Is the prophet Moses terrorist and mass murderer...

[Simba]

is his accompliss a genocidal narcissist baby killer?

I ask this due to his conspiratorial coordination with God in the effort to enact terror and genocide over the entire country of Egypt through the ten plagues. These plagues using such things as biological, economical, and psychological warfare against a majority of innocent civilians to enact political pressure against a political body. This does not even encompass the final plague which was the mass genocide carried out by God, and his willing accompliss Moses, upon the population of Egypt including against complete innocent babies.

In regards to the plagues it is said that God in part did this in part because Pharoh doubted his power and in part to impress the Israelites. That's right, he killed hundreds of children, babies at times, to teach a guy a lesson and to impress a bunch of people. Sounds like someone who has a "pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy".

So, what say you? Is Moses a Terrorist and God a Genocial nacissist, both conspiring for mass murder?

You would think he would make the State Department list of terrorist organizations, wouldn't you?

 

[Gardener]

Zyph's thread was well-designed to expose in consistency. .

The word you are looking for is "engage". The thread was designed to ENGAGE in hypocrisy.

 

[Tucker Case]

I also find that its the militant atheist contingent that tends to be more hyper-dramatic and difficult in the religious discussions. :lol:

One of the reasons I even bother to continue to post in religious threads semi-regularly is to show that not all non-believers hate religion.

I do believe the actions of the various prophets of various religions can be judged by human standards, but I'm not entirely certain they can be judged by today's standards.

 

[obvious Child]

Not a chance. All Moses did was ask Pharaoh to met my people go.

God did the rest. But then again, if you understand the non-linear notions of the Biblical God, he's pretty evil. Bame God. Not Moses.

 

[jallman]

One of the reasons I even bother to continue to post in religious threads semi-regularly is to show that not all non-believers hate religion.

And you do a very good job of it. But when I say "militant atheist", I am talking about the Cephus, rathi, obvious child contingent.

I do believe the actions of the various prophets of various religions can be judged by human standards, but I'm not entirely certain they can be judged by today's standards.

And that is my point entirely. But you still can't judge the gods of these religions by human standards at all. As I mentioned before, in the old testament, other gods were recognized and they fought for supremacy. The Bible naturally tells it that YHWH gained that supremacy.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The word you are looking for is "engage". The thread was designed to ENGAGE in hypocrisy.

No, what I said is what I meant. It exposed hypocrisy quite well.

 

[Tucker Case]

And that is my point entirely. But you still can't judge the gods of these religions by human standards at all. As I mentioned before, in the old testament, other gods were recognized and they fought for supremacy. The Bible naturally tells it that YHWH gained that supremacy.

I agree.

In order to have any debate on the described actions of a deity, you must start by accepting the premise that any deity must be vastly superior in both knowledge and ability to mankind. If you don't start by accepting this premise (for the purposes of the debate, not necessarily in reality) the debate will always devolve into one that focuses on that premise itself, which is a waste of time, IMO.

But once you accept that premise for the purposes of debate, it means you cannot really judge these types of beings by human standards. Their motivations would obviously be vastly different from those of a human, and their ability to see the "big picture" would also, by necessity, be greater than any human's.

Assuming the plagues were real events as described in the bible, perhaps the reason God was willing to take such seemingly extreme actions was because he knew that taking these steps would save billions of lives in the future or something. We really can't know what the motivation nor what the ultimate results of the actions were.

But what we can do is look at the humans who are depicted in these tales. These people, like us today, would also have no real understanding of the motivations and ultimate results of what they were engaging in.

They all have free will to make their own choices, and we know the information they had available to them at the time that they made their choices (based on the presumption of accuracy in these stories).

According to Ex. 4:21, Moses was well aware that it was Jehovah that was hardening the Pharaoh's heart "that he shall not let the people go". Moses could have, at that point, said "I'm not on board with this **** if you are stacking the deck here, Jehovah. I don't know how you mind works, but I ain't about to be on board for the killing of innocent people with this **** if it's preventable. Maybe instead of hardening this dude's heart, you can simply soften it. Either way, this **** ain't Kosher. I'm out."

Moses could have refused to deliver the messages, he could have refused to raise his staff.

Instead he followed, knowing that everything could have been prevented if Jehovah simply did not continually interfere by hardening Pharaoh's heart.

So I say that you can judge Moses by human standards. What he did, he did with the knowledge it wasn't going to work. Moses never stopped, and never questioned God.

Hell, as soon as he heard God's idea for the tenth plague, he could have said "Listen, this is getting pretty ****ed up. Why do we have to kill these innocent children? They did nothing wrong. And you could have stopped all of this well before it got to this point. I'm pretty sure the Lice thing would have been more than enough to convince him if you didn't keep ****ing with his heart. If not that, then the locusts for sure."

I think a legitimate debate on the role of Moses could be had.

 

[jallman]

I agree.

In order to have any debate on the described actions of a deity, you must start by accepting the premise that any deity must be vastly superior in both knowledge and ability to mankind. If you don't start by accepting this premise (for the purposes of the debate, not necessarily in reality) the debate will always devolve into one that focuses on that premise itself, which is a waste of time, IMO.

But once you accept that premise for the purposes of debate, it means you cannot really judge these types of beings by human standards. Their motivations would obviously be vastly different from those of a human, and their ability to see the "big picture" would also, by necessity, be greater than any human's.

Assuming the plagues were real events as described in the bible, perhaps the reason God was willing to take such seemingly extreme actions was because he knew that taking these steps would save billions of lives in the future or something. We really can't know what the motivation nor what the ultimate results of the actions were.

But what we can do is look at the humans who are depicted in these tales. These people, like us today, would also have no real understanding of the motivations and ultimate results of what they were engaging in.

They all have free will to make their own choices, and we know the information they had available to them at the time that they made their choices (based on the presumption of accuracy in these stories).

According to Ex. 4:21, Moses was well aware that it was Jehovah that was hardening the Pharaoh's heart "that he shall not let the people go". Moses could have, at that point, said "I'm not on board with this **** if you are stacking the deck here, Jehovah. I don't know how you mind works, but I ain't about to be on board for the killing of innocent people with this **** if it's preventable. Maybe instead of hardening this dude's heart, you can simply soften it. Either way, this **** ain't Kosher. I'm out."

Moses could have refused to deliver the messages, he could have refused to raise his staff.

Instead he followed, knowing that everything could have been prevented if Jehovah simply did not continually interfere by hardening Pharaoh's heart.

So I say that you can judge Moses by human standards. What he did, he did with the knowledge it wasn't going to work. Moses never stopped, and never questioned God.

Hell, as soon as he heard God's idea for the tenth plague, he could have said "Listen, this is getting pretty ****ed up. Why do we have to kill these innocent children? They did nothing wrong. And you could have stopped all of this well before it got to this point. I'm pretty sure the Lice thing would have been more than enough to convince him if you didn't keep ****ing with his heart. If not that, then the locusts for sure."

I think a legitimate debate on the role of Moses could be had.

I don't know that Moses really felt he had a choice in the matter. I mean, seriously...he had been a member of the Pharoah's family, had seen the desolation of the tribes of Abraham under the rule of Egypt, had denounced his royalty once he learned that he was an Israelite and then he had a burning bush that wasn't consumed by the flame on Mount Horeb tell him that God was appointing him to free his people.

Seriously...GOD spoke to him by means of a bush that was aflame and did not burn. What was he supposed to do? You don't tell a god no. Well, unless you have a bigger god backing you up. Especially when he questioned God's choice in him and God reacted angrily and rebuked him. Now I don't know about you...but I've never had much experience with gods and such but I imagine that when they get angry, it's not a fun experience.

And the thing about God hardening Pharoah's heart...Later on in Exodus 9:7 and 10:20, the account says that Pharoah hardened his heart and then later still in Exodus 9:34, the account says that both Pharoah and God hardened Pharoah and his officials' hearts. Basically, I think all this means is that God knew what Pharoah's response would be even before it happened and, because he is a god and is responsible for even the lily in the field turning it's leaves toward the sun, takes responsibility for even Pharoah's sin.

Also, there's another dynamic going on here, too. The Israelites had been living under pagan rule by a god on earth in Pharoah. Their faith had been tested to the point of breaking and their morale as a people was shattered. The plagues were not just a punishment on Egypt, but they were signs and miracles to bolster the faith and morale of a desolate people.

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD."

Basically, the plan was to make sure Israel knew that their god was the powerful one and that the Egyptians knew that Pharoah was no god, or no god that could tangle with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

[Zyphlin]

Well that's my two bits...

Only on a short bit, so this won't be a long one.

To you, and anyone else, that was offended or insulted I apologize. Know that it was not my intent nor my hope. However, I am not sorry for posting as I did. I firmly believe that when you make something, anything, unable to be satirized, joked about, or lampooned in an offensive manner then it brings in the question the ability to do it to anything. That said, the intent was not to offend and for those that waded into the situation without clearly realizing what it was related to I can see how it would have appeared far more offensive, and it was something I should've taken into account.

 

[jallman]

Only on a short bit, so this won't be a long one.

To you, and anyone else, that was offended or insulted I apologize. Know that it was not my intent nor my hope. However, I am not sorry for posting as I did. I firmly believe that when you make something, anything, unable to be satirized, joked about, or lampooned in an offensive manner then it brings in the question the ability to do it to anything. That said, the intent was not to offend and for those that waded into the situation without clearly realizing what it was related to I can see how it would have appeared far more offensive, and it was something I should've taken into account.

Pfft, you're fine. No one needs to get their pretty pink panties in a bunch over this. I knew what you were doing. I just didn't want to play along. Plus, this has actually become one of the more enjoyable religion threads I've ever taken part in.

 

[Tucker Case]

I don't know that Moses really felt he had a choice in the matter. I mean, seriously...he had been a member of the Pharoah's family, had seen the desolation of the tribes of Abraham under the rule of Egypt, had denounced his royalty once he learned that he was an Israelite and then he had a burning bush that wasn't consumed by the flame on Mount Horeb tell him that God was appointing him to free his people.

Seriously...GOD spoke to him by means of a bush that was aflame and did not burn. What was he supposed to do? You don't tell a god no. Well, unless you have a bigger god backing you up. Especially when he questioned God's choice in him and God reacted angrily and rebuked him. Now I don't know about you...but I've never had much experience with gods and such but I imagine that when they get angry, it's not a fun experience.

And the thing about God hardening Pharoah's heart...Later on in Exodus 9:7 and 10:20, the account says that Pharoah hardened his heart and then later still in Exodus 9:34, the account says that both Pharoah and God hardened Pharoah and his officials' hearts. Basically, I think all this means is that God knew what Pharoah's response would be even before it happened and, because he is a god and is responsible for even the lily in the field turning it's leaves toward the sun, takes responsibility for even Pharoah's sin.

Also, there's another dynamic going on here, too. The Israelites had been living under pagan rule by a god on earth in Pharoah. Their faith had been tested to the point of breaking and their morale as a people was shattered. The plagues were not just a punishment on Egypt, but they were signs and miracles to bolster the faith and morale of a desolate people.



Basically, the plan was to make sure Israel knew that their god was the powerful one and that the Egyptians knew that Pharoah was no god, or no god that could tangle with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

I get the idea that that was the plan as well, and this is pretty clear in the symbolism of Moses' serpent swallowing the serpents of the Pharaoh's sorcerers. Not to mention the Plague of darkness was obviously a way of showing Jehovah's superiority to Ra.

That's my take on Jehovah's motivations, for what that's worth.

And as you point out, Moses was kind of in a pickle as far as going along. He was fully aware of what he was dealing with, and defying a God is probably not something one feels as though they can do. But he didn't even question anything. He just went along.

Granted, I'm not sure how I would react to the whole thing myself, aside from the fact that I'd definitely change my pants and take a bath to wash all the **** off of myself shortly after the firey bush started talking to me :lol:.


I do find your take on the hardening of Pharaoh's heart interesting. That Jehovah was taking responsibility for the Pharaoh's exercise of free-will. I had never thought of it from that perspective, but it does make a certain amount of sense.

 

[jallman]

Not to mention the Plague of darkness was obviously a way of showing Jehovah's superiority to Ra.

Now that's not something I had ever even considered but you are spot on in that analysis.

And as you point out, Moses was kind of in a pickle as far as going along. He was fully aware of what he was dealing with, and defying a God is probably not something one feels as though they can do. But he didn't even question anything. He just went along.

Well this was his God. This was his Lord. And he did question the whole thing in the beginning. That's where the whole "I am that I am" speech comes from...when the spirit of the lord became angry and rebuked Moses. Depending on whether you read the Elohist or the Jahwist traditions, the rebuke was pretty intense...I think it was the Elohist tradition that makes it sound like it was a full on threat but don't quote me on that because it's been a while since I read it.

Granted, I'm not sure how I would react to the whole thing myself, aside from the fact that I'd definitely change my pants and take a bath to wash all the **** off of myself shortly after the firey bush started talking to me :lol:.

Agreed.

I do find your take on the hardening of Pharaoh's heart interesting. That Jehovah was taking responsibility for the Pharaoh's exercise of free-will. I had never thought of it from that perspective, but it does make a certain amount of sense.

I guess my biggest issue with the whole story is where was God during the 435 years that Israel was in Egypt to start with? And more importantly, why did he allow 352 years of that to be enslavement without intervening before Moses. Whether God hardened Pharoah's heart, Pharoah hardened his heart, or it was a combination is really secondary to that important question. But then God did stay quiet for long stretches of time throughout the old testament and he was silent for a full 400 years between Malachi and Matthew so, again, who can say when it comes to a god?

 

[spud_meister]

Granted, I'm not sure how I would react to the whole thing myself, aside from the fact that I'd definitely change my pants and take a bath to wash all the **** off of myself shortly after the firey bush started talking to me :lol:.

i once dated a red headed ventriloquist, it's not as bad as you'd think.

 

[lizzie]

That said, the intent was not to offend and for those that waded into the situation without clearly realizing what it was related to I can see how it would have appeared far more offensive, and it was something I should've taken into account.

I wasn't offended, just wondered what in the hell had gotten into the usually cool, collected, rational Zyph.:mrgreen::shock:

 

[lizzie]

I guess my biggest issue with the whole story is where was God during the 435 years that Israel was in Egypt to start with? And more importantly, why did he allow 352 years of that to be enslavement without intervening before Moses.

Maybe Moses was the first guy that God found who was had the heart and the will to do the job. It's not easy finding men with the courage of their convictions.

 

[Tucker Case]

Now that's not something I had ever even considered but you are spot on in that analysis.

To be fair, it's not something I came up with on my own. It was something I had read somewhere before. It made perfect sense to me, though.

The serpent thing was something I did realize on my own. But that one's more obvious.

Well this was his God. This was his Lord. And he did question the whole thing in the beginning. That's where the whole "I am that I am" speech comes from...when the spirit of the lord became angry and rebuked Moses. Depending on whether you read the Elohist or the Jahwist traditions, the rebuke was pretty intense...I think it was the Elohist tradition that makes it sound like it was a full on threat but don't quote me on that because it's been a while since I read it.

I've got to reread Exodus, myself. I always thought Moses questioned his own worth as the messenger of Jehovah. Not the actual tasks he was assigned.

I could have that wrong, though.

I guess my biggest issue with the whole story is where was God during the 435 years that Israel was in Egypt to start with? And more importantly, why did he allow 352 years of that to be enslavement without intervening before Moses. Whether God hardened Pharoah's heart, Pharoah hardened his heart, or it was a combination is really secondary to that important question. But then God did stay quiet for long stretches of time throughout the old testament and he was silent for a full 400 years between Malachi and Matthew so, again, who can say when it comes to a god?

There are two main things to consider with this, IMO, that can explain the "lag".

1. What is 400 or so years to an immortal being?
2. Perhaps he waited until it would have the greatest effect as far as showing his dominance over alternative gods

The time lag doesn't seem to bother me because I assume that the motivation was basically showing his dominance over other deities.

God needed the right Pharaoh, the right amount of oppression, and the right prophet. And while it is a long time from the human perspective, it's a moment to an immortal being.

 

[jallman]

I've got to reread Exodus, myself. I always thought Moses questioned his own worth as the messenger of Jehovah. Not the actual tasks he was assigned.

I could have that wrong, though.

That's what I meant by questioning. That simple objection, which was basically that he wasn't eloquent enough to live up to the task, was enough to piss god off.

There are two main things to consider with this, IMO, that can explain the "lag".

1. What is 400 or so years to an immortal being?
2. Perhaps he waited until it would have the greatest effect as far as showing his dominance over alternative gods

The time lag doesn't seem to bother me because I assume that the motivation was basically showing his dominance over other deities.

God needed the right Pharaoh, the right amount of oppression, and the right prophet. And while it is a long time from the human perspective, it's a moment to an immortal being.

That's true but I do get kinda tired of hearing it as an excuse. It's like this to me...if God created these beings and then claimed a certain population of them as his chosen people, I kinda think he has an obligation to be mindful of their short lifespans. Sometimes I get the impression that God treated humans as his collective ant farm rather than as individuals with their own desires and ambitions.

 

[Tucker Case]

That's true but I do get kinda tired of hearing it as an excuse. It's like this to me...if God created these beings and then claimed a certain population of them as his chosen people, I kinda think he has an obligation to be mindful of their short lifespans. Sometimes I get the impression that God treated humans as his collective ant farm rather than as individuals with their own desires and ambitions.

From what I've read on it, being the "chosen people" isn't something that has rewards for the Jews. Apparently it means that the Jewish people have special obligations to God that non-chosen people do not have.

This obligation can almost be viewed as a burden. Although I've never really heard it called such, but that's my take on it. This is what is used to explain the 430 year enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt, for example.

And apparently it's a sort of hereditary obligation/burden.



But, to be honest, that doesn't paint God in a better light at all. It does paint the Jewish people, and the idea that they are chosen, in a better light.

Often the concept of a "chosen people" sounds like a claim to superiority. I used to think that's what it meant before I researched the matter. But once I heard this explanation, the idea that the Jewish people were chosen to take on a set of burdens for God, it doesn't even remotely sound like a claim of superiority to me.

And viewed from that perspective, coupled with the suffering of Jews throughout history, it can almost make even an unbeliever like myself think "Holy ****, there might be something to this whole chosen people thing."

 

[Apocalypse]

An interesting trivia - believing in this story means that you also believe in God, means that you also believe that everything is done according to his word, and that means that you believe he is responsible for everything in the world, including every single murder that has ever occurred.

Shock and awe. :2razz:

 

[Objective Voice]

I've often found that in most cases those who are either non-Believers or who speak out against the power, majesty and holiness of God either take versus of Scripture and twist it to justify their own actions or beliefs or have had some event take place in their lives that turned them away from God. They lost their faith and in doing so would like nothing more than to bring others into their company. Usually, that company is one of pain and misery. Unfortunately, what those such people forget or refuse to realize is that Believers have their share of unhappiness and misery, too. But what gets use through is the love of those around us and faith in our God through Jesus Christ, we can get through even our darkest days.

To the OP, Pharaoh, Raamses II, was given plenty of opportunities to release the Hebrew people. Instead, he chose to keep them in oppression and servatude to him against the wishes of God. Where the children are concerned, you have to look at events that unfolded in their proper content and not take one singular view based on one versue (or even a few verses) from the Bible without looking at the totality of situation at hand.

Pharaoh had atleast opportunities to witness the power of God and do as He commanded through Moses, to release the Hebrew people, but each time Pharaoh refused.

1. Turning Moses' staff into a serphant.
2. Turning the water into blood.
3. The plague of frogs.
4. The plague of lice.
5. The plague of flies.
6. Death of Egyption cattle.
7. The plague of boils.
8. And finally, He caused hail to rain down upon Egypt.

All these things did Pharaoh and the Egyption people suffer before the final three plagues befell them due to Pharaoh's stubborness.

Starting at Exodus 10:9, Moses and Aaron come before Pharaoh who asks who of the Hebrew people shall he release? Moses answers, "Everyone" - all young, old, sons and daughter, and all flocks and herds (cattle) of the Hebrew people. But Pharaoh refuses willing only to let the men go, but every women, child and cattle are to stay behind (v10 and 11). At this point, God causes a plague of locusts to spread out all across Egypt, but even after the plague has been removed, Pharaoh still refuses to let the Hebrew children go (v20). Note the difference in Pharaoh's stance here. Initially, he was willing to release the men only, but keep the women, children, flocks and herds, but after the plague of locusts was removed, Pharaoh was willing to release everyone including flocks and herds, but keep the children. Why? Because he still needed slaves and knew that two things were certain in keeping the Hebrew children behind:

1. that the Hebrew nation would never return to fight against him as long as he held their children hostage; and,
2. that as long as he had young Hebrew slaves, they would reproduce and make more slaves from among the Hebrew people and not his own nor would he have to go out and conquer other nations to acquire more slaves.

God then caused darkness to fall over the Egyption people for 3 days. Pharaoh tries to bargain w/God through Moses once again this time suggesting to release the Hebrew children along w/the men, but not the women, flocks and herds. Once again, Moses insists that all of the Hebrew people as well as all that belongs to them must be freed which including the cattle (which Pharaoh knew all too well not only served as a food source for meat, but also as ritual sacrafices according to God). Pharaoh declined and again refused to let the Hebrew people go (v21-29).

God then decrees that the first born of Egypt shall die because of Pharaoh's stubborness. Now, the first born? There are two reasons for this:

1. God considers the Isrealite (Hebrew) people as his choosen people. They were the first as a nation of men God selected as examples of how mankind was to worship Him.
2. God saw how Pharaoh covetted not only the Hebrew children but those of Egypt as the greatest love among the people, but specifically, God saw how much Pharaoh loved his own son and how he was being groomed to be the next heir to the throne of Egypt. God saw how the Hebrew people would continue to live in bondage even under Pharaoh's son. So, it was through this covetous behaviour as exhibited by Pharaoh himself that brought about this last plague upon Egypt. God used the sybolism of the first born to get his message across to Pharaoh.

So, to answer the question of the OP, No. There's no act of terrorism or murder here. All Raamses II had to do was comply and release the Hebrew nation as Moses had commanded of him through God. Pharaoh's actions (or inaction) brought about the fate of the first born of Egypt in the days of Moses.

(Edit: It should be noted that in every instance where God caused death there was a reason behind it. For example, when He caused it to rain upon the Earth for 40 days/nights, He did so because sin inhabited mankind. When He destroyed Sodom and Gamorah it was due to sin inhabiting these lands. When God instructed Joshua to leave none alive in the land of Cannan it was because of sin that was being committed by the Cannanites, as well as, to fulfill a promise He made to Abraham - to bring forth a mighty nation from his seed. Even when He caused Isrealite people to die, He did so because they sinned be it slightly (i.e., accidentally touching the Ark of the Covenant) or on a much grander scale (i.e., Isrealite Kings causing their people to sin). Hence, the rationale behind the pregnant women being put to death as reference to in 2 Kings.

Unless you read Scripture with the intent to study and learn instead of cherry picking different aspects to justify your own arguments/purposes, the Bible will not make much sense to most people.

 

[lizzie]

An interesting trivia - believing in this story means that you also believe in God, means that you also believe that everything is done according to his word, and that means that you believe he is responsible for everything in the world, including every single murder that has ever occurred.

Shock and awe. :2razz:

God can be a pretty tough taskmaster at times.

 

[Black Dog]

An interesting trivia - believing in this story means that you also believe in God, means that you also believe that everything is done according to his word, and that means that you believe he is responsible for everything in the world, including every single murder that has ever occurred.

Shock and awe. :2razz:

No. He is responsible for creation and at the time his chosen people. Other than that it is up to each of us as we have free will.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

is his accompliss a genocidal narcissist baby killer?

I ask this due to his conspiratorial coordination with God in the effort to enact terror and genocide over the entire country of Egypt through the ten plagues. These plagues using such things as biological, economical, and psychological warfare against a majority of innocent civilians to enact political pressure against a political body. This does not even encompass the final plague which was the mass genocide carried out by God, and his willing accompliss Moses, upon the population of Egypt including against complete innocent babies.

In regards to the plagues it is said that God in part did this in part because Pharoh doubted his power and in part to impress the Israelites. That's right, he killed hundreds of children, babies at times, to teach a guy a lesson and to impress a bunch of people. Sounds like someone who has a "pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy".

So, what say you? Is Moses a Terrorist and God a Genocial nacissist, both conspiring for mass murder?

In short yes.

 

[Zyphlin]

Objective Voice, to continue to play a little devil's advocate here but in a more serious way....

Is not the notion that the killing is justified for reasons such as "clensing the sin" of people or "because they don't realize the power of [our] god" or "they were warned and in their stubborness ignored us" justifications religious extremists use in the modern day for terrorist attacks?
Or how about "You do not remove your leaders and thus you are as guilty as they" for attacking civilians because of the leader's actions.

Are we not hearing messages that attacks like 9/11 is due in part to us being "the great satan" (which is essentially the embodyment of sin) and they were attempting to purge it? Did Bin Laden not point to the fact that they've routinely warned the U.S. of their intent and done incrimental attacks in hopes of forcing our hand into what they wish us to do? That we do not follow their god and thus are infedels that must be shown the power of conviction?

Outside of the notion of "God is God and therefore above human rules", what is different truly between your justification and theirs?

 

[Tucker Case]

Objective Voice, to continue to play a little devil's advocate here but in a more serious way....

Is not the notion that the killing is justified for reasons such as "clensing the sin" of people or "because they don't realize the power of [our] god" or "they were warned and in their stubborness ignored us" all justifications religious extremists use in the modern day for terrorist attacks?

Are we not hearing messages that attacks like 9/11 is due in part to us being "the great satan" (which is essentially the embodyment of sin) and they were attempting to purge it? Did Bin Laden not point to the fact that they've routinely warned the U.S. of their intent and done incrimental attacks in hopes of forcing our hand into what they wish us to do? That we do not follow their god and thus are infedels that must be shown the power of conviction?

Outside of the notion of "God is God and therefore above human rules", what is different truly between your justification and theirs?

Let me take it one step further.


What if they really are acting out God's will?