ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[genuineoriginal]

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

Petitioning God for mercy should always be the first step. Following His orders should come next, and should not be neglected.

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.

That is why you petition God for His mercy first. Any killing done afterwards should be done with sorrow that the wicked nation is unrepentant, and will not open themselves to God's mercy.

 

[genuineoriginal]

But if person "B" really knew there was a hidden agenda, and what it was, then all he had to do is point it out.

Why didn't he?

Or could it be that person "B" imagines that anyone who disagrees with him must have a "hidden agenda", and that this "hidden agenda" is to show person "B" that he's wrong. Which in fact was never a "hidden agenda" at all, but person "A" simply trying to show person "B" the error in his thinking.

Person "B" answered according to person "B's" beliefs. This answer did not go with the "hidden agenda." After many exchanges, person "B" becomes aware that person "A" is becoming frustrated because person "A's" is expecting an answer that is not coming. Person "B" tells person "A" that person "A" has a hidden agenda that is preventing them from having a conversation. Person "A" says that person "B" is full of ureX:

And so, the conversation gets stuck.

 

[genuineoriginal]

My sons shall be legion.

They will be named after you.

 

[genuineoriginal]

G.O., I saw your earlier post to me, and I plan to respond to it soon. With regard to this post, I just wanted to say, If more people thought like this, the world may already have ended.

I keep being accused of being a bloodthirsty war monger. My God keeps being accused of being an unjust murderer.

Neither is the truth.

 

[fool]

They will be named after you.

Of course they will.
If a fool can talk Yaweh outa killi'n everyone than we need as many as we can get!

 

[genuineoriginal]

Of course they will.
If a fool can talk Yaweh outa killi'n everyone than we need as many as we can get!

(I always hate it when my jokes are so subtle that they go over everyone's head :doh: )

 

[fool]

(I always hate it when my jokes are so subtle that they go over everyone's head :doh: )

Me too.

 

[Balder]

After Adam sinned, God said that the ground was cursed because of him. If the sin of a single person cursed the ground, then the sin of everyone on earth before the flood cursed the earth so much that it had to be cleansed with water.

This is what I was talking about substantializing evil or sin. It's a kind of magical thinking. It is not rational, and as we have seen, can be used to justify genocide.

 

[Balder]

Your profile says you are a Buddhist. Doesn't Buddhism believe that Karma dictates what happens to a person, and whether they are reincarnated as a cockroach or a vulture if they have bad Karma and as something better if they have good Karma?
If that is the case, then the only defense your religion has against genocide is that it is bad Karma, and you might be reincarnated as something unpleasant.
Please correct me if I am misrepresenting the beliefs of your religion.

This is not a fair representation of Buddhism. I don't fault you, since I'm sure you don't really know much about Buddhism.

Refraining from doing evil out of fear of punishment or whatever is one motivation for action, but it is not the best one. Buddhism teaches that human life is valuable and precious, and encourages its members to have compassion for all sentient beings. Altruistic motives are the ones that are most highly regarded, because Buddhists believe that altruistic feeling flows directly and naturally from spiritual insight and moral maturity. True compassionate action cannot originate in prescriptions or rules, but only in clarity of vision and depth of relationship.

Karma is not a personal or impersonal "justice dispencing machine." It refers to cause and effect. If you behave in certain ways, people around you will respond in kind, and you will set up tendencies in your own mind to habitually repeat those kinds of actions or thoughts or feelings. So, yes, it is wise to be mindful of the influence of "karma," but fear of karma is not the ultimate motivator of right action, because it is still founded on fear and egocentric concern.

In Judeo-Christianity, the God of the Bible has the responsibility for destroying wicked nations. He has given the responsibility for destroying wicked individuals to the various governments of the earth.

Which governments?

As servants of the God of the Bible, we share in the responsibilities of our God, and have the obligation to destroy wicked nations with the sword (or other weapon of war) when ordered. Because our God is merciful, we can plead for the life of the wicked (as God told Ezekiel), and we can plead for the lives of the non-wicked that would be killed with the wicked (as Abram did). But, we are obligated to be prepared to carry through with the orders of God (as Abraham was prepared), or there can be worse outcomes (as when Saul refused to kill an enemy king).

I will stand for the principle that wickedness demands destruction by its very existence. Wickedness is a social disease, which infects everyone who witnesses it. This demands greater destruction than you are willing to approve of.

You are right. I do not think "mass destruction" and liberal use of capital punishment are the ways to realize a good society. The Buddha teaches that you do not overcome evil with evil, but with wisdom and compassion. He said: "Hatred does not ever cease in this world by hating, but by love; this is an eternal truth... Overcome anger by love, Overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving, overcome the liar by truth."

I do not say that there is never a reason for war in any circumstance, but I certainly do not support the genocidal missions you appear to be defending here.

Best wishes,

Balder

 

[PureX]

Person "B" answered according to person "B's" beliefs. This answer did not go with the "hidden agenda." After many exchanges, person "B" becomes aware that person "A" is becoming frustrated because person "A's" is expecting an answer that is not coming. Person "B" tells person "A" that person "A" has a hidden agenda that is preventing them from having a conversation. Person "A" says that person "B" is full of ureX:

And so, the conversation gets stuck.

Well, I agree with the conclusion. And I agree that when two people view the world through different paradigms, they have difficulty communicating. But I disagree with the insinuation that there's a "hidden agenda" on the part of "non-believers". And like it or not, "believers" tend to see what they want to see, and ignore what they want to ignore. It comes with their having assumed their "belief" to be the absolute truth, and then having to defend it as such even against evidence to the contrary. Whereas skeptics don't need to defend anything because they didn't assume anything to be absolutely true in the first palce. And so they can be open to whatever evidence arises.

 

[Granite]

I would say that there is a difference between needlessly butchering an infant, as is done in abortions all the time, and killing an infant in a time of war.
If a soldier goes out of his way to butcher infants against orders, then he does not deserve to be a soldier. He deserves to be killed. On the other hand, babies in Vietnam were ocassionally placed on top of fragment grenades, and the soldiers who tried to save them were blown up. After that happens once or twice, the infants will no longer be rescued by the soldiers.

We are not talking about abortion so please don't sidetrack the issue. Yes or no: there is a world of difference between bombing a factory full of civilian laborers and needlessly killing an infant.

 

[genuineoriginal]

We are not talking about abortion so please don't sidetrack the issue. Yes or no: there is a world of difference between bombing a factory full of civilian laborers and needlessly killing an infant.

You are the one that keeps trying to say "needlessly." I do not consider any of the examples from the Bible as being needless.

 

[Granite]

You are the one that keeps trying to say "needlessly." I do not consider any of the examples from the Bible as being needless.

So you would consider killing infants after a city has surrendered to be A-OK.

Thanks, that's all I needed to know.

 

[genuineoriginal]

This is not a fair representation of Buddhism. I don't fault you, since I'm sure you don't really know much about Buddhism.

Refraining from doing evil out of fear of punishment or whatever is one motivation for action, but it is not the best one. Buddhism teaches that human life is valuable and precious, and encourages its members to have compassion for all sentient beings. Altruistic motives are the ones that are most highly regarded, because Buddhists believe that altruistic feeling flows directly and naturally from spiritual insight and moral maturity. True compassionate action cannot originate in prescriptions or rules, but only in clarity of vision and depth of relationship.

People need prescriptions and rules in order to live together in a society. This has nothing to do with compassion.

Karma is not a personal or impersonal "justice dispencing machine." It refers to cause and effect. If you behave in certain ways, people around you will respond in kind, and you will set up tendencies in your own mind to habitually repeat those kinds of actions or thoughts or feelings. So, yes, it is wise to be mindful of the influence of "karma," but fear of karma is not the ultimate motivator of right action, because it is still founded on fear and egocentric concern.

I agree that behavior causes reactions in the people around you, and I agree that they become ingrained as habits. That is why I believe people should habitually practice mercy and kindness.
The problem comes when we find out that many of the people around us don't care much about mercy and kindness. This is where punishment and fear are needed in order to remove the people with the wicked actions and warn others to avoid those actions.

Which governments?

The various governments of the earth have been given the responsibility of punishing individuals. All nations have governments. These governments have a duty to judge the actions of the individuals under their authority, and to punish the ones who are spreading wickedness.

You are right. I do not think "mass destruction" and liberal use of capital punishment are the ways to realize a good society. The Buddha teaches that you do not overcome evil with evil, but with wisdom and compassion. He said: "Hatred does not ever cease in this world by hating, but by love; this is an eternal truth... Overcome anger by love, Overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving, overcome the liar by truth."

I do not say that there is never a reason for war in any circumstance, but I certainly do not support the genocidal missions you appear to be defending here.

Best wishes,

Balder

The Bible says that individuals are to overcome evil with good. The Bible says that the government does not weild the sword in vain. There are clear distinctions between the rights and responsibilities of the individual and the rights and responsibility of the government.
I believe it is the duty of the government of any nation to root out the wickedness from its area of control. I believe that war is the result of the spread of wickedness within a society in at least one of the nations that are in the war. We have used WWII a lot as an example. In America, we called the enemy, "The Axis of Evil." America got involved in the European part of the war in order to stop the spread of evil across Europe. We got involved in the Asian part of the war because we were attacked. When the war was ending, we learned a lot about the nations we were fighting. We learned that the Nazis were running extermination camps where they starved, tortured, and killed hundreds of thousands of people. We learned that the Japanese were involved in deliberate acts of brutality in their quest for world domination. The wickedness of these nations caused the wars.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Well, I agree with the conclusion. And I agree that when two people view the world through different paradigms, they have difficulty communicating. But I disagree with the insinuation that there's a "hidden agenda" on the part of "non-believers". And like it or not, "believers" tend to see what they want to see, and ignore what they want to ignore. It comes with their having assumed their "belief" to be the absolute truth, and then having to defend it as such even against evidence to the contrary. Whereas skeptics don't need to defend anything because they didn't assume anything to be absolutely true in the first palce. And so they can be open to whatever evidence arises.

I am not saying that "non-believers" have a "hidden agenda." I addressed specific questions that were asked in this thread by specific individuals that were not being answered to their satisfaction. It looked like the individuals had a hidden agenda because they kept trying to ask the same questions but never were getting the answer they were looking for. I asked them to explain where they were going with the questions. One of them said it was just a question, and refused to open conversation until he got an answer that agreed with his beliefs. Other individuals addressed the issue, and explained the points they were trying to get to in the conversation. This allowed the conversation to continue. It was not about "believers" and "non-believers." It was about asking the same leading questions over and over because the responses were not leading the conversation to an unrevealed predetermined point. The conversations were able to resume only after the predetermined point of the questioners were stated clearly. That was the "hidden agenda."

My Edit:
If you want to see a prime example of what I am talking about, look at the posts by Granite and my responses that are near this post. You will see him ask a leading question, then repeat the question, then accuse me of a point I never said. This happened because there was a hidden agenda behing his question.

 

[genuineoriginal]

So you would consider killing infants after a city has surrendered to be A-OK.

Thanks, that's all I needed to know.

Please show me where the city had surrendered. Hiroshima had not surrendered when we dropped an A bomb on it. Nagasaki had not surrendered when we repeated it. Germany had not surrendered when we bombed Berlin. And Jericho never surrendered either.
One more point. Surrender is not always the end of a war.

 

[genuineoriginal]

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?

I would say that there is a difference between needlessly butchering an infant, as is done in abortions all the time, and killing an infant in a time of war.
If a soldier goes out of his way to butcher infants against orders, then he does not deserve to be a soldier. He deserves to be killed. On the other hand, babies in Vietnam were ocassionally placed on top of fragment grenades, and the soldiers who tried to save them were blown up. After that happens once or twice, the infants will no longer be rescued by the soldiers.

We are not talking about abortion so please don't sidetrack the issue. Yes or no: there is a world of difference between bombing a factory full of civilian laborers and needlessly killing an infant.

You are the one that keeps trying to say "needlessly." I do not consider any of the examples from the Bible as being needless.

So you would consider killing infants after a city has surrendered to be A-OK.

Thanks, that's all I needed to know.

:dizzy:
Am I the only one that can't see a connection between what I said and Granite's conclusion?

What is with the statement "that's all I needed to know?" Does that mean I said something Granite could use to justify his hidden agenda?

 

[Granite]

I don't have a hidden agenda, you half-wit. I've been very upfront and to the point; you've used spin control and exegetical torture to make your point.

You see no moral issue with killing infants, in war time, and to me that just confirms what people will do in the name of "God" or "faith." And that's pretty much anything imaginable no matter how sick, heinous, or twisted.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I don't have a hidden agenda, you half-wit. I've been very upfront and to the point; you've used spin control and exegetical torture to make your point.

You see no moral issue with killing infants, in war time, and to me that just confirms what people will do in the name of "God" or "faith." And that's pretty much anything imaginable no matter how sick, heinous, or twisted.

I have no moral issue with killing men, women, children, infants, and animals in war. This is what war is. I have no moral issue with hurricanes destroying cities. I have no moral issues with volcanoes erupting and burying cities. I have no moral issues with floods destroying cities. I recognize that war, hurricanes, floods, and volcanoes are sources of destruction. I am not a member of the Liberal Ostrich Society for Tolerance (LOST). I do not keep my head in the dirt in order to avoid seeing something unpleasant.

You, on the other hand, claimed that I think it is okay to keep killing infants after a city has surrendered. That is not my belief, it is the one your own mind is projecting onto me. I believe that reasonable effort should be made to avoid war, the goal of the war should be determined prior to engaging the enemy, and that nothing should be used to thwart the goals of the war after you are in the war, including surrender of the enemy if that was not one of the goals. Wars should not be entered into lightly, neither should they be fought half-heartedly. There has been a radical shift in the understanding of war in the last 100 years. The impact of the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is still being felt.

 

[Granite]

But that's what YOUR book says. The inhabitants surrendered, the Hebrews killed them. I'm not making this up, man. Do your homework and know your Bible better.