[Will V.]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Your reply fails because with the exception of the Crusades and spread to the New World, all other items you mentioned were not prompted by a Christian belief system. It also fails because the Crusades were a response to Muslim oppression of Christians, not some unprovoked assault. It is also interesting that you say US slavery was unique in the world. I am not sure that it was or on what basis you think that it was, and it certainly wasn't based on Christian ideals or Christian motivation. However, the oppression of Christians and Jews under Muslim rule is well documented throughout history, and the enslavement of Christians under Muslim rule goes on to this day. See Sudan.


Your case would have been much stronger if you had only mentioned the Spanish Inquisition and left the rest alone.

Summary:
Crusades? Christian, but a response to Muslim oppression of Christians.

Exploration of the New World? Christian motivation to speard the Word, but also non-Christian motivation of world domination and new-found wealth by the likes of Ferdinand and Isabella.

So-called Unique version of Slavery? No Christian motivation. Use of the word unique is questionable.

Westward expansion? No Christian motivation.

Relationship with southern neighbors? No idea who you mean: Is it Mexico, or Alabama?

Modern Military Campaigns? No modern military campaign has been about spreading Christianity.

On this reverse side, the examples cited previously:

atheistic communism in China, Russia, Cambodia etc. or Nazism? The motivation was the spread of communism or Nazism.

What about the Islamic conquests of Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey etc. in the 7th and 8th centuries? The goal was the spread of Islam and making it dominant, the only accepted religion.

The Crusades might have been a response to Muslim invasion, but, as I said, people don't get to be good through the actions of others. If Muslims rape Christians, and then Christians rape Muslims in retaliation, who is good?

World domination *is* a Christian precept. Check the Bible. Christians are ordered to make as much of the world Christian as possible. What better way to do that, than to take political and economic control as well? What better way, than to replace non-Christian populations, with Christian ones? By the way, I'm not saying world domination isn't a Muslim precept, as well, but see the paragraph above.

If you are unfamiliar with our relationships with our southern neighbors (i.e., Latin America), I suggest you take a course in Latin American history.

Slavery in the New World, and subsequently, the United States was unique, because it was the first time, to my knowledge, slaves were limited to a single race, and this race was considered inferior. Read up on the history of slavery, if you doubt me. Previously, slaves were generally taken from conquered lands, and/or from the bottom economic strata. Slaves weren't previously considered inferior by nature. Christian leadership had a lot to do with this paradigm shift... granted, other Christian leaders were just as instrumental in the demise of slavery in the United States.

Modern military campaigns have been as much about the spread of capitalism and democracy, as practiced by this Christian nation, as they are about stopping the spread of communism and other -isms.

My main point is this, we don't get to call ourselves good, simply because others are bad. For example, if certain Muslims kill 10,000 innocent Americans, we don't get to kill 10,000 innocent Muslims, and call ourselves good and right. It doesn't work that way.

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by Will V.

World domination *is* a Christian precept. Check the Bible. Christians are ordered to make as much of the world Christian as possible.

Wrong. The Great Comission is to expose the entire living world to the gospel message. Not conversion. The Bible tells that total conversion is impossible.

[Will V.]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

Wrong. The Great Comission is to expose the entire living world to the gospel message. Not conversion. The Bible tells that total conversion is impossible.

Sure, and when you're done converting the convertible, the remainder can meet the same fate as those women who "made" the Israelite men sin.

Sorry, but the intolerant Christians really ruin the whole thing, for me. The Bible is junk, for having stories of intolerance like that in it.

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by Will V.

Sure, and when you're done converting the convertible, the remainder can meet the same fate as those women who "made" the Israelite men sin.

Huh?!? I really am not following you here. Where is this "fate as those women who 'made' the Israelite men sin" message in the bible?

But to clarify my statement: Man cannot convert a single person. Man's commission is to spread the message, God is responsible for the conversion.

Originally Posted by Will V.

Sorry, but the intolerant Christians really ruin the whole thing, for me. The Bible is junk, for having stories of intolerance like that in it.

So, you are being intolerant of the intolerant? Don't judge a religion based upon a few believers. Go and read the bible. And then get a good study guide. The bible is completely about inclusion, not intolerance. EVERYONE can find God's love, there are no exceptions.

Everyone speaks about intolerance as if it's a bad thing. I am intolerant of murder, does that make me a bad person? I am intolerant of child abuse, is that bad? No, intolerance of the right things is a good thing.

Tell me, what is God intolerant of besides sin?

[Will V.]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

Huh?!? I really am not following you here. Where is this "fate as those women who 'made' the Israelite men sin" message in the bible?

Um, try reading the first page of this thread, from the top.

Originally Posted by Kilbey

So, you are being intolerant of the intolerant? Don't judge a religion based upon a few believers. Go and read the bible. And then get a good study guide. The bible is completely about inclusion, not intolerance. EVERYONE can find God's love, there are no exceptions.

Everyone speaks about intolerance as if it's a bad thing. I am intolerant of murder, does that make me a bad person? I am intolerant of child abuse, is that bad? No, intolerance of the right things is a good thing.

Tell me, what is God intolerant of besides sin?

Please, don't start with the straw man. I'm talking about intolerance of other faiths.

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by Will V.

Um, try reading the first page of this thread, from the top.

Edit: Ahhh... I get what you are getting at. Yup, you are kind of right. They will go to Hell. Christianity's message is become a Christian or go to Hell.

But I am still waiting for you to either admit you are wrong when you said:

Originally Posted by Will V.

World domination *is* a Christian precept. Check the Bible. Christians are ordered to make as much of the world Christian as possible.

Either show me the verse in the bible or admit you are wrong.

Originally Posted by Will V.

Please, don't start with the straw man. I'm talking about intolerance of other faiths.

Hmmm... why would a God be tolerant of the worship of other Gods? Doesn't sound like a very omnipotent God to me if He did. I am not a believer in multi-theism. And I don't think God is either.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Will V.

Sorry, but the intolerant Christians really ruin the whole thing, for me. The Bible is junk, for having stories of intolerance like that in it.

So what I get from this is, it's ok to be intolerant (You are BTW) as long as you aren't Christian.

Originally Posted by Will V.

I'm talking about intolerance of other faiths.

Tolerance isn't accepting other faiths. Tolerance is how you treat those who believe differently than you.

[Will V.]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

Edit: Ahhh... I get what you are getting at. Yup, you are kind of right. They will go to Hell. Christianity's message is become a Christian or go to Hell.

My point was, the point of the story was that they weren't Christian, and they "made" the Israelite men sin, so they deserved to die; and, in fact, they were killed. That is what I call intolerance. Not to mention, blaming others for your own failure. Ever heard the saying, "the devil made me do it?"

Originally Posted by Kilbey

But I am still waiting for you to either admit you are wrong when you said:
...
Either show me the verse in the bible or admit you are wrong.

{YAWN} Long ago, I deposited my Bibles where they belong, in the garbage. Show me a Lutheran who doesn't try to convert every non-Christian he meets.

Originally Posted by Kilbey

Hmmm... why would a God be tolerant of the worship of other Gods? Doesn't sound like a very omnipotent God to me if He did. I am not a believer in multi-theism. And I don't think God is either.

Sounds like a very insecure God, to me. Sounds like a God who was invented by man.

[Will V.]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

So what I get from this is, it's ok to be intolerant (You are BTW) as long as you aren't Christian.

No, I'm very tolerant. I have no desire to kill Christians for being Christian. I have no desire to convert them to atheism. In fact, if believing in Christianity helps them get through their lives, I'm all for it. But, they should be tolerant of people of other faiths.

As I said before (and I will continue to say it, until it sinks in), you don't get to be good because others are bad, you only get to be good through your own actions. Act good, think good, be good.

That said, intolerance irks me regardless of where it originates. Islamic intolerance of Christians, Christian intolerance of Islam. Hutu intolerance of Tutsis. Montague intolerance of Capulet.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Tolerance isn't accepting other faiths. Tolerance is how you treat those who believe differently than you.

OK, if you're going to play word games... I meant to say, intolerance of *people* of other faiths. Don't treat them like they are wrong, even if that's what you believe.

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by Will V.

My point was, the point of the story was that they weren't Christian, and they "made" the Israelite men sin, so they deserved to die; and, in fact, they were killed. That is what I call intolerance.

So, you are claiming complete ignorance as to when this narrative took placed into the bible? Because the verse supplied earlier were centuries before Jesus was born. There were no Christians. Only Jews. You obviously don't understand the meaning behind the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Originally Posted by Will V.

Not to mention, blaming others for your own failure. Ever heard the saying, "the devil made me do it?"

The phrase "the devil made me do it" is not biblical. Christians do do believe the devil can make them do ANYTHING. You have your theology wrong.

Originally Posted by Will V.

YAWN} Long ago, I deposited my Bibles where they belong, in the garbage. Show me a Lutheran who doesn't try to convert every non-Christian he meets.

So, you bury your head in the sand and speak from ignorance? And what do Lutherans have to do anything?!?! Are you using your own limited experience? The world is bigger than what you have experienced. Live a little and mature some more. We'll pick this up again after you have done that.

Originally Posted by Will V.

Sounds like a very insecure God, to me. Sounds like a God who was invented by man.

"insecure God"?!?! Wow, your intellect is VERY limited. Do you have any concept of what Christians consider God? It sounds like you really don't. Read the first definition. The Christian concept of God is a singular being. There is no other. There can't be. God would no longer be "God".

[Will V.]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

So, you are claiming complete ignorance as to when this narrative took placed into the bible? Because the verse supplied earlier were centuries before Jesus was born. There were no Christians. Only Jews. You obviously don't understand the meaning behind the Old Testament and the New Testament.

You're good at putting words into people's mouths. Are you claiming the Old Testament is not part of the Christian Bible?

Originally Posted by Kilbey

The phrase "the devil made me do it" is not biblical. Christians do do believe the devil can make them do ANYTHING. You have your theology wrong.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said "the devil made me do it" was biblical, that's just ridiculous. I believe that phrase is from the 1950's.

Originally Posted by Kilbey

So, you bury your head in the sand and speak from ignorance? And what do Lutherans have to do anything?!?! Are you using your own limited experience? The world is bigger than what you have experienced. Live a little and mature some more. We'll pick this up again after you have done that.

Resorting to ad hominem attacks?

Originally Posted by Kilbey

"insecure God"?!?! Wow, your intellect is VERY limited. Do you have any concept of what Christians consider God? It sounds like you really don't. Read the first definition. The Christian concept of God is a singular being. There is no other. There can't be. God would no longer be "God".

Believe me, I've taken more theology (Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian) courses than I care to remember. I know what the Christian view of God is, I've had it drilled into my head countless times. I just don't agree with it. I believe that your God, if he exists, is far less insecure about his own existence than you are. Have some faith, will 'ya?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Will V.

No, I'm very tolerant. I have no desire to kill Christians for being Christian. I have no desire to convert them to atheism. In fact, if believing in Christianity helps them get through their lives, I'm all for it. But, they should be tolerant of people of other faiths.

Well that is a Good thing, Because I am that way too, and I am a Christian.

As I said before (and I will continue to say it, until it sinks in), you don't get to be good because others are bad, you only get to be good through your own actions. Act good, think good, be good.

Riiight, who is disagreeing with you here? Not me.

OK, if you're going to play word games... I meant to say, intolerance of *people* of other faiths. Don't treat them like they are wrong, even if that's what you believe.

Again, that isn't what tolerance means. Tolerance isn't treating people like they are right, even if you think they are wrong.

You can even ARGUE that they are wrong, and be tolerant.

Lets show an example.

Tolerent

I don't agree with your beliefs, but I agree with your right to believe in them

INTolerent

I don't agree with your beliefs, And if you don't change them soon, I am going to give you a black eye. Or call you names.


Now, I see them both happening pretty equally on both sides of the fence.

I just don't agree with it. I believe that your God, if he exists, is far less insecure about his own existence than you are. Have some faith, will 'ya?

And please don't project.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Will V.

The Crusades might have been a response to Muslim invasion, but, as I said, people don't get to be good through the actions of others. If Muslims rape Christians, and then Christians rape Muslims in retaliation, who is good?[/b]

Neither. But your comments are irrelevant.

[quote]
World domination *is* a Christian precept. Check the Bible. Christians are ordered to make as much of the world Christian as possible. What better way to do that, than to take political and economic control as well? What better way, than to replace non-Christian populations, with Christian ones? By the way, I'm not saying world domination isn't a Muslim precept, as well, but see the paragraph above./quote]

Whoever lives by the sword, dies by the sword. i.e. Christ didn't want to convert by force. World domination is not Christian, only something some secular rulers who happen to be Christian seek.

Slavery in the New World, and subsequently, the United States was unique, because it was the first time, to my knowledge, slaves were limited to a single race, and this race was considered inferior. Read up on the history of slavery, if you doubt me. Previously, slaves were generally taken from conquered lands, and/or from the bottom economic strata. Slaves weren't previously considered inferior by nature. Christian leadership had a lot to do with this paradigm shift... granted, other Christian leaders were just as instrumental in the demise of slavery in the United States.

Racist slavery is not unique to modernity. The spartan attitude to the Helots is a good example.

Your argument in stating that only from the times of the 19th century is weak. Slaves were nearly always treated as 'subhumans' because it is by the very nature of slavery, the enslaved are seen as inferior to the master race. It is human nature.

[b]My main point is this, we don't get to call ourselves good, simply because others are bad. For example, if certain Muslims kill 10,000 innocent Americans, we don't get to kill 10,000 innocent Muslims, and call ourselves good and right. It doesn't work that way.

No one's saying that.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Will V.

Sounds like a very insecure God, to me. Sounds like a God who was invented by man.

God doesn't need us to worship Him, rather we worship Him because it is what is good for us.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

macintologist,

*sigh* It's allegory written, best we can tell, by Ezra, based on a much older oral tradition... it's a tribal morality tale. Almost any Jewish Theologian will tell you that. FWIW, there is a very important, and mildly enlightening, message in that particular passage, but I'd be wasting my time trying to spell it out for you. Given your infantile and unreceptive state of mind, you'd never be able to grasp it.

OMG. You are so, so completely wrong, and you're libeling the Jewish faith. Most any rabbi will tell you that! Most any legitimate rabbi will tell you, MacNStein, that we are the creation of the Lord of Hosts, that He is our G-d, and that He gave us the Toras Emes. Do you even believe in Hashem? You call yourself a Jew and wear that title quite prominently on your sleeve, but you do not in any way represent authentic Judaism.

You, MacNStein, believe in a strain of higher criticism that claims that Ezra redacted or even wrote at least the Pentateuch (if not the prophets and writings too) and that the entire nation of Israel just suddenly believed in this innovation, this text created more or less from whole cloth? Thousands of years of history were just fabricated, in your opinion? Higher criticism, btw, was developed in Germany, and I consider it an antecedent to the Holocaust. You're a politically conservative person, and yet you subscribe to the most extreme of reform (or perhaps reconstructionst) Judaism? I can tolerate macintologist's viewpoint much easier than I can accept the view you're propagating. Your sin, my rebellious brother, is great indeed.

MacNStein, did your father or his father believe as you do? Do you believe that your faith accords with that of any of our sages? Do you think Rabbi Kaplan, whom you are quite fond of referencing, would call your belief kosher? Do you believe Six Million Jews in the Holocaust and millions more throughout a millennia of crusades, inquisitions, jihads and pogroms all perished for belief in what you would call nothing more than a "tribal morality tale"? You are overtly guilty of Chilul Hashem, and I will have you personally in mind when I pray for the teshuvah of am Yisrael.

(And yes, I am aware of the hypocrisy of this post date.)

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

OMG. You are so, so completely wrong, and you're libeling the Jewish faith. Most any rabbi will tell you that! Most any legitimate rabbi will tell you, MacNStein, that we are the creation of the Lord of Hosts, that He is our G-d, and that He gave us the Toras Emes. Do you even believe in Hashem? You call yourself a Jew and wear that title quite prominently on your sleeve, but you do not in any way represent authentic Judaism.

You, MacNStein, believe in a strain of higher criticism that claims that Ezra redacted or even wrote at least the Pentateuch (if not the prophets and writings too) and that the entire nation of Israel just suddenly believed in this innovation, this text created more or less from whole cloth? Thousands of years of history were just fabricated, in your opinion? Higher criticism, btw, was developed in Germany, and I consider it an antecedent to the Holocaust. You're a politically conservative person, and yet you subscribe to the most extreme of reform (or perhaps reconstructionst) Judaism? I can tolerate macintologist's viewpoint much easier than I can accept the view you're propagating. Your sin, my rebellious brother, is great indeed.

MacNStein, did your father or his father believe as you do? Do you believe that your faith accords with that of any of our sages? Do you think Rabbi Kaplan, whom you are quite fond of referencing, would call your belief kosher? Do you believe Six Million Jews in the Holocaust and millions more throughout a millennia of crusades, inquisitions, jihads and pogroms all perished for belief in what you would call nothing more than a "tribal morality tale"? You are overtly guilty of Chilul Hashem, and I will have you personally in mind when I pray for the teshuvah of am Yisrael.

(And yes, I am aware of the hypocrisy of this post date.)

MacNStein is not Jewish.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by undotwa

MacNStein is not Jewish.

What is he then? And why does he go great lengths to appear as one?

[Zimphire]

He doesn't.

You need to stop assuming so much.

[Will V.]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Whoever lives by the sword, dies by the sword. i.e. Christ didn't want to convert by force. World domination is not Christian, only something some secular rulers who happen to be Christian seek.

Christian religious leaders have also given approval, or have otherwise justified it, or have given implicit approval by not taking an opposing stance. Again, not all Christian leaders, not all the time, and not exclusively Christian leaders. But, it happened. A lot.

Originally Posted by undotwa

Racist slavery is not unique to modernity. The spartan attitude to the Helots is a good example.

Your argument in stating that only from the times of the 19th century is weak. Slaves were nearly always treated as 'subhumans' because it is by the very nature of slavery, the enslaved are seen as inferior to the master race. It is human nature.

The Helots became slaves through military superiority, and they were slaves of convenience for the Spartans. They were neighbors of the Spartans, they were not a different race. They were also state property, not individual property. And, it was illegal for a Spartan to physically harm a Helot.

Black slaves in the colonies in the early 17th century were not seen as subhuman, they were mostly indentured servants who often came from Europe. They sometimes owned their own real property, and, in some cases, earned complete freedom from indentured servitued. It wasn't until the 1680's that that the concept of race-based slavery became common.

[Zimphire]

Man is fallible. He does bad things.

There was only 1 perfect man to ever live this earth.

So to see that man has failed a lot, is of no surprise to me.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

He doesn't.

You need to stop assuming so much.

With him constantly making sweeping normative statements about Judaism, having a signature with Hebrew in it and having a stein component to his screen name, I really don't think I rushed to an irrational assumption. Out of curiosity, what else have I erroneously assumed around here?

[budster101]

Erroneous assumption #2.

Dolphins do in fact post in here.

Erroneous assumption #3.

I don't know... I'm beat.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

What is he then? And why does he go great lengths to appear as one?

I'm a gnostic and a Thelemite, an occultist, if you will. My connection with Judaism comes from childhood friendships and 20 years of Kabbalistic study. You can't be a student of such a thing without embracing some of the philosophies.

I have a great reverence and respect for the Jewish faith, many rabbi friends, but I'm only a friendly supporter. I've never told anyone that I'm Jewish, ever.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

With him constantly making sweeping normative statements about Judaism, having a signature with Hebrew in it and having a stein component to his screen name, I really don't think I rushed to an irrational assumption. Out of curiosity, what else have I erroneously assumed around here?

I'm a professor of Theology, I'm prone to making "sweeping normative statements" about many faiths. FYI, I chose "MacNStein" as a play on Macintosh and Frankenstein's monster, I later added the Tool motif and Hebrew (Mem, Nun, Shin) to my sig to show my religious/occultist connections and sympathies.

You're assumption is ok, and I take no offense if a person misunderstands. I have explained this before, but it's been a while.

[SVass]

Now Moses sent an army against the land of Midian... and appointed Phineas for their commander; ... they had joined battle with them, an immense multitude of the Midianites fell;...: and among them fell all their kings, five in number, viz. Evi, Zur, Reba, Hur, and Rekem, ... Now when the enemies were discomfited, the Hebrews spoiled their country, and took a great prey, and destroyed the men that were its inhabitants, together with the women; only they let the virgins alone, as Moses had commanded Phineas to do, who indeed came back, bringing with him... a great deal of prey; fifty-two thousand beeves, seventy-five thousand six hundred sheep, sixty thousand asses, with an immense quantity of gold and silver furniture.... There were also led captive about thirty-two thousand virgins. So Moses parted the prey into parts, and gave one fiftieth part to Eleazar and the two priests, and another fiftieth part to the Levites; and distributed the rest of the prey among the people.
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Bk 4, Chap 7. circa 90 CE. translated by Whiston circa 1735.

The original quote for the thread was from a religio-political tract written to unite some people. As I believe that Josephus had earlier source materials, I would claim that there is no basis for the statements about Moses ordering them to kill after the fact. sam

[Big Mac]

Thank you for the clarification, MacNStein. As for the most recent post. . . SVass, I don't see how you can hold Josephus up as more authoritative than the highest of biblical canon. The accounts are almost identical; perhaps Josephus omitted select details in order to paint a more moderate image for his Roman target audience. Josephus is, of course, not a very respected individual, and while he provides an important external history (in the absence of anything better), I fail to see any evidence to support the outlandish assertion that he had "better" or "older" source material than the Bible.

[SVass]

Traditional Conservative View: The Pentateuch was written by Moses during Israel's wilderness period, with additions made after his death, perhaps by Joshua.
Liberal View: Liberal scholars believe the Pentateuch is a compilation of a variety of sources and that it was edited into its final form during the Babylonian Exile. The liberal view relies on the documentary hypothesis, which speculates that the Pentateuch utilized the following sources:
1. Yahwist - Presumably written during David's reign, it refers to God as Yahweh.
2. Elohist - Presumably written in the northern part of the divided kingdom, around the 9th century BC, it refers to God as Elohim.
3. Deuteronomic - Presumably, the Deuteronomic code was written during the reign of Hezekiah. Scholars accepting this hypothesis believe this code is "the book of the law" rediscovered during Josiah's reign. Deuteronomic historians are also credited with writing Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.
4. Priestly - Finally, it is presumed that during the Exile, the priests collected the previous three sources and edited the Pentateuch into its final form, no doubt adding new material of their own in the process. The Pentateuch was then known as the "Torah" or law.
These sources do not actually physically exist today. Their prior existence is merely a hypothesis based on some scholars' interpretations of the textual evidence.

621 BC The high priest finds the "Book of the Law" during Josiah's reign, leading to a national revival. Reference to this discovery proves that the book of the law must have existed well before this time; long enough, at least, to have been lost and rediscovered. Liberal scholars assume that the "Book of the Law" refers only to the deuteronomic code, while conservative scholars tend to think it refers to the complete books of Leviticus and/or Deuteronomy.

The above is one web site's general description of the origin for the Torah. It has been suggested that Josephus had access to some of the original material used for the final editing. sam

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Will V.

Christian religious leaders have also given approval, or have otherwise justified it, or have given implicit approval by not taking an opposing stance. Again, not all Christian leaders, not all the time, and not exclusively Christian leaders. But, it happened. A lot.[/b]

That is true, but many of these Christian religious leaders were also secular rulers in their own right.

The Helots became slaves through military superiority,

Don't all slaves?

and they were slaves of convenience for the Spartans.

Aren't all slaves?

They were neighbors of the Spartans, they were not a different race. They were also state property, not individual property. And, it was illegal for a Spartan to physically harm a Helot.

The helots were murdered en masse for simply existing. The stronger helots were systematically murdered so to prevent an uprising leaving them weak and defenceless.So it is not true to say that it was illegal for a Spartan to harm a Helot! In fact, the Spartans would every year declare war upon the Helots so as to justify harming them!

Black slaves in the colonies in the early 17th century were not seen as subhuman, they were mostly indentured servants who often came from Europe. They sometimes owned their own real property, and, in some cases, earned complete freedom from indentured servitued. It wasn't until the 1680's that that the concept of race-based slavery became common.

The Israelites were only allowed to enslave non-Jews, a form of racist slavery.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Josephus is, of course, not a very respected individual, and while he provides an important external history (in the absence of anything better), I fail to see any evidence to support the outlandish assertion that he had "better" or "older" source material than the Bible.

Why is Josephus not respected?

[Mithras]

MacNStein, do you stand by your statement that "almost any Jewish theologian will tell you that [it's an allegory based on a much older oral tradition"? Because that's not a statement of interpretation, it's a claim about the demographics of Jewish theological though.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Mithras

MacNStein, do you stand by your statement that "almost any Jewish theologian will tell you that [it's an allegory based on a much older oral tradition"? Because that's not a statement of interpretation, it's a claim about the demographics of Jewish theological though.

If "backed against a wall", yes, I do. However, I don't believe it invalidates the core of their tradition. All religions rely on certain archetypes and myths. It's all interpretation, how we interpret the universal "constants", all cultures do this.

[Deimos]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Summary:
Crusades? Christian, but a response to Muslim oppression of Christians.

How utterly simplistic. I guess the Holocaust was just the outcome of centuries of Jews swindling non-Jewish Europeans?

The way you worded your post above, it would seem that you're excusing the Crusades.

[Deimos]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

If "backed against a wall", yes, I do. However, I don't believe it invalidates the core of their tradition. All religions rely on certain archetypes and myths. It's all interpretation, how we interpret the universal "constants", all cultures do this.

You can testify that it is purely allegorical? Or perhaps that's just one line of thinking you have adopted? It could be absolutely true, or Ezra was merely talking out of his hat in order to give hope to the Israelites in captivity, thus rendering the entire story as fictional.