Good Grief, Chill Out

She Just Can't Help It
Ann Coulter just labeled John Edwards' campaign manager a terrorist supporter.

IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO DIVERT BONIOR FROM HIS PRINCIPAL PASTIME WHICH IS FRONTING FOR ARAB TERRORISTS.
I've got a screen capture as well, should the comment disappear.

There's good grief and bad grief and this Coulter affair is starting to be bad grief. No offense to Confederate Yankee, but a screen capture? Why? Or, why on earth would, or should she delete it? That's hardly the type of snarkish but pointed political rhetoric one wants to start running around the Internet policing.

I had my say on Coulter and a development or two along the way, but yesterday's melodramatic group hug around a rather pretentious letter was as annoying to me as can be Coulter at times.

Some of the individuals who appear to aspire to be parents for the blogosphere, or college Republicans, or maybe Coulter herself, need to grow up and climb down off their high horses. There are few things in life more alienating than someone preaching to you when you haven't given them the job.

Conservatives should champion free expression. And when we encounter unpleasant or inappropriate speech, as was Coulter's faggot remark delivered at CPAC, as it was, we're correct to denounce it and make our thoughts known. But there comes a time to move on. That time is past.

I understand the concept behind not wanting to be tarred with the same brush as a Coulter when she goes over the top, as she sometimes does. But no one can do that to another, or to a movement, unless they accept it themselves.

If one wants to engage in what they might define as only a high level of political discourse, great, so do it. That's who and what people will judge you to be in the end. Unfortunately, if some are going to waste their time running around telling people they do it and why, and why everyone else needs to do it, as well, the majority of adults capable of thinking for themselves are ultimately going to tune you out. And it occurs to me that that's what all this silliness around Coulter is about preventing in the first place.

Sometimes you don't need a Michael Moore or a George Soros to say, move on. That's my bit of wishful thinking for now.

Comments

[Hard Right]

I have an image of a lemming going off a cliff. Ooops. It's Ann. No difference really.

[scarshapedstar]

Uh... seriously, have you guys not been listening to a word she said for the past 5 and a half years? What on earth about this is new? What surprises you?

"The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle. They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors."

The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that even her erstwhile fans are admitting that her shtick is stale and her career is drying up faster than her artificial -- whoops, I mean, "naturally non-self-lubricating" -- vagina.

[Capitalist Infidel]

Come on folks, the left says "reich-wing," "Bushhitler," they openly hope for the assassination of our vice president, their elected officials compare our soldiers to nazi's, the soviet gulags, and pol pot. And we're supposed to spend one minute on ann coulter calling edwards a "faggot?" We all know that the entire strategy on the left is hypocrisy so let them do what they do, feign outrage over some comment by coulter but ignore everything they say themselves.

[Darth Malice]

She maybe a nut,but she is right about Bonior and the Dem Party.We have traitor Dem Party and a very weak Rep Party.

[w3]

Her comments don't come from nowhere:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31497

March 13, 2003, WASHINGTON – A former Democratic congressman years ago hampered FBI efforts to investigate terrorist suspects in Detroit, which is now a hotbed for al-Qaida sympathizers and cells, former FBI officials say.

Former Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich., led a campaign on Capitol Hill to pressure the FBI to back off an intelligence-gathering operation in Detroit aimed at deterring terrorism during the last Gulf war.

[Darth Malice]

There will be Islamic uprisings in Mich and Ohio,and they will be supported by the Dems.

[Legalize]

Calling Edwards' campaign manager a terrorist sympathizer is "pointed" political rhetoric? Idiot. Is this the cause of, or merely a symptom of your deluded paranoia? But please, keep Coultergeist in the fold. Let the public see who you really are; it must be liberating.

[scarshapedstar]

I'm with Legalize. By all means, keep calling 55% of the country traitors. It makes perfect sense.

[Darth Malice]

The American people have little choice sad to say.Maybe our Islamic masters will show mercy.

[w3]

scarshapedstar wrote:

"The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that even her erstwhile fans are admitting that her shtick is stale and her career is drying up faster than her artificial -- whoops, I mean, "naturally non-self-lubricating" -- vagina."

How quickly you became that which you claim you hate. This only makes me wonder what you found so objectionable about what Coulter said, considering you employ similar insults yourself. Wait, let me guess: you love gay men, but even you draw the line with people who have gender identity issues.

[Legalize]

I think it's closer to 63% these days, scar. In other news, looks like Coultergeist is losing advertisers at her website. Big ones: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/05/coulter.ads/index.html

PLEASE invite it to speak at more loony winger events!

[Darth Malice]

Palpatine/Vader 2008.....Our survial depends on a strong team for the 21st century

[seekeronos]

"The American people have little choice sad to say. Maybe our Islamic masters will show mercy."

...

"Mercy" toward the Kufaar?

Nope. No way. Nuh-uh. No how.

The Kufaar (non-believers in Allah) have no expectation of mercy. It says so right here in the "Holy" Koran:

"Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme." (Sura 2:193)

"..... The unbelievers are your inveterate enemies." (Sura 4:101)

"When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful. (Sura 9:5)

[Darth Malice]

Seek,as long as our new masters do the liberals first,then it will be our turn:)Seek what are we going to do about our pathetic leadership?

[TheSpartan]

C'mon Seek, like you can't find stuff just as bad in the Old Testament.

[Darth Malice]

Sparten,do you see Consevative Christians beheading anybody as of late?

[Oregonian]

"Sparten,do you see Consevative Christians beheading anybody as of late?"

No, I believe the preferred weapon these days is a sniper rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Slepian

[Jeff]

"The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle. They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors."

I agree with that statement... HEH.

"C'mon Seek, like you can't find stuff just as bad in the Old Testament."

And in the books of Matthew, Mark, John, and Romans, there are scriptures that either implicitly an explicitly state that there is a new law, and that the Old Testament laws do not apply because of what Jesus did. (And yes, those scriptures say that the Ten Commandments still apply).

But Spartan, show me Old Testament scripture that shows God's follows (not Christians, yet) massacring people for no good reason, and God praising them for their massacre.

[Jeff]

"No, I believe the preferred weapon these days is a sniper rifle."

Now, that guy is one person, and he has mental problems. Also it is one person, not 10% of Christians.

Out of 150 million Christians in America there is one guy who is a terrorist, I think that there are more than 1 out of 2 million Muslims in America that are terrorists. In fact, I know.

And Christians are not excusing Slepian, whereas many Muslims love UBL.

Here is an example that might apply. If Slepian represents all Christians, then all Liberals must be like Charles Rust-Tierney (the pedophile). Since one Liberal was a pedophile they must all be.

You implied that all Christians are like Bernard Slepian... which is disgraceful... and pretty much just an attack on all Christians since you've got nothing...

[scarshapedstar]

"And in the books of Matthew, Mark, John, and Romans, there are scriptures that either implicitly an explicitly state that there is a new law, and that the Old Testament laws do not apply because of what Jesus did. (And yes, those scriptures say that the Ten Commandments still apply)."

Well, that's interesting. When did Jesus instruct his followers to hate teh gay? Or is that the only OTHER part of the Old Testament that's still operative.

[Darth Malice]

Oregon,you know good and well that is not supported be anybody?

[splashtc]

Seems the hullabaloo would be good publicity for the new MM et el tv show. Ann Coulter was just being Ann Coulter. ?

[Andrew]

I'm more interested in Dick Cheney's blood clot. Who knew that he even had blood.

[tk]

I was in college in 1968 and I can tell you we almost lost this country. Hate was everywhere. Cities were burning and the Vietnam war and opposition against it was raging. We are heading thee now unless we stop the hate talk. BobInStamford is happy 9 soldiers were killed and Coulter is just a Ass. Can people in a free country hate this much? I hope not.

[Legalize]

"I'm more interested in Dick Cheney's blood clot. Who knew that he even had blood."

They say its fatal if not properly treated.

[Hard Right]

Uh... seriously, have you guys not been listening to a word she said for the past 5 and a half years?

No I haven't. Now you see why.

[Jeff]

Please don't respond to the trolls baiting people about Vice President Cheney... Pathetic.

"When did Jesus instruct his followers to hate teh gay?"

He didn't. Jesus hated sin and not sinners, he sat down with a prostitute, and with tax collectors (who were the scum of the Earth back then). He told them what they were doing was wrong, and that they were welcome to Heaven, and that what they had to do to go There.

I don't hate gay people, and I doubt that many Christians do, but I absolutley hate what they are doing I think that it is sick and dispicable.
Is it that I will always be labelled as hating gays until I say that what I think they are doing is acceptable? Because I will never say that.

[Seferas-H.]

I don't understand why the conservative and republican party is going on a witch-hunt to capture Ann Coulter. She isn't the enemy and she isn't hurting our party....why don't we stop squabbling amongst ourselves and quit trying to paint this "Oh...we loooove everyone and don't want to offend anyone" picture that has crippled us everytime we get in power.

Our platforms should be that we can FIX the problems that the democrats have created using the federal government. Tax reform, Welfare reform, privatization of social security, return the individual freedom to the people and down-size the federal government, return the department of education back to the states and communities, and then make personal healthcare more affordable by removing taxation on those who wish to own their own private plans.

Our platform should be "The government that governs best is the government that governs least". Private Social security, private health care (DOWN WITH Socialized medicine), Initiate the fair tax, and tighten down security on north and south borders, and then remove the political hold on military affairs and remove all embedded reporters and news organizations who are tagging along with our soldiers and making them look like villains.

We have bigger problems than Ann Coulter, and the funny thing is she isnt really a problem. You have Edwards out there saying he can now "Channel the opinions of Jesus" and were worried about Ann Coulter using the word Faggot?

This is why the Right always fails! we focus on the dumbest stuff worrying that it is going to ruin our chances to win an election. Build an effin platform that the people would actually freakin care about (like the list I made above) and you'll get elected. I understand that conservative social issues are important to our party, but were running around trying to bite our own tail in this race.

Wake up republicans. Quit acting like a bunch of morons and attacking your own people.

[seekeronos]

In the Old Testament, God commanded the ancient Israelites (a nation which no longer exists in its original form, and has little continuity with the modern secular State of Israel other than the name and location) during the conquest of Canaan and for a time during the establishment of the kingdoms of Saul and David to conduct the wholesale extermination of certian, very specific groups of people.

That much, there is no denying.

However, to say that those specific commands are binding upon any Jew or Christian at this point is a farcical stretch of Scripture that serves only to humour the Devil.

There are not any Amalekites or Hivites or Canaanites, or any recognizeably extant groups of people from those ancient races left on this earth for that matter.

Furthermore, the old covenant between God and Israel has been completed (not "abolished" or "done away with", but rather, fulfilled and set aside) in the form of the Jewish (and indeed the world's) Messiah having come to earth, died, and risen again. Both the Temple, and He that dwelt therein were destroyed to bring in the New Covenant of salvation through grace (undeserved merit).

Therefore, those laws (concerning the specific God-endorsed genocides) are fulfilled, completed, and at this time, inoperative.

Why did God command such a brutal and total slaughter of those people? At this point in history, it may be difficult to "justify" His reasoning. But how will you contend with an Almighty and Sovereign God, One who holds our very lives in His hands?

Suffice it to say that whatever those old nations did, it was sufficiently heinous to warrant God's direct judgment in that time. And God doesn't play favorites either: when Israel sinned wickedly against God, He removed Israel as a nation-state into the captivities of Assyria and Babylon; and again God judged them by sending the Greeks and later the Romans, until finally, the temple was reduced to a mere wall by the armies of Titus in AD 70.

Therefore... as Jesus Christ has completed the sacrifice for sin for all time, the ___requirements___ of the Levitical laws (on shellfish, stoning adulteresses, killing witches, and killing people guilty of committing homosexual acts) are similarly fulfilled, and are not binding upon us.

WHY then, are those laws still in the Old Testament....?

...

They are recorded so that we might know what God's mind is toward certain things; the Law is written so that we may be certain that we are sinners, and that it is impossible for us to fully keep and obey God's perfect Law.

Make no mistake: God is a Holy, Righteous and Just God. The Bible says that "God is angry with the wicked every day" (Psalm 7:11) --- those who choose not to repent of their sin and receive God's grace and forgiveness, God will be compelled to punish them for their transgressions.

See also this sermon by Charles Finney for a more detailed exposition concerning God's Anger: http://www.gospeltruth.net/1849OE/490131_gods_anger.htm

Nor has God "suddenly had a great change of heart, having realized that He was being a bit too harsh for the past 5,000 years..." -- He is the same God today as He was in the beginning as He will be in eternity.

By the Law, we know that acts of homosexuality, adultery, fornication, murder, envies, lust, backbiting, sowing discord, and many other things are sins; we know that God will also hold us to account for that at the Judgment, with a certain punishment due to us, save that we appear before Him covered with the Blood of Jesus, the spiritual mark of His redemption.

By the Law, we know God's standard of Holiness, and we are made painfully aware of our shortcomings, which lead us back to the loving arms of Jesus.

...

But as for Allah? Being one and the same with the enemy of all men and God alike, that is, Satan... he desires only death, destruction, and misery for its own sake.

[Zifnab]

"I don't hate gay people, and I doubt that many Christians do, but I absolutley hate what they are doing I think that it is sick and dispicable.
Is it that I will always be labelled as hating gays until I say that what I think they are doing is acceptable? Because I will never say that."

So you don't hate gays just gayness. What, exactly, about gay do you hate so much? Is it the sodomy? Cause I've got some rather sad news for you - that's not limited to same-gender relations. Maybe its just the non-baby-making sex. Again, I would point you to anyone who's ever used a condom or birth control. Is it the bible? Cause the same book that bans same-sex coupling also bans a mixing fabrics in garments and eating shell-fish. Where's the ban on GAP and Ralph Lauren?

There's really no reason to ban gays or gay marriage any more than there is to ban mosques or rodeos or fishing. I can name segments of society that are horrified by all of these institutions, and yet each of them co-exist peacefully and respectfully in our national culture. Even the more questionable moral practices like gambling and prostitution are legal in areas of the US - the state of Nevada shines like a taudry star in the night in this regard. But "teh ghey" gets a special, excluded place in American culture. It's a place that has been reserved almost exclusively for the same racial biases that plagued us until the 60s. If you swapped out "gay" with "interracial", you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between gay-bashing legislation of today and the KKK nonsense of the past. So if you don't like it, that's fine, but much like so many other legal vices I fail to see how the government suddenly needs to nanny-state America on this particular matter.

[yyy]

But how will you contend with an Almighty and Sovereign God, One who holds our very lives in His hands?
---------------------------------------------------------

Well, for starters, it seems pretty clear to me that the creator of the universe was not involved in direction any ancient semetic peoples to commit rape, offer up blood sacrifice, enslave their enemies, murder their enemies and commit genocide.

The Old Testament is what it is, a blend of myth and truth that came down from oral traditions that reflects the mind set of the HUMANS who wrote it and the time in which they lived, when slavery, murder and blood sacrifice were SOP.

Anyone who decries the Koran and Islam as a religion of violence while also proclaiming himself to be a Christian is nothing more than a hypocrite.

The Koran, the Old Testemant, the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Iliad are all about equally relevant.

[Andrew]

Good news, cons!! Scooter Libby was found NOT GUILTY of making false statements. Unfortunately he was found guilty on the other 4 counts. Looks like Duke Cunningham will have someone to hang out with.

[Fred Beloit]

I'm not an approver of Coulter's more extreme statements. But she certainly has a right to make them. If they are bad enough she will pay the price of a lawsuit, boycott, etc. However, the libs are not advised to throw too many stones from their very fragile glass house. See: http://Patterico.com/2007/03/05/5901/leftist-hate-speech/.

[Fred Beloit]

Excuse me, yyy, but nobody alive today should be called a hypocrite for something that happened long ago. And the branch of Islam that is deliberately attacking innocents while committing suicide for religious reasons should be condemned, don't you think?

[Phoenix]

Why,Why,Why,

Why you made your usual relentless harping references to the past into something relevant to the present...and that is pointing out that little in the distant past is relevant today. Progress is a continuum we have no control over; we can only control our willingness to change with that progress or not. Now, quit blaming the past and get on with the business of change to accomodate the ineluctable progress that goes on apace despite us.

[Hard Right]

YYY, could you be a more stereotypical, liberal, religion hater? The Old Testament mostly fell by the wayside when Jesus was on earth. The Koran on the other hand started off somewhat peacful until Mohamed gained more power and his schizophrenia worsened. He then preached violence against infidels more than ever before. The Koran demands wars against infidels. The Bible does not. So violence committed in the name of Christianity is not coming from the Bible.

So to shorten it for you-Christianity started off violent, became peacful.
Isalm started off somewhat peacful, became violent and demanded more violence in it's name.
The apostates are the muslims not waging jihad as required by the Koran.

[yyy]

Hmmm,

When was the last war against the infidels, were there any wars against the infidels in the modern era? Didn't think so. In fact, it appears the last truly RELIGION BASED war of aggression was launched by the Christians in the middle ages to 'take back' the Holy Land from the muslims, because ya know 'god wills it'

Organized religion generally devolves into dogma and intollerance.

PS...The christian church and vast majority of christian teachings bear little resemblance to the teachings of Jesus Christ, who I fear would have something negative to say to the idea of TV evangelists getting rich off the donations of a gullible public or most of the rest as what passes as the 'christian' agenda.

[Fred Beloit]

yyy states: "The christian church and vast majority of christian teachings bear little resemblace to the teachings of Jesus Christ." Ah, obviously you got your PhD from Notre Dame or a divinity school doctorate perhaps. Won't you share you New Testament education with us?

[Hard Right]

YYY, the Crusades were a DEFENSIVE response to Muslims conquering large parts of Europe. Look at a map of Europe at the time the Crusades were launched. Then try to tell me the Crusades were an act of unwarranted aggression against Muslims.

As for TV evangelists, they may preach Christianity but it's obviuos their God is money. Saying they represent the church/mainstream Christianity is just an attempt to justify your hatred and ignorance of religion.

[Fred Beloit]

To say that you can find examples of Christians who do not act as if they were meek, for example, is not to demonstrate that all of the Christain world "...bears little resaemblance..." to what Jesus taught. BTW, I am not religious, but I know jumping to conclusions when I see it.

[yyy]

Jesus Christ was a revolutionary, he exorted his followers to give up traditional life, ties, jobs and responsibility to follow and preach the word of god. The disciples left their families, fortunes and responsibilities to preach with Jesus.

If people want to argue that Christ would have supported burning witches, killing and torturing heretics, war for profit or in his name, regulation of the sex lives of married people, driving women OUT of the church leadership, the virgin birth or the bashing of homosexuals you are free to do so. But the actual words attributed to Christ both in the New Testiment and in the other early christian gospels that were not included simply don't support that view.

Christ was a pacifist preaching a doctrine of love, tolerance, equality. I also highly doubt he was the literal biological child of the creator of the universe. Stupid people don't understand metaphor and allegory, hence many still believe the world is 6,000 years old and many other magical teachings wrongly attributed to 'god'

[yyy]

YYY, the Crusades were a DEFENSIVE response to Muslims conquering large parts of Europe.
-----------------------------------

Bullshit. The muslims never conquered 'large parts' of Europe, they held small parts of Eastern Europe and Spain for quite some time. If you can explain how the crusades which targeted Jersulalem and the surrounding land was a defensive maneuver, please do.

[Fred Beloit]

Well, yyy, they certainly didn't conquer England. That's why you enjoy freedom of speech and freedom religion or no religion today.

[yyy]

Yeah, whatever. That makes sense. It's all about religion. Economic, cultural, political motivations, don't matter. The crazy hateful muslims are the only ones who don't respect freedom of speech or religion. Got it. The fact that say, Saladin was a wise and tolerant leader and say, Henry VIII was a worthless 'christian' piece of shit is irrelevant, apparently.

[Phoenix]

To say that you can find examples of Christians who do not act as if they were meek, for example, is not to demonstrate that all of the Christain world "...bears little resaemblance..." to what Jesus taught. BTW, I am not religious, but I know jumping to conclusions when I see it.

Posted by: Fred Beloit

Fred,

This doesn't sound like you. You could substitute any other religious figure, any other cultural leader and the same statement would hold true. You've just stated a blanket truth but narrowed it to Jesus.

[Fred Beloit]

"Jesus Christ was a revolutionary." No. Castro is a revolutionary. If I recall correctly Jesus said: "Render to Caesar..." etc. He could be called a religious revolutionary I suppose. Where was it you received your New Testament training again? "If people want to argue that Christ [oops, you forgot to use the lower case c yyy] would have supported burning witches..." blah, blah, blah. I didn't notice anyone was making those arguments. I believe this type of statement is called a straw dog or something.

[Fred Beloit]

Thanks, Phoenix, you've improved my education before. But in this case, perhaps I'm a bit slow today, wouldn't be the first time, I'm not sure what you mean.

[yyy]

So, it isn't revolutionary to demand your followers leave their families and jobs to live in poverty and to love you/god more than their wives, children or parents [loose paraphrase here]?

Alrighty.

My original point was that 'christianity' and christian teaching bear little resemblance to the words attributed to chirst. Thus, a look at many of the acts that have been done in the name of christ have to be looked at to see how well they conform to his teachings. Witch burning, torture of heretics, dispariagement of gays, harassment of abortion clinics, etc. all are or were done in the name of christianity. It is absolutely fair then to see whether there is reasonable justification for such acts that comes from words attributed to jesus christ. there isn't.

[seekeronos]

"But how will you contend with an Almighty and Sovereign God, One who holds our very lives in His hands?
---------------------------------------------------------

Well, for starters, it seems pretty clear to me that the creator of the universe was not involved in direction any ancient semetic peoples to commit rape, offer up blood sacrifice, enslave their enemies, murder their enemies and commit genocide.

The Old Testament is what it is, a blend of myth and truth that came down from oral traditions that reflects the mind set of the HUMANS who wrote it and the time in which they lived, when slavery, murder and blood sacrifice were SOP."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, YYY... that is precisely why and where we disagree.

For a Christian, the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) is God's word. Inerrant, perfect, and true - as "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." (Psalm 12:6, KJV))

Nor did any HUMANS write the books of the Bible as they pleased, but rather: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (1 Peter 1:21, KJV)

Point by point:

commit rape/murder their enemies -- On this, you are correct. The Bible never commanded the Jews (or Christians) to commit rape. This is not to say that it did not happen though, and it was wrong when it did happen. Consider the King David and his family. David commited adultery with Bathsheba, and then, plotted and murdered her husband, Uriah. David repented with great remorse when Nathan the Prophet spoke the Word of the Lord against him; and God punished David by a curse: that the sword would not depart from the House of David. His first-born, Amnon, raped his sister Tamar; another son, Absalom, killed Amnon, and later led a civil war that nearly killed David. Though David was moved to mercy for his son who was later hung up in a tree by his hair, one of his generals slew Absalom anyway.

The point of mentioning this story is that man is, has been, and always will be prone to sinning; this is why the Old Testament - is vital to the informing us of our faults and our sins.

One could look at David and his family and say that they were pretty dysfunctional; but through this family line God gave us His Son.

Blood sacrifice -- "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." (Hebrews 9:22, KJV)

This was a matter of fact for the Jews of the Old testament, and in fact, Blood sacrifice predates Abraham by a stretch, going back to the first sacrifice of Abel (who was slain in a fit of jealousy by his brother Cain, because God accepted Abel's blood sacrifice yet rejected Cain's non-bloody sacrifice). The ___very_first___ sacrifice was the animal that God killed to harvest its skin to make coverings which hid Adam and Eve's nakedness.

Therfore, the pattern for that comes from God. God also gave His Son as the culmination of all Sacrifices for all time and forever, thus doing away with that particular aspect of the temple worship.

Enslave their enemies: This has been in the both Old and New Testaments. It wa as much a fact of life in that time then as it was up until about 150 years ago in much of the world. It is perhaps a sign of Christianity's work in the hearts of men, however, that has seen the nearly universal disavowment of slavery as a practice in modern times.

In a spiritual sense, however, we are either slaves to sin and to the Devil (unsaved) or we are servants of righteousnes and of Christ (saved, obedient Christians). Freedom from one is bondage to the other.

Genocide -- I think I covered that at great length above, but in sum:

The orders to genocide in the Old Testament were limited to specific places, times, and peoples, under very specific circumstances.

In the New Testament, Jesus will slay a large number of rebellious men and women at Armageddon... but being God, I don't think there s much we can do to stop him.

The Koran on the other hand both endorses and commands murder, slavery of infidels, and much worse, to unbelieveinf kufaar.

[yyy]

Your distinctions are meaningless and if you believe the Bible is the literal word of god then you are a religious nut in my estimation.

If the creator of the universe and the bood thirsty, petty, ranting tyrant 'god' of the old testement are one and the same then 'god' is neither benevelent or full of love for mankind or any other being.