ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[Caledvwlch]

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.

Fair enough. It's too bad I didn't post more often when I was still a Christian. I would have been all over a discussion like this. And yes, I was a professing believer when I first signed up.

 

[Balder]

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.

With others here, I have a hard time with the doctrine that children are inherently wicked or evil. I think there is a tendency among some Christians to reify or substantialize evil, making it a noun rather than an adjective or adverb, and as a Buddhist, I think this is an error in reasoning. But further, I think it is in itself a morally problematic perspective, in that it provides justification for the murder of children.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Fair enough. It's too bad I didn't post more often when I was still a Christian. I would have been all over a discussion like this. And yes, I was a professing believer when I first signed up.

You mean like Granite and PaulPeterson??? :chuckle:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

With others here, I have a hard time with the doctrine that children are inherently wicked or evil. I think there is a tendency among some Christians to reify or substantialize evil, making it a noun rather than an adjective or adverb, and as a Buddhist, I think this is an error in reasoning. But further, I think it is in itself a morally problematic perspective, in that it provides justification for the murder of children.

In war entire nations can be evil corporately. That is the nature of war. It is tragic but true. If a nation acts in an evil way another nation has the right and even obligation to protect itself and it's allies.

Even to the extent of killing every last one of them if necessary.

 

[genuineoriginal]

In war entire nations can be evil corporately. That is the nature of war. It is tragic but true. If a nation acts in an evil way another nation has the right and even obligation to protect itself and it's allies.

Even to the extent of killing every last one of them if necessary.

Too true... :sigh:

 

[Balder]

In war entire nations can be evil corporately. That is the nature of war. It is tragic but true. If a nation acts in an evil way another nation has the right and even obligation to protect itself and it's allies.

Even to the extent of killing every last one of them if necessary.

Where are these rules of war recorded? Who issued them? Who agreed upon them?

 

[Caledvwlch]

You mean like Granite and PaulPeterson??? :chuckle:

Granite yes. Paul no.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Where are these rules of war recorded?

The Bible

Who issued them?

God

Who agreed upon them?

It doesn't matter if we agree or not.

Some people still believe that matter and energy can create themselves from nothing. Does it matter that we don't agree? Fact is fact.

 

[Balder]

The BibleGod It doesn't matter if we agree or not.

Some people still believe that matter and energy can create themselves from nothing. Does it matter that we don't agree? Fact is fact.

Can you show me where in the Bible these rules are spelled out? Or do you take the sorts of stories we've been discussing as the "instruction book" for general rules of war? Do you reason from these stories of extermination and genocide that "this is how war is, and how it must be"?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Can you show me where in the Bible these rules are spelled out? Or do you take the sorts of stories we've been discussing as the "instruction book" for general rules of war? Do you reason from these stories of extermination and genocide that "this is how war is, and how it must be"?

Just look back at the story we have been discussing. That's a great example!

God commanded that a nation be wiped out.

Therefore God has determined that a nation is guilty (corporately) and will pay the price (corporately).

Furthermore...
God Himself determined that nations exist in the first place and that government be His minister to inflict wrath upon the wicked. God delegated His power to government to deal with evil people and with evil nations.

Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.4 For he (government) is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he (government) does not bear the sword in vain; for he (government) is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.

 

[fool]

In war entire nations can be evil corporately. That is the nature of war. It is tragic but true. If a nation acts in an evil way another nation has the right and even obligation to protect itself and it's allies.

Even to the extent of killing every last one of them if necessary.

"the right to defend themselves" Absolutly.
"killing every last one of them if necessary"
That "if necessary" is a big "if".

 

[Balder]

Just look back at the story we have been discussing. That's a great example!

God commanded that a nation be wiped out.

Therefore God has determined that a nation is guilty (corporately) and will pay the price (corporately).

Furthermore...
God Himself determined that nations exist in the first place and that government be His minister to inflict wrath upon the wicked. God delegated His power to government to deal with evil people and with evil nations.

Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.4 For he (government) is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he (government) does not bear the sword in vain; for he (government) is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.

I expected that you took "instruction" from such stories. Some Christians equivocate and say that we cannot look to the OT stories for justification of genocide, but you have just stated fairly clearly that we can.

I personally view the elevation and enshrining of such murderous incidents to "Godly mandated necessity" and "divine precedent" as a very unfortunate and potentially evil outcome of the Biblical infallibility doctrine.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I expected that you took "instruction" from such stories. Some Christians equivocate and say that we cannot look to the OT stories for justification of genocide, but you have just stated fairly clearly that we can.

I personally view the elevation and enshrining of such murderous incidents to "Godly mandated necessity" and "divine precedent" as a very unfortunate and potentially evil outcome of the Biblical infallibility doctrine.

And you also believe that the USA was guilty of murder when we ended WWII. :kookoo:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

"the right to defend themselves" Absolutly.
"killing every last one of them if necessary"
That "if necessary" is a big "if".

Of course it's a big "if" which explains why normally God didn't have such a request and also why different wars present different circumstances and strategies for involved nations.

We don't nuke every enemy, nor should we. However that doesn't mean that if we do nuke somebody we have committed murder.

 

[death2impiety]

I feel the need to interject with a question. I've read through a bit of this thread and listened to some of the shows. I understand both perspectives BUT I am hung up on the question of whether or not killing these babies would be murder or killing.

Murder is the taking of innocent life. Obviously not one of us is truly innocent but the two acts (murder and killing) are divided by the line of justice. If an infant has perpetrated no crime, it is considered innocent on the scales of justice and not deserving of the death penalty.
I've seen it debated here over and over again (and defended by you Knight) that God would never ever ever cause one person to be murdered for His own glory or to propigate a plan of His. This idea seems contradictory to your defense of fools argument.

I can understand what Bob is saying about God having the right to take His creatures from phase 1 to phase 2, and I'm not one to question God and His methods but this seems like a logical inconsistancy. God could take the babies up with Him without killing them. If taking a life for a reason beyond that of justice is murder, it seems that these babies were murdered.
It's confusing to me.

 

[Granite]

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.

The concept of corporate guilt strikes me as completely bogus.

 

[Balder]

And you also believe that the USA was guilty of murder when we ended WWII. :kookoo:

We're back to this again?

Go ahead and call me names. You're the one defending genocide and the wholesale slaughter of children. If you can live with yourself, and with your God who behaves like this, well...then live with yourself.

Concerning corporate guilt, how is the "guilt" of whole nations different from the guilt of future generations of sinful ancestors? If it is okay in your book to wipe out everyone in a nation because it is ruled by bad men, it seems you should support punishing future generations also for the sins of their fathers.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The concept of corporate guilt strikes me as completely bogus.

The concept is bogus to you, but it is in the Bible:

Joshua 22
20Did not Achan the son of Zerah commit a trespass in the accursed thing, and wrath fell on all the congregation of Israel? and that man perished not alone in his iniquity.​

What Achan did appeared to be a small thing, but the entire nation of the Children of Israel were held accountable for the actions of a single man.

Joshua 7
1But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took of the accursed thing: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against the children of Israel.
. . .
20And Achan answered Joshua, and said, Indeed I have sinned against the LORD God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done:
21When I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them; and, behold, they are hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the silver under it.
22So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran unto the tent; and, behold, it was hid in his tent, and the silver under it.
23And they took them out of the midst of the tent, and brought them unto Joshua, and unto all the children of Israel, and laid them out before the LORD.
24And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his *****, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor.
25And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.
26And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day. So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Wherefore the name of that place was called, The valley of Achor, unto this day.​

When Achan was killed for his actions, his sons, daughters, oxen, *****, sheep, and everything he had were stoned and burned.


This is an example of corporate guilt

 

[Balder]

And it is an example of primitive level thinking and weak moral reasoning, as far as I can see.

 

[genuineoriginal]

And it is an example of primitive level thinking and weak moral reasoning, as far as I can see.

I am not trying to rewrite history.