ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[Nathon Detroit]

By asking " is it ever" I included past present and future.
Under any and all concievable circumstances.

That's nice but that has nothing to do with my point.

I brought up your question you asked Bob to demonstrate how different it was from the question you asked me here on TOL.

Let's look at the two questions next to each other....

fool asked Bob....

Is it ever right to take a sword and butcher a newborn baby?

fool asked Knight...

If you was an old time Hebrew solider, and Yaweh told you to smite everybody of a certain tribe, would you kill women and babies? Or would you kill all the armed men and then say something like "wow, breakfast flew right thru me, I gotta take a dump"?
Would it be a sin to be conveintly missing when the new borns are put to the sword?

Needless to say fool received two very different answers. :duh:

fool asked his question to here on TOL as a test, hoping to get me to demonstrate relative morality (which would still be a bad argument but that's a subject for another time). fool's test failed so he altered his question dramatically and then called Bob show.

 

[fool]

Then just give a quick clarification instead of spending all of your time whinning and complaining and accusing.
What a baby.

Read it again CRASH, there was no whining or complaining, I called him a liar, (in case you can't read)

 

[Balder]

Regardless of the wording of the question, the problem is still the same. It is still clear that Fool finds the Biblical examples to be as problematic as other more general scenarios. Bob, on the other hand, has made it clear that he does not find the Biblical stories of genocide and child massacre to be morally troubling or problematic.

And, for some of us, this is troubling.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

And, for some of us, this is troubling.

This coming from a guy who thinks the people who ended WWII were murderers. :bang:

 

[Balder]

This coming from a guy who thinks the people who ended WWII were murderers. :bang:

Yes, the people who ended WWII also murdered innocent civilians, including children.

You have not answered my questions to you. I also pointed out a few posts ago that you misrepresented my position, in case you missed that.

With regard to Fool's discussion with Bob, he drew a moral distinction between bombing which happens to kill civilians unintentionally, and rounding up women and kids to knife 'em. Do you disagree with that? Would you do it in Iraq, if you were there?

 

[fool]

That's nice but that has nothing to do with my point.

I brought up your question you asked Bob to demonstrate how different it was from the question you asked me here on TOL.

Let's look at the two questions next to each other....

fool asked Bob....
fool asked Knight... Needless to say fool received two very different answers. :duh:

fool asked his question to here on TOL as a test, hoping to get me to demonstrate relative morality (which would still be a bad argument but that's a subject for another time). fool's test failed so he altered his question dramatically and then called Bob show.

By me asking "is it ever right" would include the historical reference that I first hit you with, also, I invited you to come on the show when I was scheduled to take me to task on any trap you felt I'd led you into, you declined. I also took time on the show to reference the protest you had lodged regaurding my reference to your statement. The end result of your answer and Bob's is still the same, you're both ready to smote you some infants when Yaweh gives you the nod. So I would sumise that all this about who got asked what question first is a bunch of hand waving. I didn't make a big deal about the fact that Bob said it would be murder at first glance any way. I focused on why he felt smoting infants was OK. The thrust of the arguement still stands, even if Bob did give me a couple of nice sound bites regaurding intent, which I have used to blow the smoke away from your bombing obfusication.
Bob was asked the question "is it ever" and gave what qualifications he felt nessasary ie; bombing, and he said that if your intent was to kill a child that was wrong. If he really felt that what Joshua did was right then he could have included that in his qualifications.
This is actually none of your concern, Bob has engaged me in the part 4 thread with a post which I have responded to and if he wants to respond to it then we can go from there.
As far as you and me, you're a baby smoter and I'm not so if we have any issues left over then please spell them out cause I don't think I should have to fight two guys in three threads while watching people get banned for asking good questions.

 

[Granite]

That's a lie.
Which makes you a liar.

I guess this thread just shows the contortions Christians must go through to justify what's written, even if it's vicious and abhorrent.

 

[Stripe]

I guess this thread just shows the contortions Christians must go through to justify what's written, even if it's vicious and abhorrent.

i went through no contortions at all .. all i did was mash the <cntrl C> and <cntrl V> buttons in producing post 179 and im completely exonerated.

 

[Granite]

i went through no contortions at all .. all i did was mash the <cntrl C> and <cntrl V> buttons in producing post 179 and im completely exonerated.

I didn't know you were on trial...

 

[Stripe]

I didn't know you were on trial...

so you have no case against any christian?

 

[Balder]

Speaking for myself here, it is not a matter of having a case against Christians. At least, not in the sense of most Christians being guilty of a crime. However, I do think Christians should deal with the import of the stories in the OT and decide how they hold them -- whether they find them morally objectionable, and what that means theologically if they do. For those Christians who defend such acts as just, I believe they are justifying evil acts and are guilty in that regard. To the degree that you don't condemn genocide and the like, but instead imagine them to be divinely inspired acts, then the tradition as a whole leaves the door open for further evil.

 

[Stripe]

right .. so either way i fulfill those requirements without changing anything .. so where is the burden on any christian ..?

 

[Balder]

You do not support such acts; you would not do them. Others do, and probably would. They laugh at people (non-Christians) who condemn such acts and call us wusses and wicked God-haters.

And the Bible says God, or a prophet of God, told His people to commit genocide and to cut down children. Do you believe this story? Do you think it's justifiable? Do you think God really commanded it? Do you think he would command it again? Why or why not?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

With regard to Fool's discussion with Bob, he drew a moral distinction between bombing which happens to kill civilians unintentionally, and rounding up women and kids to knife 'em. Do you disagree with that? Would you do it in Iraq, if you were there?

An atomic bomb does not discriminate.

I would have had no problem dropping the atomic bomb on Afghanistan or Iraq or any of those Muslim countries directly after 9-11.

I would have had no problem turning the entire region into a glass factory.

 

[Stripe]

i believe the story, i cant imagine how its justifiable, i think god commanded it, he wont command it again because the exact same scenario would have to arise again. god would command whatever suits the situation and i cant fathom any situation in todays world that might require such an action.

my final stance is going to remain that the original question has no relevance to my faith or belief or view of reality unless i can be shown exactly how or why i might be required to change in light of the hypothetical.

if that applies to me then it can potentially apply to every christian.

case dismissed (unless im wrong).

 

[Granite]

so you have no case against any christian?

Sure I do. I just think it's interesting you immediately take it upon yourself to declare yourself "exonerated" as though you had something to prove. I always thought the truth was self-evident. Interesting choice of words, that's all.:cheers:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Do you think he would command it again? Why or why not?

No I do not think He would command it the same way again. (although there will be some very nasty things going on during the tribulation)

I think this was a very extreme case.

Normally, God requires that the remaining women and children be cared for after battle. I think there is a very specific reason God asked for such drastic measures. But ultimately it stills falls into the category of "things you might need to do in war". This was obviously a drastic case and I think there is a reason why it was so drastic.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I guess this thread just shows the contortions Christians must go through to justify what's written, even if it's vicious and abhorrent.

Hey Granite... do you have anything constructive to add to the debate? fool, Balder and allsmiles are all making reasonable points. Please do likewise or butt out, thanks.

 

[Balder]

i believe the story, i cant imagine how its justifiable, i think god commanded it, he wont command it again because the exact same scenario would have to arise again. god would command whatever suits the situation and i cant fathom any situation in todays world that might require such an action.

my final stance is going to remain that the original question has no relevance to my faith or belief or view of reality unless i can be shown exactly how or why i might be required to change in light of the hypothetical.

if that applies to me then it can potentially apply to every christian.

case dismissed (unless im wrong).

I commend you for saying you would not carry out such an act, but I think it is rather dishonest and shameful to hide out the way you are doing, refusing to deal with the issue in a straightforward way, and continually seeking to dismiss the question as even valid. If you believe such a situation would never arise again, you should explain what was unique about the situation, and why you think it will never arise again. Otherwise, it appears you are just essentially hiding out and refusing to deal with the issue, making up an ad hoc explanation to insulate yourself from the impact and the import of the massive violence of the OT.

 

[Granite]

Hey Granite... do you have anything constructive to add to the debate? fool, Balder and allsmiles are all making reasonable points. Please do likewise or butt out, thanks.

Very true; the three of them are fighting the good fight. My points were overlooked and ignored by you and others earlier this thread. They're not going anywhere. When they're answered I'll respond.

Back to lunch.