ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[kmoney]

I think Lucky's point is like the example people use all the time with war Fool. Are the US soldiers murdering their Iraqi enemies or killing them?

Is every Iraqi considered an enemy of America?

 

[fool]

I might have been to hasty, but I have noticed that fools posts concerning Bob Enyart have reached almost ThePhy-like levels of anger. I like fool generally and most of the time I think he has honest arguments that any rational person would want answered. My favorite quote from fool during the shows was "You can go ahead and think of me as a question asking machine." Thats what I typically like about fool, he has questions that anyone should have. But after talking with Bob, he comes back to TOL and makes post like this. Which makes me think he just can't be reasonable in regards to Bob Enyart. But you know, as a write this, I suppose fool really could believe he has a serious point.

Guy, I did not come back here and attack Bob after the debate. The post you linked to was a direct response to Bob, answering a post he made towards me.

 

[allsmiles]

you know what i'd put money on? besides On Fire being in the closet, i'd put money on this:

if you had a sword in your hand and a baby on the chopping block NONE OF YOU WUSSIES WOULD BEHEAD IT NO MATTER WHO TOLD YOU TO DO IT.

you folks talk a big talk but only when the subject of the debate is completely out of the realm of possibility. i doubt any of you will ever be in a situation where the slaughter of a defenseless baby is a course of action your god commands you to undertake so you can get away with running your mouths as much as you want.

 

[kmoney]

you know what i'd put money on? besides On Fire being in the closet, i'd put money on this:

if you had a sword in your hand and a baby on the chopping block NONE OF YOU WUSSIES WOULD BEHEAD IT NO MATTER WHO TOLD YOU TO DO IT.

you folks talk a big talk but only when the subject of the debate is completely out of the realm of possibility. i doubt any of you will ever be in a situation where the slaughter of a defenseless baby is a course of action your god commands you to undertake so you can get away with running your mouths as much as you want.

Do you think they are bragging or something? Are they trying to sound "tough" by saying they'll kill a baby for God? No one who has said they would do it sound as if they would be real excited about it.

 

[fool]

I disagree. I think fool knows all about the fatal flaws in his argument. I think he has some hatred of Bob Enyart for some reason and is willing to give up his integrity in order to try to make Bob look bad.

As evidence you can see how he changes the context when someone admits they'd follow God's command. Suddenly you want to 'butcher' babies left and right and are a moral relativist. His constant use of the word butcher, etc is more evidence that even he knows his argument is weak, otherwise he wouldn't have to use inflamitory language.

He criticizes Bob for using the terms 'bring to the next stage' while he insists on using his own inflamitory language. Now fool can point at Bob and say, "Well he did it too!" but Bob has admitted that in the past he preached a sermon called "When God kills kids." So if anyone is hiding behind terminology, its fool.

I call it like it is Guy. If your stomach is too weak for the language then it's certainly too weak for the act. When smoting infants with you sword becomes "following Gods commands" and killing someone is mearly "bringing them to the next stage" then all your doing is trying to white wash the act you're committing. If the act is rightous then why not tell it like it is?

Guess what, I think that stealing food is wrong. However, in a war, I would take food from my enemies to feed my troops. Am I a moral relativist?

Now you're comparing peoples lives to a loaf of bread?

 

[Shalom]

Is every Iraqi considered an enemy of America?

HUH? No not every Iraqi is considered an enemy of America. Did I say that?

I asked Fool if U.S. soldiers are murdering their Iraqi enemies or killing them?

 

[allsmiles]

Do you think they are bragging or something? Are they trying to sound "tough" by saying they'll kill a baby for God? No one who has said they would do it sound as if they would be real excited about it.

at the same time no one's really bewailing the idea of having to put a defenseless infant to the edge of the sword to please their deity.

if any one of you people were actually confronted with this horrific situation, would you consider it a horrific duty? would you be able to recognize the tragedy of it? or do you all just have this grinning, gung-ho slaughterin' babies for christ attitude?

 

[fool]

I think Lucky's point is like the example people use all the time with war Fool. Are the US soldiers murdering their Iraqi enemies or killing them?

Being at war dosen't give you a free pass to do whatever you want.

 

[kmoney]

HUH? No not every Iraqi is considered an enemy of America. Did I say that?

I asked Fool if U.S. soldiers are murdering their Iraqi enemies or killing them?

Well fool isn't talking about the Israelites killing enemy soldiers is he? He is talking about the Israelites killing EVERYONE, women, children, noncombatants. Your analogy to the Iraq war isn't compatible unless you're talking about every Iraqi.

 

[Granite]

Einsatzgruppen, pure and simple.

The important point that has been made is that Knight, Enyart, and the rest are purely moral relativists, which is an ironic turn of events to say the least.

 

[kmoney]

at the same time no one's really bewailing the idea of having to put a defenseless infant to the edge of the sword to please their deity.

Well I think it's a thing of doing it with "fear and trembling".

if any one of you people were actually confronted with this horrific situation, would you consider it a horrific duty? would you be able to recognize the tragedy of it? or do you all just have this grinning, gung-ho slaughterin' babies for christ attitude?

Again, my assumption is that they would consider it a "horrific duty", but I could be wrong....

 

[fool]

Do you think they are bragging or something? Are they trying to sound "tough" by saying they'll kill a baby for God? No one who has said they would do it sound as if they would be real excited about it.

I'm encouraging them to deeply examine why their not excited about it.
After all, they should be if it's all good, right?

 

[Shalom]

at the same time no one's really bewailing the idea of having to put a defenseless infant to the edge of the sword to please their deity.

if any one of you people were actually confronted with this horrific situation, would you consider it a horrific duty? would you be able to recognize the tragedy of it? or do you all just have this grinning, gung-ho slaughterin' babies for christ attitude?

Oh please another example of a weak argument backed up by a strong label. You hate Christians and God much more then you really care about the "slaughtered butchered babies."

 

[Granite]

Well I think it's a thing of doing it with "fear and trembling".


Again, my assumption is that they would consider it a "horrific duty", but I could be wrong....

Really. I suppose some things never change:

"But altogether we can say: We have carried out this most difficult task for the love of our people. And we have suffered no defect within us, in our soul, or in our character."

 

[Lostinspace]

Sounds like allsmiles is ready to head to the local infant day care and go Jeffrey Dahlmer on us.

If I were standing with axe in hand and heard a voice in my head telling me to behead the child I would laugh knowing the voice was another lost pagan trying to get in my head. Then I would remove the child, grab another log off the pile and go back to chopping wood. Oh look, there was no child, it was another log disguissed as a child.

 

[allsmiles]

Oh please another example of a weak argument backed up by a strong label. You hate Christians and God much more then you really care about the "slaughtered butchered babies."

i don't hate christians, i pity them, i don't hate your god just as you do not hate Zeus.

i don't believe the babies were actually slaughtered by Joshua as i believe the story is fiction.

nice dodge, i'll have to remember that you chose to lie about me rather than answer my challenge.

i'll try again.

you have a sword in your hand, a baby on a chopping block, and Jesus right behind you telling you cut the baby's head off.

are you smiling when you bring the sword down? are you trembling with fear of your deity, or trembling because of the horror of slaughtering a naked, crying baby who is hungry and frightened because you just finished killing it's mother?

 

[Shalom]

Well fool isn't talking about the Israelites killing enemy soldiers is he? He is talking about the Israelites killing EVERYONE, women, children, noncombatants. Your analogy to the Iraq war isn't compatible unless you're talking about every Iraqi.

It wasnt my analogy.....I was explaining to Fool why I think Lucky used the example he did and what point I thought he was making a bunch of posts back. Notice how I quoted him and then elaborated.........You'd have to go back and read.

 

[kmoney]

Really. I suppose some things never change:

"But altogether we can say: We have carried out this most difficult task for the love of our people. And we have suffered no defect within us, in our soul, or in our character."

Where is that from?

 

[kmoney]

It wasnt my analogy.....I was explaining to Fool why I think Lucky used the example he did and what point I thought he was making a bunch of posts back. Notice how I quoted him and then elaborated.........You'd have to go back and read.

I did see Lucky's post, I guess I still just don't see why you made your post......but that's ok

 

[fool]

Oh please another example of a weak argument backed up by a strong label. You hate Christians and God much more then you really care about the "slaughtered butchered babies."

Why not adress his argument rather than trying to impeach his motive?
When you point out his faults you mearly show he's human and you leave his argument unanswered.