ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[Balder]

And a problem with the potter argument is that it treats individuals as inanimate, unfeeling objects, not sentient beings.

 

[Granite]

And a problem with the potter argument is that it treats individuals as inanimate, unfeeling objects, not sentient beings.

...yeah. Clay, basically, which is the biggest trouble with the metaphor.

The minute you can see another person as inanimate and unfeeling, it's much easier to start killing them, however.

 

[Stripe]

the original question did not focus on what the soldiers did. if fool wants to retract his original question and rephrase it more honestly then he has had numerous opportunities not to mention encouragements to do so. if in his place you wish to ask a question that you feel will help resolve this matter than feel free.

 

[fool]

And a problem with the potter argument is that it treats individuals as inanimate, unfeeling objects, not sentient beings.

Well put Balder.
If God meant for us to value life he acts against what he programed us for when he commands us to smote others when there is no pretext of self defence.

 

[fool]

the original question did not focus on what the soldiers did. if fool wants to retract his original question and rephrase it more honestly then he has had numerous opportunities not to mention encouragements to do so. if in his place you wish to ask a question that you feel will help resolve this matter than feel free.

Are you still here banging that "unask the question" drum?
Why don't you ask the question so we can get a sense of what you're going on about.

 

[fool]

The minute you can see another person as inanimate and unfeeling, it's much easier to start killing them, however.

Even easier if you replace "killing" with "bringing from the porch into the mansion".
(who wouldn't want to go into the mansion?)

 

[Granite]

Even easier if you replace "killing" with "bringing from the porch into the mansion".
(who wouldn't want to go into the mansion?)

Yeah. I love euphemisms like that. Complete spin and disinformation. It's not "mass murder," it's an "evacuation." They're not "dead," they're "unpersons."

 

[soothsayer]

But surely they were "un-persons," right? I mean, hey, they were the Enemy...they couldn't have been real people, could they? :sarcastic snort:

 

[genuineoriginal]

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.

Granite wants to focus on what the soldiers did.

So, Granite. What is the question you are trying to ask? Is it how the soldiers were able to walk for 40 years through the Saudi Arabian desert without their shoes wearing out. Is is how the soldiers watched their parents die in that same desert for refusing to enter the land and kill the inhabitants?

Or are you trying to focus on the circumcision ceremony at the crossing of the Jordan river?

 

[genuineoriginal]

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*

Person "A" has a hidden agenda, and poses a question to person "B." Person "B" answers the question in a manner that does not promote the agenda of person "A." Person "A" tries to shift the question around to get person "B" to answer in the manner person "A" wishes. Person "B" does not follow person "A's" hidden agenda, but says that there is no problem that can be seen. Person "B" tries to show person "A" proof about the this, but person "A" shuts his eyes tight, and says there is no proof.

Person "A" becomes frustrated that person "B" doesn't follow the hidden agenda.

Person "B" starts asking person "A" what person "A" is attempting with the question that keeps changing.




Person "A" never tells his hidden agenda, so person "B" declares victory because person "A" is proven to be deceitful. ureX:

 

[genuineoriginal]

the original question did not focus on what the soldiers did. if fool wants to retract his original question and rephrase it more honestly then he has had numerous opportunities not to mention encouragements to do so. if in his place you wish to ask a question that you feel will help resolve this matter than feel free.

How TRUE.

Fool has been asked by Knight to explain his motives for asking the original question. stipe has repeatedly asked for clarification on what fool is trying to get at, without any response.

Is the question about why God ordered what He did, whether it is right to follow God's orders, or whether the way-back machine will take Christians to the batle of Jericho?

We are arguing in circles because no one is debating the same issue. fool is not saying what the issue is because of his hidden agenda.

Since there is no clarification on the issue, God's side won because they did not follow the hidden agenda.

 

[Granite]

Granite wants to focus on what the soldiers did.

So, Granite. What is the question you are trying to ask? Is it how the soldiers were able to walk for 40 years through the Saudi Arabian desert without their shoes wearing out. Is is how the soldiers watched their parents die in that same desert for refusing to enter the land and kill the inhabitants?

Or are you trying to focus on the circumcision ceremony at the crossing of the Jordan river?

You're damn right I do.

My question's pretty simple: how can Christians of all people think killing infants is or was ever justified?

Don't play dumb, rookie. If you've kept up with the thread you should know what's going on around here.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You're damn right I do.

My question's pretty simple: how can Christians of all people think killing infants is or was ever justified?

Don't play dumb, rookie. If you've kept up with the thread you should know what's going on around here.

I see the point, I think.

Christians of all people

You are asking whether Christians have different standards than non-Christians? You believe that Christians should have better standards than non-Christians?

Don't play dumb, Granite. You have a hidden agenda. Your agenda is directed against Christians.

God is righteous. He has the right, and the duty, to punish wickedness. God judges large groups of people, and punishes the wickedness found in them.

As a Christian, I support God's right to judge the nations!

 

[Granite]

I see the point, I think.



You are asking whether Christians have different standards than non-Christians? You believe that Christians should have better standards than non-Christians?

Don't play dumb, Granite. You have a hidden agenda. Your agenda is directed against Christians.

God is righteous. He has the right, and the duty, to punish wickedness. God judges large groups of people, and punishes the wickedness found in them.

As a Christian, I support God's right to judge the nations!

By your own admission you should and supposedly do. If your standards are the same as mine, why should I listen to anything else you've got?

By the way, if I do have an agenda, which I don't, I'm not keeping it "hidden." I have a reputation here for being blunt (among other things) so don't sell any more of this conspiracy crap.

You support the right of men in God's name killing infants? Yes or no.

 

[genuineoriginal]

By your own admission you should and supposedly do. If your standards are the same as mine, why should I listen to anything else you've got?

By the way, if I do have an agenda, which I don't, I'm not keeping it "hidden." I have a reputation here for being blunt (among other things) so don't sell any more of this conspiracy crap.

You support the right of men in God's name killing infants? Yes or no.

Do you oppose the right of God to judge wickedness? Yes or no.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Do you oppose the right of God to judge wickedness? Yes or no.

If you answer no, then you have no right to judge God or the actions He takes to judge wickedness.

If you answer yes, then you have no right to judge the means He takes.

There is a third choice:
Abraham prayed to God to spare the wicked. Moses prayed to God to spare the wicked. God said in Ezekiel that He was looking for someone to stand before Him and plead the case of the wicked so that they would not be destroyed.

If you do not want to see the infants killed for the wickedness of the nations they live in, pray to God that He finds another way.

 

[Granite]

Do you oppose the right of God to judge wickedness? Yes or no.

You are deliberately avoiding the question--because it is impossible to give a straight answer. Answering such a horrific scenario requires spin control and every bit of euphemistic acrobatics as you can muster.

For me, killing an infant isn't a moral dilemma. It doesn't pose a single question or hesitation in my mind: such an act is never defensible. That I don't need to equivocate, and that a Christian does, says far more about you than me.

 

[fool]

Person "A" has a hidden agenda, and poses a question to person "B." Person "B" answers the question in a manner that does not promote the agenda of person "A." Person "A" tries to shift the question around to get person "B" to answer in the manner person "A" wishes. Person "B" does not follow person "A's" hidden agenda, but says that there is no problem that can be seen. Person "B" tries to show person "A" proof about the this, but person "A" shuts his eyes tight, and says there is no proof.

Person "A" becomes frustrated that person "B" doesn't follow the hidden agenda.

Person "B" starts asking person "A" what person "A" is attempting with the question that keeps changing.

Person "A" never tells his hidden agenda, so person "B" declares victory because person "A" is proven to be deceitful. ureX:

You lost me in there somewhere but if that was supposed to be some kind of shot at me then I'll respond with;
Fool asks "is it ever OK to take a sword and slaughter an infant"
Genuineoriginal and stipe respond with "he must have a hidden agenda!"
And now I see you call me dishonest because I won't tell you the hidden agenda that you accuse me of having.
Did you ever consider that It might just be a question?
It's pretty funny that the best your theology can come up with is these pathetic attacks.

 

[Balder]

God, as absolute sovereign creator, would certainly have the right to govern the universe and settle its ills and bring justice however he wants. Granting that absolute "right" has no bearing on the question of whether or not what he actually does is moral and good, however. If an all-powerful God chooses to accomplish his aims through genocide and infant smiting, that communicates something about him (and about those who stand behind him). And most of us pagans and apostates here are saying: what it says is not very good.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You are deliberately avoiding the question--because it is impossible to give a straight answer. Answering such a horrific scenario requires spin control and every bit of euphemistic acrobatics as you can muster.

For me, killing an infant isn't a moral dilemma. It doesn't pose a single question or hesitation in my mind: such an act is never defensible. That I don't need to equivocate, and that a Christian does, says far more about you than me.

I am not avoiding the question.

I am waiting for you to reveal your hidden agenda.

Post what a yes answer means to you, and what a no answer means to you.

This will reveal your hidden agenda. Stop fishing for an answer without explaining what it means to you.