Whatever … It is sad (and disturbing) but it is true (we don't talk religion much any more and once it was a long walk home :o)

The genocide (and slavery & rape) is there in black and white too.

"I have read the bible cover to cover" Maybe, but you might not have been paying attention.

Anyway (I hope for the last time) I don't have to justify whats in there.
YOU, (as someone who worships the author) probably should at least try.

I freely admit that there are nice bits (which contradict the evil bits) elsewhere within the same book (thanks Ernie).

But (outside reverso world) that doesn't make it a better book 🙄

Ta ta

PS, I've had this discussion before, and some of the nicest most decent and loving people I know (2 of them) have read the bits in question and thought about it and eventually told me that;

"by definition everything god does is good"
"therefore even if he orders genocide it MUST be moral"
"therefore if he ordered me to go into X town and kill all the occupants it would be the right and moral thing to do"

This is your brain on religion, pretty huh?

And you seem unable (or unwilling) to read or understand whats written in your own holy book by your own god.
Why is that?
(Go on .. read it, I dare you ;o)

duckman,
I'm _not_ saying you should apologise for the genocide in the bible.

I'm just pointing out that YOUR GOD (now including 33.3% Jesus, and added spirit), personally ordered and watched over genocide, rape and mass murder on a collosal scale (all be it a long time ago).

If he exists, he has some pretty difficult questions to answer. If you prefer not to ask … well whatever :o)

(PS the phrase you use "in the name of" implies that you think that people did these things without gods permission. That would be an error on your part. You should really read it.)

What he (surfer) said :o)
Theres something odd about all these 'christians'. Running about, not reading their bibles, not bothering to understand theology, not applying any thought or reason to life the universe or anything.
I'm surprised they bother, but I suppose it explains how the whole illogical inhumane mess keeps rumbling on?

ernie lynch, duckman,
I think that the bible was written by bronze age farmers.
I don't have a problem with the fact that it describes the antics of a bunch of long dead genocidal rapists.

YOU claim it was written by god/jesus.

The Jesus who (allegedly) said "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." Matt 5:18 (spot the contradiction?)

If you don't see the activities of the old testament [which god/jesus personally directed, ordered and watched over] as a problem for your 21st century bowing and scraping to the "prince of peace", then I'm afraid it's beyond me to explain to you.

It's nice that YOUR god doesn't commit genocide, rape the innocent and put women in sheds once a month (any more).

But its also incredibly interesting how the version of god/jesus you see in the bible reflects your own 21st century views and opinions so closely?

And I'm not 'warping' whats in there, I'm 'quoting' whats in there.

Unsubtle difference.

I advise you to read it closely cover to cover. Best way ever to abandon the whole thing and start living ;O)

duckman,
It's a book you think god wrote.
It says clearly and explicitly that it's OK to commit genocide (and also to have your neighbors rape the female members of your family, to spare your guests).

So, just to be clear, are you saying god is wrong? or
admitting he used to be immoral genocidal maniac but is much better now?

Oh, and if you don't think that

Xianity is an internally consistent moral framework established by an infinitely knowledgeable and good diety

What do you believe?

As the great biblical scholar duckman once said:

Get over yourself

duckman
Ever heard the phrase "The same, yesterday, today and forever"?

You worship the same god who thought it was moral to order the genocide of a whole tribe/nation (except for the female virgins) [and theres more].

If the bible was written/inspired by god it is perfectly valid to criticise a religion based on that book for _everything_ it says.

At the risk of "godwin"ing myself (but bear in mind we are actually discussing the subject of genocide), how would you react to someone who said that "hitler may have done some unfortunate things, but I feel that recent discoveries about his early artwork and vegetarianism show him in a different light for the 21st century"

I'm afraid no number of mountain based sermons get you out of the "moral genocide" club.

You're probably thinking something along the lines of "theres an explanation somewhere for all of this I just don't know it yet" or "it'll all become clear someday" because you probably think that Xianity is an internally consistent moral framework established by an infinitely knowledgeable and good diety.

But it isn't and it wasn't.

Just accept that it's all based on made up stories by bronze age tribe, and the need for "difficult" explanations goes away.

duckman,
Read your holy book please.
Start with (maybe twice)
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” – Numbers 31:17-18

and then google all the apologists who explain how:
"its a mistake" [in the bible!]
"they deserved it because god is 'holy'" [… presumably means genocidal, but in a moral way?]

I am verifiably more moral than your purported god, based on what he wrote himself (and you probably are too), so please get over apologising for this divisive murderous creed (you can recover and it does get better :o)

As above:
DVD shrink for creating compressed ISO files
DVD decrypter if DVD shrink doesn't work (and you can then use dvd shrink to ISO the results).
These two work 99% of the time.
This LifeHacker page is useful.

sv,
What if you were to ask him:

-Do you consider yourself a) catholic or b) protestant?

-How would you feel if one of [the other type] moved in to your street/area?

-How would you feel if your son daughter married a [one of them]?

For you it seems that having a "Christian journey" seems to be the definition of your type of christian? (not a phrase I recognise from the bible?)

Others define it differently. Members of these groups are basically a bunch of hoods and tossers, but religious differences created them and feed them.

Duckman, sv, you seem to think that the "issues" in Northern Ireland are not related to christianity.

Ever heard of the "no true scotsman" fallacy?

I assume that (using your definition of "christianity" or "religion") the crusades, the inquisition, the pogroms and all those other naughty historical facts must have been just the result of bad PR, and nothing to do with religion either?

I grew up in NI, in a pretty ugly area. I used to think (probably like you?) that in this sort of tribalism, religion must just be a bystander or an excuse. But experience has shown me that the divide between "the bands" and "the boys" and the church groups they belong to is a slim to non existent one, and that religion is the main way in which they define themselves (and "the other") on both sides.

Religion is completely central to the conflict.

While you may think that christianity precludes violence / ethnic cleansing and hatred, it seems that some members of sectarian terrorist groups have a broader knowledge of the behaviour of religious groups through history than you do.

PS.. Where I grew up the main place used to identify potential recruits for "loyalist" paramilitary organisations was … the local band.

WorldClassAccident
You can use the definition of the median without having to get caught up in the practicalities of calculating it.
(odd numbers of people, skewing effect of Daily Mail readers, people who can't be measured because they ate the pencil (see reference to Nick G. above), etc etc).

simonfbarnes, gonefishin.
I was (obviously) using the definition of "average" that implies that what I said is completely correct.

To do otherwise would be .. well .. you know 😉

WCA

I reckon less than 50% have lower intelligence than the norm so you would be picking on a minority.

Reckon not; I'd say that EXACTLY 50% have below average intelligence so its not a minority or a majority ….

Is there a word for that (an equality maybe :o)

Avoid "critical illness" (too specific and limited to specific diseases etc.) Look for "income protection" much more wide ranging and less likely to fail when you need it.

You wouldn't want to bugger everything up by dying of the wrong thing now would you :o)

I have waterstones like these from Axminster, but for quick & easy use you can't beat a "Fallkniven DC4" diamond and ceramic sharpener (as recommended by that fat bloke of of the telly whos roaming canada at the moment).

What Junkyard said ++

Sorry, I was under the impression that thinking that that (to paraphrase) 'a long jail term wouldn't serve any purpose' was equivalent to not wanting to be too harsh/punitive/excessive on the driver.

My point is that, on reading the comments from the Judge, it appears that this particular mammal should be kept away from society as long as possible, and that the reasons for that should be pretty clear from the facts of the case, and the attitude of the accused.

You claim that you don't see the point.
I do.
Ahh well, ho hum, etc etc.

This report here includes the following quotations from the Judge (who I assume DID hear all of the evidence).

Judge Penelope Belcher said his behaviour after the accident had been "callous" and he had shown total disregard for Mr Spink and his family.

"You sought to prevent any proper investigation into the circumstances of Mr Spink's death," she said. "You pulled the bike out from under the lorry. It was plainly damaged.

"You must have realised you had collided with a pedal cyclist and that the cyclist must have suffered serious injury, and given the circumstances of the bike being lodged under the lorry, you must have realised that the cyclist might have been killed.

"You plainly knew, or ought to have known, he was there.

"The exact circumstances are a matter of some dispute…(but] Mr Spink and his bike ended up beneath your lorry."

She said Stubbs' attempts to "undermine the proper investigation" of the case had added to Mr Spink's family's pain and the two years since the event in July 2007 had been "worse and more distressing than the actual funeral" for them.

"All involved in this case have conducted themselves with dignity," she told Stubbs. "Instead you continue, despite the weight of the evidence against you, (to claim] no knowledge of how the bike came to be in the undergrowth.

"You have shown no remorse at all.

"In the witness box not once did you express any concern for the deceased and his family.

"Your attitude was 'it was all the cyclist's fault'.

"You showed callous indifference to Mr Spink's death and that was reflected in how you disposed of the bike and other items in the layby.

"It was plain you put concern for yourself above any concern for the cyclist."

How on earth can anyone say all that and then give a sentence of two years? Not only beggars but fully buggers belief..

But of course TJ et al. we shouldn't be to harsh on the poor chap eh?

His pain and anguish is obviously just too deep to be actually *&%£'in visible to human eyes.

Excellent idea as obviously there are no existing laws to protect anyone from being physically attacked at random by crazy people.

Just a thought, but if you want people to be blind to your "differences", it's probably a good first step not to ask for special treatment because of your "differences"?

mikey74 "I'm open minded and you can't prove ghosts don't exist"
various "theres no evidence they DO exist. Do you have any?"
mikey74 "Wahhhhh why does no-one agree with me , I'm running away!"
everyone "So thats what proper informed debate means …"

Ethereal ones are far more reliable in this current industrial climate 🙂

mikey74
and YOU cannot categorically say that I'm not standing behind you in disembodied form carrying my invisible numptyhammer with a nail through the end.

There is an infinite list of "things" that cannot be proven not to exist.

Almost always these "things"; occupy no space, emit no radiation and cause no physical effect outside your head.

So whats the exact difference between these "things" (ghosts, unicorns, whatever) and something that isn't actually there?

Answers on a postcard please :o)

Make a big yorkshire pudding, (at least 6" across).
Fill with warmed roast beef & gravy
WIN!

@STATO
re: lumi glowring – It has always been too bright IMO, even pre LED upgrade.
I use a bit of flexible plastic about 4cm wide (actually a bit of one of these that wore out 🙂 & an inner tube derived elastic band to cut light thats going upwards to your eyes

This megahorn is much better.

Its got a tiny wee button that you can attach to your brake lever so you can both brake and "inform" the other road user at the same time ..

I considered the airzound, but are you really going to get the horn rather than the brake when some twonk steps out suddenly? (unless you're sure they'll jump high enough to let you under)

(it also works _politely_ from about 150 metres if you want want people wandering on cycle paths to look round and see you're coming, rather than riding to within 10 yards before they hear a bell)

Couldn't let it lie .. (even though I know they won't read it)

Dear Auntie,
Let me summarise to see if I got this right (based on a quick google search)

1) BBC employee names kitten dishonestly .. SACKED!
2) BBC employee mentions the word 'golliwog' (off camera) .. SACKED!
3) BBC employee boasts about how funny it is to run people off the road into a hedge with a car (having previously written of his hatred for _all_ people 'of that type') .. NONE OF OUR BUSINESS!

Is there anyone else he could have run off the road that would get your attention?

It feels silly to have to point it out in the 21st century, but _all_ people have a right to life, even people who happen to own bicycles.

Real people, olympic athletes, commuters, children travelling to school, (you know .. people), actually die from these attitudes, but I guess that doesn't matter.

In fact now that I think about it seriously and leave aside my personal 'bike owning' predjudices, I see that;

A) he hasn't actually been dishonest about anything .. (he was very open and explicit about his hatred and who it was directed against)

B) no kittens were misnamed (and we all love teh kitten!)

So, thanks for taking this complaint seriously, and I completely understand your position.

If he didn't twig that it was "misjudged" while he was writing it, its a teeny bit late now.
Top Tip James: If you don't 'get' why your actions get us all hot & bothered; type "cyclist" into google news, and skim read the headlines on an average day.

@roper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghandi
Got lots there on his opinions and statements.
I recall I came across the quote first in Sam Harris "the end of faith".
(maybe)

@roper
Google is your friend, as you already "suspect [that I am] not expressing the correct meaning" I won't elaborate.

To the extension of the quote that their suicide would have meant they "died significantly"….

Well, I'd love to know .. significantly to whom?
In a world of (Ghandi inspired) pacifists, facing the nazis, who would have thought the deaths, by any means, of every jew in europe 'significant' when the history of german victory weas written,?

Ghandi did some good things but he was still a nob.

Ghandi also said that the jews in WWII should have committed mass suicide to teach those nasty nazis a lesson.

So the "Ghandi Plan" would seem to be:
Take whatever your enemies throw at you,
Do nothing, and
If things get _really_ bad,
Top yourselves .. that'll show them.

I for one, bow to his obviously superior moral framework.

It was a somewhat silly analogy to try and demonstrate my point that:
"2 actions (one deliberate and one accidental) are morally different, even if the result is the same."

I think you read it as:
"2 actions (one deliberate and one really ****in' deliberate) are morally different even if the result is the same, or ****'in worse."

To clarify, reckless disregard =/= accidental, and not what I was getting at.

I'm off before I get SOIWOTI disease, or have to defend lots of other things I haven't said 🙂

grumm "

ah **** it I'm not stopping

"

Yes, yes, you've got it!
That is precisely the dictionary style definition of "unintentional" and "accidental" I was trying to put across.

My _whole_ point was obviously about how nasty johnny taliban is an evil monster, only outweighed by nastier tommy tommy, with his necklace of childrens teeth and a reckless attitude.

Gold star for comprehension and goodafternoon.

ooOOoo
Absolutely.
I wasn't suggesting that two things being "morally different", means that one is "horrible" and the other is "a wonderful way to spend the afternoon".

Just different, not recommended.

grumm, glenp
I'm not saying I agree with everything that the UK and the US have done in Afghanistan & Iraq, and they _should_ do more and more to minimise the chance of killing civilians.

I'm just saying …. what I've said clearly already.

But try this,
a) Driver runs over child in the street, and then reverses back to "make sure"
b) Driver reverses over child in driveway who was tragically playing in an unexpected place.

Same culpability?

I'm not saying that either is a guiltless scenario or that accidents automatically make everyone blameless, just that the two situations are morally different and that the difference matters.

If you can't see that then …
Should've gone to spec savers

grumm

I mean that there is an enormous difference between
a) launching a missile or firing a weapon with the intention of killing an enemy combatant, (and perhaps killing an innocent bystander by accident).
and
b) Doing the same thing with every actual intention of killing as many innocent bystanders as possible.

Like the germans (?) bombing that tanker in Afganistan last week. They thought it was surrounded by enemy combatants and they were wrong.

But morally they are on a different planet from someone who would plant a bomb on the same tanker and detonate it in a market square.

Intention is not "everything" in all circumstances, but it matters when you're trying to spot the difference between acts of war and acts of terrorism (which was my point).

TandemJeremy
To the republicans he was a freedom fighter – same as mandela was a terrorist to the SA government of the time.
Moshe Dayan?
It all depends on your viewpoint

BS … Well known, widespread and often repeated BS (particularly by supporters of terrorist groups to justify the actions of those they support.) But BS all the same.

If you deliberately set out (as your primary aim) to kill and maim civilians and non combatants as part of a military operation, you are a terrorist.
Eniskillen bombing – terrorism
My Lai massacre – terrorism
9/11 – terrorism

Intention is everything, and you shouldnt use cheap phrases to bung genocidal mass murdering nullwits in the same category as people trying to use military means to achieve a political end without deliberately causing civilian suffering (whether you agree with their aims or not).

(I'm not saying that you (TJ) would actually do this personally … I just don't like the phrase. Its too easy and seems more like a way to avoid thinking about the subject than an actual answer).

If nothing else it's put his story on the news and on the web and made it a topic for discussion 🙂
It (sadly) won't mean a thing to Turing, but its not a wasted comment on a dead subject while people like Turing are still being persecuted and executed in backward douchebag cultures all over the world.

Messiah was definitely his best program ever. Not so much "look at the brilliant trick" but "look how easily people [just like you and me] can be misled".

I agree everyone should see it, but it's strangely unavailable on DVD?
(fingerprints of the lizard overlords on that issue if you ask me!)