ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

koban

New member
Granite said:
"Decent" being awfully subjective, unfortunately, though I see what you're getting at.

This whole discussion puts the lie to the Christian emphasis on the "sanctity of life," as far as I'm concerned.


Why?

Is anyone proposing that Joshua was Christian? :freak:
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
koban said:
Why?

Is anyone proposing that Joshua was Christian? :freak:

So being a hero of the faith or following your God doesn't require you to defend the sanctity of life?
 

Balder

New member
koban said:
Why?

Is anyone proposing that Joshua was Christian? :freak:
I expect that if G.O., Knight, or some of the other defenders of these OT genocidal stories heard about someone on the news that was doing these things, and he was a Muslim or Hindu or atheist or something, they would condemn him as evil. But since Joshua is an OT hero, purportedly obeying the voice of God and being assisted by him, they feel compelled to defend his brutal tactics. To that extent, Joshua is "Christian" -- not in his own belief, but as a hero and man of God in the overall Christian story.
 

koban

New member
Caledvwlch said:
If Joshua wasn't a Christian, why on earth would Christians have anything to do with the entire Old Testement?


:freak: What?

OK.

In a similar manner, I'm not a carburator, so why should I have anything to do with cars? :dizzy:
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
koban said:

I asked if believing in life's sanctity wasn't a prerequisite for the people of God; you said that someone was claiming Joshua was a Christian (no one did).

So let me ask again, do you NOT need to believe in the sanctity of life to follow God? Does that create a conflict?
 

koban

New member
Granite said:
I asked if believing in life's sanctity wasn't a prerequisite for the people of God; you said that someone was claiming Joshua was a Christian (no one did).

So let me ask again, do you NOT need to believe in the sanctity of life to follow God? Does that create a conflict?


I guess I'd have to understand your definition of "sanctity of life" before I could answer.

If you're going with the concept that all life is sacred, I would disagree. If anything, the bible teaches that life is flawed.
 

Balder

New member
koban said:
I guess I'd have to understand your definition of "sanctity of life" before I could answer.

If you're going with the concept that all life is sacred, I would disagree. If anything, the bible teaches that life is flawed.
That makes sense. I suppose if you regard life as fundamentally flawed and perhaps a little cheap, it will be easier to exterminate whole populations and kill infants and so on.

I read a book, A Guide to Understanding the Bible, which discussed old Biblical attitudes. People outside of the Hebrew ethnic group were generally regarded as less than human, or at least as less deserving of the respect or value that is afforded to members within the group. Which isn't surprising. Most ethnocentric cultures think this way, around the world.
 

koban

New member
Balder said:
That makes sense. I suppose if you regard life as fundamentally flawed and perhaps a little cheap, it will be easier to exterminate whole populations and kill infants and so on.

I read a book, A Guide to Understanding the Bible, which discussed old Biblical attitudes. People outside of the Hebrew ethnic group were generally regarded as less than human, or at least as less deserving of the respect or value that is afforded to members within the group. Which isn't surprising. Most ethnocentric cultures think this way, around the world.


My "tribe" has had a checkered history of dealing with the Jews - certainly they were never held in much regard or held up as examples to be emulated.

I remember biblical stories being taught in Sunday school. We kids regarded them as curiousities from another age, not something we identified with.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
koban said:
I guess I'd have to understand your definition of "sanctity of life" before I could answer.

If you're going with the concept that all life is sacred, I would disagree. If anything, the bible teaches that life is flawed.

So all human life is NOT sacred?
 

Balder

New member
koban said:
My "tribe" has had a checkered history of dealing with the Jews - certainly they were never held in much regard or held up as examples to be emulated.

I remember biblical stories being taught in Sunday school. We kids regarded them as curiousities from another age, not something we identified with.
Well, you aren't in the same boat as others here. I think you see these issues more clearly than some of the other Christians posting here.

Of course, I say that because you are in general agreement with us that these acts were unnecessarily brutal and ruthless.
 

koban

New member
Granite said:
So all human life is NOT sacred?


I don't know what that means.

We're made in the image of the creator, whatever that means, but we're flawed beings.

Life is precious, and not to be taken unlawfully.
 

koban

New member
Balder said:
Well, you aren't in the same boat as others here. I think you see these issues more clearly than some of the other Christians posting here.

Of course, I say that because you are in general agreement with us that these acts were unnecessarily brutal and ruthless.


:chuckle: I dunno about clarity - the more I chew on this kind of issue the less clear things seem.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Balder said:
No, you are missing the point. You have accepted that there are some scenarios in which it is okay to take innocent life...here, specifically, the lives of infants. You have defended the actions of the Hebrews in cutting down infants. You are defending killing anyone at all during wartime, whether a combatant or not. Your position is inconsistent -- or at least morally on par with those who think it is okay to abort fetuses. (I think yours is even worse, personally.)
My position is not inconsistent. It follows what the Bible teaches.
Romans 2
1Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11For there is no respect of persons with God.​
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Granite said:
So all human life is NOT sacred?
(LINK) "Scrutiny of Western civilization suggests that sanctity of life doctrine actually emerged from a paganism antecedent to Christianity and later enjoyed a subsequent revival thanks to the European Renaissance and the eighteenth-century Enlightenment."

What do you think?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
koban said:
I don't know what that means.

We're made in the image of the creator, whatever that means, but we're flawed beings.

Life is precious, and not to be taken unlawfully.

Gee, koban, I've never seen you play dumb like this...

Is human life "sacred" or not? Yes or no. Quit mucking around.

Anything you need to say or do to justify your predecessors killing infants, I guess...
 

koban

New member
Granite said:
Gee, koban, I've never seen you play dumb like this...

Gee Granite, sorry I can't give you a pat answer for a difficult question.

But then, I've never claimed to have all the answers, have I?


Is human life "sacred" or not? Yes or no.

As an absolute statement? All human life?

No.

Quit mucking around.

Quit being a knob.

Anything you need to say or do to justify your predecessors killing infants, I guess...

Actually Granite, since I don't count any Hebrews amongst my ancestors, I don't particularly have to defend this passage, and if you'd been paying attention instead of trying to get in the cheap shots, you might have noticed that I haven't been.

Unless you just want to be stupid, you :Commie: pro-abortionist. :chuckle:

Seems to me somebody in this dialogue does claim Jewish ancestry, however. :think:




Do you believe the Joshua passage is an actual historical record of a true occurrence?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
koban said:
Gee Granite, sorry I can't give you a pat answer for a difficult question.

But then, I've never claimed to have all the answers, have I?




As an absolute statement? All human life?

No.



Quit being a knob.



Actually Granite, since I don't count any Hebrews amongst my ancestors, I don't particularly have to defend this passage, and if you'd been paying attention instead of trying to get in the cheap shots, you might have noticed that I haven't been.

Unless you just want to be stupid, you :Commie: pro-abortionist. :chuckle:

Seems to me somebody in this dialogue does claim Jewish ancestry, however. :think:




Do you believe the Joshua passage is an actual historical record of a true occurrence?

I don't claim to have all the answers, either. Glad to see you're not defending this, though.

Whether or not this actually happened or not is irrelevant: millions of people the world over take such things literally as actual history.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Granite said:
I don't claim to have all the answers, either. Glad to see you're not defending this, though.

Whether or not this actually happened or not is irrelevant: millions of people the world over take such things literally as actual history.
They should take them as actual history. It is only the card carrying members of the Liberal Ostrich Society for Tolerance (LOST) that are trying to rewrite history so they won't see the truth.
 
Top