ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

Nathon Detroit

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
fool said:
I did answer that before, he wanted to get rid of anyone that could later claim a birthright to Isreal.
Click to expand...
Again that is the answer to another question, not the one I am asking.

I am asking WHY THE DIFFERENCE????

Fell free to speculate.... why did God handle different enemies with different levels of harshness?
 
Nathon Detroit

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
fool said:
For the twentith time a nuke and a sword are not the same thing.
Click to expand...
You are right... a nuke is more modern, more powerful, more destructive and more likely to kill people who are not targets. Your point?
 
fool

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Mr. 5020 said:
I said it once, and I'll say it again.

fool is to TOL what fool claims Knight is to CF...
Click to expand...
Could you refresh our memories as to what that was?
 
Balder

Balder

New member
genuineoriginal said:
Even when they are NOT civilians?

Check out the pictures on this site.
Click to expand...
Well, that's pretty sick. But from what I hear, both sides in that conflict have done their share of shameful acts. I certainly don't admire the mentality of those Muslims who train children to hate or kill, or who engaged in suicide bombing. But in my view, what we are seeing is just more of the kinds of atrocities that members of the Abrahamic religions have been committing in the name of God for millennia.
 
genuineoriginal

genuineoriginal

New member
Balder said:
Well, that's pretty sick. But from what I hear, both sides in that conflict have done their share of shameful acts. I certainly don't admire the mentality of those Muslims who train children to hate or kill, or who engaged in suicide bombing. But in my view, what we are seeing is just more of the kinds of atrocities that members of the Abrahamic religions have been committing in the name of God for millennia.
Click to expand...
It is sick. My point is that not every child is a non-combatant.

As far as Jericho goes, the men of Jericho had a week to evacuate all non-combatants.
Joshua 6
8And it came to pass, when Joshua had spoken unto the people, that the seven priests bearing the seven trumpets of rams' horns passed on before the LORD, and blew with the trumpets: and the ark of the covenant of the LORD followed them.
9And the armed men went before the priests that blew with the trumpets, and the rereward came after the ark, the priests going on, and blowing with the trumpets.
10And Joshua had commanded the people, saying, Ye shall not shout, nor make any noise with your voice, neither shall any word proceed out of your mouth, until the day I bid you shout; then shall ye shout.
11So the ark of the LORD compassed the city, going about it once: and they came into the camp, and lodged in the camp.
12And Joshua rose early in the morning, and the priests took up the ark of the LORD.
13And seven priests bearing seven trumpets of rams' horns before the ark of the LORD went on continually, and blew with the trumpets: and the armed men went before them; but the rereward came after the ark of the LORD, the priests going on, and blowing with the trumpets.
14And the second day they compassed the city once, and returned into the camp: so they did six days.​

For six days, the Children of Israel marched around the city, not saying anything, but blowing their trumpets as they circled the city once each day. They returned to their camps at the end of this display, and the people of Jericho could then come and go as they pleased, but the men of Jericho kept the city shut, and doomed everyone inside.
 
fool

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
genuineoriginal said:
It is sick. My point is that not every child is a non-combatant.

As far as Jericho goes, the men of Jericho had a week to evacuate all non-combatants.
Joshua 6
8And it came to pass, when Joshua had spoken unto the people, that the seven priests bearing the seven trumpets of rams' horns passed on before the LORD, and blew with the trumpets: and the ark of the covenant of the LORD followed them.
9And the armed men went before the priests that blew with the trumpets, and the rereward came after the ark, the priests going on, and blowing with the trumpets.
10And Joshua had commanded the people, saying, Ye shall not shout, nor make any noise with your voice, neither shall any word proceed out of your mouth, until the day I bid you shout; then shall ye shout.
11So the ark of the LORD compassed the city, going about it once: and they came into the camp, and lodged in the camp.
12And Joshua rose early in the morning, and the priests took up the ark of the LORD.
13And seven priests bearing seven trumpets of rams' horns before the ark of the LORD went on continually, and blew with the trumpets: and the armed men went before them; but the rereward came after the ark of the LORD, the priests going on, and blowing with the trumpets.
14And the second day they compassed the city once, and returned into the camp: so they did six days.​

For six days, the Children of Israel marched around the city, not saying anything, but blowing their trumpets as they circled the city once each day. They returned to their camps at the end of this display, and the people of Jericho could then come and go as they pleased, but the men of Jericho kept the city shut, and doomed everyone inside.
Click to expand...
Jericho is but one case of many, read Dueteronomy 20, the genocide is spelled out clearly.
Weren't you just argueig that all deserved death and we were lucky God spared most?:think:
 
Catatumba

Catatumba

New member
Knight said:
fool, you are embarrassing yourself. Seriously.... you may be the only person (beside allsmilies and Granite) that isn't laughing at your silly argument!

The following post will show beyond any doubt that fool is only fooling himself. (and of course fooling allsmilies and Granite - misery loves company)

fool states...fool states this because he called into Bob's show and attempted to trick Bob by asking Bob a question in an intentionally vague and misleading way.

fool asked Bob... "Would it be OK for me to butcher a baby", Bob rightly answered "no". To which fool still thinks he has caught Bob in a moral dilemma since God has commanded such things in warfare in the Old Testament. fool thinks that because God has commanded entire villages to be wiped out, then killing babies must not be absolutely wrong.

fool... let me "hip" you up to something.... your argument isn't a good one.

And let me explain why....

Absolute morality is determined in light of the specific circumstance. In other words, fool could have updated his question and asked.... "Bob is it OK for me to blow up babies with a bomb?" Bob might have responded.... "No, of course not." or Bob might have guessed fool's intentions and responded "Well, if you are in a war you might be forced to blow up babies in an effort to defeat your enemy." Would fool have caught Bob in a moral dilemma or caught Bob promoting moral relativism? Of course not!

The circumstance of warfare is paramount to the discussion. Having a different set of standards for warfare and peace time is NOT a description of moral relativism. fool, moral relativism would be if someone acknowledged the specific circumstance and THEN made the claim it wasn't necessarily wrong. In other words.... you wouldn't be promoting moral relativism until you argued that in a specific situation the morality was relative to individuals. I.e., the moral absolutist states.... it is absolutely wrong to murder a baby, with NO other motive than the self satisfaction of taking the babies life. The moral relativist would argue.... it is NOT absolutely wrong to murder a baby, with NO other motive than self satisfaction of taking the babies life. Did you get that fool? The relativist must stay relative in light of the specifics. And that's the rub.

If there are still folks out there that think fool is making a good argument lets drive the point home even further.

Let's assume fool had his own radio program, lets call it "fool Live". Lets imagine a show that goes something like this....

fool: "Welcome to fool live ~ I am fool and I will be your host. Let's go to the phones, our first caller is Robert. Robert what is on your mind?

Robert: "Would it be OK for me to take a knife and slice it into the chest of a woman?

fool: :shocked: "Uh... caller... no. Maybe you should seek mental attention."

Robert: "Why?"

fool: "Because it's murder to stab a woman with a knife!"

Robert: "But I am a doctor, and the woman needs heart surgery."
Did the caller demonstrate that fool has a discrepancy in his world view??? Is anyone compelled to believe that fool thinks its attempted murder to perform heart surgery? Of course not!!! It was very reasonable for fool to assume the caller wasn't asking a trick question. All of this is just plain silly and it's no different than the grade school line of reasoning that fool is using with Bob.

Want even further proof????

Let's assume that fool figured out what the caller was up to and answered him differently.

fool: "Welcome to fool live ~ I am fool and I will be your host. Let's go to the phones, our first caller is Robert. Robert what is on your mind?

Robert: "Would it be OK for me to take a knife and slice it into the chest of a woman?

fool: "Well... if you are a surgeon and the woman is your patient who needs treatment then it would not only be OK for you to open up her chest with a knife it would be GOOD thing!"

Would anyone in their right mind think that fool is advocating an immoral act? Of course not!!! Due to the fact that the caller gave a vague and ambiguous example, fool could have rightly answered it either way. The question of absolutes would not have come into the conversation until the circumstances were more properly defined.

fool, the jig is up, and it has been since you started all of this. Didn't you wonder why Bob answered the question differently than I did online? Why was that? Maybe it was because online you supplied me the circumstances yet you withheld the specifics from Bob. :doh:

All in all fool you have proved nothing except you have a hard time critically thinking through your own argument which is fatally flawed.
Click to expand...
That's sociological "sin". How did people populate the earth in the beginning of things?????????
First man with first woman and then first son with first daughter, and so on and so forth. :dog:
 
genuineoriginal

genuineoriginal

New member
fool said:
Jericho is but one case of many, read Dueteronomy 20, the genocide is spelled out clearly.
Weren't you just argueig that all deserved death and we were lucky God spared most?:think:
Click to expand...
Yes, praise God for His mercy.

As far as Jericho goes, don't back out of your argument now. You are the one that brought up Jericho as the example to look at.
 
genuineoriginal

genuineoriginal

New member
Catatumba said:
That's sociological "sin". How did people populate the earth in the beginning of things?????????
First man with first woman and then first son with first daughter, and so on and so forth. :dog:
Click to expand...
That is a side issue, and should be on its own thread.
 
fool

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
genuineoriginal said:
Yes, praise God for His mercy.

As far as Jericho goes, don't back out of your argument now. You are the one that brought up Jericho as the example to look at.
Click to expand...
I've never brought up Jericho.
 
genuineoriginal

genuineoriginal

New member
fool said:
I've never brought up Jericho.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I thought you were the one that brought up the entire argument about God telling the Children of Israel to kill all the inhabitants of the city.

If it wasn't Jericho you were talking about, then what was it?

Tell me where to find the command of God you are referring to, and we can discuss that one.
 
fool

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
genuineoriginal said:
I'm sorry, I thought you were the one that brought up the entire argument about God telling the Children of Israel to kill all the inhabitants of the city.
Click to expand...
Yup.
If it wasn't Jericho you were talking about, then what was it?
Click to expand...
Allsmilies brought up Jericho specifically, I'm talking about the practice in general.
Tell me where to find the command of God you are referring to, and we can discuss that one.
Click to expand...
Really?! you don't know your Bible very well seeing as how you're the first person to ask for a cite, How's about Deuteronomy 20: 16-17.
 
Balder

Balder

New member
g.o. said:
It is sick. My point is that not every child is a non-combatant.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence in the Biblical texts, that I'm aware of, that the children the Hebrews killed were combatants. I understand that you would probably feel more comfortable defending genocide if you could argue that every single individual killed was a violent, raving, evil lunatic. That's a classic process. It's called "demonization."
 
genuineoriginal

genuineoriginal

New member
fool said:
genuineoriginal said:
I'm sorry, I thought you were the one that brought up the entire argument about God telling the Children of Israel to kill all the inhabitants of the city.
Click to expand...
Yup.

If it wasn't Jericho you were talking about, then what was it?
Click to expand...
Allsmilies brought up Jericho specifically, I'm talking about the practice in general.

Tell me where to find the command of God you are referring to, and we can discuss that one.
Click to expand...
Really?! you don't know your Bible very well seeing as how you're the first person to ask for a cite, How's about Deuteronomy 20: 16-17.
Click to expand...

:confused:

You brought up the argument about God telling the Children of Israel to kill the inhabitants of the city, I ask for the command you are referring to, and you tell me I don't know my Bible very well?
How many verses are in the Bible? Am I omniscient or a mind reader to know which one of the many verses in the Bible you are specifically referring to?

Thank you for providing the verses you have a complaint with.

Deuteronomy 20
16But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:​

You left out the verse that defined the reason for this.
Deuteronomy 20
18That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.​

What are these abominations that are so bad? The list is found in Leviticus 18.

Here is the result of these abominations:

Leviticus 18
24Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
25And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
26Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
27(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled; )
28That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
29For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
30Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.​

Again, it comes back to God judging cities and nations for wickedness.
Leviticus 18
25And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top