Pope Endorses Evolution and the Big Bang Theory

[Ultimate Paragon]

Any sort of writing can have a profound effect on its readers, fiction or non-fiction.

This is just my mind wandering, so bear with me, but I don't understand why people are able to support the bible and its contents. It has horrific acts of violence committed by a... loving god? Even if there are some sensible passages that convey a certain moral or lesson, does the good outweigh the bad? Do we overlook the violence and follow the verses we deem "good"? This is a genuine question, not me being facetious.

It was the Old Testament God who did those things.  He's much nicer in the New Testament.

[Art Vandelay]

Any sort of writing can have a profound effect on its readers, fiction or non-fiction.

This is just my mind wandering, so bear with me, but I don't understand why people are able to support the bible and its contents. It has horrific acts of violence committed by a... loving god? Even if there are some sensible passages that convey a certain moral or lesson, does the good outweigh the bad? Do we overlook the violence and follow the verses we deem "good"? This is a genuine question, not me being facetious.

It was the Old Testament God who did those things.  He's much nicer in the New Testament.

...It's the same god.

[dpareja]

Any sort of writing can have a profound effect on its readers, fiction or non-fiction.

This is just my mind wandering, so bear with me, but I don't understand why people are able to support the bible and its contents. It has horrific acts of violence committed by a... loving god? Even if there are some sensible passages that convey a certain moral or lesson, does the good outweigh the bad? Do we overlook the violence and follow the verses we deem "good"? This is a genuine question, not me being facetious.

It was the Old Testament God who did those things.  He's much nicer in the New Testament.

...It's the same god.

So he ate a Snickers?

[Ultimate Paragon]

Any sort of writing can have a profound effect on its readers, fiction or non-fiction.

This is just my mind wandering, so bear with me, but I don't understand why people are able to support the bible and its contents. It has horrific acts of violence committed by a... loving god? Even if there are some sensible passages that convey a certain moral or lesson, does the good outweigh the bad? Do we overlook the violence and follow the verses we deem "good"? This is a genuine question, not me being facetious.

It was the Old Testament God who did those things.  He's much nicer in the New Testament.

...It's the same god.

But even the Old Testament God wasn't nearly as bad as many of His detractors say.

-The Great Flood was announced 100 years in advance.  The people had plenty of time to change their ways, but they chose not to.

-Sodom and Gomorrah greeted foreigners by gang-raping them.  And God failed to find ten righteous individuals in the city.

-There is archeological evidence to suggest that the city of Jericho was a military outpost when the Hebrews took it.

-The Amalekites were not eliminated until 400 years after they attacked the Hebrews.  Furthermore, the Kenites (a people living among the Amalekites) were warned about the upcoming destruction of the Amalekites and told to abandon them.  The Amalekites would almost certainly have heard this warning.  They could have taken it as a last chance to change, but chose not to heed it.  And God would certainly have spared them had they taken the chance.  After all, he spared Nineveh after its population repented.

And these are just a few examples that are easily debunked.

[dpareja]

Any sort of writing can have a profound effect on its readers, fiction or non-fiction.

This is just my mind wandering, so bear with me, but I don't understand why people are able to support the bible and its contents. It has horrific acts of violence committed by a... loving god? Even if there are some sensible passages that convey a certain moral or lesson, does the good outweigh the bad? Do we overlook the violence and follow the verses we deem "good"? This is a genuine question, not me being facetious.

It was the Old Testament God who did those things.  He's much nicer in the New Testament.

...It's the same god.

But even the Old Testament God wasn't nearly as bad as many of His detractors say.

-The Great Flood was announced 100 years in advance.  The people had plenty of time to change their ways, but they chose not to.

-Sodom and Gomorrah greeted foreigners by gang-raping them.  And God failed to find ten righteous individuals in the city.

-There is archeological evidence to suggest that the city of Jericho was a military outpost when the Hebrews took it.

-The Amalekites were not eliminated until 400 years after they attacked the Hebrews.  Furthermore, the Kenites (a people living among the Amalekites) were warned about the upcoming destruction of the Amalekites and told to abandon them.  The Amalekites would almost certainly have heard this warning.  They could have taken it as a last chance to change, but chose not to heed it.  And God would certainly have spared them had they taken the chance.  After all, he spared Nineveh after its population repented.

And these are just a few examples that are easily debunked.

It still all boils down to "worship me or die". And besides, later in the Old Testament (Nahum and Zephaniah) God promises the destruction of Nineveh whether or not they repent again.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Any sort of writing can have a profound effect on its readers, fiction or non-fiction.

This is just my mind wandering, so bear with me, but I don't understand why people are able to support the bible and its contents. It has horrific acts of violence committed by a... loving god? Even if there are some sensible passages that convey a certain moral or lesson, does the good outweigh the bad? Do we overlook the violence and follow the verses we deem "good"? This is a genuine question, not me being facetious.

It was the Old Testament God who did those things.  He's much nicer in the New Testament.

...It's the same god.

But even the Old Testament God wasn't nearly as bad as many of His detractors say.

-The Great Flood was announced 100 years in advance.  The people had plenty of time to change their ways, but they chose not to.

-Sodom and Gomorrah greeted foreigners by gang-raping them.  And God failed to find ten righteous individuals in the city.

-There is archeological evidence to suggest that the city of Jericho was a military outpost when the Hebrews took it.

-The Amalekites were not eliminated until 400 years after they attacked the Hebrews.  Furthermore, the Kenites (a people living among the Amalekites) were warned about the upcoming destruction of the Amalekites and told to abandon them.  The Amalekites would almost certainly have heard this warning.  They could have taken it as a last chance to change, but chose not to heed it.  And God would certainly have spared them had they taken the chance.  After all, he spared Nineveh after its population repented.

And these are just a few examples that are easily debunked.

It still all boils down to "worship me or die". And besides, later in the Old Testament (Nahum and Zephaniah) God promises the destruction of Nineveh whether or not they repent again.

"Worship me or die"?  Hardly.  If that were the case, there are a lot of other peoples who would have also been on the chopping block.

And there are many interpretations of the destruction of Nineveh.

[Art Vandelay]

-The Great Flood was announced 100 years in advance.  The people had plenty of time to change their ways, but they chose not to.

So genocide is totally okay if there's a little blackmail in advance? I guess if Hitler got that memo, he wouldn't have anywhere near the image problem. Also, not sure how that justifies drowning all of the non-human terrestrial species as well.

-Sodom and Gomorrah greeted foreigners by gang-raping them.  And God failed to find ten righteous individuals in the city.

He also killed the one righteous guy's (Lot, was it?, or was that someone else) wife for looking over her shoulder at the city as they were fleeing.

-There is archeological evidence to suggest that the city of Jericho was a military outpost when the Hebrews took it.

Not according to the bible. It's right in there that God orders everyone, specifying that this includes women and children, killed. Unless you're now siding with Ironchew's "we should edit the Bible", that is still the official, biblical version of events.

-The Amalekites were not eliminated until 400 years after they attacked the Hebrews.  Furthermore, the Kenites (a people living among the Amalekites) were warned about the upcoming destruction of the Amalekites and told to abandon them.  The Amalekites would almost certainly have heard this warning.  They could have taken it as a last chance to change, but chose not to heed it.  And God would certainly have spared them had they taken the chance.  After all, he spared Nineveh after its population repented.

So again, genocide is perfectly acceptable if an ultimatum precedes it, right? Do you honestly believe that that makes ethnic cleansing okay? Because if so, fuck me, I think Ironchew may have a point after all.

Furthermore, let's apply this sort of logic to the modern day. In most of the Middle East, they execute people (sometimes via stoning) for the crime of being gay or being raped. Similarly, in Saudi Arabia, it's illegal for a woman to drive a car and even go out in public without a niqab/burqua and accompanied by her husband, or if she's unmarried, a male relative. As such, does that justify glassing the entire region? What if we knew for a fact that every last person bar one is in complete and total support of these practices. If we could extradite that one person and maybe his family if they don't so much as glance of their shoulders on the way out, would that make it okay to kill anyone and everyone in the area? How about if we give them 100 year to change their ways. If by the end of it, they still haven't changed, should we send forth the nukes? Because if your honest answer to any of these questions is "no", then bible god is not in fact "not nearly as bad as his detractors say".

[Ironchew]

Any sort of writing can have a profound effect on its readers, fiction or non-fiction.

This is just my mind wandering, so bear with me, but I don't understand why people are able to support the bible and its contents. It has horrific acts of violence committed by a... loving god? Even if there are some sensible passages that convey a certain moral or lesson, does the good outweigh the bad? Do we overlook the violence and follow the verses we deem "good"? This is a genuine question, not me being facetious.

I think Matt Dillahunty said it best:

I wonder if you’d be so charitable to other books. What’s the percentage of niceness in the Bible? How bad does a book need to be before you’ll stop making excuses for it? Why is it that “But I don’t really like the parts about slavery and misogyny…I just like turning the other cheek” somehow disqualifies their thought processes from criticism?

Meanwhile, is it wrong to try to help those people escape to reality? Is it wrong to point out that the liberal and moderate Christians, by pointing to the same holy book provide support and cover for the nastier Christians? Is it wrong to point out that they donate money and time, in the name of those good parts, to organizations that should rightly be considered criminal organizations?

[Witchyjoshy]

Personally, I don't give a damn if someone believes Cthulu is about to wake up and that we should all worship him so that he'll give us a quick death.

Just leave me to my own devices, and I'll leave you to yours.  Try to argue the point with me, and I will argue the point back.  Try to indoctrinate anyone's children, and prepare to be struck down.

As for me, I don't plan on having children, so the indoctrination point is moot on my behalf.  Though if you are curious, I am of the opinion that indoctrinating your children, even into paganism, is a violation of trust.  That being said, indoctrinating your children into believing your own values, no matter what those values are, is an unfortunate aspect of human nature.  And even so-called "good people" do it, too.

Regardless, religion is on a downward trend, and the sooner it releases its stranglehold on our laws, our society, and our government, the better off we'll all be.  I'm fairly certain this is one point that Ironchew and I can agree on.

[Ultimate Paragon]

-The Great Flood was announced 100 years in advance.  The people had plenty of time to change their ways, but they chose not to.

So genocide is totally okay if there's a little blackmail in advance? I guess if Hitler got that memo, he wouldn't have anywhere near the image problem. Also, not sure how that justifies drowning all of the non-human terrestrial species as well.

Most scholars believe the story of Noah's Ark was an exaggeration, as was common in those days.  And they were given fair warning.  God didn't get rid of them because He was a racist, He got rid of them because they were evil.

-Sodom and Gomorrah greeted foreigners by gang-raping them.  And God failed to find ten righteous individuals in the city.

He also killed the one righteous guy's (Lot, was it?, or was that someone else) wife for looking over her shoulder at the city as they were fleeing.

That's not exactly what happened.  Many scholars believed that it was seeing God in all of His splendor that killed her.  It was hardly a unique idea in the Bronze Age.  Semele, for example, was killed when she made Zeus/Jupiter swear on the River Styx that he would show her his full divine form.

-There is archeological evidence to suggest that the city of Jericho was a military outpost when the Hebrews took it.

Not according to the bible. It's right in there that God orders everyone, specifying that this includes women and children, killed. Unless you're now siding with Ironchew's "we should edit the Bible", that is still the official, biblical version of events.

Oh, so the Bible's only accurate when you want it to be?

And even if there were civilians there, it must be understood that ancient chroniclers often used hyperbole.  "We killed them all" was rarely meant to be taken literally.  It's like saying your baseball team got slaughtered.  When an Ancient Near Eastern writer said a military leader “left no survivor” or “destroyed everything that breathed” it was a stock way of saying that they were victorious… not necessarily that they actually obliterated everything.

-The Amalekites were not eliminated until 400 years after they attacked the Hebrews.  Furthermore, the Kenites (a people living among the Amalekites) were warned about the upcoming destruction of the Amalekites and told to abandon them.  The Amalekites would almost certainly have heard this warning.  They could have taken it as a last chance to change, but chose not to heed it.  And God would certainly have spared them had they taken the chance.  After all, he spared Nineveh after its population repented.

So again, genocide is perfectly acceptable if an ultimatum precedes it, right? Do you honestly believe that that makes ethnic cleansing okay? Because if so, fuck me, I think Ironchew may have a point after all.

Again, it must be said that this was probably exaggerated.  If Saul exterminated the Amalekites, how did they return to menace David?  Did they respawn like video game characters?

Furthermore, let's apply this sort of logic to the modern day. In most of the Middle East, they execute people (sometimes via stoning) for the crime of being gay or being raped. Similarly, in Saudi Arabia, it's illegal for a woman to drive a car and even go out in public without a niqab/burqua and accompanied by her husband, or if she's unmarried, a male relative. As such, does that justify glassing the entire region? What if we knew for a fact that every last person bar one is in complete and total support of these practices. If we could extradite that one person and maybe his family if they don't so much as glance of their shoulders on the way out, would that make it okay to kill anyone and everyone in the area? How about if we give them 100 year to change their ways. If by the end of it, they still haven't changed, should we send forth the nukes? Because if your honest answer to any of these questions is "no", then bible god is not in fact "not nearly as bad as his detractors say".

There are a lot of things wrong with your argument.

-Values are very different now.  Up until the Middle Ages or so, mass slaughter was basically routine.  In fact, there's some reason to believe that the Hebrews were actually bleeding-hearts by the standards of the time.

-The Middle East has shown that it can do better.  Most of those I mentioned were given the chance to improve, and they failed.

-All those things happened because all or a vast majority of the people were irredeemable.  Most Arabs are good people.  Most Muslims are good people.

-And you're talking about on a much, much larger scale than any of these, except possibly the Flood.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Any sort of writing can have a profound effect on its readers, fiction or non-fiction.

This is just my mind wandering, so bear with me, but I don't understand why people are able to support the bible and its contents. It has horrific acts of violence committed by a... loving god? Even if there are some sensible passages that convey a certain moral or lesson, does the good outweigh the bad? Do we overlook the violence and follow the verses we deem "good"? This is a genuine question, not me being facetious.

I think Matt Dillahunty said it best:

I wonder if you’d be so charitable to other books. What’s the percentage of niceness in the Bible? How bad does a book need to be before you’ll stop making excuses for it? Why is it that “But I don’t really like the parts about slavery and misogyny…I just like turning the other cheek” somehow disqualifies their thought processes from criticism?

Meanwhile, is it wrong to try to help those people escape to reality? Is it wrong to point out that the liberal and moderate Christians, by pointing to the same holy book provide support and cover for the nastier Christians? Is it wrong to point out that they donate money and time, in the name of those good parts, to organizations that should rightly be considered criminal organizations?

1.  It must be taken into account that values in Biblical times were very different from what we have today.  There are also other differences: differences in style (which very easily changes the meanings of certain quotes and passages), differences in definition (Biblical slavery was much less cruel than the chattel slavery on plantations in the Americas), and differences in between different groups (did you know that the ancient Hebrews were almost unique in their time and place for having laws against domestic violence?).

2.  I do not "provide comfort and support" for frummers!  And if this thinks so, he's a complete shithead! 

In fact, I actually defended an atheist from being attacked by some fanatical Christian.  And there are many, many examples of Christian groups fighting against the bigotry of the more extreme members of the faith.

Matt Dillahunty, I name thee bigot.

[Art Vandelay]

Most scholars believe the story of Noah's Ark was an exaggeration, as was common in those days.  And they were given fair warning.  God didn't get rid of them because He was a racist, He got rid of them because they were evil.

Yeah, they were "evil", that's always the story. Obviously, the entire global population, human and animal alike, were completely and irredeemably "evil", except for just the one, and the omniscient and omnipotent deity that created them to be exactly the way they are in the first place had no other choice nor method at his disposal.

That's not exactly what happened.  Many scholars believed that it was seeing God in all of His splendor that killed her.  It was hardly a unique idea in the Bronze Age.  Semele, for example, was killed when she made Zeus/Jupiter swear on the River Styx that he would show her his full divine form.

Again, God is all knowing and all powerful. Even by your version of events, he knew exactly what was going to happen, including the guy's wife looking over her shoulder, and that her seeing him in his current form would kill her, yet he chose to appear in such a form in the first place. He knew exactly what he was doing and was perfectly capable of preventing it, yet he chose not to.

Oh, so the Bible's only accurate when you want it to be?

And even if there were civilians there, it must be understood that ancient chroniclers often used hyperbole.  "We killed them all" was rarely meant to be taken literally.  It's like saying your baseball team got slaughtered.  When an Ancient Near Eastern writer said a military leader “left no survivor” or “destroyed everything that breathed” it was a stock way of saying that they were victorious… not necessarily that they actually obliterated everything.

I'm not talking about it's accuracy, I'm talking about the morality of its content. Of course it's not actually accurate. A blind amputee with parkinsons at an archery range would be more accurate than the bible. That's besides the point. The point I'm making is that the Christian god, as depicted in the bible that many people believe actually exists and is such a fantastic source of moral guidance, is a genocidal nutter.

Although this does raise the question, what about the stuff you do find morally agreeable? The "feed the poor" and "turn the other cheek" kind of stuff. Does that also supposedly mean something completely different to what is actually says or can you take that at face value?

-Values are very different now.  Up until the Middle Ages or so, mass slaughter was basically routine.  In fact, there's some reason to believe that the Hebrews were actually bleeding-hearts by the standards of the time.

I'm not talking about the Hebrews, I'm talking about God. That being that's supposedly benevolent, loving and orders the Hebrews to wipe out entire cultures that he's directly responsible for existing in the first place simply because he doesn't like them. Not that it justifies genocide when the Herbrews do it without divine prompting, but that's an unrelated issue.

-The Middle East has shown that it can do better.  Most of those I mentioned were given the chance to improve, and they failed.

Ahem.

How about if we give them 100 year to change their ways. If by the end of it, they still haven't changed, should we send forth the nukes?

So I guess that's a yes, then?

-All those things happened because all or a vast majority of the people were irredeemable.  Most Arabs are good people.  Most Muslims are good people.

"Irredeemable", says the all powerful God that created them in the first place and could do literally anything besides sic his personal genocide squad on them.

-And you're talking about on a much, much larger scale than any of these, except possibly the Flood.

So what exactly is the maximum population for genocide to possibly be acceptable?

[Ultimate Paragon]

Most scholars believe the story of Noah's Ark was an exaggeration, as was common in those days.  And they were given fair warning.  God didn't get rid of them because He was a racist, He got rid of them because they were evil.

Yeah, they were "evil", that's always the story. Obviously, the entire global population, human and animal alike, were completely and irredeemably "evil", except for just the one, and the omniscient and omnipotent deity that created them to be exactly the way they are in the first place had no other choice nor method at his disposal.

Would you rather God deprive them of free will?

That's not exactly what happened.  Many scholars believed that it was seeing God in all of His splendor that killed her.  It was hardly a unique idea in the Bronze Age.  Semele, for example, was killed when she made Zeus/Jupiter swear on the River Styx that he would show her his full divine form.

Again, God is all knowing and all powerful. Even by your version of events, he knew exactly what was going to happen, including the guy's wife looking over her shoulder, and that her seeing him in his current form would kill her, yet he chose to appear in such a form in the first place. He knew exactly what he was doing and was perfectly capable of preventing it, yet he chose not to.

She was specifically warned not to look back, but she did so anyway.  Are you going to blame God for somebody else's bad decision?

And the reason God took the form He did?  Simple.  He wanted to send a message so that He wouldn't have to do it again.  And apparently, it worked.

Oh, so the Bible's only accurate when you want it to be?

And even if there were civilians there, it must be understood that ancient chroniclers often used hyperbole.  "We killed them all" was rarely meant to be taken literally.  It's like saying your baseball team got slaughtered.  When an Ancient Near Eastern writer said a military leader “left no survivor” or “destroyed everything that breathed” it was a stock way of saying that they were victorious… not necessarily that they actually obliterated everything.

I'm not talking about it's accuracy, I'm talking about the morality of its content. Of course it's not actually accurate. A blind amputee with parkinsons at an archery range would be more accurate than the bible. That's besides the point. The point I'm making is that the Christian god, as depicted in the bible that many people believe actually exists and is such a fantastic source of moral guidance, is a genocidal nutter.

Although this does raise the question, what about the stuff you do find morally agreeable? The "feed the poor" and "turn the other cheek" kind of stuff. Does that also supposedly mean something completely different to what is actually says or can you take that at face value?

Well, some of it.  For example, the bit about how rich people can't go to Heaven.  Why would an all-loving God exclude people based on socioeconomic status?  The answer: when somebody dies, they leave behind their earthly riches.  Therefore, they are no longer rich when they enter Heaven.  Jesus is merely saying "you can't take it with you".

And you seem to have ignored the point I made about the exaggerations.

-Values are very different now.  Up until the Middle Ages or so, mass slaughter was basically routine.  In fact, there's some reason to believe that the Hebrews were actually bleeding-hearts by the standards of the time.

I'm not talking about the Hebrews, I'm talking about God. That being that's supposedly benevolent, loving and orders the Hebrews to wipe out entire cultures that he's directly responsible for existing in the first place simply because he doesn't like them. Not that it justifies genocide when the Herbrews do it without divine prompting, but that's an unrelated issue.

The only culture they were explicitly ordered to destroy was the Amalekites.  And that was done after He had shown enormous patience with them.  God did not give that command lightly.

-The Middle East has shown that it can do better.  Most of those I mentioned were given the chance to improve, and they failed.

Ahem.

How about if we give them 100 year to change their ways. If by the end of it, they still haven't changed, should we send forth the nukes?

So I guess that's a yes, then?

Okay, I could have phrased that better.  What I meant to say was that many among the Middle Eastern peoples have already demonstrated a willingness to change for the better.  Therefore, not even the Old Testament God would have smote them.  After all, He would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah if He'd been able to find ten righteous people there.

-All those things happened because all or a vast majority of the people were irredeemable.  Most Arabs are good people.  Most Muslims are good people.

"Irredeemable", says the all powerful God that created them in the first place and could do literally anything besides sic his personal genocide squad on them.

What could He have done that didn't deprive them of free will?  And again, the vast majority of these accounts of "genocide" must be taken with a grain of salt.

[Art Vandelay]

Would you rather God deprive them of free will?

Ah yes, "free will". Again, the all knowing and all powerful God created them with the will to behave a certain way and the foreknowledge of exactly how it would turn out, down to the last tiniest detail. Free will is complete bullshit if you do indeed believe an all knowing and all powerful god exists.

She was specifically warned not to look back, but she did so anyway.  Are you going to blame God for somebody else's bad decision?

Yes, I bloody well am. By your logic, if I tell you not to look at me or I'll shoot you in the head, and you do it anyway, then I'm completely blameless for killing you. Needless to say, that's fucking stupid.

And the reason God took the form He did?  Simple.  He wanted to send a message so that He wouldn't have to do it again.  And apparently, it worked.

The only possibly way such a message could possibly be heard is if an innocent happens to see him, dies of it, and another innocent witnesses the event and somehow guesses that the cause of death is seeing God in his instant death form. I really don't buy that the all loving, all powerful and all knowing god didn't have a better way making a point.

Besides, I fail to see how demolishing the city in the first place doesn't get the point across. It's not as though "God did it" was ever in doubt before he killed her.

In any case, you're basically saying it's okay to kill innocent people for the sake of sending a message. If you honestly believe that, well, I must say you kind of scare me, and that says a hell of a lot, coming from me of all people.

Well, some of it.  For example, the bit about how rich people can't go to Heaven.  Why would an all-loving God exclude people based on socioeconomic status?  The answer: when somebody dies, they leave behind their earthly riches.  Therefore, they are no longer rich when they enter Heaven.  Jesus is merely saying "you can't take it with you".

But didn't Jesus also say to give away your wealth (or at least as much as you can afford) to the poor, and the whole "it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven" line was said right when he was making that point? It would seem that if you're still rich by the time you're standing at the pearly gates, then you've clearly disobeyed a direct order from God himself. Considering what normally happens when you do that, that's barely a slap on the wrist.

And you seem to have ignored the point I made about the exaggerations.

I have a hard time buying "kill and enslave everyone, including the women and children" is a mere exaggeration. It's a wee bit too specific to be explained away as such, in my book.

The only culture they were explicitly ordered to destroy was the Amalekites.  And that was done after He had shown enormous patience with them.  God did not give that command lightly.

It's still genocide, and the omnipotent God could've literally done anything about it, including not creating the universe in such a way that they'd end up existing in the first place.

Okay, I could have phrased that better.  What I meant to say was that many among the Middle Eastern peoples have already demonstrated a willingness to change for the better.  Therefore, not even the Old Testament God would have smote them.  After all, He would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah if He'd been able to find ten righteous people there.

That doesn't answer my question. One more time. If the Middle East were, as you say, unwilling to change for the better, would it then be okay to glass the entire region? Yes or no.

What could He have done that didn't deprive them of free will?

Even ignoring my earlier point about free will? Literally anything. He is omnipotent, is he not?

[Ironchew]

2.  I do not "provide comfort and support" for frummers!  And if this thinks so, he's a complete shithead! 

Bullshit. Between your "God didn't get rid of them because He was a racist, He got rid of them because they were evil" and "Biblical slavery was much less cruel than the chattel slavery on plantations in the Americas", you're praising some of the most vile filth in the book. Forget defending fundamentalists -- here I am wondering just how fundamentalist you are when it comes to rationalizing genocide and slavery.

In fact, I actually defended an atheist from being attacked by some fanatical Christian.  And there are many, many examples of Christian groups fighting against the bigotry of the more extreme members of the faith.

Matt Dillahunty, I name thee bigot.

Call his show the next time he's on and tell him. That would be good for a laugh.