You now disagree with the wholesale slaughter of the Cathars? That's not what you said before. You said that they deserved to be killed because they were "dangerous". You never did answer me when I asked whether the women and children who had nothing to do with the murder of the pope's emissary deserved to be killed as well. Oh, and the OT expressly forbids the taking of oaths.
You, once again, have completely ignored where Moses reprimanded the Israelites for keeping women and children alive, and ordered them to kill everyone but the female virgins. Did the male infants pose a threat? Did the women of the same age who weren't virgins pose a threat? Joshua explicitly states that the Israelites should kill "anything that breathes". I'm not interested in whether you condone genocide; I'm concerned that you believe in a religion that condones genocide.
@diagoras54 You are once again completely ignoring everything, as usual. Yes the male infants did pose a threat. Sorry, but peaceful co-existance with militant pagans who were violent warrior cultures wasn't exactly an option back then. Either way, it is lucky for you then, that "my religion" does not condone genocide then. It is evident to me that you have not done one ounce of research and are just throwing around soundbites you stole from Sam Harris et al.
@diagoras54 Where did I say they "deserved" it? Oh right, never. My bad. Either way, they were dangerous, and it was largely a geo-political struggle between the Northern and Southern French nobles. And no, the woman and children did not deserve. And the OT does NOT forbid the taking of oaths. This is no doubt a result of your violent and penetrative rape of scripture and a complete disregard for lingual, social and cultural factors.
You now disagree with the wholesale slaughter of the Cathars? That's not what you said before. You said that they deserved to be killed because they were "dangerous". You never did answer me when I asked whether the women and children who had nothing to do with the murder of the pope's emissary deserved to be killed as well. Oh, and the OT expressly forbids the taking of oaths.
diagoras54 1 year ago
You, once again, have completely ignored where Moses reprimanded the Israelites for keeping women and children alive, and ordered them to kill everyone but the female virgins. Did the male infants pose a threat? Did the women of the same age who weren't virgins pose a threat? Joshua explicitly states that the Israelites should kill "anything that breathes". I'm not interested in whether you condone genocide; I'm concerned that you believe in a religion that condones genocide.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 You are once again completely ignoring everything, as usual. Yes the male infants did pose a threat. Sorry, but peaceful co-existance with militant pagans who were violent warrior cultures wasn't exactly an option back then. Either way, it is lucky for you then, that "my religion" does not condone genocide then. It is evident to me that you have not done one ounce of research and are just throwing around soundbites you stole from Sam Harris et al.
Randomicity912 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Where did I say they "deserved" it? Oh right, never. My bad. Either way, they were dangerous, and it was largely a geo-political struggle between the Northern and Southern French nobles. And no, the woman and children did not deserve. And the OT does NOT forbid the taking of oaths. This is no doubt a result of your violent and penetrative rape of scripture and a complete disregard for lingual, social and cultural factors.
Randomicity912 1 year ago