andyt andyt:
Oh, and here's where ideas of holocaust and destroying your enemy come from - seems it's encouraged by the bible as long as God told you it's OK:
Deuteronomy 7:1-2 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
20:10-17 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. . . . This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.
Have you heard of New Covenant theology? Basically the old testament get's re-examined after Christ takes the sins of man. For example with Deuteronomy Wikpedia describes it this way.
$1:
In place of the elaborate code of laws (mitzvah) set out in Deuteronomy, Paul the Apostle, drawing on Deuteronomy 30:11–14, claimed that the keeping of the Mosaic covenant was superseded by faith in Jesus and the gospel (the New Covenant).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuteronomy#ChristianityIn general it's like this...
$1:
New Covenant Theology (NCT) is but one recent attempt to move forward in this quest. As yet it is less a settled theology than a movement still in the shaping by men who agree that the question has not yet been finally answered by either of the major competing schools of interpretation -- Dispensational Theology and Covenant Theology. There are still disagreements among us on several details, such as the questions of the future of ethnic / national Israel and the millennium. But while we appreciate and borrow from the previous advances made by either side, we are convinced that neither has a corner on the truth. We obviously do not claim to own this corner ourselves, else there would be fuller agreement among us! Thus, NCT is more a movement in progress, in search of more satisfactory answers. We agree among ourselves that many of the traditional answers are not entirely satisfactory, we agree that more study needs to be done, and we agree on at least some proposed solutions to questions which I will highlight below.
http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/h ... cs/nct.htmI see it more simplistic. You go from some of the harsh unacceptable stuff in say Deuteronomy and Leviticus to 'suffer the little children to come unto me', or the 'meek shall inherit the earth', or 'turn the other cheek' and there's no discrepancy. It is an adaptation.
With Islam there's something similar called abrogation, but it goes in the other direction. You have the simple religious texts of Mohammed's Mecca period being abrogated by the later, violent urgings of the Pirate of Medina.
The girl in the OP appears to be advising what Christians might call exegesis or a critical re-examination of that last bit with an eye to adapting into the twenty-first century. Why are you against that?
CKA Uber 
CKA Uber 
