ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[Stripe]

This is illogical, Grant. It simply doesn't follow. If the Bible says God commanded genocide and the slaughter of children (on more than a few occasions, not a single isolated incident), then it is certainly justifiable to ask why it was done,

yes you are justified in asking why. just dont ask me, i have no idea nor any intention of trying to defend god.

whether it was really justifiable, and what modern Christians would do if asked to do the same thing.

answered that. not going there again.

Just because you love God doesn't matter. Perhaps you'd defend an abusive parent this way too: "It doesn't matter what he did! He's not accountable because I love him!" But that's emotionally driven evasion, not facing the facts.

ugh ... i wouldnt defend an abusive parent. i wouldnt justify what they did. i would still love them.

...

*bursts into tears*

*recovers*

...


it is patently obvious it does matter what god did given the very people he ordered to do it wrote it down so legibly.

god may well be accountable but i am in no position to hold him so. youre welcome to try.

my challenge stands logically and emotionally sound:

• recant
• reject
• run away

 

[Balder]

Knight,

The main intent of the massacres in the Bible stories we are discussing appears to have been to take by force the land that belonged to another people, and they killed the babies to get it. I imagine you do not believe they were wrong in this instance, even though in general you believe it is wrong to go to war to steal land and property?

 

[fool]

ah .. the man of the moment. this is your time fool. ok, im sorry - i will remove the 'dishonest' option from any further comment. i know a lot has been posted since you were last here so i will address everything in this post even though it may have been addressed already.

Thank you, I did read your extensive break down of the matter, much appreciated. The flaw in it revolves around your assumptions as to what fool's goal is in asking the question.
I submit that the mind set of the asker matters not one iota. The question is the question whether it came from me or random question generating machine.

i take the story as fact. the question was a hypothetical unless you have a time machine and can send me back to the time it happened...

My time machine dosen't work so until I can find some more wire coat hangers go ahead and treat it as hypothetical.

uh .. im not sure what you mean. i have no comment on the morality of god. my post 179 assumed three options for your intention when posing the question.

Your entire analisys revolved around fool's motivations, which have no bearing on the question, try breaking it down again without mention of fool at all.

i didnt say that god wouldnt ask me .. i said i wouldnt do it.

Hence you are refusing to follow God, Correct?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Knight, i don't want to be a one note band with my Sun Tzu veneration, but don't you see the quality of waging a war with the intention of causing the least amount of damage and blood shed possible? do you think victory cannot be acheived unless the most damage is done? how do you know that "whatever is necessary to win" is causing your enemy and his populous the most harm possible? don't you think there's any value to Sun Tzu's stragey of defeating the enemy with the least amount of damage possible?



dominance can be asserted any number of ways, and according to Sun Tzu the highest and best moral and humane strategy is to assert dominance with the least amount of blood shed. do you not find value in that?

(emphasis mine.) Isn't this what it is really all about? :box: Isn't least amount of blood shed part there to make us feel better about our actions?

i'm not convinced that any of us are qualified to judge the status of an insurgent or his motivation. their definition of "war effort" is obviously vastly different from ours, but that has to do with the culture they've been brought up in, and the position they have been forced into. it's easy for us to sit back and judge the insurgents, but we really have no clue as to the world they must face on a day to day basis and how they perceive us.

:doh: i'm not convinced that any of us are qualified to judge the status of GOD or his motivation. :idea: HIS definition of "war effort" is obviously vastly different from ours, but that has to do with the :vomit: WICKEDNESS OF MANKIND, and the position they have [...] forced [GOD] into. it's easy for us to sit back and judge :nono: GOD , but we really have no clue as to the world HE must face on a day to day basis and how :dead: HE PERCEIVES us

i'd still like to know a few things:

enquiring minds want to know :think:

in the Jericho genocide, was the city already taken at the point when the massacre began? was victory contingent upon the slaughter of the non-combatants? if it was, why? if it wasn't, why? why did they have to die? what was the tactical advantage? what was the economic or political advantage?

I have explained some of the tactical advantages, but you called me a baby killer, or something like that.
You are looking at this wrong :dizzy:
It is not about the advantages for the Children of Israel or for God.
It IS about the wickedness of Jericho, and the justice of God punishing them for their wickedness. In this case, He required His people to carry out the death sentence on the city. That does not excuse the wickedness of Jericho.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The main intent of the massacres in the Bible stories we are discussing appears to have been to take by force the land that belonged to another people, and they killed the babies to get it. I imagine you do not believe they were wrong in this instance, even though in general you believe it is wrong to go to war to steal land and property?

I disagree.

I think the main intent was to not allow God's people (His blood line) to be subverted.

God had already destroyed the earth with a flood. He had promised not to do that again but there were times when wickedness was once again running amok. God took steps to thwart rampant wickedness. Drastic times take drastic measures.

It sounds awful... heck it was awful (war is awful) but that is the nature of man. It's just the way it is. War is hell.

Now we live in a time of tactical, clinical, lovey dovey war so it's very difficult for us to imagine what real warfare is like (even though it hasn't been that long since it was the "norm").

 

[genuineoriginal]

Do you see any moral difference between the acts? If a country considers itself at war with another country but doesn't have the resources to rally a big army, may they engage in such acts with the same "moral justification" that you allow for bombers to kill civilians indiscriminately? Because there's not much difference between the acts themselves, other than the atomic bomb (or the like) being much more destructive overall.

What are you talking about. The suicide bombers are not a country! They have no land! They have no king (president, tzar, furher, dictator, or what ever you want to call him). They are a bunch of people who like to blow themselves up as long as they can kill others at the same time.
Go ask allsmiles about survival being the ultimate goal (sic). He could try to set you straight, if he wasn't so busy trying to say God is evil.

 

[genuineoriginal]

if you aren't a moral relativist then your god certainly is.

and genuinoriginal, your comparison of executing two civilians to an entire civilian population of a metropolis fails for more than obvious reasons. trying to justify tyranny by comparing it to tyranny won't work :nono:

you are confusing yourself.
Sun Tzu saw killing two civilian women as a good way to get a better paying job.

God pronounced the death sentence on the city of Jericho for their wickedness, and ordered it done. God's actions are the same as a judge ordering a rapist put to death. The Children of Israel's actions are the same as the executioner putting the sentenced rapist to death.

 

[Stripe]

Thank you, I did read your extensive break down of the matter, much appreciated. The flaw in it revolves around your assumptions as to what fool's goal is in asking the question.... Your entire analisys revolved around fool's motivations, which have no bearing on the question, try breaking it down again without mention of fool at all....I submit that the mind set of the asker matters not one iota. The question is the question whether it came from me or random question generating machine.

well i suppose i could replace fool with an RQGM. how would i answer a RQGM? i would answer exactly as ive answered you and then ask him why he is asking the question. im not prepared to guess what random thing it might respond with .. probably another random question.

please dont ask me to restate my answer to you.

fool. you asked the question and given that it made such demands on my where-with-all once i chose to get involved, i think i have every right to ask why you ask the question. if you choose to remain unresponsive then i am entirely justified in remaining firm in my conclusion and completely unmoved by this entire episode.

Hence you are refusing to follow God, Correct?

incorrect. i will follow god up until the point he tells me to do something i will not do. you are free to imagine at what points i might start refusing, but if you ask me to elaborate i will not. reasons already given.

 

[fool]

you are confusing yourself.
Sun Tzu saw killing two civilian women as a good way to get a better paying job.

God pronounced the death sentence on the city of Jericho for their wickedness, and ordered it done. God's actions are the same as a judge ordering a rapist put to death. The Children of Israel's actions are the same as the executioner putting the sentenced rapist to death.

More like an executioner putting a rapist whole family to death.

 

[genuineoriginal]

stipe, you may be unwilling to evaluate the moral competence of your god, as depicted in the OT, but a non-christian has no problem doing it. compare the humanity and tactics of your OT deity to those of Sun Tzu.

Sun Tzu's tactics are far superior to those of your god's... his treatment of humans, though barbaric at times as GO was astute enough to point out, far out weighs your god's, as depicted in the OT.

it's not that you can't judge your god's morals, it's that you won't. that you must concoct an argument to excuse yourself from the obvious common sense judgement available to anyone unhindered by faith is telling.

Let's see what modern scholarship says about Sun Tzu:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu
Some scholars have concluded that Sun Tzu's work was actually authored by unknown Chinese philosophers and that Sun Tzu did not actually exist as a historical figure. There is more evidence to support this theory than the traditional one of Sun Tzu as an individual historical figure--an idea which was developed by contemporary military analysts and writers. In Lionel Giles' introduction to his 1910 translation of The Art of War, Giles expands on the doubt and confusion which has surrounded the historicity of Sun Tzu.

Your mythical war god (Sun Tzu) has been disproven by the very same modern scholarship you use to discount the Bible. I personally do not give much credence to this sort of modern scholarship, I consider it to be rewriting history in their own image. But, since you put modern scholarship as the determining factor in your arguments against the Bible, I thought I would show you what they think of your mythical war god (Sun Tzu).

 

[Nathon Detroit]

More like an executioner putting a rapist whole family to death.

fool I would like you (in your best honor) to speculate as to why God would normally have His armies NOT kill the women and children but only in these very RARE instances request the "nuclear option"?

Doesn't that demonstrate this was a drastic event?

Please speculate for us.

 

[Balder]

With your language ("lovey dovey"), you reveal your preferences, Knight. You like warfare. It seems you think it's cool. You apparently think the mass slaughter of children is sometimes a good thing. You also appear to have disdain for those who do not like it and do not support massive, indiscriminate killing. Why?

 

[fool]

well i suppose i could replace fool with an RQGM. how would i answer a RQGM? i would answer exactly as ive answered you and then ask him why he is asking the question. im not prepared to guess what random thing it might respond with .. probably another random question.

It's a question asking machine, not a question answering machine, consider the question to have been found in a fortune cookie. You not going to ask a cookie why it's asking are you?

please dont ask me to restate my answer to you.

fool. you asked the question and given that it made such demands on my where-with-all once i chose to get involved, i think i have every right to ask why you ask the question. if you choose to remain unresponsive then i am entirely justified in remaining firm in my conclusion and completely unmoved by this entire episode.

I asked the question to explore morality, what it is and where it comes from.

incorrect. i will follow god up until the point he tells me to do something i will not do. you are free to imagine at what points i might start refusing, but if you ask me to elaborate i will not. reasons already given.

So for you morality comes not from God but from yourself?

 

[Stripe]

It's a question asking machine, not a question answering machine, consider the question to have been found in a fortune cookie. You not going to ask a cookie why it's asking are you?

accepted. but i will not enter into any line of dialogue with a fortune cookie. i will state my position and the fortune cookie will get eaten alive. we are having a conversation here. i am not going to eat you .. please just respond to the.. oh .. you did ... wait

I asked the question to explore morality, what it is and where it comes from.

you want to know where morality comes from.. i will give you my opinion, but this is the point where i leave the former debate as completely ended and my position untouchable.

So for you morality comes not from God but from yourself?

uh .. it comes from god, but god gave it to me to use as i see fit. he gave me wisdom to try and use it correctly. so a more correct analysis would be to say "my morality comes from god, but i decide how to implement it"

i believe that would fit a general explanation for every individual's experience of morality.

. o O ( gosh .. look at me .. im so ticked off im PUNCTUATING! )

and to conclude (it really is the only option even though i gave three .. unfortunately the hardest as well):


REPENT!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

With your language ("lovey dovey"), you reveal your preferences, Knight. You like warfare. It seems you think it's cool. You apparently think the mass slaughter of children is sometimes a good thing. You also appear to have disdain for those who do not like it and do not support massive, indiscriminate killing. Why?

War is a necessary thing!

I hate war! But only a complete platitudenal (is that a word?) knucklehead doesn't understand its necessity.

 

[genuineoriginal]

More like an executioner putting a rapist whole family to death.

You are mixing up the degree of the sentence. God is able to judge an entire city for it's wickedness. God is willing to spare the wicked city if even 10 righteous people could be found in it.

Apparantly, the only righteous people in Jericho were Rahab's family, so God judged the entire city, and pronounced a death sentence on the entire city.

 

[fool]

fool I would like you (in your best honor) to speculate as to why God would normally have His armies NOT kill the women and children but only in these very RARE instances request the "nuclear option"?

Doesn't that demonstrate this was a drastic event?

Please speculate for us.

It would seem to me that since the genocide was only conducted on the lands that were to become the Hebrews that they wanted to eliminate anyone who could claim a birthright to them.

 

[allsmiles]

It all depends on the battle.

It depends on the strength of your enemy, the strength of your own army. There are a million variables that determine how you wage war.

and Sun Tzu addresses all of those concerns... his conclusion remains the same. victory is the goal, not annhilation. to acheive victory with the least amount of damage and blood shed is the pinnacle of skill regardless of the circumstances.

i asked you if you fail to see value in that and you didn't answer... i'll assume that you don't see any value in acheiving victory with the least amount of damage.

Sun Tzu (if he actually existed) was a murderer who is now rotting in hell.

that doesn't really add to your argument at all Knight.

I suggest you read the stories for yourself.

will do :thumb:

As a relativist you cannot make that claim.

What you percieve to be "superior" is only "superior" relative to you so who cares?

no, what i perceive to be superior is superior in comparison to the biblical account of the Jericho Genocide.

i look at the biblical accounts of the Jericho Genocide, Og, Sihon and Arad and then i look to Sun Tzu and it's clear that the Art of War is superior to the tactics practiced in the Old Testament.

 

[allsmiles]

War is a necessary thing!

i know this wasn't addressed to me, but i agree with you Knight.

war is a necessary evil. it cannot be justified morally.

I hate war! But only a complete platitudenal (is that a word?) knucklehead doesn't understand its necessity.

absolutely, but to try and justify morally the necessity of indiscriminate, wholesale slaughter isn't tactically sound and this is where your god fails first and foremost.

 

[Balder]

War is a necessary thing!

I hate war! But only a complete platitudenal (is that a word?) knucklehead doesn't understand its necessity.

I grant that war is sometimes a necessary evil. There's no way around it, as long as there are evil people in the world who will try to utterly destroy you if you do not defend yourself. But admitting this does not lead to the conclusion that indiscriminate killing of civilians is therefore good and justifiable. Unless you are a trigger-happy jarhead.

Also, if you believe that God has orchestrated genocide as punishment of a particular nation or culture in the past, I think you leave that open as an "option on the table" for all future Christians. And, in my view, that is just plain wrong.