ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[fool]

Thanks K, I'm asking what the verses are. I'm assuming it's Joshua? I can't usually just thumb through the Bible to find any particular story

Dueteronomy 20;17
Read the whole chapter 20, it lays out how war should be conducted, with a more honorable version outside Isreal, and a list of peoples that should be smote to the last thing that breathes.
There prolly recaps of these orders elsewhere, but Duet. comes to mind first.

 

[fool]

Not in a modern war scenario, especially in an extended war. One's ability to destroy it's enemy's abilty to resupply itself is key.




Not moot.

We targeted civilian production centers (both industrial and agricultural) in Germany and Japan as legitimate targets. (and rightly so)

If your intent is to kill the people that's murder.
If you kill the people while your destroying an enemy asset that's war.
Cities are assets, even if they have limited military or industrial use.
Now, if they had a city that was exclusivly orphans and old nuns, and you knew that was all that was there. Destroying that city would be murder.

 

[koban]

If your intent is to kill the people that's murder.
If you kill the people while your destroying an enemy asset that's war.
Cities are assets, even if they have limited military or industrial use.
Now, if they had a city that was exclusivly orphans and old nuns, and you knew that was all that was there. Destroying that city would be murder.

What if they were eeevil old nuns? :devil:

 

[Granite]

Not in a modern war scenario, especially in an extended war. One's ability to destroy it's enemy's abilty to resupply itself is key.




Not moot.

We targeted civilian production centers (both industrial and agricultural) in Germany and Japan as legitimate targets. (and rightly so)

Even if bombing a factory is considered "right" there is a world of difference between this and deliberately (and needlessly) butchering an infant, wouldn't you say?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Vaporizing infants when you nuke the city is not murder.

Why?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

So you're saying that an entire nation can be found guilty as a whole.

Any time two countries fight a war against each other they have done just that.

I wouldn't say that we're guilty of murder at Hiroshima.

Why? Innocent children were brutally killed. Some instantly, others suffered and died with their skin melting off. Why isn't that murder?

I thought that God wouldn't punish a child for the sins of their father. Destroying a nation and the children therein seems like that's what He's doing. Or is this not considered punishment? Does the Bible ever make the distinction that babies are guilty if the nation is guilty? I suppose as a nation everyone is guilty regardless of personal fault.

Children are never punished for their fathers sin. In that God will NEVER send a child to hell because of his fathers sin. However, that doesn't mean that children do not suffer the consequence of a bad father.

God wiped out the entire earth with a flood.

The children that were drowned were not judged in the afterlife because of their fathers sin but they did suffer the earthly consequence of their fathers sin.

When a man loses the family fortune in Las Vegas the children, grand children and great grand children will suffer the consequence. That's just the way things are.

 

[koban]

Even if bombing a factory is considered "right" there is a world of difference between this and deliberately (and needlessly) butchering an infant, wouldn't you say?

Yes and no.

If you know that bombing a factory will result in the deaths of non-combatant, non-support personnel, then no, no difference. In each case you are directly and deliberately causing the death of an innocent.

 

[Balder]

If we were at war, would you consider your residential neighborhood a legitimate target for the enemy? Or, if they bombed your subdivision into oblivion and wiped out all the families and children there, would you condemn the act as excessive and barbaric?

 

[koban]

If we were at war, would you consider your residential neighborhood a legitimate target for the enemy?

Generally? No.

But what if that neighborhood was inhabited by skilled workers from a munitions factory?

Or, if they bombed your subdivision into oblivion and wiped out all the families and children there, would you condemn the act as excessive and barbaric?

Probably, but not in every scenario.

 

[death2impiety]

Any time two countries fight a war against each other they have done just that.

Why? Innocent children were brutally killed. Some instantly, others suffered and died with their skin melting off. Why isn't that murder?

Children are never punished for their fathers sin. In that God will NEVER send a child to hell because of his fathers sin. However, that doesn't mean that children do not suffer the consequence of a bad father.

God wiped out the entire earth with a flood.

The children that were drowned were not judged in the afterlife because of their fathers sin but they did suffer the earthly consequence of their fathers sin.

When a man loses the family fortune in Las Vegas the children, grand children and great grand children will suffer the consequence. That's just the way things are.

*Deep breath*

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Okay. I understand it better now, I'll pray for further enlightenment

 

[death2impiety]

Dueteronomy 20;17
Read the whole chapter 20, it lays out how war should be conducted, with a more honorable version outside Isreal, and a list of peoples that should be smote to the last thing that breathes.
There prolly recaps of these orders elsewhere, but Duet. comes to mind first.

Thanks fool.

 

[Balder]

Well, the Flood is another example of a ham-handed justice system. Got one species behaving badly? Destroy all living things and make 'em all start over. If that's not excessive, I don't know what is.

 

[death2impiety]

Well, the Flood is another example of a ham-handed justice system. Got one species behaving badly? Destroy all living things and make 'em all start over. If that's not excessive, I don't know what is.

Why is that excessive? I don't get it.

 

[death2impiety]

Balder, if the God of the Bible is real, then your qualms with His sanctions are ill placed no?

Furthermore, if the Bible isn't true and the God revealed therein is false, your complaints about a non-existant deity's actions seem equally ill-placed no? You're wasting your time either way

 

[Balder]

Why is that excessive? I don't get it.

If you've got one species which is acting poorly, why do you choose a method which will punish and destroy all species instead of just the one causing trouble? God created everything out of nothing. He could have simply killed off humans with a word, since he brought everything into existence with a word.

 

[fool]

Why?

Cause killing the children is not your intent.
If your nuke has a button on it that says "spare the children" you should push it.
But nukes don't work that way,
niether does a catapult,
or a salvo of arrows,
but a sword is one thrust one kill and you gota be real close to use it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Cause killing the children is not your intent.
If your nuke has a button on it that says "spare the children" you should push it.
But nukes don't work that way,
niether does a catapult,
or a salvo of arrows,
but a sword is one thrust one kill and you gota be real close to use it.

When you use a nuke isn't your intent to wipe out pretty much everything that exists in the area you are dropping it on?

And you know in advance that many children will die, some instantly, some slowly and painfully with their skin melting off their body.

Yet you agree with me that this isn't murder even though it's probably the worst death you could imagine.

Why is it we agree?

 

[fool]

Balder, if the God of the Bible is real, then your qualms with His sanctions are ill placed no?

It appears as though there's another way, from Genuineoriginals' post 597 (it went 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.

Furthermore, if the Bible isn't true and the God revealed therein is false, your complaints about a non-existant deity's actions seem equally ill-placed no? You're wasting your time either way

If He's not real then any killing you did in his name was murder, so perhaps you should have a better reason than "God told me to" when you go a smotin.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It appears as though there's another way, from Genuineoriginals' post 597 (it went POTD)

And we don't have every detail of every story in the Bible.

We don't know that there wasn't efforts or prayers made to stop the slaughter.

Had the cities and nations been repentant it's very likely they would have been sparred (like Nineveh) except of course for for Og but that's a topic for another show.

 

[Balder]

When you use a nuke isn't your intent to wipe out pretty much everything that exists in the area you are dropping it on?

And you know in advance that many children will die, some instantly, some slowly and painfully with their skin melting off their body.

Yet you agree with me that this isn't murder even though it's probably the worst death you could imagine.

Why is it we agree?

For the life of me, I don't know why you agree. Especially when you purposefully aim at a city with the intent to kill civillians.