aww... SC beat me to it :(

"Adam and Eve actually had daughters as well, according to Genesis, and more than 3 sons. See Gen. 5:4.

Not that it affects your argument, but if you're going to criticize Scripture, you might as well at least make criticisms based on what it really says."

Fair enough, semck...though if we ARE going to go off of what Scripture says...

Their telling me that at age 130 he had Seth and then 800 more years followed in which he had sons and daughters...

The human race coming via Cain and Abel almost seems plausible by contrast to a 930 year old man or even a 130 year old man fathering sons and daughters. ;)

"Obi being clueless about what the bible says? that has never happened"

Not even gonna start, SC...it wouldn't be fair to you...

My screwing up and forgetting that, apparently, hundreds-of-years-old-Adam kept pumping away and fathering kids is a screw up, I own up to it entirely...

Your perverted reading of 1 Samuel pales by comparison.

BUT I've said enough there, and you've said QUITE enough about it, taking the cheap shot, so I'll leave it there, unless you want to get that little last word in to try and justify why killing women and children is EVER justified...in which case, by all means, go ahead and be sure to sprinkle in a healthy dose of brainless insults, too--

They really do make your arguments that much more effective and make you come across as a truly mature and knowledgeable individual, rather than a monkey with a keyboard, just a chromosome away from being a chimp or, worse, krellin.

"just a chromosome away" being a figure of speech here, SC...

So no need to play Science Nazi as well.

"Your perverted reading of 1 Samuel pales by comparison."

HA! I informed you of "1 Samuel". Not to mention my reading is directly from the text, don't understand how someone proudly ignorant of their knowledge of the bible can claim I perverted anything... but... thats our Obi!

"BUT I've said enough there, and you've said QUITE enough about it, taking the cheap shot, so I'll leave it there, unless you want to get that little last word in to try and justify why killing women and children is EVER justified...in which case, by all means, go ahead and be sure to sprinkle in a healthy dose of brainless insults, too--"

It is always justified in every case.

"They really do make your arguments that much more effective and make you come across as a truly mature and knowledgeable individual, rather than a monkey with a keyboard, just a chromosome away from being a chimp or, worse, krellin. "

Wonder which chromosome you are missing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRY_t6GEOB4

"It is always justified in every case."

...???

Worst. Trolling. Ever.

What, I'm just making the argument you peg on me every fucking thread. If I am criticized for it I might as well make it.

So along those lines, women and children deserve what they get in every case, Genocide is good and im going to book a ticket to Auschwitz to take a whiz on my great grandparents graves

Well, I can't do a thing about your supporting the first two of those there in your previous and rather revolting as well as obtuse arguments that dragged on...and on...and on...

But, while you may, in fact, be OK with genocide and infanticide and as render yourself as much a raving lunatic as you view me--then again, sanity to the insane would seem rather, well, insane, now, wouldn't it?--I'd have to ask you to refrain from the third.

Even if your advocating for genocide DOES spit on the very trauma and memory of the Holocaust...

Literally whizzing all over it is just a step too far, sir, even for someone such as yourself who's so very many steps too far that you are halfway down the cliff already and clearly looking back up at us through the looking glass of some deranged sensibility wherein you can attempt to claim the high ground while suggesting that it be perfectly moral to commit genocide and infanticide in the name of God.

Really, just a bit too far, SC, too far.

And I hear Poland's just awful this time of year.

Anyway, this little retread of our running bout over your refusal to confront your disgusting claims has been, well, not fun, no, rather tedious, absurd, and unnecessary--

Much like yourself, actually.

you are a caricature of yourself obi, I don't see you as a raving lunatic, I see you as an idiot and a liar, I believe that I have made that abundantly clear

Why do you guys hate eachother? You're so alike in every way!

yeah, if i was a compulsive liar that constantly talked about shit I don't have the first clue about.

I'm talking about Obiwan, not Mitt Romney.

(bazinga)

no wonde i can't stand either, its the same person with different talking points. I guess the difference is that Mitt Romney might demand some sort or respect, Obi demands disrespect

I really never felt that way, but then I don't read most of his posts...

tl;dr obi, sorry man, its nothing personal, but I'm a fan of compact expression.

Guess you missed the one where he claimed I was disrespectng holocaust victims because I didn't agree about his reading of a passage, then staunchly refused to apologize when I noted my grandparents were holocaust survivors. Pure class that one.

No I did see it, don't remember feeling one way or the other, but again I'm mostly just along for the show here (and peanut tossing).

"Alcoholism is possibly a gentic predisposition...but we expect people to exercise their brains and choose NOT to be alcoholics,"

Yeah but we gave up having that expectation with you.

I like how Krellin's pretending he's on the side of African Americans now.

Haha Putty I noticed that too... no N bombs this time?

"I don't read most of his posts...;dr obi, sorry man, its nothing personal, but I'm a fan of compact expression."

And thus a fan of common sense. ;)

"Guess you missed the one where he claimed I was disrespectng holocaust victims because I didn't agree about his reading of a passage,"

You mean the part where you disagree with my reading of:

1 Samuel 15:3
"Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

AND

1 Samuel 15:8

"And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."

Because, apparently, "kill all the men, women, and children" and then "he utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword" does NOT constitute either genocide or infanticide...

Because you can apparently just interpret that passage another way?

In related news, you know, I read this book once, a real show-stopper...

Apparently, according to this fellow named O'Brien, if you try really, really hard enough, you can interpret 2 plus 2 to equal 5, not 4, or even 6, or whatever is convenient, regardless of what 2 plus 2 ACTUALLY is...

So yes, YJ, SC's arguing that you can argue those passages are NOT instances of genocide and infanticide both in intent and execution.

Pretty neat trick, eh?

"then staunchly refused to apologize when I noted my grandparents were holocaust survivors. Pure class that one."

I said your advocating for or defending any genocide in any situation is a disgrace and a shameful to the memory of ALL genocides, and that you should be utterly ashamed of yourself for such a despicably indefensible view.

Then again...

If any of you chaps here can come up with a reason why genocide and infanticide should EVER be considered defensible or morally permissible, and NOT a blot on the memory of everyone who's suffered at the hands of such evils...

Please, let us know.

And +1 for a Bazinga! :)

Hey Semck and I are having a good old time talking about genocide in the bible thread right now! I'm trying to learn something here...

"In related news, you know, I read this book once, a real show-stopper..."

And, yet again, if you read on, god's commandment to the jews was accomplished, they killed everyone that he wanted them to kill, yet MANY, like whole tribes of Amalakites continued to live and play roles in the Bible,

So, not that ANYONE cares besides this dipshit who doesn't read it in the first place, but I suggest that there was never any intent to actually kill them all and no intended genocide. Because if there was an intended genocide, and the Israelites were successful, why are the amalekites still a power in the rest of the bible? Its common sense.

Bazinga

Yes, it's common sense. The holocaust never happened because Israel exists and Jews are relatively influential in the United States.

What a dumb argument. You're making Obi look smart.

Oh, I see, SC.

So is what you're saying that if you fail to wipe out ALL of a cultural group, it isn't Genocide?

"And, yet again, if you read on, god's commandment to the jews was accomplished, they killed everyone that he wanted them to kill, yet MANY, like whole tribes of Amalakites continued to live and play roles in the Bible, "

You heard it yourself, folks!

The commandment was accomplished, it was God's word, and hey, there were a few other tribes...

So brutally murdering all the men, women, and children in those tribes in 1 Samuel is TOTALLY OK in SC's twisted mind!

"So, not that ANYONE cares besides this dipshit who doesn't read it in the first place, but I suggest that there was never any intent to actually kill them all and no intended genocide."

You didn't--the book did.
Sorry, but whether or not they pop up later or not, when the books says, to quote, again, something you seem to have trouble doing to back up your points "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" and "he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword" that REEKS of genocide...

At the very, very, VERY least, it's an ethnic-fueled massacre on a large scale and STILL it's infanticide!

But hey, God gave the OK, so SC's OK with it...

"Because if there was an intended genocide, and the Israelites were successful, why are the amalekites still a power in the rest of the bible?"

Because if there was an intended genocide, and the Nazis were successful, why are the Jews still around and a power in the rest of the 20th century?

Fallacious reasoning--it's NOT just for the disgustingly, willfully ignorant and idiotic!

Well...yeah, it mostly is. Sorry, SC.

"So is what you're saying that if you fail to wipe out ALL of a cultural group, it isn't Genocide?"

Yep, that's about the gist of that oh-so-cogent argument, YJ...

"Yes, it's common sense. The holocaust never happened because Israel exists and Jews are relatively influential in the United States.

What a dumb argument. You're making Obi look smart."

I'll take it, Putin... ;)

I still haven't gotten an answer as to whether the murder of 1 million Ethiopians by the Israelites was also "justified", Maybe the Ethiopians committed a raid or two. After all, God is "slow to anger".