A discussion begins with a story from a newspaper about a
Christian girl who “was forced into foster home where ‘nobody
spoke English’” it transpired the story was bogus, but the Apologist
used it as an opportunity to highlight failings with secular democracy. Then the Iraq War enters the conversation.
Then genocide… and when he runs out of arguments, I am branded as callous and someone who
detests Christians!
#
|
|||
1
|
An Apologist
on 8 Sep 2017 at
12:14AM
|
My particular government chose to invade Iraq, and
proffered a bogus reason for doing so--a bogus reason that even our
controlled media was forced to acknowledge because of "real" news
leaking in from elsewhere. That said, in what way was our government held
accountable "to the people" in precipitating this military conflict
for a bogus reason, and making us pay for it through thousands of lives of
our young men and trillions of our tax dollars?
|
The UK government also misled the public. I think the invasion was a mistake and
caused a lot of harm. On the other hand Saddam was an evil despot responsible
for killing millions and he attempted genocide against the Kurds. But I do think the invasion was badly
executed. There was no plan.
Not sure what any of this has to do with religion.
Although it is true that the Baathist rule under Saddam Hussein kept anti-Christian violence under control.
Also… can’t help noticing a conspiracy theory regarding
the media.
|
2
|
Let's go a step further: the interests that our
government pursued were purely in support of the interests of the oligarchs.
Those interests resulted in the slaughter of tens of millions of Iraquis, and
millions of Christian Iraquis as well. In fact, our government specifically
supported the interests of one Islamic sect over another, yet all Muslims specifically
sought the extermination of Christianity as far as their power would allow
them to do so. They were actually spectacularly successful in eradicating
Christianity in all areas under their jurisdiction, including areas in which
there had been a Christian presence dating back over 1500 years!
|
Hmmm more conspiracy theories. Oligarchs controlling
the western world!
What’s this about all Muslims specifically seeking the
extermination of Christianity? Talk
about a Sweeping Generalisation!
|
|
3
|
Did our media report such? Of even more relevance, did
some CHURCHES report and oppose such? Sadly, I can't think of a single one!
Most have already been co-opted by one secular political faction or another
to support the faction's interests over prioritizing the Christian
Scripture-inspired stance on such issues.
|
I remember reading about it. Here’s just one example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7295145.stm
|
|
4
|
8 Sep 2017 at 8:43AM by JimC
|
The government was held accountable by being voted out
and individuals were held accountable by being the subject of formal
investigations.
Your reference to "Christian Iraqis as well"
illustrates your world view. In my world view, it's lives that matter
regardless of religious belief. I find the concept of dividing up the dead
victims into Christians and non-Christians rather nauseating. Your world view
is further revealed when you say "all Muslims specifically sought the
extermination of Christianity". It's fair to criticise Muslim
authoritarian regimes in the same way as its fair to criticise Christian
authoritarian regimes or indeed any authoritarian regime. But the decent
thing for you to do would be to retract your accusation against "all
Muslims". The people controlled by authoritarian regimes are victims of
it.
|
|
5
|
An Apologist
on 11 Sep 2017
at 1:27AM
|
Can you provide evidence that they were "voted
out" specifically for their stance on this issue? What was the outcome of those investigations
and what corrective policies were implemented?
|
Yep!
|
6
|
The point is that while the concerns of other groups
were addressed and dealt with, nothing was done to protect Christians against
genocide, and thus the genocide took place. Any specific group targeted for
genocide in today's world ought to be rescued--and I for my part find your
lack of concern for their fate to be rather nauseating.
|
What makes him think I’m not concerned for their fate?
|
|
7
|
What I actually stated was "all Muslims specifically
sought the extermination of Christianity as far as their power would allow
them to do so" and I was referring to Muslim combatants of various
factions.
|
Well, if you’re referring to Muslim combatants don’t
say “all Muslims”! Say what you mean!
|
|
8
|
Whether all Muslims are actively engaged in seeking the
extermination of Christianity or not, the Qu'ran certainly seems to encourage
such.
|
True – but it’s not just Christianity who Allah is
supposed destroy – it’s all infidels.
|
|
9
|
Note Sura 9:30: "And the Jews say: Uzair is the
son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these
are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who
disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
|
So… non-believers are going to hell, according to the
Quran. It’s amazing people in this day
and age could actually believe in such an ancient superstition
|
|
10
|
And more specifically: "And slay them wherever ye
find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for
persecution is worse than slaughter... and fight them until fitnah is no
more, and religion is for Allah.”
|
Far be it from me to defend the Quran, but this isn’t
aimed specifically at Christians. It refers to anyone who is persecuting
Muslims and driving them out. “Fight
them until oppression is no more”. Sadly, many Muslims view the Western World
as their oppressors, and Christianity is the religion they associate with the
Western World.
|
|
11
|
JimC
on 11 Sep 2017
at 9:37AM
|
The government were voted out for a number of issues,
including this one. The Chilcot investigation ruled that Tony Blair hadn't
been straight with the country. He relied on emotion at the expense of facts.
Is that because he's religious? Who knows.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/iraq-inquiry-key-points-from-the-chilcot-report
|
|
12
|
When you say "Christian Genocide" are you
still referring to the Iraq war or something else? In my opinion genocide is
morally wrong under any circumstances but that's a different topic isn't it?
|
||
13
|
Thank you for retracting your accusation against
"all muslims". I agree with you - the Quran does advocate the
extermination of non-muslims. But as with all scripture, it is only
fundamentalists who interpret Scripture literally. Unfortunately there are a
lot of Islamic fundamentalists and Islamic authoritarian regimes in the world
today. My point is - don't judge people of faith according to what is written
in their scripture. If you must judge them, judge them by what they do. If
they've been indoctrinated, blame the indoctrinators.
|
||
14
|
As an aside, it seems to me the fundamentalist approach
in all Abrahamic religions is more honest because it's based on what the
Scripture actually says.
|
||
15
|
An Apologist
on 15 Sep 2017
at 12:09AM
|
Interesting report--thanks for that--but obviously this
investigation was not concluded or the report issued until long after Blair
left office so it's hard to demonstrate its influence at the time, especially
since Labour won again in the 2007 elections, albeit with a reduced majority,
after which Blair resigned. Labour
remained in power under Gordon Brown until the 2010 election--three years
after Blair quit--and even then neither Labour nor the Tories garnered a
majority of the votes, so it's hard to see who was held accountable for what
stance on what issue.
|
It’s easy to see who was held accountable – it’s in the
report. It is true however that it took too long to produce the report.
|
16
|
When I say genocide, I'm basically referring to the
Iraq war and its aftermath, again with no one stepping up to protect the
Christian population from the genocide they have been suffering and continue
to suffer there. Here is a report on the depth of the problem for the entire
region and elsewhere--and the lack of response on the part of any government
anywhere to the tragedy:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/329376-middle-east-christians-suffer-genocide-while-the-world
|
This
is more to do with recent events rather than the Iraq War but of course one
can argue one led to the other. However, the focus from the apologist is just
on Christians for some reason. ISIS have also targeted non-Christians and
their monuments and temples. They
famously destroyed ancient buildings in Palmyra
including temples dedicated to Baal. They ran riot through museums smashing
ancient Christian and Muslim – yes Muslim - shrines.
So I think it’s fair to say
international community is not doing enough to resist the evil that is ISIS,
but it’s not just Christians that are affected.
|
|
17
|
I never accused all Muslims everywhere of being guilty
of genocide
|
Yes you did!
|
|
18
|
--only the current Muslim combatants in the conflict,
with the exception of the Kurds.
|
No you didn’t! You just made that up!
|
|
19
|
Can you make a case for Muslims ignoring this
particular scripture of theirs [that targets infidels] and what that
scripture clearly advocates?
|
Of course I can’t. But the fact is people interpret
Scripture to suit their values. Religious apologists who advocate peace
interpret their Scripture one way, Religious apologists who advocate violence
interpret it a different way. Such is the nature of religion. I say the only
honest approach is to adopt what the Scripture says, not what you want it to
mean.
|
|
20
|
It's true that Islamic scriptures provide a conditional
cooperative basis for getting along with certain non-Muslims in certain
specific circumstances, but their scriptures also seem to sanction deception
in appearing to do one thing while pursuing a different agenda:
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx
|
Exactly!!!!!
|
|
21
|
In the case of Christianity, doing what Scripture
actually says--in context--is indeed important for all who follow Jesus
through Scripture, whether you would self-define some as being
"fundamentalist" or not.
|
That’s exactly the same argument that Islamic
apologists use. But of course – Christians, Muslims and Jews do not do what
Scripture actually says. They interpret it to suit their points of view.
Good Christians, Muslims and Jews interpret Scripture
one way. Bad Christians, Muslims and Jews interpret it a different way.
|
|
22
|
15 Sep 2017 at 9:26AM
|
You are right that such investigations take a very long
time and I personally think this one took too long - but I think they need to
take a long time because there is so much evidence to be collated and
analysed, and the recommendations have to be was water tight as possible.
|
|
23
|
To answer your
question - I certainly cannot make a case for Muslims ignoring what their
scripture advocates, and the same applies to Christians and Jews. (Also bear
in mind that the Gospels form part of Islamic Scripture).
The fact is that people of faith interpret their
particular Scripture according to their own values. A liberal believer will
provide a liberal interpretation. An intolerant believer will provide an
intolerant interpretation. In my opinion, fundamentalists are honest to their
Scripture. My point is - don't judge people of faith according to what is
written in their scripture. If you must judge them, judge them by what they
do. If they've been indoctrinated, blame the indoctrinators.
|
||
24
|
I still don't understand your Iraq war reference. Why
should the Christian population be given special protection? All people should
be protected from suffering - not just Christians.
|
||
25
|
An Apologist 2017-09-18
17:14:09
|
My point was that Christians were specifically targeted
for genocide and received no protection at all from anyone--including nations
that claim to condemn genocide in other circumstances. Such nations stepped
in to prevent genocide against targeted groups in Bosnia and Darfur--all well
and good--but not Christians in Iraq or elsewhere in the area.
|
There are also non-Christians being targeted for
genocide with no protection at all. All genocides are wrong.
|
26
|
Our government actually supported Shiite Islamic
militias which went on to target Christians along with other Islamic
militias.
|
This is confusing. ISIL are Sunni and they
have committed atrocities against Shiites, Kurds,
Christians and Yazidis. As an aside,
Sunni civilians have suffered appallingly thanks to ISIL The vast majority of
the 4.2 million Iraqis who have been displaced from their homes by ISIL’s
violent activities are Sunnis. Sunni towns and villages are being
demolished on an industrial scale.
|
|
27
|
Again the issue:*
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/329376-middle-east-christians-suffer-genocide-while-the-world
|
Why portray this as a Christian issue?
|
|
28
|
So again--since the Qu'ran specifically sanctions the
slaughter/forced conversion under threat of slaughter of those who follow
other religions, I don't see how your claim that only “fundamentalists” would
do so is relevant.
|
It’s relevant because it’s true. Moderate Muslims (and
moderate Christians) ignore the violent passages in their Scripture, or
interpret them in a moderate way.
|
|
29
|
Yet it's difficult to place faith in any claim
expressed by those who proffer a “liberal” Islamic perspective because the
Qu'ran also sanctions and justifies deception with such claims.
|
Same applies to Christians, or any religion.
|
|
30
|
Everyone who places their faith in Jesus and lives by
His teaching and example out of love for God and others through God's grace
and the guidance of His Holy Spirit is being Honest to Christian Scripture no
matter what artificial label you would proffer in categorizing such.
|
What percentage of Christians does that apply to I
wonder?
|
|
31
|
JimC 2017-09-19
01:40:57
|
All kinds of groups are targeted for genocide - why
should Christians be singled out? Surely genocide is wrong regardless of who
the victims are?
|
|
32
|
Your point regarding the Quran is covered in the
separate discussion of fundamentalism, but to repeat: It's a fact that the
Quran literally says infidels should be killed. Fundamentalists are
fundamentalists because they believe God literally gave such commands.
Similarly, there are Christian, Jewish and Islamic fundamentalists who
believe God literally commanded homosexuals to be put to death. The fact is that people of faith interpret
their particular Scripture according to their own values. A liberal believer
will provide a liberal interpretation and will ignore what the Scripture
actually says, just like you do. An intolerant believer will provide an
intolerant interpretation.
|
||
33
|
My point is - don't judge people of faith according to
what is written in their scripture. If you must judge them, judge them by
what they do. If they've been indoctrinated, blame the indoctrinators. Many Muslims
are victims of Islamic fundamentalism in the same way that European
Christians were victims of Christian fundamentalism until a few hundred years
ago when democracy tamed religion.
|
||
34
|
An Apologist 2017-09-24
16:16:01
|
If you really believed that “All kinds of groups are
targeted for genocide”, Jim, you would recognize Christian genocide in that
part of the world for what it is: a specific vulnerable group targeted for
extermination by a more powerful group.
|
That’s true of every genocide
|
35
|
I find your lack of compassion for such--specifically
because they happen to be Christian--to be absolutely reprehensible
|
Lack of compassion? What is he talking about?! I have
compassion for all victims of genocide.
|
|
36
|
What do you mean by “such commands”
|
I mean commands in Scripture. Bible, Talmud, Quran,
whatever.
|
|
37
|
“Such commands” in this instance reference only those
of Islam
|
Why pick only on Islam? We both agree the Quran is
bonkers but there’s no point pretending the Bible is without its violent commands
too.
|
|
38
|
“Fundamentalism” per se remains a loaded word in your
arsenal--intended to invoke an irrational, antithetical response--and
furthermore has nothing to do whatever might be considered “fundamentalist”
in other religions' perspectives
|
Hmmm… doesn’t seem to understand what fundamentalism
means.
|
|
39
|
Note the difference in the Christian perspective
concerning Old Testament sanctions. Jesus was confronted with a matter whose
Old Testament sanctions specifically required capital punishment in the case of the adulterous
woman. Jesus's response was to require whomever was without sin to cast the
first stone. When none could honestly do so and all left the scene, Jesus
refused to enact that death penalty and only instructed the woman to avoid that
sin thenceforth. In doing so, Jesus set the Christian standard in how to
respond to all such OT sanctions.
|
We’ve discussed this before. This is a technical issue
in Jewish law regarding who can throw stones. There is absolutely nothing in
that passage which overturned any existing Jewish law.
|
|
40
|
You proffer the loaded word “fundamentalist” to create
a visceral emotional response that bypasses rationality, then falsely imply
that what is “fundamental” in one faith perspective is “fundamental” in
another faith perspective with an entirely different HMFR, and hope that you
have gotten away with pulling the wool over our eyes on the matter. Not going
to happen, apart from those already invested in supporting your perspective
on the matter.
|
Really doesn’t understand what fundamentalism means.
|
|
41
|
You say “a liberal believer will provide a liberal
interpretation and will ignore what the Scripture actually says” but I don't,
Jim, much as you'd like us to believe otherwise in spite of your lack of
rational support for your false claim. Your rabbit trails and false
allegations are only magnified as you continue to misdirect from the subject
at hand--so what's new?
|
Yeah you do.
|
|
42
|
JimC 2017-09-24
23:49:25
|
I recognise and abhor all genocides, obviously that
includes the killing of Christians. In my opinion, genocide is very wrong
regardless of who the victims are. Note how that contrasts with your position
on genocide in previous discussions.
Regarding vulnerability, Christians are bound to be vulnerable because
of their belief in what Jesus preached, such as not to resist an evil person.
But they should still be protected by others who don't believe that to be
good advice. A Buddhist friend of mine
explained the concept - he said it is better to be wiped out in a genocide
than to kill in self defence. The concept rests on faith in an afterlife of
course, especially an afterlife which is based on how one behaved in this
life.
Your arguments against fundamentalism make sense and I
note that you interpret your particular Scripture according to your own,
mainly liberal values, rather than following what it actually says. As I said
elsewhere, it is fundamentalism that is turning many people away from
religion. Maybe that's an example of natural selection?
|
|
43
|
An Apologist 2017-09-27
15:24:32
|
You say you recognise and abhor all genocides but you
don't Jim.
|
Yes I do!
|
44
|
As posited above, your callous attitude toward
documented genocide specifically targeting Christians in the Mideast and
elsewhere is beyond reprehensible
|
Callous attitude?
|
|
45
|
Your comment on Christian vulnerability is an out of
context claim on your part that has been previously exposed, but if your
claim had actual merit you would be justifying the slaughter of pacifists
everywhere!
|
I’m not justifying the slaughter of ANY pacifists! I
said the opposite! I specifically said
that anyone who lives by the instruction to not resist evil people should
still be protected by others who don't believe that to be good advice.
|
|
46
|
There are many militant Buddhist sects which have
existed and exist now which would disagree with your friend--but in any case
that's not the issue.
|
True. Same in Christianity. Plenty of Christians
disagree with pacifism.
|
|
47
|
Again you seem to be asserting that it's OK to commit
genocide against pacifists of any perspective. Care to justify such in detail?
|
Where on earth did he get the idea that I said it was
OK to commit genocide against pacifists? I said pacifism makes them
vulnerable. I didn’t say it was OK. Am I being trolled?.
|
|
48
|
JimC 2017-09-27
17:20:54
|
Callous attitude?; What on earth gave you that
idea?;! I don't know how you think the
concept of vulnerability is out of context when it was you that introduced
it. There's no way I can justify the slaughter of pacifists and I actually
said the exact opposite - Pacifists should be protected by those who are not
pacifists.
|
|
49
|
An Apologist 2017-09-27
18:33:46
|
Again--what is the basis of your callous attitude
regarding Christian genocide in the Middles East?;
|
Where is he getting this from?
|
50
|
JimC 2017-09-28
00:11:01
|
What gives you the idea that I have that callous
attitude?; I clearly stated that Christians should be protected by those of
us who don't believe that it's wrong to resist an evil person.
|
|
51
|
An Apologist 2017-10-01
16:37:43
|
Ignoring your false claim about resisting an evil
person, let's review the actual exchange on the matter:
|
|
52
|
You said: “Your
reference to “Christian Iraqis as well” illustrates your world view. In my
world view, it's lives that matter regardless of religious belief. I find the
concept of dividing up the dead victims into Christians and non-Christians
rather nauseating”
|
I did say that. I’m guessing that touched a nerve.
|
|
53
|
Yet the point is that while the concerns of other groups
were addressed and dealt with, nothing was done to protect Christians against
genocide, and thus the genocide took place. Any specific group targeted for
genocide in today's world ought to be rescued--and I for my part find your
lack of concern for their fate to be rather nauseating
|
Some other groups maybe, but not all. Does he think
it’s only Christians who are not being protected? And what makes him think
I’m not concerned for their fate?
|
|
54
|
You said: “When
you say ‘Christian Genocide’ are you still referring to the Iraq war or
something else?; In my opinion genocide is morally wrong under any
circumstances but that's a different topic isn't it?”
|
I did!
|
|
55
|
I'm basically referring to the Iraq war and its
aftermath, again with no one stepping up to protect the Christian population
from the genocide they have been suffering and continue to suffer there. Here
is a report on the depth of the problem for the entire region and
elsewhere--and the lack of response on the part of any government anywhere to
the tragedy:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/329376-middle-east-christians-suffer-genocide-while-the-world
|
That may be true – but it’s not just Christians. It does beg the question – why are
Christians not protecting other Christians.
|
|
56
|
You said: “I
still don't understand your Iraq war reference. Why should the Christian
population be given special protection?; All people should be protected from
suffering - not just Christians.”
|
Indeed I did.
|
|
57
|
My point was that Christians were specifically targeted
for genocide and received no protection at all from anyone--including nations
that claim to condemn genocide in other circumstances. Such nations stepped
in to prevent genocide against targeted groups in Bosnia and Darfur--all well
and good--but not Christians in Iraq or elsewhere in the area. Our government
actually supported Shiite Islamic militias which went on to target Christians
along with other Islamic militias. Again the issue:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/329376-middle-east-christians-suffer-genocide-while-the-world
|
But again – this is ignoring all the non-Christian
genocides where no one stepped in. I’m wondering now if this is a conspiracy
theory that the nations of the world deliberately don’t intervene when
Christians are being killed?
|
|
58
|
You said: “All kinds of groups are targeted for
genocide - why should Christians be singled out?; Surely genocide is wrong
regardless of who the victims are?
|
Yep – that was me who said that
|
|
59
|
If you really believed that, Jim, you would recognize
Christian genocide in that part of the world for what it is: a specific
vulnerable group targeted for extermination by a more powerful group. I find
your lack of compassion for such--specifically because they happen to be
Christian--to be absolutely reprehensible!
|
What makes him think I don’t recognise that? What makes
him think I lack compassion?
|
|
60
|
So again you're engaging in doublespeak: claiming to be
against genocide--even against Christian genocide--at one moment and and
denying that the documented genocide specifically targeting Christians
warrants any “special protection” on the other!
|
Victims of genocide warrant protection. But why should
Christians warrant special protection?
|
|
61
|
JimC 2017-10-02
00:27:23
|
Why do Christians “warrant special protection”? Surely all victims of genocide should be
protected, regardless of religious belief?; Surely all people should be
protected from suffering - not just Christians?
|
|
62
|
|||
63
|
An Apologist 2017-10-03
17:32:16
|
The question isn't whether other groups are also worthy
of protection against genocide--the question is why you are so loathe to
protect a documented, specifically targeted group from genocide just because
they are
|
Where on earth did he get that idea that I’m loathe to
protect Christians?
|
64
|
Christian!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Christians_by_ISIL
|
Oohhh…. A new link!
|
|
65
|
JimC 2017-10-03
23:58:01
|
What makes you think I am loathe to protect a Christian
group from genocide? I actually said the exact opposite: Christians should be
protected by those of us who believe that evil should be resisted. I believe
all genocide and ethnic cleansing is wrong.
|
|
66
|
An Apologist 2017-10-05
16:23:13
|
You make another claim to stand for something that you
don't! I specifically documented
Christian genocide in the Mideast, and your response was as quoted above:
|
I stand by what I claimed. What is he talking about?
|
67
|
And again I provided this link in doing so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Christians_by_ISIL
|
That link did appear very recently – but so what?
|
|
68
|
You said: “Surely
all victims of genocide should be protected, regardless of religious belief?;
Surely all people should be protected from suffering - not just Christians?”
|
Yes I did.
|
|
69
|
I never said that other groups don't deserve protection
form genocide--there was nothing exclusive about my claim other than
regarding the subject at hand:
|
I don’t remember him mentioning any other groups. His
claim seemed to be 100% exclusive!
|
|
70
|
Christians were a specifically targeted group for
genocide in that particular area of the world and needed and deserved
protection from such, which they were not receiving from anyone.
|
Protection yes. But why do Christians need special protection?
|
|
You never once specifically responded by saying “yes,
those Christians deserve protection from genocide,”
|
I said all victims of genocide should be
protected!
|
||
71
|
and from the comments below from the rest of those who
regularly post here from your perspective, they are equally callous on the
matter
|
Oh it’s not just me then LOL
|
|
72
|
JimC 2017-10-05
16:32:06
|
So again I ask - Why do Christians “warrant special
protection” to use your words? Surely all religious groups deserve to be
protected from genocide?; Why should any single group be special?
Genocide is wrong, period. It can never be justified.
Ditto ethnic cleansing. Agreed?
|
|
73
|
An Apologist 2017-10-05
16:34:45
|
I never claimed otherwise, Jim. YOU are the one whose
prejudice and doublespeak regarding the matter has been exposed
|
So… he does agree. I assume.
|
74
|
JimC 2017-10-05
16:38:08
|
No prejudice - no double speak. To repeat: all
religious groups deserve to be equally protected against genocide. Genocide
or ethnic cleansing of any religious group should be condemned regardless of
the religion. How could that be any clearer?
|
|
75
|
An Apologist 2017-10-05
17:22:53
|
It would be clearer if you would actually choose to
respond to my expose of your hypocrisy on the matter as demonstrated
above--thanks!
|
I don’t see how I can respond any differently!
|
76
|
An Apologist 2017-10-05
18:37:10
|
Once again to keep the discussion on topic
|
LOL
|
77
|
You said “Why do
Christians warrant special protection”
|
I did
|
|
78
|
I provided this link regarding such:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Christians_by_ISIL
|
Actually that’s not the link he provided originally,
but never mind. There’s no doubt that Christians in that part of the world
need protection, but so do all the victims from other religions. Why do the Christians need “special
protection”?
|
|
79
|
You said; “Surely
all victims of genocide should be protected, regardless of religious belief?;
Surely all people should be protected from suffering - not just Christians?”
|
Yep!
|
|
80
|
I never said that other groups don't deserve protection
form genocide--there was nothing exclusive about my claim other than
regarding the subject at hand: that Christians were a specifically targeted
group for genocide in that particular area of the world and needed and deserved
protection from such, which they were not receiving from anyone.
|
I’ve yet to see a single mention of any other group. He
only ever refers to Christians.
Yes they deserve protection, but why “special
protection”?
|
|
You never once specifically responded by saying “yes,
those Christians deserve protection from genocide” and from the comments
below from the rest of those who regularly post here from your perspective,
they are equally callous on the matter.
|
I said all groups deserve protection from genocide.
That obviously includes the Christians he’s referring to! He didn’t respond
to the information about Muslims being killed in the article he posted. Does
that mean his callous?
|
||
81
|
JimC 2017-10-05
23:24:30
|
I don't know how I can make it any clearer. *All* victims of genocide should be
protected, regardless of religious belief. Same applies to ethnic
cleansing. I'd take it even further -
even harming a single person because of their religious belief is wrong.
Christians don't “warrant special protection”. They warrant the same
protection as any other religious or ethnic group.
|
|
82
|
To use your words, it's not just “those Christians” who
deserve protection from genocide - it's all
Christians, all Muslims, all Jews, all Amalekites, all
Midianites and all of any ethnic or
religious group you care to mention. No exceptions. Genocide is always
wrong, period. Ethnic cleansing is always wrong, period. On this I'm sure we
both agree.
|
||
83
|
An Apologist 2017-10-08
16:33:56
|
In what way would you have us believe that “All victims
of genocide should be protected, regardless of religious belief” is your
actual position when you continue to ignore applying it to a documented, real
life situation?
|
My statement is universal and unambiguous – it applies
to every, documented real life situation of genocide!
|
84
|
Note the difference
between what you CLAIM to support and your refusal to actually do so!
|
There is no difference!
|
|
85
|
I referenced documented genocide in the Middle
East--specifically targeting Christians in this specific instance--and you
never actually stated that that targeted, documented group deserved
intervention to prevent their slaughter!
|
Of course they deserve intervention – every victim of
genocide deserves intervention! Look at line 42! In any case – He didn’t suggest
intervention either until now!
|
|
86
|
Again a reference to the posit of Oct 1 in which you
continued to dance around the issue:
|
Presumably a reference to lines 51-59 where it’s clear
I was not dancing around the issue at all – I couldn’t be more explicit. Anyway… here we go again…
|
|
87
|
You said: “Your
reference to “Christian Iraqis as well” illustrates your world view. In my
world view, it's lives that matter regardless of religious belief. I find the
concept of dividing up the dead victims into Christians and non-Christians
rather nauseating”
|
I did say that. I’m guessing that touched a nerve.
|
|
88
|
Yet the point is that while the concerns of other
groups were addressed and dealt with, nothing was done to protect Christians
against genocide, and thus the genocide took place. Any specific group
targeted for genocide in today's world ought to be rescued--and I for my part
find your lack of concern for their fate to be rather nauseating
|
Some other groups maybe, but not all. Does he think
it’s only Christians who are not being protected? And what makes him think
I’m not concerned for their fate?
|
|
89
|
You said: “When
you say ‘Christian Genocide’ are you still referring to the Iraq war or
something else?; In my opinion genocide is morally wrong under any
circumstances but that's a different topic isn't it?”
|
I did!
|
|
90
|
I'm basically referring to the Iraq war and its
aftermath, again with no one stepping up to protect the Christian population
from the genocide they have been suffering and continue to suffer there. Here
is a report on the depth of the problem for the entire region and
elsewhere--and the lack of response on the part of any government anywhere to
the tragedy: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/329376-middle-east-christians-suffer-genocide-while-the-world
|
That may be true – but it’s not just Christians. It does beg the question – why are
Christians not protecting other Christians.
|
|
91
|
You said: “I
still don't understand your Iraq war reference. Why should the Christian
population be given special protection?; All people should be protected from
suffering - not just Christians.”
|
Indeed I did.
|
|
92
|
My point was that Christians were specifically targeted
for genocide and received no protection at all from anyone--including nations
that claim to condemn genocide in other circumstances. Such nations stepped
in to prevent genocide against targeted groups in Bosnia and Darfur--all well
and good--but not Christians in Iraq or elsewhere in the area. Our government
actually supported Shiite Islamic militias which went on to target Christians
along with other Islamic militias. Again the issue:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/329376-middle-east-christians-suffer-genocide-while-the-world
|
But again – this is ignoring all the non-Christian
genocides where no one stepped in. I’m wondering now if this is a conspiracy
theory that the nations of the world deliberately don’t intervene when
Christians are being killed?
|
|
93
|
You said: “All kinds of groups are targeted for
genocide - why should Christians be singled out?; Surely genocide is wrong
regardless of who the victims are?
|
Yep – that was me who said that
|
|
94
|
So again--would you actually support international
intervention to protect this particular group targeted for genocide, or not?
|
Of course! But not just for Christians! Millions of Muslims and other religions are
also being killed by ISIL. The only
way to slow down the progress of ISIL would be a massive and overwhelming
,military intervention.
|
|
95
|
But not when you refer to “all Amalekites, all
Midianites”
|
Oh really!
|
|
96
|
Not applicable when the other side seeks to commit
genocide against your group in return--with one result or the other being the
only expected outcomes--as was the case
in ancient times recorded in Scripture, so your previously documented
fallacies on the matter still apply
|
This makes no sense at all. He wants “intervention”
when genocide is aimed at Christians, but he doesn’t want intervention in
this situation. If militants from an ethnic group want to wipe you out, it’s
OK for you to wipe them out, kill their women and children. LOL
|
|
97
|
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/225/Contextomy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian?_fallacy
|
LOL
|
|
98
|
You say you’re sure we both agree that genocide and
ethnic cleansing are always wrong, but I'm not at all sure Jim--
|
Indeed – he seems to have exceptions to the rule when
genocide is committed in the Bible!
|
|
99
|
you certainly are being evasive in committing to do so
when it comes to addressing and responding to the genocidal targeting and
slaughter of Christians in the Middle East, even after having been provided
specific documentation from more than one source on more than one occasion,
describing that tragedy and travesty!
|
Not evasive at all! The documentation also described
the killing of Muslims and other groups. I condemn it all. He does not.
|
|
100
|
JimC 2017-10-08
23:58:37
|
Your list illustrates my consistency: genocide (and
ethnic cleansing) is always, without exception, morally wrong. As for your
point regarding international intervention, surely such intervention is the
only way to protect the victims of genocide. What other option is there?;
That applies to any religious or ethnic group you care to mention, be they
Christian, Sunni, Shia, Rohingya, Albigensian, pagans, aboriginal peoples,
Yazidi... feel free to add to the list. Whatever example you give (although
your examples are always Christian) I will always say yes - there should be
international intervention to protect those victims of genocide and ethnic
cleansing.
|
|
101
|
One statement of mine you didn’t refer to was regarding
the principle of “do not resist an evil person” which Jesus allegedly taught.
You may remember I said that the Christians who adopt that teaching should be
protected by those of us who don’t agree with it.
|
||
So to summarise: Genocide is always wrong, period.
Ethnic cleansing is always wrong, period. No exceptions from my point of
view. And I take it further than that - even the killing of a single person
because of their ethnic origin or religious belief is wrong.
|
|||
102
|
I note that you attempt to justify two examples of
genocide and ethnic cleansing on my list which happen to be atrocities
sponsored by God as described in Bible stories. Apologists such as yourself
are bound to defend such atrocities because of the axioms that (a) God can
never do anything morally wrong and (b) the stories about God in the Bible
are true.
|
||
103
|
An Apologist
16-oct-2017
12:17 AM
|
Agreed that genocide (and ethnic cleansing)
is always, without exception, morally wrong.
if that is what is actually taking place, and agreed if there is some sort of outside agency that could/would prevent matters from playing out that way. In addressing pitched battles in ancient times in which only one side is the victor and eliminates all traces of the other, you reference neither. |
one side is victor and eliminates all traces of the
other. What’s that if it’s not
genocide? LOL
|
104
|
HAHAHA
|
||
105
|
If your statement on international
intervention is truly your position, Jim, would you care to state then, in
specific terms that leave no doubt, that you support international
intervention to protect Christians from documented targeting for genocide in
the Middle East?
|
I said on line 100 that “surely such intervention is
the only way to protect the victims of genocide . What other option is
there?”
|
|
106
|
I'm still trying to get an honest answer from you in reference to a specific documented case of genocide targeting Christians, Jim! |
And what you’re getting
- and will continue to get - is an honest answer which condemns all
cases of genocide, and obviously includes Christians!
|
|
107
|
You say: “Genocide is always
wrong, period. Ethnic cleansing is always wrong, period. No exceptions from
my point of view. And I take it further than that - even the killing of a
single person because of their ethnic origin or religious belief is wrong.”
|
I do!
|
|
108
|
Doesn't address the matter
above--please respond specifically--thanks!
|
Yes it does address it!
Couldn’t be more specific!
|
|
109
|
When
you refer to genocide in the Bible, you are wrong about the matter in the first place, as explained above.
|
No I’m not!
|
|
110
|
|
I don't understand your "pitched
battles" comment. How is a pitched battle in any way equivalent to
genocide or ethnic cleansing?
|
|
111
|
With regard to protecting Christians
from genocide, my position is totally clear and unambiguous: I condemn any
and every example of genocide you can possibly mention. Genocide and ethnic
cleansing are always wrong and that applies to any religious or ethnic group
you care to mention, be they Christian, Sunni, Shia, Rohingya, Albigensian,
pagans, aboriginal peoples, Yazidi... feel free to add to the list. Whatever
example you give (although your examples are always Christian) I will always
say yes - there should be international intervention to protect those victims
of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Surely international intervention is the
only way to protect the victims of genocide. Can you think of another option?
|
||
112
|
So to summarise: Genocide is always
wrong, period. Ethnic cleansing is always wrong, period. No exceptions from
my point of view. And I take it further than that - even the killing of a
single person because of their ethnic origin or religious belief is wrong. I
know you don't agree with me, for example, I understand why your religious
position means you are bound to defend certain accounts of genocide. It's a
pity some Christian apologists have painted themselves into that corner. But
that's what happens when one takes a position that (a) God can never do
anything morally wrong and (b) the stories about God in the Bible are true.
|
||
113
|
|||
114
|
An Apologist 17 Oct 2017 at 12:06AM
|
You ask “How is a pitched battle in any way equivalent
to genocide or ethnic cleansing?” - It isn't--therefore your claim that
pitched battles in ancient times were "ethnic cleansing" in the
current understanding of the term has been proven to be false!
|
Eh? I didn’t make a claim about pitched battles! I assume he’s suggesting the stories in
the bible where “one side is victor and eliminates all traces of the other.”
Is not genocide !!!!
|
115
|
Well, it was like pulling teeth, but in sifting through
your above posit if you are now actually supporting international
intervention to prevent genocide--even though the victims, being Christian in
this instance, are those you detest--then I give you credit for finally
committing to doing so
|
Pulling teeth?! I supported that statement when he first
made it on line 42! And I’ve consistently said victims should be
protected. And then he says I detest
Christians. Troll !!!
|
|
116
|
You say genocide is always wrong, period. Ethnic
cleansing is always wrong, period. No exceptions from your point of view
|
I do!
|
|
117
|
I say: Same here1
|
Hooray!
|
|
118
|
You say - even the killing of a single person because
of their ethnic origin or religious belief is wrong.
|
I do!
|
|
119
|
That’s absolutely true unless the other would happily slaughter
other innocent people at their first opportunity. In that case, I support
their incarceration to prevent them from becoming a public danger to others.
It's wonderful in this day and age that we have institutions which have the
understanding, technology and resources to do so!
|
Incarceration is reasonable. Killing women and children
who are part of the same ethnic or religious group as the extremists is
not!! Perhaps this is an implicit
reference back to the genocides in the Bible. The implication is that God
didn’t have the understanding, technology or resources to deal with the
situation. Could be.
|
|
120
|
I don’t support genocide, remember?
|
I remember you trying to justify genocide and ethnic
cleansing. Several times!
|
|
121
|
The pity is that those with a bitter and biased agenda
to misrepresent Scripture in the worst possible light currently dominate this
discussion board, but I'm thankful that all with an honest agenda to hold us
all accountable are also present here. I do hope they share their perspective
more
|
When I refer to Scripture I merely quote what it says.
How is that a misrepresentation?
|
|
122
|
JimC 17 Oct 2017 at 8:12AM
|
Here is a list
of God’s killings according to the bible... http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/rgfsmcl-030.html
- please give me an example of an instance of genocide or ethnic cleansing
which you think should be categorised instead as a pitched battle. Also note
the definitions of “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” at the bottom of the
page.
|
|
123
|
I don’t know
what you mean by “pulling teeth”. I thought I’d made my position on
international intervention very clear on the 8th October when I said this: “As
for your point regarding international intervention, surely such intervention
is the only way to protect the victims of genocide. What other option is
there? That applies to any religious or ethnic group you care to mention, be
they Christian, Sunni, Shia, Rohinga, Albigensian, pagans, aboriginal
peoples, Yazidi... feel free to add to the list. Whatever example you give (although
your examples are always Christian) I will always say yes - there should be
international intervention to protect those victims of genocide and ethnic
cleansing”
|
||
124
|
It is a fact
that you have defended genocide on this db in the past, for examples that are
given in the Bible. It’s not your fault - you are just repeating a particular
type of Christian apologetics. You end up defending those examples because of
two axioms: (a) God can never do anything morally wrong and (b) the stories
about God in the Bible are true. There is a way out for you - You can
maintain (a) by rejecting (b). All you have to do is accept that God wasn’t
responsible for the atrocities, as described in those OT stories. He’s been
misrepresented. In other words, it’s possible that the various religious
populations in those stories were decimated by various Jewish armies, but God
has nothing to do with it.
|
||
125
|
|||
126
|
|||
127
|
|||
