You are too short for this ride. The narrow claim is not mine, but what I responded to.

The claim is that Christians are eagerly looking to kill unbelievers according to 2 Chronicles 15, such that an unbeliever needs to be cautious and fearful of them.

This is wrong on so many different levels, it can only be made in irrational ignorance.

2 Chronicles 15 is a relatively obscure chapter. The majority of Christians will not have studied that verse in the past year, so pointing to it as a motivation to plan death for others is silly. If they're not even paying attention to it, how do you think it's going to motivate them to kill?

Then it's in the Old Testament, and was a record of what a historical Jewish community decided to do to follow God. This has less weight to a Christian than an Old Testament command (see the 10 commandments and various ceremonial laws) or the New Testament (NT) commands.

I can tell you right now that the NT has absolutely no commands regarding the killing of unbelievers. Instead, it has verses such as Rom 12:18: "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." To look to the OT as if it were the standard of true Christian belief is ignorance of *ALL* Christian theology. Arguments made in complete ignorance are not likely to be true.

That is why it's pathetic to believe Christians are bloodthirsty killers looking to implement 2 Chronicles 15. It's simply not true, in a way that betrays a severly broken thought process.

Your entire response can be summed up as, "but Christians are still evil". That's an emotional argument that logically surrenders the point, but without the integrity to acknowledge the original accusation was wrong and should be retracted.

That may make you feel better than those evil Christians, but it's not going to yield truth or understanding. Abandon those at your own risk.

Homosexuality isn't a belief system. What does non-lethal persecution of a set of behaviors have to do with killing unbelievers?

Furthermore, how are the Ethiopia/Russian governments representative of Christians, and how are their actions rooted in 2 Chronicles 15? I was responding to a narrow claim, and you're replacing it with a very different one in order to say that I'm wrong.

Concede the point before expecting me to change topics, if you're actually interested in discussing that.

Read my argument carefully, please. Did God command them to take such an oath? No. Is there any killing commanded by God? No. That's what the text plainly says. Thus, God did not command to kill/convert.

If your complaint was that the people killed each other in the name of following God, it'd be a more valid criticism. But I can only answer the argument as was presented.

You claimed Christians kill and imprison using a "millennial old text as justification" - you have a responsibility to substantiate the accusation. For the claim to be true, all of its parts that need to be true simultaneously.

You need 1.) Christian actors. 2.) someone killed or imprisoned. 3.) Justification of the activity using the Bible.

Your list of Ethiopia and Russia is insufficient without demonstrating that they are (1) Christian and (3) acting based on the Bible. Your hostile inability to provide examples of killing also indicates that you threw "kill" in there for emotional effect. Logical fallacies are fallacious.

1.) God does not offer such an oath. (Christians generally take time to comprehend the Bible they claim to follow, at least relative to non-Christians who criticize said Bible)

2.) Christians aren't living in a Jewish theocratic kingdom. If you live in the US or other Western countries, you're living with a government that has religious tolerance protected by law, put there by Christians.

3.) Agreements are binding on the parties that agreed to it, and are not binding on the parties that did not agree to it. That oath was made by a specific Jewish community several thousand years ago, and is not binding on Christians in different cultures and locations and times. An understanding of Christian theology will also discover why Christians have no need to imitate such an oath. They may learn from the history, but they do not need to repeat it.

Do I seriously need to explain that in the Bible, God's commands are relayed by prophets?

If you read the entire chapter, which parts are "God's commands", and which parts are historical documentation of what the people did in response? (Hint: I quoted the prophet's words for a reason)

Reading sentences that are meant to be taken together is hard. Adding the previous sentence:

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their ancestors, with all their heart and soul. All who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman. "

Understand? This is not a record of them killing "unbelievers", this is a record of them making a covenant (agreement) to do so, after God had commanded them to follow Him. (but there was no command to go on killing/conversion spree)

You'll also note that this promise is followed by peace. ("So the Lord gave them rest on every side. ") This indicates that this was a domestic policy, not a foreign one, seeing as there are plenty of unbelieving countries that the Jews did not attack. Those who lived in the nation of Israel were to follow the God of Israel; but other nations that followed other gods were left alone.

Now, did the Israelites go on a killing spree? It's possible - but it's not necessary, since being put to death is meant as a deterrent. (note the future tense of the covenant)

If you were a Jew who "would not seek the Lord" living in Judah several thousand years ago, sure. But you'd have fair warning to change your beliefs, as well as strong evidence that it was a good idea.

Consider that the nation had just won a miraculous military victory, and its history was filled with miraculous interventions credited to God. Someone denying the source of those miracles, advocating forsaking God, would be viewed as a threat to the community, seeing as there was also a history of the negative results of that. (invaded by other countries, etc)

This does not, however, remotely translate into Christians being commanded to purge un-believers, or that they're just biding their time. Take the USA - a rather Christian country in its culture: The 1st Amendment clearly protects religious beliefs - and that was codified and approved by Christians!

That you think the Christians are out to get you is along the lines of Blood Libel. Ironic.

PS: I suggest you read about this Jewish guy known as Jesus the Christ if you want to know why Christians have no need/desire to imitate 2 Chronicles 15.

If you want to attack a religion for conversion by the sword, I'd suggest focusing your criticism on the one that is actively killing people every day in this modern era. You do know the one I'm talking about, right?

You're claiming that these two nations are gladly killing non-Christians according to 2 Chronicles 15?

Where? What is the body count? This religious persecution by Christians isn't getting condemned in the media 24/7?

To be charitable, your reading comprehension sucks.

Here's what the prophet claimed God said: "Listen to me, Asa and all Judah and Benjamin. The Lord is with you when you are with him. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will forsake you. [..] But as for you, be strong and do not give up, for your work will be rewarded "

There is nothing there about God commanding to kill and/or convert.

In fact, this is after the nation of Judah had already won a military victory. There isn't any documented killing/converting in this chapter; only the tearing down of idols and a re-dedication of the nation to its original religion. There is no "winning" to be done - the nation enjoyed a post-war victory and a time of peace - which they credited to following God.

[Citation Needed]. Considering your poor comprehension and non-examples, "kill or imprison" is meaningless emotional babble not based on any actual harm.

It reflects poorly on your cause if you have to make things up. That's called "lying".

And who are those Christians, exactly? Where do they live? What groups have they formed? How many people have they killed in their fervor to live out 2 Chronicles 15?

There's actually a religion out there known for killing unbelievers (and believers), but this citation of a singular verse in the Old Testament as evidence that Christianity is bloodthirsty against unbelievers is pretty pathetic.

From the article:

"The FIT is the lifeblood for the industry until photovoltaic prices fall further to levels similar for conventional power production."

"FIT for solar power adds about 2 cents per kilowatt/hour on top of electricity prices in Germany that are already among the highest in the world "

"Critics also complain growing levels of solar power make the national grid more less stable due to fluctuations in output."

More expensive and less reliable electricity is hardly anything to brag about. That's not a sustainable trend.

As a nuclear weapon, it was not designed to go "out of control". The layers of failsafes built into nuclear weapons are far beyond one button.

For a Skynet to be a threat, you don't just need a Project Plutos, you need completely automated Project Pluto manufacturing facilities with a level of reliability (!) to run without human control.

That last part is what makes Skynet so unlikely. We're technically capable of launching enough "robot" ICBMs to destroy human civilization, but if that event occurs, it will be completely intentional on the part of humans.

What do you think happens if these "killer robot" self-driving cars attempt to overthrow their human overlords?

4~5 hours of road rampage later, they run out of gas/energy and are rendered useless.

Ah, but what if they can refuel themselves at a specialized automated refueling station? Assuming the engineers deliberately designed it without a kill switch (off button), that's an easy target to blow up, with the same effect of utterly disabling these robot cars.

It's going to take a lot of human effort to create a killer robot system of systems that is even capable of running out of human control.

Because people are complaining about their physical books taking weeks to ship.

What portion of the Internet do you reside in where it takes weeks to deliver an ebook?

Hachette's monopoly on the intellectual property they publish - which is why Amazon cannot sell Hachette books without a business contract.

Amazon has a digital copy of all those ebooks they can make infinite copies of - but if they tried to sell that right now, the government would enforce Hachette's monopoly and shut down Amazon's illegal selling of Hachette's IP.

That I even need to explain this to you at all demonstrates something ...

a.) "Everyone" does NOT have an Amazon account. Why are you making shit up to attack Amazon?

b.) This does not make Amazon a monopoly, only a superior business.

Neither of these things have to do with barriers to entry - which on the Internet, is as low as it is possible to be for any type of good, in any type of market. That you think Amazon can create a retail monopoly on digital products (infinite supply!) is laughable.

Hachette's inability to run itself profitably is not Amazon's problem, and its situation is most definitely not due to Amazon having a "monopoly".

If you feel sympathy for Hachette's monopoly - by all means express those emotions - but there is no need to baselessly attack Amazon for something that it is not.

Again, not Amazon's problem. It's not illegal to give certain customers a discount due to the nature of their business relationship. BN.com or Kobo should negotiate harder - if they are in fact paying more than Amazon at this moment.

Currently, they're selling Hachette's books for profit while Amazon is not. They're probably gaining a large number of customers from all the people who can't buy the books they want on Amazon. What a monopoly.

What you think is inevitable is rather questionable.

What do you mean by "giving up direct control"?

You think that one day, someone can just hit a "Power on" button, and that will turn on a killer drone that automatically patrols the skies, launches weapons at algorithmically chosen targets, resupplying itself and continuing until deactivated or destroyed?

That is the hardest part.

That "automated" drone takes thousands of hours of man-hours to keep running - the operator, the mechanics, the builders, and that's not even looking at the weapon system or the materials.

To get to the point where an AI system can construct, maintain, and resupply an automated weapon system without human intervention, we need to hit the Robot Utopian Future - where robots are so cheap and ubiquitous they replace human labor at all levels of society.

That's a really big assumption - IF we get to that point, we'd have to smack the head of any engineer who suggests, "Hey, let's take human control out of the loop of this killer robot system of systems."

Until then, killer robots don't kill people, people kill people.

Now we're getting closer to something that is defensible. You want to argue that Amazon is developing a monopoly on eBooks, which is far more limited a market than book sales.

Which still makes it nonsensical to complain about Amazon's activity "lowering supply" or developing a monopoly. ebooks have Infinite. Digital. Supply.

The barriers to entry of an ebook store are practically non-existent, so I'm not sure what you're afraid of here. How does one abuse an ebook monopoly? Does Amazon hold a gun to Hachette's head and force them to sell their books for a minimum price?

If Amazon tried to force Hachette to have an exclusive ebook selling contract with itself, that *would* be monopolizing behavior - but that's also not what Amazon was doing.

The reason I'm harping on definitions is because you're using words nonsensically. I'm trying to figure out what you actually mean, since I'm making a good faith assumption you don't actually believe nonsense.

You simply cannot label Amazon an monopoly using an economic definition. Legal definitions are looser, but they still don't seem to qualify, and I can't help notice you've avoided creating any objective definition which can be objectively evaluated.

In short, you're using "monopoly" as a "badword" accusation, instead of an informative descriptive label. That is the core of my complaint here.

In all this talk about the harm of monopolies, I find it humorous how much fear you have of Amazon's potential "monopoly" on online sales, in defense of the only party with an actual monopoly - Hachette. (Copyright: government protected monopoly of intellectual property)

Hachette is the only one with the ability to monopolistically determine price and restrict supply, and you argue that they're the victims of Amazon's non-monopoly.

If your core point is that monopolies are bad, your choice of criticism is ... odd.

Who were working together, a scenario covered under the Anti-Trust act.

Amazon has maybe a third of book sales. (2012 figure showed them at 27%) That means an overwhelming majority of book sales are not sold by Amazon - no monopoly.

Since Amazon is not colluding with its competitors in these news, there's no trust (multiple companies working together to create a "monopoly"), either.

You offered a scenario of low supply, high margins, and low prices as if they came together. An artificially low supply can increase margins, but it's not going to reduce price - the price may absolutely be low, but it's going to be relatively higher than it could have been if the supply was artificially restricted.

Hachette still has the same number of authors and publishing equipment. "Permanently lower supply" may happen in the future, but you can't lay the blame on Amazon. It's the publisher's job to supply demand; Amazon is a customer of Hachette. (They pay money for goods)

You keep using that word monopoly. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Is that why its believers fail to understand the nature of their own belief?

Because I find it highly amusing to get an argument that boils down to, "I believe I have no beliefs!"