)

Oh so now Quakers and Unitarians don't count as christians.

"The bible says that All the Amalakites were killed besides the King. And then the King was brought to Saul who kills him soon after the battle. The Amalakites should be annihalated. But Saul was killed later BY AN AMALAKITE. Then, later on a tribe of Israel fought another war against THE AMALAKITES.

So, basically, there was no genocide, and it seems that god didn't even want a full genocide, he wanted a massacre in which a certain group of amalakites (probably the royal house and family.) would be killed."

...

!!!

:O

DOES THE HOLOCAUST NOT COUNT AS A GENOCIDE BECAUSE "ONLY" 6 MILLION JEWS WERE KILLED, AND NOT EVERY LAST ONE?!?!?!

KILLING A LARGE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE, MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN ALIKE, BASED ON THEIR RACE/ETHNICITY/RELIGION...

GENOCIDE! >:O

lol semck I almost missed your post altogether amidst all of this other stuff...

"On the one hand, you're insisting that we evaluate this in terms of God's power, _and assume that any course of action using that power would be consistent with His nature and plans._ On the other hand, right here (above) you're insisting that we ignore that power, and specifically His omniscience, treating Him like just another person who doesn't know what would happen to the Amalekite children."

No, I'm not saying that we should treat God like another person who doesn't know what would happen to the Amalekites. What I'm saying is that I think it categorically wrong to kill someone without their consent in the name of ensuring they die a less violent death, -no matter who you are.- It is wrong to make that decision for somebody else.

Easy on the caps, Obi. I'm sure nobody here has the necessary means to commit a genocide.

(Oh, and of course, I don't grant you your 6 deists either, just for the record. But I just wanted to clarify the clear cases. Others have already refuted your 6, earlier in the thread -- except for Thomas Paine. One thing you never really did address was the fact that Thomas Paine was rejected by nearly all the other founders because of his religious beliefs).

"
DOES THE HOLOCAUST NOT COUNT AS A GENOCIDE BECAUSE "ONLY" 6 MILLION JEWS WERE KILLED, AND NOT EVERY LAST ONE?!?!?!"

Was the World Trade Center a Genocide because 1000+ Americans were killed? The question is if there was an attempt to completely erradicate the Amalakites. I am saying there may not have been. God considered whatever group he was after eradicated after the kind was killed, but yet there were many more Amalakites left. So therefor, you could argue (I would need to read more to be sure) that it was never meant to be a complete and total eradication of the amalakites. And therefore not a Genocide.

"No, I'm not saying that we should treat God like another person who doesn't know what would happen to the Amalekites. What I'm saying is that I think it categorically wrong to kill someone without their consent in the name of ensuring they die a less violent death, -no matter who you are.- "

Oh, I see. What you had written was that considerations of not knowing for sure that they couldn't find another place would apply even to God. Whereas, see, I would think it would be clear that God COULD know that they would definitely starve and not make it to another tribe.

Of course, if we're talking about what applies to God -- it's not wrong for God to kill somebody, in the first place.

"The bible says that All the Amalakites were killed besides the King. And then the King was brought to Saul who kills him soon after the battle. The Amalakites should be annihalated. But Saul was killed later BY AN AMALAKITE. Then, later on a tribe of Israel fought another war against THE AMALAKITES."

...so which is it? Were "all the Amalekites killed besides the king," who "was brought to Saul who kills him shortly after the battle," or not? Because that would be all the Amalekites.

And I'm going to back what obi said here. Genocide doesn't have to end in 100% success for it to be genocide. The intent was to destroy the Amalekite people. Whether or not the killers successfully killed all of them is immaterial.

or maybe the intent wasn't. It's been framed in here as though it is so that's what I've been going with

Note that in biblical times a leader of a heathen tribe was also known as the name of his tribe

"...so which is it? Were "all the Amalekites killed besides the king," who "was brought to Saul who kills him shortly after the battle," or not? Because that would be all the Amalekites."

Eden, the story says all Amalakites were killed besides the king. Saul captures the king and holds him (for hostage???). Then the Prophet Samuel bitches out saul for doing so. And after being bitched out Saul orders the king brought to him and kills him. That should be it for the Amalakites in the literal reading. But note Amalakites still were around.