ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[genuineoriginal]

YOU LIE!
I NEVER SAID THERE WAS NO ANSWER!
THE CORRECT ANSWER IS "I WON'T DO THAT!"
You ask what it means, we're still trying to figure that out.

My question is my question, if you want my position it's in all caps a little ways up.
Feel free to tell me that I hate God cause I won't smote the little ones, that's the best Bob could come up with, why would I expect any better from you?

You asked a question. What answer do you want to hear from me?

You say that the correct answer is "I WON'T DO THAT!" This proves that you believe that you know more than God, you have better solutions to the problem of how to deal with a Nation so steeped in wickedness that it is infecting everything around it, and that you are morally superior to Christians. In your dreams...

I do not believe that you hate God because you refuse to smite every man, woman, child, and beast in a city. I believe that you hate God because His moral standards prove that you are wicked (like the rest of us), and are deserving of the punishment He has in store.

God is a God of mercy . . . for those who love Him.
God is a God of wrath . . . for those who hate Him.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If he confeses to the deed and he ain't got one real good story then Yes, I'll tell em that to his face.

You won't even be able to lift your face from the floor on that day, much less try to call God a babykiller.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Who did He kill with the flood?

He killed everything that had breath on the face of the earth except for 8 people and a mating pair (or seven) of each kind of animal. He did this because the wickedness had spread so much that the thoughts of everyone was continuous violence.

God destroyed the earth with flood, and decided that that should never happen again. After this we see God's judgments on individual nations (and all the inhabitants of those nations). The punishment for individual people is left in the hands of people.

The reason for these judgments is said to be the abominations of those nations, and include every sexual perversion known to man.

 

[Stripe]

look at me, im so ticked off im misspelling

look at me, im so ticked off im misspelling

holy god we're still going.

fool cannot abide his own involvement in his own question. if you wish us to contemplate this issue privately then stop passing judgement. if you wish to allow others to participate then you have no right to deny the validity of questioning your original intent.

you also have no right to change your response for someone who agrees with you just because you dont want to face up to the implications of truth. what you cannot deny is that no matter which response people make to your question about god, they all imply that you have to make a decision on whether you will accept or reject that god.

im done with this thread. if anyone has any response to my post below then they can dam well scroll through the previous 18 pages. post 179 contains most of what you need to know.

 

[Granite]

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.

I don't have a hidden agenda; no idea why you keep insisting I do.

The killing of infants and children is never justifiable.

 

[fool]

You are the one asking the question about killing babies. You must have a reason.

To hear the answers?

Let him who is without sin . . . Surely you have heard that before.

Cast the first stone, we're talking about not casting stones, and my question was "do you have to be innocent to lobby for an innocent?" your response is not related to my question.

When you start speaking words of truth, let me know.

read this thread.

I am standing up for God's right to judge the wicked nations. I can't speak for stipe.

And there it is again, you had to switch out "butchering infants" for "judging wicked nations" whatsa matter ? can't say it?
From what I gather from stipes posts he says he won't do it, so you and him should go figure that out .

No. I think that if you were honest with yourself, you would realize that the only remedy for your wickedness is Jesus.

I'm wicked because I say don't kill the children? If having Jesus makes you an baby killer then you can keep him to yourself.

Ah....pride. Doesn't that go before the fall?

Yeah right, a man who calls himself fool must surely have a big ego.

 

[On Fire]

Some men are born great, some become great, some have greatness thrust upon them.

And some men go bald, lose their wives and families and become bitter old men.

 

[fool]

And some men go bald, lose their wives and families and become bitter old men.

I'm sorry things worked out that way for you OnFire.

 

[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.

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.

I don't have a hidden agenda; no idea why you keep insisting I do.

The killing of infants and children is never justifiable.

Well, it looks like you took the side door in trying to answer half of the issue.
What is it you are trying to get at by asking "You support the right of men in God's name killing infants? Yes or no."
Your partial answer is that "such an act is never defensible" and "killing of infants and children is never justifiable."
You have proved that you have a hidden agenda by asking whether I support the right of men in God's name killing infants. You have also proved that your hidden agenda is get Christians to say that they do support it (a yes answer), which you say is never defensible or justifiable. This means you are trying to get Christians into a position that YOU believe is never defensible or justifiable.

You have not fully explained what you think a yes answer means. What does it mean to YOU if a Christian answers "yes" to your question above? They have (according to you) put themselves into an indefensible and unjustifiable category, at which point you will proclaim . . . what? What are you waiting to say and not saying? Why are you refusing to reveal what you think Christians who "support the right of men in God's name killing infants" says about them.

You are playing a mind game with everyone reading this thread. You are trying to make them figure out what you think it says about a Christian, without saying what YOU believe it says. You are not being blunt.

You still have not answered the second half of it. What does it mean to YOU if a Christian says that they do not "support the right of men in God's name killing infants?" What are you waiting to say if a Christian says that?

It is apparant you have an agenda because of what you are not answering. I explained what the answers mean to me on my question. My agenda is simple: I am saying that God has a right to judge wicked nations. That judgement comes in the form of utter destruction of men, women, children, and animals. If children are killed in this judgment, then their blood is on the hands of the men of those nations because of their wickedness which forced God to have to deal with it. I am saying that any nation that gets that wicked WILL be destroyed, and that the only way to save the children is to turn the nation away from wickedness. You seem to think that this is spin control. It is not. I spent time finding out EXACTLY which events of the Bible were being questioned. I put the situation into context, and found out what the reasons were. I am dealing with the context of the situation. You want the question to be kept out of context in order to further your agenda.

If you have had any training in legal matters, you would be aware that the American courts are supposed to wait to interpret laws until they have a case in which the interpretation comes into question. This way they can see the effects of the law in context, and render a decision based on that situation. This is the reason the recent Supreme Court nominees were not answering the Senate questions on how they would decide on abortion.

 

[koban]

He killed everything that had breath on the face of the earth

Including babies, right? :think:

except for 8 people and a mating pair (or seven) of each kind of animal. He did this because the wickedness had spread so much that the thoughts of everyone was continuous violence.

The thoughts of babies were continuous violence? :freak:

 

[genuineoriginal]

To hear the answers?

Cast the first stone, we're talking about not casting stones, and my question was "do you have to be innocent to lobby for an innocent?" your response is not related to my question.

read this thread.

And there it is again, you had to switch out "butchering infants" for "judging wicked nations" whatsa matter ? can't say it?
From what I gather from stipes posts he says he won't do it, so you and him should go figure that out .

I'm wicked because I say don't kill the children? If having Jesus makes you an baby killer then you can keep him to yourself.

Yeah right, a man who calls himself fool must surely have a big ego.

Why do you want to hear answers to that question which has been shown to be taken out of context? Why do you not want to hear an answer based on the context of the situation?

I asked you pointedly to point out the exact situation you were referring to in your question. You did that. I addressed the situation, and found that the babies were killed because they were part of a wicked nation that God judged. You don't want to hear that, but insist on returning to a question about the situation that does not address the motives. I will switch the question from 'butchering infants' to 'God judging wicked nations' because that is the context, and addresses the reasons behind what happened.

You have not been honest, as Knight pointed out in the beginning of this thread. You are being dishonest in trying to get Christians to answer an out of context question.

You are wicked because you say God shouldn't judge nations for their wickedness. He has to do it because the UN won't.

You do not need to be innocent to lobby for the rights of the innocent, but you do need to be righteous, which is why I referenced "he who is without sin..." The wicked are unable to lobby for the rights of the wicked because they will be condemned also. God doesn't hear the wicked, but the fervent effective prayers of a righteous man availeth much.

And yes, a man who will name himself after a verse that says "The fool says in his heart there is no God" is full of pride.

 

[On Fire]

And some men go bald, lose their wives and families and become bitter old men.

Don't let the mask fool you, fool. That's YOU: bald, barefoot and shirtless.

 

[koban]

Don't let the mask fool you, fool. That's YOU: bald, barefoot and shirtless.

With one wicked case of jaundice! :noway:

 

[fool]

Why do you want to hear answers to that question which has been shown to be taken out of context? Why do you not want to hear an answer based on the context of the situation?

Gee I didn't see this same condemnation when Knight tried to turn the foot sodier into a bomber pilot. Why don't you go take him to task for that? Whatsa matter? Chicken?
I brought up Josh, this question has application to other stories as well, I see no problem with examining them all.

I asked you pointedly to point out the exact situation you were referring to in your question. You did that. I addressed the situation, and found that the babies were killed because they were part of a wicked nation that God judged. You don't want to hear that, but insist on returning to a question about the situation that does not address the motives. I will switch the question from 'butchering infants' to 'God judging wicked nations' because that is the context, and addresses the reasons behind what happened.

Again you try to hide behind the WMD defence. God didn't swallow these children along with the city in an Earth quake. He has men killing one at a time with swords. My point is that the sword is a weapon that allows each victim to be considered, and having that luxury a moral person should say to himself "there's gotta be someone here that dosen't have to die"
The closest you have come to a defencable reason to kill everything was that diesese idea you put forth, but it falls a little flat for a couple reasons, first everything that breaths must die, So you'd need to posit a virus that could cross all species. Second, if it's that potent why would you go anywhere near it? Seems like a virus would be a situation where Yaweh would bust out the brimstone, rather then send people to clean up.

You have not been honest, as Knight pointed out in the beginning of this thread. You are being dishonest in trying to get Christians to answer an out of context question.

That's bull. If you say genocide is sometimes OK then your answer to "Is it OK to kill infants" should be "sometimes" very simple.

You are wicked because you say God shouldn't judge nations for their wickedness. He has to do it because the UN won't.

The UN was around in Joshua's time? Or, God judges nation today? which are you trying to say with that statement?

You do not need to be innocent to lobby for the rights of the innocent, but you do need to be righteous, which is why I referenced "he who is without sin..." The wicked are unable to lobby for the rights of the wicked because they will be condemned also. God doesn't hear the wicked, but the fervent effective prayers of a righteous man availeth much.

Now you've got it, why wouldn't you lobby Yaweh for the lives of the innocent?
That should be your first reaction, but you dive right in to "judging the wicked" and start hacking away.

And yes, a man who will name himself after a verse that says "The fool says in his heart there is no God" is full of pride.

Wrong verse, try again.

 

[fool]

Don't let the mask fool you, fool. That's YOU: bald, barefoot and shirtless.

What makes you think I'm barefoot?

 

[Granite]

Well, it looks like you took the side door in trying to answer half of the issue.
What is it you are trying to get at by asking "You support the right of men in God's name killing infants? Yes or no."
Your partial answer is that "such an act is never defensible" and "killing of infants and children is never justifiable."
You have proved that you have a hidden agenda by asking whether I support the right of men in God's name killing infants. You have also proved that your hidden agenda is get Christians to say that they do support it (a yes answer), which you say is never defensible or justifiable. This means you are trying to get Christians into a position that YOU believe is never defensible or justifiable.

You have not fully explained what you think a yes answer means. What does it mean to YOU if a Christian answers "yes" to your question above? They have (according to you) put themselves into an indefensible and unjustifiable category, at which point you will proclaim . . . what? What are you waiting to say and not saying? Why are you refusing to reveal what you think Christians who "support the right of men in God's name killing infants" says about them.

You are playing a mind game with everyone reading this thread. You are trying to make them figure out what you think it says about a Christian, without saying what YOU believe it says. You are not being blunt.

You still have not answered the second half of it. What does it mean to YOU if a Christian says that they do not "support the right of men in God's name killing infants?" What are you waiting to say if a Christian says that?

It is apparant you have an agenda because of what you are not answering. I explained what the answers mean to me on my question. My agenda is simple: I am saying that God has a right to judge wicked nations. That judgement comes in the form of utter destruction of men, women, children, and animals. If children are killed in this judgment, then their blood is on the hands of the men of those nations because of their wickedness which forced God to have to deal with it. I am saying that any nation that gets that wicked WILL be destroyed, and that the only way to save the children is to turn the nation away from wickedness. You seem to think that this is spin control. It is not. I spent time finding out EXACTLY which events of the Bible were being questioned. I put the situation into context, and found out what the reasons were. I am dealing with the context of the situation. You want the question to be kept out of context in order to further your agenda.

If you have had any training in legal matters, you would be aware that the American courts are supposed to wait to interpret laws until they have a case in which the interpretation comes into question. This way they can see the effects of the law in context, and render a decision based on that situation. This is the reason the recent Supreme Court nominees were not answering the Senate questions on how they would decide on abortion.

I'm trying to see where your head's at and what you'd be willing to do in the name of "God."

If a Christian says they would be willing to do this they're demonstrating themselves to be dangerous, fanatical, potentially murderous zealots.

Defending the butchery of children because of so called "circumstances" or "context" is an abomination.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I'm trying to see where your head's at and what you'd be willing to do in the name of "God."

If a Christian says they would be willing to do this they're demonstrating themselves to be dangerous, fanatical, potentially murderous zealots.

Defending the butchery of children because of so called "circumstances" or "context" is an abomination.

Thank you Granite for your honesty.
You have stated clearly that your position is that you are trying to see how many Christians fall into your definition of a dangerous, fanatical, potentially murderous zealot.
You have stated clearly that there is no reason you will accept to defend killing infants.

Now that we are clear on the reason for the question, we can move on with the discussion.

I have explained my position of believing that God was justified in ordering the complete destruction of a city, including every man, woman, child, and beast, because of the abominable practices of the inhabitants of the city.

I am stating clearly that I believe that there are times when infants will die because of the actions of their parents, and one of those circumstances is war.

I have said in previous posts that Men have petitioned God in order to spare the lives of the wicked. This is something God says that He is looking for. There are records of righteous men refusing to do what God ordered, such as Ezekiel refusing to cook over human dung and Peter refusing to eat rats, vultures, and cockroaches. This is acceptable to God. He says "Come, let us reason together." God is not as unreasonable as you seem to think.

My answer to your concerns is that God has the right to destroy every man, woman, child, and beast of a city by any means He chooses, but that men should step up and challenge Him based on His mercy to find another way.

I concede that the Children of Israel did not confront God about the methods He ordered them to use. They did not plead the case of the wicked, and ask Him for mercy. We have no way of knowing what would have happened in that case, but we have records of God sparing Ninevah when they repented.

The way I see it, the correct Christian response to the order to march into a city and kill every man, woman, child, and beast is to fall down before Him, tell Him that His reputation would suffer in the sight of the godless, and beg for mercy for those who do not deserve it.

I pray God has mercy on you also.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Thank you Granite for your honesty.
You have stated clearly that your position is that you are trying to see how many Christians fall into your definition of a dangerous, fanatical, potentially murderous zealot.
You have stated clearly that there is no reason you will accept to defend killing infants.

Now that we are clear on the reason for the question, we can move on with the discussion.

I have explained my position of believing that God was justified in ordering the complete destruction of a city, including every man, woman, child, and beast, because of the abominable practices of the inhabitants of the city.

I am stating clearly that I believe that there are times when infants will die because of the actions of their parents, and one of those circumstances is war.

I have said in previous posts that Men have petitioned God in order to spare the lives of the wicked. This is something God says that He is looking for. There are records of righteous men refusing to do what God ordered, such as Ezekiel refusing to cook over human dung and Peter refusing to eat rats, vultures, and cockroaches. This is acceptable to God. He says "Come, let us reason together." God is not as unreasonable as you seem to think.

My answer to your concerns is that God has the right to destroy every man, woman, child, and beast of a city by any means He chooses, but that men should step up and challenge Him based on His mercy to find another way.

I concede that the Children of Israel did not confront God about the methods He ordered them to use. They did not plead the case of the wicked, and ask Him for mercy. We have no way of knowing what would have happened in that case, but we have records of God sparing Ninevah when they repented.

The way I see it, the correct Christian response to the order to march into a city and kill every man, woman, child, and beast is to fall down before Him, tell Him that His reputation would suffer in the sight of the godless, and beg for mercy for those who do not deserve it.

I pray God has mercy on you also.

POTD :first:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Gee I didn't see this same condemnation when Knight tried to turn the foot sodier into a bomber pilot. Why don't you go take him to task for that? Whatsa matter? Chicken?

War is war, and War is hell. I have no reason for taking Knight to task for saying that people die in war. You are the one that is trying to say that having a sword prevents bloodshed. The purpose of a sword is to kill people. Period.

I brought up Josh, this question has application to other stories as well, I see no problem with examining them all.

Go right ahead. Look at them in context, and tell me what you find.

Again you try to hide behind the WMD defence. God didn't swallow these children along with the city in an Earth quake. He has men killing one at a time with swords. My point is that the sword is a weapon that allows each victim to be considered, and having that luxury a moral person should say to himself "there's gotta be someone here that dosen't have to die"

That is right. A sword does make people consider the consequences of abominable practices. That is why God instituted public stoning by all as a punishment. That is why God instituted animal sacrifices to cover sin. People need to see the blood on their hands to understand how horrible the perversions of mankind are. Otherwise, they will be able to say that it is not bad, then they will say it is good and opposing it is bad.

The closest you have come to a defencable reason to kill everything was that diesese idea you put forth, but it falls a little flat for a couple reasons, first everything that breaths must die, So you'd need to posit a virus that could cross all species. Second, if it's that potent why would you go anywhere near it? Seems like a virus would be a situation where Yaweh would bust out the brimstone, rather then send people to clean up.

I implied that the perversions of the city had made it so infested with sexually transmitted diseases, that every man, woman, infant, and animal that had any part of those perversions were infected. If this is the case, then sparing their lives would have passed those sexually transmitted diseases to their rescuers.
You on the other hand seem to think that a nation that has no land, no crops for food, and is surrounded by hostile nations that want them dead are able to take time to rescue their enemie's babies and raise them. Please show me from history where any nation without land and food rescued the babies of their enemies in the middle of a war. Don't give me your "what ifs" about war, give me real world examples.

That's bull. If you say genocide is sometimes OK then your answer to "Is it OK to kill infants" should be "sometimes" very simple.

I ask you again, and again. Explain in simple terms what YOU mean by those answers. It is simple. If you answer "Yes" it means.... If you answer "No" it means.... If you answer "sometimes" it means....
Until you do this, you are remaining dishonest. You do not want an answer, you want amunition.

The UN was around in Joshua's time? Or, God judges nation today? which are you trying to say with that statement?

I am saying that God judges nations. In the past, today, and in the future. He does this because He is God, and no one else has the right or authority to do it for Him. It is not a responsibility He wants, but He will not neglect doing it for that reason. The UN is trying to put themselves in God's place, and not doing a very good job either.

Now you've got it, why wouldn't you lobby Yaweh for the lives of the innocent?
That should be your first reaction, but you dive right in to "judging the wicked" and start hacking away.

You almost got it. Petitioning God to save the lives of the WICKED should be the first reaction. Please read my response to Granit above.

Wrong verse, try again.

Was it "a fool and his money...?" Or the song "fool on a hill..."

 

[genuineoriginal]

POTD :first:

Thank you. I am just trying to say what I believe.