ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[Jefferson]

There's no way to justify, spin, or dress up killing infants. Period.

There's no way to justify killing anyone under our own authority. But we're not talking about our authority. We're talking about the Creator's authority to end the life of His own creation. That's the aspect of this debate that you and fool don't want to acknowledge.

 

[fool]

There's no way to justify killing anyone under our own authority. But we're not talking about our authority. We're talking about the Creator's authority to end the life of His own creation. That's the aspect of this debate that you and fool don't want to acknowledge.

We're talking about ending innocent life.
Bob dosen't seem to have a problem with that because he thinks the innocents go to Heaven.
My problem with that is if you value the afterlife more than the flesh life you have devalued your mortal life, hence you have no standard to judge your actions on Earth by.
You try to make death a good thing.
So you are the enemy of life (on Earth)

 

[Stripe]

We're talking about ending innocent life. Bob dosen't seem to have a problem with that because he thinks the innocents go to Heaven. My problem with that is if you value the afterlife more than the flesh life you have devalued your mortal life, hence you have no standard to judge your actions on Earth by. You try to make death a good thing. So you are the enemy of life (on Earth)

fool you can obviously not see what you are doing, so allow me to point out exactly what you are doing .. again.

youve posed a question and are changing your answers according to each different reply. when one poster suggests they would follow god you call them immoral, when another poster says they wont follow such instructions you call them an enemy of god. can you honestly not see how in conflict youre two responses here are?

and now we have the latest machination to discredit another sucker who has responded to this thread. somehow youve contrived to assert that temporal life on earth is more important than eternal life in heaven .. this doesnt even agree with itself let alone bear rationalisation against all the other stands youve taken against offered opinions ...

i suggest you cease and desist comment on this thread until you come up with a hypothetical notion that reveals truth, or you retract your entire line of unreasonableness...

 

[fool]

fool you can obviously not see what you are doing, so allow me to point out exactly what you are doing .. again.

Go ahead.

youve posed a question and are changing your answers according to each different reply. when one poster suggests they would follow god you call them immoral, when another poster says they wont follow such instructions you call them an enemy of god. can you honestly not see how in conflict youre two responses here are?

No conflict.
If you're ready to smote innocent people one at a time with the pupose of eradicating their tribe from the Earth then you are committing genocide and you're a murderer.
If you won't do this, and you don't condone it, but you pay lipservice to the God that does then you're a coward and a hypocrite.
Clear?

and now we have the latest machination to discredit another sucker who has responded to this thread. somehow youve contrived to assert that temporal life on earth is more important than eternal life in heaven .. this doesnt even agree with itself let alone bear rationalisation against all the other stands youve taken against offered opinions ...

I assert that temporal life is important.
Without value to this life you have a culture of death.
Without the concept of innocence there can be no concept of guilty.
Without value for life you have revealed that you hate life, and living mankind, ie you're own self hatred.

i suggest you cease and desist comment on this thread until you come up with a hypothetical notion that reveals truth, or you retract your entire line of unreasonableness...

I doubt that's gonna happen.

 

[Stripe]

No conflict. If you're ready to smote innocent people one at a time with the pupose of eradicating their tribe from the Earth then you are committing genocide and you're a murderer. If you won't do this, and you don't condone it, but you pay lipservice to the God that does then you're a coward and a hypocrite. Clear?

twisted beyond belief. youre willing to condemn people on the evidence of actions from 4000 years ago that you dont even believe happen as stated. and if you cant condemn because they happen to agree with you, then you accuse them of being a coward.

I assert that temporal life is important. Without value to this life you have a culture of death. Without the concept of innocence there can be no concept of guilty.
Without value for life you have revealed that you hate life, and living mankind, ie you're own self hatred.

temporal life is important .. conceded. is it more important than the eternal life?

I doubt that's gonna happen.

so do i .. which is why i have come to regard this whole exercise as dishonestly conceived.

 

[Balder]

Stipe, I am really kind of baffled that you are having such a hard time understanding where these questions and criticisms are coming from. I will try to spell it out, though fool did a good job too.

If you are willing in theory to commit genocide and cut down children to further your cause, whether it is religious, real estate driven, political, or whatever, then you are siding with evil even if you've never done it yourself.

If you are not willing to do these things, and in fact consider them immoral, and yet hold to an interpretation of scripture which demands that God and his chosen people did these very things, and were right in doing so, then you have a conflict on your hands. If you refuse to deal with it, then it is fair to call you a coward -- either you are unwilling under any circumstances to do what you believe God, the creator of the universe and the supposed Lord of your soul, has commanded others to do; or you are unwilling to face the fact that perhaps your interpretation of scripture or even the foundation of your beliefs (the Bible) is questionable and likely erroneous in some respects.

Now, don't get me wrong: if you refuse to commit genocide and murder infants and children under any circumstances, I commend you. But if that is the case, and you also believe the Bible is infallible and that Bob's interpretation of it is correct, then you should come to terms with the fact that God endorses and inspires acts that you consider to be completely wrong. Or you should perhaps consider that the interpretation of the Bible that demands this understanding is perhaps in error, in that it leads inevitably to the justification of evil in God's name.

Best wishes,

Balder

P.S. I want to add that, although I'm no longer Christian, my criticism of these things when I was a Christian was because I rejected the idea that God would have done these things, and I believed those who endorsed and justified them were dragging God through the mud.

 

[Stripe]

Stipe, I am really kind of baffled that you are having such a hard time understanding where these questions and criticisms are coming from. I will try to spell it out, though fool did a good job too.

after reading your post i understand why you are baffled, but do not compare your clear processing of my stance here with fool's self-contradictory fare...

If you are willing in theory to commit genocide and cut down children to further your cause, whether it is religious, real estate driven, political, or whatever, then you are siding with evil even if you've never done it yourself.

accepted, and if you do it because you hear god tell you to then youre probably insane as well.

If you are not willing to do these things, and in fact consider them immoral, and yet hold to an interpretation of scripture which demands that God and his chosen people did these very things, and were right in doing so, then you have a conflict on your hands. If you refuse to deal with it, then it is fair to call you a coward -- either you are unwilling under any circumstances to do what you believe God, the creator of the universe and the supposed Lord of your soul, has commanded others to do; or you are unwilling to face the fact that perhaps your interpretation of scripture or even the foundation of your beliefs (the Bible) is questionable and likely erroneous in some respects.

im not going to do these things no matter what anyone argues morality says i should do. you can leave morality right out of the equation. i can accept the bible to be inerrant and have no conflict because i am an independant entity from the bible. i get to make my own decisions. i will not be tied to repeat the actions of historical figures just because i think those historical figures are genuine. if youre baffled at that i have little else i can offer so please try to grasp the concept.

Now, don't get me wrong: if you refuse to commit genocide and murder infants and children under any circumstances, I commend you. But if that is the case, and you also believe the Bible is infallible and that Bob's interpretation of it is correct, then you should come to terms with the fact that God endorses and inspires acts that you consider to be completely wrong.

i cant come to terms with that. i have no defence for gods actions. ive said this before im sure. if you or fool want to charge god with a crime then be my guest. dont drag me along.

Or you should perhaps consider that the interpretation of the Bible that demands this understanding is perhaps in error, in that it leads inevitably to the justification of evil in God's name.

people will always interpret to suit their own ends. this extra line of thinking youve added does not fit coherently with the other options youve allowed. either god is as he is in the bible or he does not exist at all.[/QUOTE]

P.S. I want to add that, although I'm no longer Christian, my criticism of these things when I was a Christian was because I rejected the idea that God would have done these things, and I believed those who endorsed and justified them were dragging God through the mud.

balder. i am a christian, i dont reject the bible and i dont want to drag gods name through the mud. my position is clear and coherent. fools question is flawed and dishonest. ive said this all before. please ignore the hypothetical and deal with reality for a minute and see clearly who is speaking of truth.

 

[Balder]

if you do it [commit genocide] because you hear god tell you to then youre probably insane as well.

Were those people in the OT insane?

im not going to do these things no matter what anyone argues morality says i should do. you can leave morality right out of the equation. i can accept the bible to be inerrant and have no conflict because i am an independant entity from the bible. i get to make my own decisions. i will not be tied to repeat the actions of historical figures just because i think those historical figures are genuine. if youre baffled at that i have little else i can offer so please try to grasp the concept.

I can grasp the concept that it is a historical fact that human beings did these things. I don't have a problem with that. What I challenge is that these acts are religiously or morally justified or instigated by God.

i cant come to terms with that. i have no defence for gods actions. ive said this before im sure. if you or fool want to charge god with a crime then be my guest. dont drag me along.

If you believe anyone who hears and follows such commands is likely insane; if you believe such acts are reprehensible and wrong; if you believe God is sane, just, and good...then you have a problem on your hands. I do not find it coherent or consistent to accept that God did these things and yet hold the moral convictions that you do.

That men did these things in his name, however, is not hard to accept. Humans do all sorts of crazy, immoral things in the pursuit of their ideals.

people will always interpret to suit their own ends. this extra line of thinking youve added does not fit coherently with the other options youve allowed. either god is as he is in the bible or he does not exist at all.

That is not logical. It may be your an article of faith for you, but it doesn't follow logically. The refutation of the God of the Bible, at least some aspects of the Biblical portrait, in no way invalidates the existence of a supreme being or ultimate ordering intelligence altogether.

Best wishes,

Balder

 

[Stripe]

those of you reading this may be very confused by all the alternating ideas put forth. please consider only the original question and its intent. if fool is charging christians with an immoral mindset then let him do so with reality rather than with hypotheticals. if fool is charging god with a crime then let him address god. if fool is charging ancient historical figures with a crime then let him utilise his time machine.

unfortunately fool will not remain true to any single line of reasoning. every view that comes up he has an answer for, but only after he has shifted the goalposts. he has the advantage of an obvious moral highground yet he cannot use it to form a coherent case against any one person.

my challenge remains unanswered. to continue posting on this subject fool must do one of the following:

• retract his question and admit his dishonesty or
• pose a fair and coherent question.

 

[Stripe]

Were those people in the OT insane?

i tell you what, if they tried what they did then today theyd get into quite a bit of trouble. i thank you for at last asking some coherent questions. perhaps i will learn something afterall...

I can grasp the concept that it is a historical fact that human beings did these things. I don't have a problem with that. What I challenge is that these acts are religiously or morally justified or instigated by God.

again .. thankyou for clearly stating your stance..

If you believe anyone who hears and follows such commands is likely insane; if you believe such acts are reprehensible and wrong; if you believe God is sane, just, and good...then you have a problem on your hands. I do not find it coherent or consistent to accept that God did these things and yet hold the moral convictions that you do.

yes. this is sound reasoning. however sound reasoning need have nothing to do with what i choose to believe and where i choose to put my faith. my relationship with god is like any other relationship. i am not the other person, i must adjust my thoughts and actions to maintain teh relationship.

That men did these things in his name, however, is not hard to accept. Humans do all sorts of crazy, immoral things in the pursuit of their ideals.

again .. because you are following a coherent course of reasoning we are able to agree again...

That is not logical. It may be your an article of faith for you, but it doesn't follow logically. The refutation of the God of the Bible, at least some aspects of the Biblical portrait, in no way invalidates the existence of a supreme being or ultimate ordering intelligence altogether.

yes ok. i have to accept god on faith. once i do accept god though biblical inerrancy becomes a logical progression..

 

[Balder]

Stipe,


I asked: Were those people in the OT insane?

i tell you what, if they tried what they did then today theyd get into quite a bit of trouble.

Yes, I think they would. The question remains whether or not they were insane for following commands like these, and for believing they were from God. I personally think they need not have been insane, just spiritually and morally immature.

But some of the things that were done by God's chosen were indeed pretty "insane," from my point of view, and certainly would get them in trouble today. What do you think of the following account?

2 Samuel 12:26 Now Joab fought against Rabbah of the sons of Ammon and captured the royal city. 27 Joab sent messengers to David and said, "I have fought against Rabbah, I have even captured the city of waters. 28 "Now therefore, gather the rest of the people together and camp against the city and capture it, or I will capture the city myself and it will be named after me." 29 So David gathered all the people and went to Rabbah, fought against it and captured it. 30 Then he took the crown of their king from his head; and its weight {was} a talent of gold, and {in it} {was} F130 a precious stone; and it was {placed} on David's head. And he brought out the spoil of the city in great amounts. 31 He also brought out the people who were in it, and set {them} under saws, sharp iron instruments, and iron axes, and made them pass through the brickkiln. And thus he did to all the cities of the sons of Ammon. Then David and all the people returned {to} Jerusalem.

When was the last time people were captured and put in ovens...? :think:

I wrote: If you believe anyone who hears and follows such commands is likely insane; if you believe such acts are reprehensible and wrong; if you believe God is sane, just, and good...then you have a problem on your hands. I do not find it coherent or consistent to accept that God did these things and yet hold the moral convictions that you do.

yes. this is sound reasoning. however sound reasoning need have nothing to do with what i choose to believe and where i choose to put my faith. my relationship with god is like any other relationship. i am not the other person, i must adjust my thoughts and actions to maintain the relationship.

Can you clarify for me what you are saying? Are you saying that if you want to have a relationship with someone, and you know that that person has committed genocide and ordered the mass killing of children, you have to ignore that part of their history, or at least not question them about it or form judgments about it?

I wrote: The refutation of the God of the Bible, at least some aspects of the Biblical portrait, in no way invalidates the existence of a supreme being or ultimate ordering intelligence altogether.

yes ok. i have to accept god on faith. once i do accept god though biblical inerrancy becomes a logical progression.

I would say, once you to believe in the God of the Bible, then there is a strong temptation to begin to assert Biblical inerrancy.

Best wishes,

Balder

 

[Stripe]

Stipe,I asked: Were those people in the OT insane?
Yes, I think they would. The question remains whether or not they were insane for following commands like these, and for believing they were from God. I personally think they need not have been insane, just spiritually and morally immature.

i can only comment from my point of view. i would not accept their actions and would do anything in my power to stop such activity if i were involved. i cannot justify or defend what they did except to assert they were obeying god. so ultimate responsibility lies with god.

But some of the things that were done by God's chosen were indeed pretty "insane," from my point of view, and certainly would get them in trouble today. What do you think of the following account? (bible reference omitted) When was the last time people were captured and put in ovens...? :think:

that account makes no mention of god commanding anything and without reading anything into the text the responsibility lies entirely with the people involved. again my reaction is the same. i have no defense for what they did and if i were involved i would do all in my power to stop it.

I wrote: If you believe anyone who hears and follows such commands is likely insane; if you believe such acts are reprehensible and wrong; if you believe God is sane, just, and good...then you have a problem on your hands. I do not find it coherent or consistent to accept that God did these things and yet hold the moral convictions that you do.

my morals are independent of my relationship with god. i freely admit that such a relationship is fraught with inexplicable things when any attempt is made to explain it to other people. once again .. consistency and coherency are a nice afterthought if they exist, but they are not necessary in a relationship.

Can you clarify for me what you are saying? Are you saying that if you want to have a relationship with someone, and you know that that person has committed genocide and ordered the mass killing of children, you have to ignore that part of their history, or at least not question them about it or form judgments about it?

i have clearly said all through this that i am well aware of the charges against god and that i have no defense for them. if i have a relationship with someone who has done something i disagree (strongly) with then they must have shown me something more important than their history. it makes none of the responsibility diminish but at no time does it rule out a relationship.

I wrote: The refutation of the God of the Bible, at least some aspects of the Biblical portrait, in no way invalidates the existence of a supreme being or ultimate ordering intelligence altogether. I would say, once you to believe in the God of the Bible, then there is a strong temptation to begin to assert Biblical inerrancy.

exactly. i go further and say that the strong temptation should turn into a necessary demand if you want to go on believing coherently.

thanks for the coherent conversation.

 

[Stripe]

take note fool. balder is approaching my position with a consistent line of reasoning rather than a scattergun rampage designed to undermine anything i say at whatever cost to logical progression. that makes understanding and clarity possible. and the flaws in my view have should quickly become apparent. i encourage you to follow a similar style no matter what the cost to your previous posts.

 

[Balder]

Stipe,

i can only comment from my point of view. i would not accept their actions and would do anything in my power to stop such activity if i were involved. i cannot justify or defend what they did except to assert they were obeying god. so ultimate responsibility lies with god.

Why do you think they were obeying God? Many people have killed others because they believe God wanted them to. A woman who recently drowned her 5 children in the U.S. said that God told her to do it. If she ever writes her autobiography, she'll probably explain how she followed God's orders to drown her kids. That doesn't make it true, just because it's in print.

that account makes no mention of god commanding anything and without reading anything into the text the responsibility lies entirely with the people involved. again my reaction is the same. i have no defense for what they did and if i were involved i would do all in my power to stop it.

I understand and respect your sentiments here.

my morals are independent of my relationship with god. i freely admit that such a relationship is fraught with inexplicable things when any attempt is made to explain it to other people. once again .. consistency and coherency are a nice afterthought if they exist, but they are not necessary in a relationship.

Where does your sense of morality originate, if not in God and his nature?

i have clearly said all through this that i am well aware of the charges against god and that i have no defense for them. if i have a relationship with someone who has done something i disagree (strongly) with then they must have shown me something more important than their history. it makes none of the responsibility diminish but at no time does it rule out a relationship.

Do you know God apart from the Bible? If you do, does the living being you know seem like the sort of person who would ask his followers to spear children?

Best wishes,

Balder

 

[Stripe]

Why do you think they were obeying God? Many people have killed others because they believe God wanted them to. A woman who recently drowned her 5 children in the U.S. said that God told her to do it. If she ever writes her autobiography, she'll probably explain how she followed God's orders to drown her kids. That doesn't make it true, just because it's in print.

absolutely right. i dont believe the bible because it is in print, i believe it because i believe in god.

Where does your sense of morality originate, if not in God and his nature?

as i believe. yet he gave all such things to me to be a careful guardian of. just as if i give a future child a car i want him to drive it according to the law for hir own sake, yet the car is hes to be a careful guardian of...

Do you know God apart from the Bible? If you do, does the living being you know seem like the sort of person who would ask his followers to spear children?

the written word means nothing without the spoken word, so yes i do know god other than from the bible. and no i do not think there will ever come a time when he will ask me to do such things. i cant imagine him having done it in the past either, but i must accept that he did in order to maintain a coherent belief in him. this makes it not at all easy to justify a relationship with the god of the bible. so i do not try to justify it. this leaves me completely open to any attack on me via the decisions of god, yet i require the attacker to acknowledge that it is first and foremost gods actions and god himself that they are rejecting.

like i said in post 179. if fool wants to pursue this line of questioning he must logically acknowledge that god is real and all responsibility lies with god. if he wants to deride the christian he must first deal with god. fool has consistently changed his approach each time he is faced with this certainty. each time he changes his approach his logic gets more and more skewed. i guarantee if you put all his posts in this thread together you would come out with a document that could be indentified as the work of numerous different authors by literary scholars looking at the content alone.

 

[Granite]

There's no way to justify killing anyone under our own authority. But we're not talking about our authority. We're talking about the Creator's authority to end the life of His own creation. That's the aspect of this debate that you and fool don't want to acknowledge.

I don't care whose "authority" a child killer thinks he's operating under. "I was only following orders" has never cut any ice. Whether it's the "people of God" or the Einsatzgruppen, murdering children has no moral justification despise any of the pretenses or "authority" used to authorize it. "God" isn't killing anybody in these stories. People are.

Funny, you seem to think that if "God" told you to participate in the murder of women and children you'd be just as guilty as the butchers who perpetrate the atrocities depicted in your avatar. Oh, the irony.

 

[Jefferson]

Granite: Does a creator have the right to destroy his own creation?

 

[Granite]

We're not talking about God doing a thing. We're talking about people, Jeff.

 

[PureX]

How to "win" a debate on TOL:

Person "A" wishes to show person "B" that person "B" has made an error in his thinking. So person "A" places the error in front of person "B" and says: "see, this is your error". But person "B" doesn't want to see his error, so he looks to the right and says, "I don't see any error". Person "A" moves the error to the right and says, "see, this is your error". But person "B" looks over to the left and says, "I don't see any error". So person "A" makes four more copies of the error and places them up, down, right, left and in the center of person "B's" field of vision, and says, "see, this is your error". But person "B" looks down and to the left and says, "I don't see any error". So person "A" makes four MORE copies of the error and places them lower left, lower right, upper left, and upper right of person "B's" field of vision, while leaving all the others in place, and says. "see, this is your error".

So person "B" closes his eyes and says, "I don't see any error". Person "A" finally throws up his hands in frustration and says, "I give up, this is hopeless!" Person "B" says, "It's hopeless because I was right all along, and there was no error".

Trying to discuss, debate, or argue a point or position logically and rationally with irrational people usually results in exactly this scenario. It's a fool's task. *smile*

 

[Granite]

It's easier trying to talk theology as opposed to real, grounded, gritty issues. This "don't question the potter" diversion is totally bogus and intellectually dishonest. Let's focus on what the soldiers did, or supposedly did.