[QUOTE=xilman;380005]True in every religion I've yet studied.[/QUOTE]

The biblical old testament - most of which is derived from the Judaic holy texts - is filled with "righteous slaughter of the infidels" by God's self-anointed chosen people, the Jews.

Not terribly long ago in the context of the judeochristian religious history the Christians were regularly invading the holy lands and committing "righteous slaughter of the infidels".

Now followers of these 2 religions say "we are no longer so", but since their own holy texts apparently permitted (and in the case of the shared older texts even laud) such atrocities, one must reject either the holy texts as being atrocity manuals or the "we done changed our ways" promises of their adherents as being hollow, yes?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;380026]The biblical old testament - most of which is derived from the Judaic holy texts - is filled with "righteous slaughter of the infidels" by God's self-anointed chosen people, the Jews.

Not terribly long ago in the context of the judeochristian religious history the Christians were regularly invading the holy lands and committing "righteous slaughter of the infidels".

Now followers of these 2 religions say "we are no longer so", but since their own holy texts apparently permitted (and in the case of the shared older texts even laud) such atrocities, one must reject either the holy texts as being atrocity manuals or the "we done changed our ways" promises of their adherents as being hollow, yes?[/QUOTE]

yes.

[QUOTE=xilman;379999]Go read Surah 109, Al-Kafirun.[/QUOTE]

I've not made a study of this, so my understanding may be severely flawed. I was under the impression this section was superseded by the infamous "sword verse." Could you comment on that?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;380026]The biblical old testament - most of which is derived from the Judaic holy texts - is filled with "righteous slaughter of the infidels" by God's self-anointed chosen people, the Jews.

Not terribly long ago in the context of the judeochristian religious history the Christians were regularly invading the holy lands and committing "righteous slaughter of the infidels".

Now followers of these 2 religions say "we are no longer so", but since their own holy texts apparently permitted (and in the case of the shared older texts even laud) such atrocities, one must reject either the holy texts as being atrocity manuals or the "we done changed our ways" promises of their adherents as being hollow, yes?[/QUOTE]

Army surgery manuals of the American Civil war included detailed descriptions of how to get the patient drunk and how to saw off the limb in the most efficient methods. Doctors of the time subscribed to the brutal methods described.

Now doctors claim that such brutal methods are very rare and that such atrocity manuals should be rejected because "we done changed our ways."

I only point this out because you are only making a argument (and not a particularly compelling one) against the kind of static fundamentalism inherent in small sections of the adherents of those particular religions.

It might also be understood that a living god, note I don't subscribe to such a silly notion, might treat society in the same way that parents teach children, first as they are very young "because I said so" and then later, "because it is better for you," and later "because it is better for all."

we could talk at length in another forum about the many Christians stuck in the child learning section. But others are not immune, see also objectivists and libertarians.

[QUOTE=wblipp;380082]I've not made a study of this, so my understanding may be severely flawed. I was under the impression this section was superseded by the infamous "sword verse." Could you comment on that?[/QUOTE]Can but, perhaps, should not. As I've made clear on numerous occasions, I am not a Muslim and although I have read almost all the Qu'ran (some of it many times) I am not qualified to make definitive judgements as to its meaning.

Despite the above misgivings I will comment, but only to the extent that in my opionion the two appear to be in conflict. Not that there is anything unusual about that --- they may each be appropriate in different circumstances.

Compare the two English proverbs: "Look before you leap" and "He who hesitates is lost".

[QUOTE=chappy;380084]Army surgery manuals of the American Civil war included detailed descriptions of how to get the patient drunk and how to saw off the limb in the most efficient methods. Doctors of the time subscribed to the brutal methods described.

Now doctors claim that such brutal methods are very rare and that such atrocity manuals should be rejected because "we done changed our ways."

I only point this out because you are only making a argument (and not a particularly compelling one) against the kind of static fundamentalism inherent in small sections of the adherents of those particular religions.[/QUOTE]

What an inane analogy - surgery manuals are not immutable holy texts, and are presumably generally based on the best science of the day. Which in the above case predated modern anesthesia and surgical hygiene based on the revolution known as microbial science.

Now about your recent set of edits to the Old Testament...

and my point is that most Christians don't see the Bible as an immutable set of texts. Not even the ones that claim they do actually do.

Mostly it's just the loud ones. As with many belief systems, the loud ones don't necessarily represent the majority view.

And I'd disagree with you, in fact, about the level to which Civil War doctors on both sides adhered to the texts. They were fanatic in their loyalty and it took decades to overcome the bad practices engendered in a few leather-bound pages.

[QUOTE=chappy;380098]and my point is that most Christians don't see the Bible as an immutable set of texts. Not even the ones that claim they do actually do.[/QUOTE]
Ah, OK - that I can more easily agree with.

[QUOTE]Mostly it's just the loud ones. As with many belief systems, the loud ones don't necessarily represent the majority view.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that the loud ones (conflating 'influential' and 'loud', which is not entirely precise but will serve) are the ones that start crusades and pogroms. The existence of the "silent majority" which allegedly disagrees with the extreme practices is of little comfort to the victims of same.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;379764]Relevance?

I'm having brain damage. Carthage was destroyed.......[/QUOTE]

Right! And Palestine in being destroyed too. Little by little. It is the stated and unstate" policy for large parts of the Israeli political spectrum and indeed its government. It is not too much of a reach to imagine Netanyahu or Lieberman to finish their meetings with such a statement.

George's posts have been the most sensible in this thread so far. I do not have anything to add to his proposals/comments.

PS: This Chomsky piece makes a good argument as to why the Israelis are bombing Gaza now. [url]http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/25227-focus-the-nightmare-in-gaza[/url]

[QUOTE=garo;380128]PS: This Chomsky piece makes a good argument as to why the Israelis are bombing Gaza now. [url]http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/25227-focus-the-nightmare-in-gaza[/url][/QUOTE]

I read it. Can mr. Chomsky explain how the releasing of 1.000 prisoners, many of them with blood on their hands, in batches spanning a number of months leading up to the present conflict, fits in this scheme? Or does his scheme then suddenly fall apart? The piece is ridden with other false statements too, some of them pointed out in the comments on that page.

Dennis Ross disagrees with Chomsky. He also comes up with some suggestions along the line of thinking of mr. Woltman earlier in this thread.

[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hamas-could-have-chosen-peace-instead-it-made-gaza-suffer/2014/08/08/eefd2b48-1d83-11e4-82f9-2cd6fa8da5c4_story.html?hpid=z3"]opinion written in the washington post[/URL]