High School, College and University Cringe MegaThread

[Zachowon]

I see you pivoted away from the whole rights thing. Hope you realize you can’t show rights exist under Christianity.

Also you do know not every war even in the Bronze Age was a genocidal fight to the death their were vassals and nations turned into puppets also people were taken as slaves.

Since you are killing children and women, and those not fighting?

Depends actually.
If the children are fighting then what?
Same with the women?

Or has damn near every civilization in history until modern times been mass murderers due to war....

 

[SoliFortissimi]

you are yet again ignoring the 'drive out' part of 'destroy or drive out

No, I'm including it.

Second, living in the bronze age, how would you have solved the problem?

What problem?

And besides, when did you go from trying to tell us how Christianity sanctions human rights to telling us that genocide is alright if you target "bad" nations?

BTW, Muhammad still managed to be more humane than that. He just converted the Arabs to his religion and banned human sacrifice. And when you're losing to frikking Muhammad in morality......

 

[King Arts]

Depends actually.
If the children are fighting then what?
Same with the women?

Or has damn near every civilization in history until modern times been mass murderers due to war....

Define child because an infant isn’t fighting anything. I’m not talking about over 18 that’s not how adulthood works in the ancient world.

As for women they rarely fought in wars at this time period in the cultures of the Middle East.

As for your last argument yes according to your own standards they have been mass murderers. And you and the Americans were ok with judging the Nazis as murderers for what they did even if there was no law against it until after they lost.

 

[Zachowon]

Define child because an infant isn’t fighting anything. I’m not talking about over 18 that’s not how adulthood works in the ancient world.

Fighting age male. So could be 14 to 50

As for women they rarely fought in wars at this time period in the cultures of the Middle East.

And do we have evidence they were massacred?

As for your last argument yes according to your own standards they have been mass murderers. And you and the Americans were ok with judging the Nazis as murderers for what they did even if there was no law against it until after they lost.

I mean...there were laws against it before then. Plenty of laws of war that invovled treatment if civilians and POWs were written since the 1800ss.

 

[King Arts]

Fighting age male. So could be 14 to 50

14 year old are not children here you could treat them like adults. I’m not talking about 14 year olds I’m talking about 4 year olds.

And do we have evidence they were massacred?

It says kill everything that lives except for the young girls that have not known the touch of a man. Those you can keep for yourself. What do you think it mean when it’s said you can keep young women for yourself?

People got married young back then. Do you know how old a Jew was when they were considered an adult? And they can do their bar/bat mitsva? The age is 12 for women and 13 for men. Now consider that the pagan tribes were called degenerates and licentious and frequently engaged in fornication. Might be earlier than that.

I mean...there were laws against it before then. Plenty of laws of war that invovled treatment if civilians and POWs were written since the 1800ss.

The Germans treated western POWs in the west decently for the most part. It’s only in the east where the Soviets refused to sign the Geneva convention where the Germans did not give them protection, and if the other side does not uphold the laws of war you don’t have to give it to them.

No I was talking about the genocide the Germans did. Sure killing civilians of other nations is not allowed. But there was no law at the time that banned crimes against humanity against your own people.

 

[LordsFire]

No, I'm including it.


What problem?

And besides, when did you go from trying to tell us how Christianity sanctions human rights to telling us that genocide is alright if you target "bad" nations?

BTW, Muhammad still managed to be more humane than that. He just converted the Arabs to his religion and banned human sacrifice. And when you're losing to frikking Muhammad in morality......

Pushing people out of an area isn't genocide. It's called displacement.

These nations were not subjected to genocide. You can make an argument about the one specific one Saul was ordered to completely wipe out, not simply force out, but that's not the claim you made.

If we want to pursue this discussion further, we should go to or start another thread.

 

[Vyor]

I see you pivoted away from the whole rights thing. Hope you realize you can’t show rights exist under Christianity.

In order to accuse someone of rape, you need two witnesses. You are not to murder or steal from another person.

Proverbs 29:7-
A righteous man knows the rights of the poor; a wicked man does not understand such knowledge
Deuteronomy 16:19-
You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous

Then there's the story of Naboth's vineyard in 2 Kings 21, where a king and queen faced condemnation for setting up a man to be stoned for a crime he didn't commit so they could acquire his vineyard.

Then there's Cyrus the Great, who freed slaves on god's behalf, so we know God and the bible condemn slavery (and, indeed, israel never practiced such things).

The old testament also has one of the few examples of female property rights of the time, though they were more limited than now. Women could inherit land and property from their husband if he had no sons, even if he had living brothers (which was not the norm for other cultures, it almost always went to the closest living male relative, even in Egypt).

Paul noted that slaves were banned in the new testament in 1 Timothy 1:10...


Obviously, I can keep going and give more examples, but I think this proves you rather wrong, no?

 

[Zachowon]

14 year old are not children here you could treat them like adults. I’m not talking about 14 year olds I’m talking about 4 year olds.

And...do we have any evidence 4 uwat Olds were killed by anyone BUT the people God told the israelists to destroy or drive away.

It says kill everything that lives except for the young girls that have not known the touch of a man. Those you can keep for yourself. What do you think it mean when it’s said you can keep young women for yourself?

To have them join your culture and raise them as your own citizens.

People got married young back then. Do you know how old a Jew was when they were considered an adult? And they can do their bar/bat mitsva? The age is 12 for women and 13 for men. Now consider that the pagan tribes were called degenerates and licentious and frequently engaged in fornication. Might be earlier than that.

Which pagan tribes? That is such a blanket term it goes from Egyptians to Greeks to Romans, to Norse to fucking Hindu.

The Germans treated western POWs in the west decently for the most part. It’s only in the east where the Soviets refused to sign the Geneva convention where the Germans did not give them protection, and if the other side does not uphold the laws of war you don’t have to give it to them.

*look at Malmady massacre*

No I was talking about the genocide the Germans did. Sure killing civilians of other nations is not allowed. But there was no law at the time that banned crimes against humanity against your own people.

Didn't the Germans consider it a war with the Jews?

 

[King Arts]

In order to accuse someone of rape, you need two witnesses. You are not to murder or steal from another person.

Thats what you consider rights? Judicial due process on what is needed to convict for a crime? Not the right to vote, or freedom of speech or religion?

Again you CAN call those things rights but they are generally not called as such. Yes the Bible does prohibit murder and stealing. So you can’t take unjustly or kill unjustly. Again medieval kings who were basically dictators had similar thoughts with Fredrick Barbarossa emperor of the Holy Roman Empire saying that an emperors power is absolute and only two things are higher than it God and Justice. Justice has nothing to do with voting or anything like that.

Proverbs 29:7-
A righteous man knows the rights of the poor; a wicked man does not understand such knowledge
Deuteronomy 16:19-
You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous

It’s saying to not be corrupt. It’s not how modern people define rights.

Then there's the story of Naboth's vineyard in 2 Kings 21, where a king and queen faced condemnation for setting up a man to be stoned for a crime he didn't commit so they could acquire his vineyard.

The problem was the king killing an innocent man not violating the man’s rights.

Then there's Cyrus the Great, who freed slaves on god's behalf, so we know God and the bible condemn slavery (and, indeed, israel never practiced such things).

Are you serious? The Bible sanctioned and allowed slavery and even put in rules for how to administer it. How can you say Israel never practiced it.

The old testament also has one of the few examples of female property rights of the time, though they were more limited than now. Women could inherit land and property from their husband if he had no sons, even if he had living brothers (which was not the norm for other cultures, it almost always went to the closest living male relative, even in Egypt).

Not exactly true other societies did have women have property rights the Egyptians sometimes had only women inherit.

Paul noted that slaves were banned in the new testament in 1 Timothy 1:10...

You are either misrepresenting what Paul said or are reading a bad translation. That passage does not condemn slavery it condemns those who kidnapped and enslaved someone. It can be interpreted either broadly or narrowly. The narrow interpretation would be banning enslaving free people illegally. The broad interpretation would ban the slave trade. Buying and selling of slaves. But it would not ban owning or inheriting slaves.

 

[S'task]

Thats what you consider rights? Judicial due process on what is needed to convict for a crime? Not the right to vote, or freedom of speech or religion?

Natural Rights. People here are talking about the idea of Natural Rights.

The most basic of Natural Rights is the Right to Life. Thus, condemning murder in its many forms is an affirmation of that Right.

The Right to own Property is considered another of the most basic of Natural Rights, and again the Bible clearly condones the idea of private property to the point where in many respects it considers what we would consider a "free market" economy to be taken for granted as many Proverbs deal with money and property, and Jesus himself taught extensively about money and even used investing as a Parable for how God gave different people different physical and mental gifts and then expected them to provide him a Return on Investment. That parable was so influential that even to this day we use the name of the money in the parable to refer to people's skills and abilities: "talent".

The Right to Equal Justice Under the Law, with rulers being accountable to the Law and not above it is, as also noted, very much founded in the Bible.

Yes, many modern conceptions of "rights" are not found there, but that has to do with the perversion that Marxists and Leftists have introduced over the years to what is considered a "Right". For instance, Voting as a Right is a very new concept, previous to the 20th century it was generally considered a Privilege for those members of society who have earned it. The original Natural Rights framework as originally understood would not have seen it as an explicit Right per se.

 

[TheRejectionist]

Since you are killing children and women, and those not fighting?

Since he joined the army.

 

[King Arts]

And...do we have any evidence 4 uwat Olds were killed by anyone BUT the people God told the israelists to destroy or drive away.

You are asking me? I don’t think there was much of one happening. Sure maybe some incidents happened. I think this article answers what actually happened.

Did God Really Order a Genocide? | A Russian Orthodox Church Website

Every once in a while a detractor of the Christian faith objects that Christianity is ethically bankrupt because Christians worship a deity who ordered a genocide of all the inhabitants of Canaan when the Israelites entered the land under the leadership of Joshua. They

www.pravmir.com

Some people say that the people of Canaan were not fully human and mixed with angels/demons and were giants. But I think the correct answer is that when the Bible says they killed everyone they did not actually kill everyone.

You can’t read the Bible and just plainly get the information you need. You have to understand it in its context have to understand the language and the way people used the language back then. When the Bible says that they killed all the people they mean that they broke them militarily and humbled them.

But if you follow a Protestant tradition where you just pick it up and have a plain reading then you will conclude that they killed them all everyone totally.

To have them join your culture and raise them as your own citizens.

Come on. Kill all of the men, and boys, and all women who have known a man. But you can keep virgin women for yourself? When ISIS does this do you think they do what you say?

Deteronomy 21:11 and onwards contains some clear instructions regulating rape:

21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

tl;dr: Kidnap her, shave her head, clip her nails, let her cry for a month and then force yourself on her. She's yours.

ISIS hostages are also considered "wives" of the militants.

Which pagan tribes? That is such a blanket term it goes from Egyptians to Greeks to Romans, to Norse to fucking Hindu.

I was talking about the Caanites/Phonecia I mean the Ndws and Christians say all pagans were more promiscuous but the Phoenicians even more since even the Romans who were pagans called them out as baby killing degenerates.

*look at Malmady massacre*

Yes that was a war crime and was punished. US also did war crimes. That is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about genocide which was not against international law back then.

Didn't the Germans consider it a war with the Jews?

The Jews did not have a country then so it would be ex post facto.

Natural Rights. People here are talking about the idea of Natural Rights.

The most basic of Natural Rights is the Right to Life. Thus, condemning murder in its many forms is an affirmation of that Right.

The Right to own Property is considered another of the most basic of Natural Rights, and again the Bible clearly condones the idea of private property to the point where in many respects it considers what we would consider a "free market" economy to be taken for granted as many Proverbs deal with money and property, and Jesus himself taught extensively about money and even used investing as a Parable for how God gave different people different physical and mental gifts and then expected them to provide him a Return on Investment. That parable was so influential that even to this day we use the name of the money in the parable to refer to people's skills and abilities: "talent".

The Right to Equal Justice Under the Law, with rulers being accountable to the Law and not above it is, as also noted, very much founded in the Bible.

Yes, many modern conceptions of "rights" are not found there, but that has to do with the perversion that Marxists and Leftists have introduced over the years to what is considered a "Right". For instance, Voting as a Right is a very new concept, previous to the 20th century it was generally considered a Privilege for those members of society who have earned it. The original Natural Rights framework as originally understood would not have seen it as an explicit Right per se.

If that is how you define rights then you are correct that Christianity and the Bible does protect that. But that is very limited and not what most modern people mean when they say rights.

The way we use it in modern language is synonymous with choice. I can choose to do or not do this. AKA you have the freedom to do good bad neutral etc. You are using it as you have the freedom to do good and good only.

For example with religion in the Old Testament the kings of Israel were called evil and wicked if they forced the people to worship foreign gods and kill the prophets of God, and desecrate his place of worship. But the kings were not called wicked if they forced people to worship god and stop worshipping pagan gods and killed the pagan priests and destroyed pagan shrines. In fact they would be called righteous.

This is not how any American understands freedom of religion. From what you say which is correct from the Bible God gives you the freedom of religion to worship God correctly. If the government bans Christianity then they are wicked and sinning and violating your god given rights.
But if the government banned non Christian faiths like say Islam or Buddhism then no the law makers would not be sinning for doing that or taking away your god given rights.

Since he joined the army.

Thats a bit too far this has nothing to do with modern politics and you don’t know if Zach ever did a war crime you should apologize to him for what you said.

 

[TheRejectionist]

Thats a bit too far this has nothing to do with modern politics and you don’t know if Zach ever did a war crime you should apologize to him for what you said.

@King Arts with his previous commentaries that make a saint swear, blood boil and send a chill down spines and the fact he trust authority so much I am inclined he is in favour of ignoring whatever potential atrocities his "allies" of the day,month,year are doing are perfectly excusable behaviour.

Not that he did commit war crimes.

As far as I know, he never had the misfortune of being sent to the sandbox or into the jungle unlike others who behave like the possess a sound mind and not someone who seems to be doing everything possible to get fragged by his fellow compatriots.

 

[Vyor]

Thats what you consider rights? Judicial due process on what is needed to convict for a crime?

Again you CAN call those things rights but they are generally not called as such.

They're labeled as such by both the EU and the US bill of rights so...

The problem was the king killing an innocent man not violating the man’s rights.

You mean... violating his right to life? That thing brought up in the constitution as a right?

Are you serious? The Bible sanctioned and allowed slavery and even put in rules for how to administer it. How can you say Israel never practiced it.

No, it sanctioned indentured servitude, not slavery. Those are two very different things.

 

[Zachowon]

@King Arts with his previous commentaries that make a saint swear, blood boil and send a chill down spines and the fact he trust authority so much I am inclined he is in favour of ignoring whatever potential atrocities his "allies" of the day,month,year are doing are perfectly excusable behaviour.

Not that he did commit war crimes.

As far as I know, he never had the misfortune of being sent to the sandbox or into the jungle unlike others who behave like the possess a sound mind and not someone who seems to be doing everything possible to get fragged by his fellow compatriots.

What makes you think I would not put the safety if my compatriots above my own life?

But youa re correct I have not committed war crimes

 

[DarthOne]

Student suspended for using term 'illegal alien' in English class

Student suspended for using term ‘illegal alien’ in English class

A 16-year-old student at Central Davidson High School in Lexington, North Carolina was suspended for three days last week for using the term ‘illegal alien’ during a vocabulary assignment in his English class.

www.carolinajournal.com

A 16-year-old student at Central Davidson High School in Lexington, North Carolina was suspended for three days last week after using the term 'illegal alien' during a vocabulary assignment in his English class.

Leah McGhee's son has a teacher who assigned vocabulary words during class last Tuesday, including the word 'alien.' McGhee says her son made an effort to understand the assignment and responded to his teacher, asking, "Like space aliens or illegal aliens without green cards?"

According to an email describing the incident, sent to local officials and shared with Carolina Journal, a young man in class took offense to his question and reportedly threatened to fight him, prompting the teacher to call in the assistant principal. Ultimately, his words were deemed by administrative staff to be offensive and disrespectful to classmates who are Hispanic.

"I didn't make a statement directed towards anyone; I asked a question," said the student in response to his suspension. "I wasn't speaking of Hispanics because everyone from other countries needs green cards, and the term "illegal alien" is an actual term that I hear on the news and can find in the dictionary."

In addition to the three-day suspension, his record could be damaged as he aims to secure an athletic scholarship for college. He is actively involved in school clubs, track, and cross country.

 

[Robovski]

The only "Natural Rights" anyone has are the ones you can enforce or are physics. Everything else is just opinions and courtesies/niceties. The fact that you do not want to die holds no water with someone who disagrees and wants to and can kill you.
Rights are just rules we agree to play the game by or those who make and enforce the rules decide what those rules are. They are a human creation and do not exist outside of our social structures and as such are subject to change because someone said so.

 

[LordsFire]

The only "Natural Rights" anyone has are the ones you can enforce or are physics. Everything else is just opinions and courtesies/niceties. The fact that you do not want to die holds no water with someone who disagrees and wants to and can kill you.
Rights are just rules we agree to play the game by or those who make and enforce the rules decide what those rules are. They are a human creation and do not exist outside of our social structures and as such are subject to change because someone said so.

That presumes a purely materialistic universe.

 

[Vyor]

The only "Natural Rights" anyone has are the ones you can enforce or are physics. Everything else is just opinions and courtesies/niceties. The fact that you do not want to die holds no water with someone who disagrees and wants to and can kill you.
Rights are just rules we agree to play the game by or those who make and enforce the rules decide what those rules are. They are a human creation and do not exist outside of our social structures and as such are subject to change because someone said so.

A natural right is also known as a negative right. Aka: in absence of anyone else around, what can you do? You can speak, you can move around, you can have weapons, you can defend yourself, etc.

 

[King Arts]

They're labeled as such by both the EU and the US bill of rights so...

I’d label them as protections instead. Because the term rights has been corrupted by society to be synonymous with choice. And things like abortion or being able to get a gay marriage are not protections god has given you and will punish someone from taking away from you.

You mean... violating his right to life? That thing brought up in the constitution as a right?

It’s not a good term. You don’t have a right to life you will lose it naturally of old age so your life will end. God gives you protection from being unjustly killed, but that doesn’t protect against judicial action or wars.

No, it sanctioned indentured servitude, not slavery. Those are two very different things.

Leviticus 25:44–46

That’s not talking about indentured servitude bro.

A natural right is also known as a negative right. Aka: in absence of anyone else around, what can you do? You can speak, you can move around, you can have weapons, you can defend yourself, etc.

No that is stating a fact. Someone can do something if you don’t stop them.

Saying something is a right puts a moral spin on it. So you are allowed to do something and if someone stops you then they are evil.

Saying something is a right from god is saying that it is a sin to stop that person from exercising that right and God will punish them.
There are very few things that society considers rights that god will actually punish a leader for taking away from their people.