The war on faith.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
God did not really advocate slaughtering innocents simply because "his people" wanted land or power or some such.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he advocated slaughtering "bad people" because they had to be purified. The fact their nation was looted, all the men, boys, and women were killed, and the little girls taken as sex slaves... That was all just incidental. I was mistaken attributing that to God - God gave the original directive (vengeance), it was Moses who ordered the women and boys killed.

Numbers 31

But this kind of thing is everywhere in the OT. This is the biggest example frequently used because of the little girls being taken as sex slaves. Deuteronomy 20 and 21 to see how these prisoners were treated, pay particular attention to 21:11-14.

Frankly, if you can read through Deut 20-21 and not see any problem at all with what you find there, we may just have such different moral frameworks there will be no meeting of the minds - but you asserted that all religions are basically tolerant and basically the same, and those passages refute that.

There are some other atrocities that you're probably familiar with, given their status in popular culture. Sodom and Gomorrah is one example of God's "tolerance." Then there were the plagues of Egypt, in which everyone in the nation was punished simply because the Pharaoh wouldn't change his mind, the concept of punishing children for the sins of their parents, etc...

[ QUOTE ]
Suffice it to say that either way, I stand by my claim that Jesus (the founder, and reason, for my religion) never advocated such actions. I concede that the Bible may have its flaws, but it would take some convincing that it isn't interpretational issues or there wasn't some deeper meaning to the story.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but it no way even comes close to resembling a duck? Is that the kind of "interpretational" issue you're talking about? I've linked you to three chapters in which laws and commands are clearly laid down by YH-[censored]-WH, in a supposedly historical context (you can verify that independently). These laws and commands are very clearly warlike. If you want to create some interpretation that it's "all a metaphor" and that all the violence is "just meant to get a message across" and that the nominal historicity is "just to make it easier for the Hebrews to understand," you can go for it. There are interpretations of the Iliad that claim it isn't violent, either. If you really want to take that view, I suppose I can't stop you.

As for Jesus, he affirmed the divinity of the Old Testament. He also said he came not to bring peace but a sword, that he came to set fire to the land. The fact that he wasn't an actual warlord (like Mohammad) isn't really relevant. Even in the most "peaceful" sections of the Bible, like in Matthew, he's very careful to temper all of his peaceful talk about judge not and turn the other cheek with warnings that God would wreak terrible things on the evil. Is it possible to interpret Jesus as being peaceful? Yes. Is that the only valid interpretation? Not by a long shot. Has that been the most common interpretation? Nope. You're suggesting that your interpretation is the interpretation, but you seem to want people to merely take your word for it.

No, I think Jesus really was a peaceful person if he lived, but it only makes the violent interpretations of his teachings that much more telling. I stand by my belief that religion is inherently violent, ignorant, and judgmental.