The Bible is the source of morality

Mono1, what is the point of your last post. Russia, was always a laughing stock. It was never great. The commies made it into something to be afraid for some time but collapsed. The empires and super powers did not perish because they changed their theistic proclivities drastically, but because of other easily explainable non-theistic reasons. In any case the OIC countries are some of the poorest and wretched places to live in. The few that are rich are not because of their strict adherence to that stupid religion. Those lands were lucky to have needed resources, nothing else. None of them is a successful country because their peoples do things smartly, say like Japan. If you look at those societies they have been languishing in abject poverty for over 1000 years. By your logic Islam is the least successful religion today. Stop showing your idiocy on this blog.

rome and persia.

rome were mighty super power in sources and technology.

persia were mighty super power in sources and technology.

perisa were magus fire worshiper were defeated for rome holy books carrier(tora+ingel)

rome fooled around and played with her holy book and sold it for secularism (no divine guidance),
rome lost for the last divine revelation islam(QURAN AND SUNNA) to mankind.

the holy roman empire expanded all the way thru the entire mid east all the way to the black sea and beyond,where is the holy roman empire?where is her mightyness?where is her advanced technology?all gone with the wind, another case of gas in the history of mankind!

nothing failed mankind and nations in the entire history of mankind old and modern like secularism and full of it secular heads.

it took secular russia less than 100 years to colaps and shrink right in her own rot despite the fact that they used to be the first superpower in modern history,what happen to the theology and ideology of russia ,gone with the wind ,another case of rotten gas in the history of mankind.

truth win and last all the time ,while ignorance and ignorant gaseous heads go to the most rotten garbage bin of history.

all praise goes to the creator god who sent abraham carrying the truth to mankind ,moses carrying the truth to mankind,jesus carrying the truth to mankind,mohamed carrying the truth to mankind.

nothing tell you about history of mankind like QURAN and SUNNA.

Strolling right along through the NT (Noxious Testament), we find:

John

**Here is one of the Christians all-time FAVs: As an example to parents everywhere and to save the world (from himself), God had his own son tortured and killed. 3:16

# People are damned or saved depending only on what they believe. 3:18, 36

# The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. 3:36

# Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14

# Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. 15:6

**And, then, of course, there is this, the Vampire prescription: Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood if we want to have eternal life. This idea was just too gross for "many of his disciples" and "walked no more with him." 6:53-66

Acts

# Peter and God scare Ananias and his wife to death for not forking over all of the money that they made when selling their land. 5:1-10

# Peter has a dream in which God show him "wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls." The voice (God's?) says, "Rise, Peter: kill and eat." 10:10-13

# Peter describes the vision that he had in the last chapter (10:10-13). All kinds of beasts, creeping things, and fowls drop down from the sky in a big sheet, and a voice (God's, Satan's?) tells him to "Arise, Peter; slay and eat." 11:5-6

# The "angel of the Lord" killed Herod by having him "eaten of worms" because "he gave not God the glory." 12:23

# Paul and the Holy Ghost conspire together to make Elymas (the sorcerer) blind. 13:8-11
-----------------------
Requirements: Drink blood, eat flesh, believe, fork over your money, kill your kids, and DIE. Charming, and there is more to come.

Mono1, I had posted this comment on David Wolpe's column a few days ago. you may have missed it so I am re-posting it here for you.

This story has been going on for past 63 years and will not stop any time soon. Lets face it state of Israel is a conquering state, albeit done by British in their waning days of glory. Then they gave it to the European Jews to rules, an expiation of European sins against their Jewry. One analogy that comes to my mind is Norman conquest of British isles. How long did it take for the Saxons, its previous conquerors, to reconcile to the Norman rule. How long did Normans put up with saxon terrorism, and how long did Saxons bear the Norman hegemony, at least a few hundred years. There was no intervention from the rest of the world, but they settled. Likewise Israelis and Palestinian will settle down and simmer down probably in a few hundred years, hopefully sooner. The best thing the international community can do is to ignore the morons on both sides. Give no attention. I already hear you all saying, "but Secular, people are dying. Living in apartheid conditions". To that my answer is are we making any difference? No. Idiocy is repeating the same actions, when results are well known - nothing changes.

To the Israeli supporter, I say stop the nonsense about God gave the land ti Israel. This is bunch of horse-poop. The Muslims also claim that god had given any land they conquered to them till eternity. Do you see the utter stupidity of both sides. Besides, even back then say 30 centuries ago, according to the fables of OT, that land was not god's to give. it was already possessed by Canaanites, Jebusites, etc, etc. So back then it was conquered, and now it is conquered, so get of that high horse. You want your children not to be living like you and your parents' generation try to make honest peace with them Palestinians. To the fundies amongst you tell then to go take a hike, if needed kick them where it hurts by telling them you are not going to extend any protection to them, in engaging their loony adventures.

mono1, another thing do you think any rational person cares if you muslims claim Abraham as you own, you can have him for your great great great.. grandfather. He is a mythical pond scum of a character, who was to eager to pimp his own wife twice to save his life and get rich. Who without a second thought discarded his concubine and the first born as you would discard the toilet paper. He was prepared to kill his second son, because he heard voices.

You want to claim that murdering Moses, the first have honed genocide into fine art and inspired Mo, go ahead and claim. You can claim Jesus also that looney bin, and who cares. That still does not male your delusion about allah any more real.

mono1, what is your complaint about upkeep of so called Palestine. It is very well know how Islam maintains the holy places of other faiths. It has been well documented how well Islamic people kept up the other peoples holy places. Before the the so called islamic forces were humiliated and made to eat very cold crow in 1967, islam kept up the Jewish and Christian holy place like they were toilets. There was widespread public defecation in those place. It has been well documented. You guys are all the same rest on the laurels of yester years. The main problem in middle-east is the utter humiliation the billion+ muslims are told that has been visited on them by the west and the jews. You guys need to really take a look at yourself why billion of you are humiliated by a mere 5 million Israelis. From the days of the great Wind bag Gamal Abdel Nasser down the history, Mommar Qudaffi, Anwar Sadat, King Hussein, lets not forget the great Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, and all those Wahabi sissys in Riyadh, have not been able to do anything for past 63 years. Don't you guys ever wonder may be your Allah has abandoned you. How else do you you guys suffering one humiliation after the other for past thousand years. Either you guys are not pious enough or there is no Allah. the correct answer is there is no allah and the entire social, cultural, political and technological framework you guys have is decrepit. The only achievement you societies can proclaim loudly is your population explosion, the world's lowest literacy. What you guys need is 47 Kemal AtaTurks.

proud in performance.

islam kept palestine (land of divine revelation)sacred for 1500 years.

how jews kept it for the last 75 years?
how christian kept it for the last 75 years?

how western and eastern secularism kept it for the last 75 years?

how UN kept it for the last 75 years?

how the free world kept it in the last 75 years.

all the above are no less delusional and hypocritical than the theological book and secular book that they carry.

abraham is no jew nor christian ,
abraham is monotheist muslim ,moses is monotheist muslim,jesus is monotheist muslim ,all messengers of ALLAH the creator of mankind are none but monotheist muslims.

in order to belong to abraham you have to be on the doctrine of abraham,

its a creed and theological tie not a family or tribal tie,
look,
salman alfarisy from persia belong to abraham even though he is from persia,

sohab from rome belong to abraham even though he is from rome ,

king nnogashi from africa belong to abraham even though he is from africa.

again its a theological tie not a family nor a land tie.

jews and christians do not belong to abraham ,jews and christians belong to judaism and christianism,none monotheist tribal cults.

no wonder why the holy land of monotheism revealtion the way its right now.

nothing explain the theological map of the mid east like the last divine revelation to mankind ,QURAN and SUNNA.

Rcofeild, first of all Dawkins did not postulate that ETs planted life on earth. He was making an argument that even if it was conceded that ETs plated the life on earth, those ETs must have evolved. It is you who seems to have a tenuous grasp of your native tongue, as opposed to me an immigrant. Now coming to quoted from your own book of fables about the great adventures of the Avram character and his son Isaac, his grandson Jacob what kind of pond scum they are and are held up in that vile book of fables. All you could come up is that vile book of fables does not explicitly endorse their actions. Yes, Yes, whereas that same vile book of fables (VBF), goes out of the way to explicitly denounce even the minor things like sodomy, etc with wrath, but is curiously silent about pimping wives by the father and son, and grandson and great grandsons massacring whole tribe, because their own daughter/sister could not keep her skirts on. Instead that VBF reveres each of them as some great heroes. I don't need to say anything more that VBF is self coherent insofar as its vileness is concerned. However, much you and Farnaz pontificate about the great gifts to the humanity OT & NT have bestowed upon the humanity. I would say that the world could have done without these benefactions, and that includes the crown jewels of revelation - the ramblings of that epileptic, narcissistic, Megalomanaical bedouin from 7th century.

SECULAR,

Dawkin's "Eddington Concession" is a good example of the pot calling the kettle black. He himself is a master at taking quotes out of context, and does so shamelessly to impress his obviously doting, unthinking and uninformed public.

Merely adding that the extra-terrestrials themselves would have had to evolve from simple life forms does not add credibility to this incredibly lame statement. It somehow seems to escape Dawkins and his followers that not only is this idea patently absurd on the face of it, but it still does not address the issue of first cause. In the end, Dawkin's magnificently diverse universe is still an effect without a cause.

If you think that Dawkin's theory that "E.T." did it is a credible first cause theory, there is little point in continuing this discussion.

As for still having to "answer the points I have raised to your original post," you obviously have not thoughtfully read my response. This will necessitate your taking off your "Dawkins colored glasses" and actually thinking for yourself. Unless you are willing to do this and respond to what I actually said, it is you who have conceded the argument.

Presuppositional apologetics is not for the faint of heart. Nor is it for those who are only interested in "scoring points" at the expense of honest, thoughtful evaluation.

Unless I receive an intelligent response to what I have said thus far this will be my final post.

May the Force be with you. :)

SECULAR,

Dawkin's "Eddington Concession" is a good example of the pot calling the kettle black. He himself is a master at taking quotes out of context, and does so shamelessly to impress his obviously doting, unthinking and uninformed public.

Merely adding that the extra-terrestrials themselves would have had to evolve from simple life forms does not add credibility to this incredibly lame statement. It somehow seems to escape Dawkins and his followers that not only is this idea patently absurd on the face of it, but it still does not address the issue of first cause. In the end, Dawkin's magnificently diverse universe is still an effect without a cause.

If you think that Dawkin's theory that "E.T." did it is a credible first cause theory, there is little point in continuing this discussion.

As for still having to "answer the points I have raised to your original post," you obviously have not thoughtfully read my response. This will necessitate your taking off your "Dawkins colored glasses" and actually thinking for yourself. Unless you are willing to do this and respond to what I actually said, it is you who have conceded the argument.

Presuppositional apologetics is not for the faint of heart. Nor is it for those who are only interested in "scoring points" at the expense of honest, thoughtful evaluation.

Unless I receive an intelligent response to what I have said thus far this will be my final post.

May the Force be with you. :)

And Circling back before moving on: NT Notable Quotables from Matthew

Matthew

# Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12

# Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30

# Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

# Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19

# "The children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

# Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21

# Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

# Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. 10:14-15

# Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21

# Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28

# Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36

# Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

# Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

continues below

Matthew con'd

# Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7

# Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9

# In the parable of the unforgiving servant, the king threatens to enslave a man and his entire family to pay for a debt. This practice, which was common at the time, seems not to have bothered Jesus very much. The parable ends with this: "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you." If you are cruel to others, God will be cruel to you. 18:23-35

# "And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors." 18:34

# In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:12-13

# Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37

# God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51

# The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30

# Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

# Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46

Rcofeild: Here we go from Genesis

12:11 And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt,
that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a
fair woman to look upon: 12:12 Therefore it shall come to pass, when
the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife:
and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive.

12:13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with
me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.

12:14 And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the
Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair.

12:15 The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before
Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house.

12:16 And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and
oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses,
and camels.

12:17 And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues
because of Sarai Abram's wife.

12:18 And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast
done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? 12:19
Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to
wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.

12:20 And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him
away, and his wife, and all that he had.

13:1 And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he
had, and Lot with him, into the south.

13:2 And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold.

That was the first time he pimped his fair Sarai and became rich. And you claim god did not condone it. How come this book of revelation is so silent about Avram's pimping his own wife. I have heard all these rationalizations before and I ma not impressed at all. I want to know if anyone in his/her right mind would read the above despicable verses to their children. if not why not. Every damn holy book is made up of such putrid content.

As to the great exploits of Jacob & his sons read genesis 33:18 - 35:6, it is clear what they have done how the great god protects them. Not that I believe any of these imbecilic writings, but the fact is that the authors of bible had no moral compass relative to the present day ethics and morality. These holy books are nothing but putrid compilations of the stone-age morality. Sooner we throw these books into the dust heap of history the better off we will be.

The clips is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24vWUeMnXBg

RCofield, yes the same Richard Dawkins and the one and only. And you sir are milking the Eddington Concession, which Dawkins talks about in this clip

You are taking Dawkins concession about life may have been planted on earth by aliens, but those aliens still would have to have evolved from simple forms. That little bit of detail you have lost conveniently in your situational amnesia. You still have to answer the points I have raised to your original post. Unless you respond to the issues I raised, you must be conceding the argument.

SECULAR,

You state:

"It is the gradual zeitgeist of human ethical evolution or as Dawkins would say the mematic evolution of human consciousness and culture."

Are you quoting the same Richard Dawkins who has on a number of occasions proposed that the first life forms on this planet may have been "seeded" here by extra-terrestrial beings? Come now!

HAVing already post from Matthew (NT--sic) for the benefit of "SECULAR," we now move on to the rest of that which he, quite evidently, has not "shove[ed]."

HIGHLIGHTS from the BOOK of the RELIGION of LOVE: PART I

MARK

# Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12

# Jesus sends devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. When the people hear about it, they beg Jesus to leave. 5:12-13

# Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11

# Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. ( 7:9-10

# If you're ashamed of Jesus, he'll be ashamed of you. (And you'll go straight to hell.) 8:38

# Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell. 9:43-49

# Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don't will be damned. 16:16

PART II

Luke

# God strikes Zacharias dumb for doubting the angel Gabriel's words. 1:20

# Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 3:9

# John the Baptist says that Christ will burn the damned "with fire unquenchable." 3:17

# Jesus heals a naked man who was possessed by many devils by sending the devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the sea. This messy, cruel, and expensive (for the owners of the pigs) treatment did not favorably impress the local residents, and Jesus was asked to leave. 8:27-37

# Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15

# Jesus says that we should fear God since he has the power to kill us and then torture us forever in hell. 12:5

# Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes." 12:46-47

# "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." 13:3, 5

# According to Jesus, only a few will be saved; the vast majority will suffer eternally in hell where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13:23-30

# In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man goes to hell, because as Abraham explains, he had a good life on earth and so now he will be tormented. Whereas Lazarus, who was miserable on earth, is now in heaven. This seems fair to Jesus. 16:19-31

# Jesus believed the story of Noah's ark. He thought it really happened and had no problem with the idea of God drowning everything and everybody. 17:26-27

# Jesus also believes the story about Sodom's destruction. He says, "even thus shall it be in the day the son of man is revealed ... Remember Lot's wife." This tells us about Jesus' knowledge of science and history, and his sense of justice. 17:29-32

# In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." 19:22-27

SECULAR
From the book of Leviticus, third book of the Pentateuch, please note the following: 18:21, 23-25, 20:2-5. You obviously have not read the Pentateuch very carefully. As for “contemporaneous” sources, they are myriad. If you are at all interested in knowing the truth you can research them easily for yourself.

1) You argue that “Avaram” (I presume you mean Abraham) sacrificed his child and was thus no better than the Canaanites. He did no such thing. It is your argument that is flawed here. As for Abraham “pimping” out his wife, you either are using a secondary “source” for your information (not having read the accounts yourself) or you are intentionally distorting the biblical account. Either way, your contention is not credible.

2) As for point two, Israel’s actions were commanded by God as judgment against centuries of atrocities by the inhabitants of Canaan. Further, Israel was warned that they too would incur God’s wrath if they participated in the wickedness of the Canaanites (See Lev. 8:23-25). They did, and they too suffered God’s wrath.

3) In points 3 & 4 you make a common mistake. The mere fact that these events are recorded in the bible does not mean that God sanctioned or approved them in any way. Anyone familiar with the bible’s treatment of the events to which you allude would know this. Again, it would appear that it is you who are not familiar with the bible.

You state that I can “take this morality of the bible and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine,” and “it is best that you had just shut up.” I stand utterly silenced and confounded in the face of such scintillating debate tactics (sarcasm intended). You will have a difficult time convincing anyone of your position if this is the best you have to offer.

Your hatred of God and the bible is clearly blind, irrational, and unreasoning. Consider:

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools….

test

As I was finishing my last post, I was betting that the first person to respond would be Farnaz. Thank you Farnaz for not disappointing me. That said, I am not at all sure if there is anything ameliorating about OT over NT or vice-versa, Of course Koran doesn't betray any trace of progress of time. All the progress made was despite religion. It is the gradual zeitgeist of human ethical evolution or as Dawkins would say the mematic evolution of human consciousness and culture.

The great child sacrificer of Religious history is the MOnster "God" of the "NT" (sic). That would be the MOnster that incarnated Itself as its only begotten son, gave Itself to earth, for Human to bleed to death.

Said Monstrosity, set back the ethical gifts of Judaism, thousands of years, not only reversing the prohibition against human sacrifice but deifying it.

The "NT" (sic) is among the bloodiest documents I have ever seen, replete with snake-bites, threats of mass murder, theft, blood-letting of every sort, the promise to fill human's mind with "lies."

Promise kept. Observe the world, blood-soaked for thousands of years by the followers of the Child Killer.

Those folks do love their blood, incorporate it into their rituals.

Probably the whole business was authored by Bram Stoker.

RCofield, I don't know where you get your information from. I have read your Pentateuch more than once and I have not read any of the atrocities you are talking about, in those five books of OT. If there are other contemporaneous texts please cite them. Your argument is so flawed in many ways.

1) Even, if what you say is true about child sacrifice. Your Avaram was not beyond doing that himself. You may claim, that Avaram was certain that his do would not let him do that is really not trues on many counts. He was not sure that his god would protect him otherwise he would not have pimped his own wife twice to spare his own neck. Beside story of Jephthah lays lie to the claim that OT god was not for child sacrifices. So nothing great replaced the Canaanites.

2) According to the OT their treatment of people whom they conquered was not any better.

3) Take the story of Jacob, whose sons went and massacred their hosts because their sister got laid by the hosts son. They at least had the decency to marry Jaco's daughter. But that was not enough to Jacob and his sons, they killed the entire clan in the night. nary a word was said by the god according to OT.

4) Coming to the Sodom and Gomorrah story. here is your hero Lot who would rather have his daughters be debauched by the crowds without a second thought. Then this great pillar of morality, the god supposed saved, turns out to be a drunk and has no qualms against fornicating with his own daughters. This you call morality.

you can take this morality of the bible and shove it where sun doesn't shine, be my guest. Nothing burns me up than when people come and say these stupid books of fables are foundation to our ethics and morality. If you have not reda your so call books of morality, it is best you had just shut up. Don't try to impose on peoples credulity. There is nothing more despicable. SHAME ON YOU. I wonder which part of bible you would read to your child. The unvarnished one, not the sanitized books of lies written for children. I will tell you anyone who has read the actual book and is not repulsed by it must be a blaggard.

SECULAR,

You seem to view the original inhabitants of Canaan as "innocent" victims. The reality is that they were not.

They worshiped a pantheon of gods who were of such a debauched nature that the average modern-day Westerner would recoil in revulsion. The barbarity of their culture and worship was almost inconceivable.

They worshiped “gods” of war and violence in hopes that they would be enabled by these gods to perpetrate unimaginable acts of cruelty during times of war. They worshiped fertility gods by practicing temple prostitution, human sacrifice, and infanticide. Sodomy and bestiality were acceptable conduct their depraved view.

I seriously question whether you would view them in quite the same light if you had witnessed their practice of the purposeful mutilation of their still-living enemies on the battlefield or the common practice of a man “satisfying” himself at the expense of a young heifer or a woman “gratifying” herself beneath a male goat. How much less would you see them as “innocent” had you been a spectator at one of their temples where parents disemboweled their infant children and threw them onto a altar of fire as a sacrifice to their fertility god.

No, unless secularism has totally hardened your conscience you would have cried out for judgment on such barbarous acts.

That is precisely what God did. They had become a scourge upon the land, and God destroyed them. To allow such practices to continue unabated would have been unjust. Surely you would not disagree?

The author says - "There is no greater source for morality than the sacred Bible itself, which states countless times that G-d gave the Land of Israel to Abraham, his son Isaac, and their descendants. Protecting non-Jews within those borders is a higher calling of that privileged gift."

Wh o the hell was god to give those lands to Abrahm's descendants. It wasn't his/hers to give it. That's what the hebrews claimed, while conquering and pillaging the then occupants of those lands. This is your great source of morality. Utter hog wash. No where in the bible does it say protecting the non-jews is a higher calling. If any thing the bible says you can sell the meat of a deceased animal to a non-jew, but not to a jew. It tells jews not to lie against a fellow jew but it is ok to lie against a non-jew. So Mr. Hecht stop telling us that there is no higher authority fro morality than bible. On the contrary, I can say that there is not a single page of bible that I would recommend to my children to read. It is the work of vile authors to unite their people. It is book of bigotry and in-group morality.

The author writes: "There is no greater source for morality than the sacred Bible itself, which states countless times that G-d gave the Land of Israel to Abraham, his son Isaac, and their descendants. Protecting non-Jews within those borders is a higher calling of that privileged gift."

Surely the author read the Bible, which contains not only the warrant for slavery (including Jews enslaving Jews), but countless other disgusting practices, including authorized the ancient Hebrew tribes to steal the land of Cannan from its then inhabitants and wipe out anyone who got in their way, including women and children. How is this a source of morality?

It also seems quite doubtful that any good will come from a belief (clearly false) that God gave land to the Jews. Indeed, the notion that protecting Jews within those borders is a higher calling is not only utterly condescending, to say the least.

Lejla makes a great point. For years, it has been official Israeli policy to pursue the colonization of the Occupied Territories as a way of desensitizing the world to the objective of a "Greater Israel". But Lieberman's views go even further beyond that. He's actually talking about stripping the citizenship from people who (though treated as second class citizens) may not want to surrender it.

It's time to expose Israeli policy for what it is: racism. We have to stop letting them get away with this behavior. They can't complain about poorly-constructed rockets falling on Sderot while they are simultaneously strangling an entire people and stealing their land.

Respectfully, I would like to draw your attention to your statement:

"Opposing an enemy in Gaza that is formally sworn to its destruction, while attempting to protect a civilian population caught in the crossfire, the Jewish State of Israel faces difficult choices."

Let's be clear: the current foreign minister of Israel has a VERY similar opinion of his choices for the Palestinians. To ignore that is unfair and irresponsible...

"In late May 2004, Lieberman proposed a plan in which the populations and territories of Israeli Jews and Arabs, including some Israeli Arabs, would be "separated." According to the plan, also known as the "Populated-Area Exchange Plan," Israeli Arab towns adjacent to Palestinian Authority areas would be transferred to Palestinian Authority, and only those Arab Israelis who migrated from the area to within Israel's new borders and pledged loyalty to Israel would be allowed to remain Israeli citizens. On May 30, 2004, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon condemned Lieberman's statements, stating "We regard Israeli Arabs as part of the State of Israel."[31] On 4 June 2004, as the disputes over the up-coming disengagement plan grew more intense, Sharon dismissed Lieberman from the cabinet.[32][33]"

Please help spread the word about this campaign to eject Turkey from NATO for its sponsorship of terrorism:

http://www.petitiononline.com/TurkeyN/petition.html. Thank you!