ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[fool]

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.

This is a great response, for some reason you still characterize the innocent as wicked, so if you can understand that a child may be innocent even though he's in a wicked town then you'll be on the right track.
It's a negotiation, Yaweh says; smite everybody, I say; Even the babies?! Yaweh says ;OK don't smite the babies, I say; if we're keepin the babies perhaps a few of the young girls could help with diapers and what not? Yaweh says; OK keep whoever is too young to draw a bow, I say; well that's gonna be alot of people left, maybe we could just go down there and get them to turn from their ways and do a case by case smoting on the unrepentent?
Yaweh says; don't push your luck fool....................

 

[genuineoriginal]

This is a great response, for some reason you still characterize the innocent as wicked, so if you can understand that a child may be innocent even though he's in a wicked town then you'll be on the right track.
It's a negotiation, Yaweh says; smite everybody, I say; Even the babies?! Yaweh says ;OK don't smite the babies, I say; if we're keepin the babies perhaps a few of the young girls could help with diapers and what not? Yaweh says; OK keep whoever is too young to draw a bow, I say; well that's gonna be alot of people left, maybe we could just go down there and get them to turn from their ways and do a case by case smoting on the unrepentent?
Yaweh says; don't push your luck fool....................

By God, I think he almost has it!

If the NATION were innocent, then God would not have to judge it, and the babies would not be killed. Mercy is when God spares the wicked because of the intercession of the righteous. This is the message of the Gospel. We are wicked, and deserve capital punishment (death). The righteous one (Jesus) made intercession with God to spare us. God spared us wicked people because of the intercession of the righteous one, but only if we repent and accept the sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus took God's punishment for our wickedness upon Himself, but only if we recognize that we are wicked and need a savior. Because of Jesus' sacrifice on my behalf, I do not need to be ashamed when I stand before His throne.

 

[fool]

By God, I think he almost has it!

If the NATION were innocent, then God would not have to judge it, and the babies would not be killed. Mercy is when God spares the wicked because of the intercession of the righteous. This is the message of the Gospel. We are wicked, and deserve capital punishment (death). The righteous one (Jesus) made intercession with God to spare us. God spared us wicked people because of the intercession of the righteous one, but only if we repent and accept the sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus took God's punishment for our wickedness upon Himself, but only if we recognize that we are wicked and need a savior. Because of Jesus' sacrifice on my behalf, I do not need to be ashamed when I stand before His throne.

You still got that wicked hang up.
Try three catogories, The Wicked, The Rightous, and The Innocent.
If you posit all are wicked because of some kind of original sin then listen to the shows again, I think Bob adressed that at the begining of the second one.
There is The Innocent in Bob and Knight's theology, they are those below the age of acountability (which varies from persn to person.)
They don't have a problem smiting them cause they think they're doing them a favor, bringing them into the mansion.
From your POTD.

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.

The bold points out where you have said things in this debate that no other Christian has posited (to my knowledge) and it only took 600 posts.
What you said there is much different than what Knight said in the Ask Knight! thread and what Bob said in the shows.
Knight said it would be stupid not to smote them. (no mention of negotiation)
And Bob said you'd be a sinner if you objected.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You still got that wicked hang up.
Try three catogories, The Wicked, The Rightous, and The Innocent.
If you posit all are wicked because of some kind of original sin then listen to the shows again, I think Bob adressed that at the begining of the second one.

Do a search of the Bible.
Wicked (and variations) is mentioned 452 times.
Righteous (and variations) is mentioned 510 times.
Wicked and Righteous are the proper categories according to the Bible.
Innocent is mentioned ONLY 39 times. 24 of those times it is referring to "innocent blood" and variations of that theme.
This is what "innocent blood" refers to:

Proverbs 1
10My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.
11If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:
12Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:
13We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil:
14Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:
15My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path:
16For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood.
17Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.
18And they lay wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives.
19So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof.​

Innocent, in the Bible, does not mean what YOU are trying to make it mean. It is talking about murder in order to take wealth, not the just punishment of the wicked, which is NEVER referred to as innocent blood. That includes the punishment of God on wicked nations.

There is The Innocent in Bob and Knight's theology, they are those below the age of acountability (which varies from persn to person.)
They don't have a problem smiting them cause they think they're doing them a favor, bringing them into the mansion.

I cannot speak for Bob and Knight. I do have a problem killing children because I believe that it deprives them of the chance to know God and have a personal relationship with Him. Without that chance, they cannot be saved because of the curse of original sin.

From your POTD.
The bold points out where you have said things in this debate that no other Christian has posited (to my knowledge) and it only took 600 posts.
What you said there is much different than what Knight said in the Ask Knight! thread and what Bob said in the shows.
Knight said it would be stupid not to smote them. (no mention of negotiation)
And Bob said you'd be a sinner if you objected.

Again, I cannot speak for Bob and Knight. If you have a problem with what they said, take it up with them.
As far as myself, I have been trying to present the Bible's side of your question. I had to do some heavy searching to find the answer, but I believe that it is consistant with the teachings of the Bible. It was only towards the last 50 or so posts that everyone started stating their opinions clearly, and stipe and I were trying to pry them out of you and some others. Once I was able to see what the real opinions were, I could find the answer in the Bible.

Now, fool:
Do you agree that the Biblical answer I presented provides the answer to your question? Or do you have a problem with it?

 

[Balder]

Do a search of the Bible.
Wicked (and variations) is mentioned 452 times.
Righteous (and variations) is mentioned 510 times.
Wicked and Righteous are the proper categories according to the Bible.
Innocent is mentioned ONLY 39 times. 24 of those times it is referring to "innocent blood" and variations of that theme.
This is what "innocent blood" refers to:

Proverbs 1
10My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.
11If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:
12Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:
13We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil:
14Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:
15My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path:
16For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood.
17Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.
18And they lay wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives.
19So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof.​

Innocent, in the Bible, does not mean what YOU are trying to make it mean. It is talking about murder in order to take wealth, not the just punishment of the wicked, which is NEVER referred to as innocent blood. That includes the punishment of God on wicked nations.I cannot speak for Bob and Knight. I do have a problem killing children because I believe that it deprives them of the chance to know God and have a personal relationship with Him. Without that chance, they cannot be saved because of the curse of original sin.

Again, I cannot speak for Bob and Knight. If you have a problem with what they said, take it up with them.
As far as myself, I have been trying to present the Bible's side of your question. I had to do some heavy searching to find the answer, but I believe that it is consistant with the teachings of the Bible. It was only towards the last 50 or so posts that everyone started stating their opinions clearly, and stipe and I were trying to pry them out of you and some others. Once I was able to see what the real opinions were, I could find the answer in the Bible.

Now, fool:
Do you agree that the Biblical answer I presented provides the answer to your question? Or do you have a problem with it?

As you understand the Bible's teachings on original sin (or simply the fallenness of mankind), the children of the pagan nations that were exterminated will all end up suffering forever in the Lake of Fire.

Is that correct?

 

[genuineoriginal]

As you understand the Bible's teachings on original sin (or simply the fallenness of mankind), the children of the pagan nations that were exterminated will all end up suffering forever in the Lake of Fire.

Is that correct?

Not really. I think you are mistaking the Lake of Fire with Tartarus. I think that the Lake of Fire is a place of destruction, not a place of eternal life and suffering. Eternal Life is a reward for those who want to spend eternity with God.

 

[Balder]

Not really. I think you are mistaking the Lake of Fire with Tartarus. I think that the Lake of Fire is a place of destruction, not a place of eternal life and suffering. Eternal Life is a reward for those who want to spend eternity with God.

What do you think the fate will be of those pagan children whom the Hebrews cut down at God's request? Destruction or eternal torment or salvation?

 

[genuineoriginal]

What do you think the fate will be of those pagan children whom the Hebrews cut down at God's request? Destruction or eternal torment or salvation?

Could you rephrase these questions?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I cannot speak for Bob and Knight. I do have a problem killing children because I believe that it deprives them of the chance to know God and have a personal relationship with Him. Without that chance, they cannot be saved because of the curse of original sin.

After Christ's work on the cross no person would have "original sin" accounted to them.

Since then, it is never more than our own sin that convicts us.

Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.
Romans 5:10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Romans 5:11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world (Adam), and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned —
Romans 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
Romans 5:16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.
Romans 5:17 For if by the one man’s offense (Adam) death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
Romans 5:18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense (Adam) judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s (Christ) righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
Romans 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

God isn't saying all men are now justified I.e., universal salvation. Instead all men (because of Christ) are justified from Adam's sin.

It is no longer Adam's sin that can convict us but our own sin.

NOTE: all of this of course only applies to the lost. Christians are seperated and associated with Christ's work on the cross and have there sin forgiven by the work of Jesus.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

What do you think the fate will be of those pagan children whom the Hebrews cut down at God's request? Destruction or eternal torment or salvation?

Some people believe that all children that die prior to the age of accountability go straight to heaven. Others believe they go straight to hell.

I do not believe that either of those options fit within God's character and how He normally handles His creation.

I believe that upon death our souls are matured and "fixed" (say for the mentally retarded). And after our souls are matured (so to speak) God then allows those souls to make their freewill choice on where they want to spend eternity.

Joshua 24:15 “And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”

 

[Balder]

Could you rephrase these questions?

A large number of children of pagan nations were exterminated by the Hebrews, apparently at God's command. What do you think their eternal fate will be? Will God accept them into Heaven, or will they either be utterly destroyed or else cast into a condition of eternal torment?

I am aware that Christians are of divided opinion about the eternal fate of non-Christians. A minority hold to the opinion of annihilation -- utter destruction of the sinful individual. Others hold to various versions of eternal torment. Some consider it being a dissolute condition of existence apart from God. Others, like Hank Hanegraaff, believe eternal torment far exceeds the pain any human being has ever experienced, forever -- because all are given imperishable bodies at the resurrection, and the unsaved are cast in these bodies into the Lake of Fire.

So, I'm just trying to see where you're coming from.

 

[genuineoriginal]

A large number of children of pagan nations were exterminated by the Hebrews, apparently at God's command. What do you think their eternal fate will be? Will God accept them into Heaven, or will they either be utterly destroyed or else cast into a condition of eternal torment?

I am aware that Christians are of divided opinion about the eternal fate of non-Christians. A minority hold to the opinion of annihilation -- utter destruction of the sinful individual. Others hold to various versions of eternal torment. Some consider it being a dissolute condition of existence apart from God. Others, like Hank Hanegraaff, believe eternal torment far exceeds the pain any human being has ever experienced, forever -- because all are given imperishable bodies at the resurrection, and the unsaved are cast in these bodies into the Lake of Fire.

So, I'm just trying to see where you're coming from.

Thank you for clarifying what you were asking.

I am in the minority that hold to the opinion of annihilation for any who do not choose to follow God, and do not see any thing different in the Bible for children. I qualify this statement because the Old Testament believers in God were not Christians.
I believe this because I see existence and life as the same thing, whether it is an existence apart from God or eternal life in the Lake of Fire. I believe that eternal life is promised to the believers, meaning those who choose to follow God.

I know that there can be a big discussion on the three views of eternity for non-believers, whether Old Testament believers are "saved," and whether we choose God or God chooses us. Those would probably be better adressed on separate threads if you want to discuss them. I just wanted to make my position clear in response to your questions.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Some people believe that all children that die prior to the age of accountability go straight to heaven. Others believe they go straight to hell.

I do not believe that either of those options fit within God's character and how He normally handles His creation.

I believe that upon death our souls are matured and "fixed" (say for the mentally retarded). And after our souls are matured (so to speak) God then allows those souls to make their freewill choice on where they want to spend eternity.

Joshua 24:15 “And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”

This is something I will need time to think about.

Thank you.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This is something I will need time to think about.

Thank you.

:up:

Not once in the Bible do we ever find that God forces anyone to choose Him or to NOT choose Him. In fact I think our making this choice is one of the fundamental reasons we exist on earth as humans.

I can't see why children would be any different.

We must also consider those incapable of making a choice i.e., mentally handicapped or those with brain injuries etc. I doubt that anyone would think that these folks spend eternity handicapped. Instead their soul is now separated from their flesh and in essence they are made whole (whole as in they are no longer handicapped). God would not force these newly matured souls into an eternal decision. God is the ultimate righteous judge. It is not in His character to make the eternal selection for children or the mentally incapable.

 

[Balder]

Thank you for clarifying what you were asking.

I am in the minority that hold to the opinion of annihilation for any who do not choose to follow God, and do not see any thing different in the Bible for children. I qualify this statement because the Old Testament believers in God were not Christians.
I believe this because I see existence and life as the same thing, whether it is an existence apart from God or eternal life in the Lake of Fire. I believe that eternal life is promised to the believers, meaning those who choose to follow God.

I know that there can be a big discussion on the three views of eternity for non-believers, whether Old Testament believers are "saved," and whether we choose God or God chooses us. Those would probably be better adressed on separate threads if you want to discuss them. I just wanted to make my position clear in response to your questions.

Well, on a graded scale, I see Bob's position -- that slain pagan infants may yet spend eternity in paradise with God -- as preferable to complete annihilation, which in turn is preferable to eternal torment in hell. So, if I had to choose between these three options (for infants), I would choose Bob's first, and yours second.

However, in terms of overall positions on the fate of non-believers, I think annihilationism is morally superior to eternal torment. The latter is a monstrous doctrine.

Back to the subject, though, I don't think any of these positions makes genocide or infanticide justifiable. Some are just less horrific than others.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Well, on a graded scale, I see Bob's position -- that slain pagan infants may yet spend eternity in paradise with God -- as preferable to complete annihilation, which in turn is preferable to eternal torment in hell. So, if I had to choose between these three options (for infants), I would choose Bob's first, and yours second.

Just a note... I am not positive but I am pretty sure Bob's position would not be that ALL infants go straight to heaven.

Instead, I believe that Bob would agree with me that infants are allowed to make their own eternal choice in the afterlife. In essence they would get a special dispensation.

I apologize in advance if I am misrepresenting Bob's position.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Just a note... I am not positive but I am pretty sure Bob's position would not be that ALL infants go straight to heaven.

Instead, I believe that Bob would agree with me that infants are allowed to make their own eternal choice in the afterlife. In essence they would get a special dispensation.

A special dispensation. Interesting. Is there a scripture basis for this idea? I'm not trying to mock or anything here, I'm plainly curious. It's simply an idea I've never heard before.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

A special dispensation. Interesting. Is there a scripture basis for this idea? I'm not trying to mock or anything here, I'm plainly curious. It's simply an idea I've never heard before.

There is no single verse I can base any of this on yet the entire Bible and God's character throughout.

God desries that all men choose Him (1 Tim 2:4), God draws all men to Him (John 12:32) yet the majority reject Him (Mat 7:14). Therefore man must have a will apart from God. God wills that we choose Him, but knows that many are not willing (Mat 23:37). God asks that we choose Him on our own freewill (Josh 24:15). Therefore why then would God go against His character and make the choice for certain individuals?

There is far more to it than that but I think you get the idea.

God is the ultimate gentlemen.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Well, on a graded scale, I see Bob's position -- that slain pagan infants may yet spend eternity in paradise with God -- as preferable to complete annihilation, which in turn is preferable to eternal torment in hell. So, if I had to choose between these three options (for infants), I would choose Bob's first, and yours second.

However, in terms of overall positions on the fate of non-believers, I think annihilationism is morally superior to eternal torment. The latter is a monstrous doctrine.

I agree that Bob's position sounds the nicest. I just cannot find any justification for it in the Bible. As far as annihilation and eternal torment, they seem to be almost equally represented, but I believe that annihilation fits better, and there are also a couple of other verses that do not seem to fit either concept. That is why I said I would need to think on this further.

Back to the subject, though, I don't think any of these positions makes genocide or infanticide justifiable. Some are just less horrific than others.

Doctrines about what happen after death cannot justify genocide or infanticide. The only thing that can is the doctrines of Wickedness and Righteousness, and God's duty to judge between them, including the penalties and rewards.

 

[genuineoriginal]

There is no single verse I can base any of this on yet the entire Bible and God's character throughout.

God desries that all men choose Him (1 Tim 2:4), God draws all men to Him (John 12:32) yet the majority reject Him (Mat 7:14). Therefore man must have a will apart from God. God wills that we choose Him, but knows that many are not willing (Mat 23:37). God asks that we choose Him on our own freewill (Josh 24:15). Therefore why then would God go against His character and make the choice for certain individuals?

There is far more to it than that but I think you get the idea.

God is the ultimate gentlemen.

I agree with your statements here, but so far I come to a different conclusion.