fool would you say its generally a good idea to follow instructions from a source you trust?fool said:
And if so why?
Ask Knight (Archived)
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
And if so why?
Why should I be compelled to say "no" to a source I have complete trust in?fool said:
You wouldn't tell your pilot that you weren't gonna drop the bomb. Why? Because you had trust in him that he knew what was best. Your trust in him assured you that what you were doing was the right thing to do.
God is infinitely more trustworthy than any man. God would never tell anyone to do anything that wasn't right. Therefore, as I answered many posts ago it would be silly to not obey a source as trustworthy as God.
And by disobeying it will spell the doom for you, your family and your entire race.fool said:
In this case, your inability to follow a source (a source that you trusted) was the wrong thing to do.
It all boils down to this...
God would never tell anyone to do anything so severe if it wasn't absolutely necessary. If the God of the Bible is real, then God is righteous and would never do anything wicked or vile and never tell anyone else to do anything wicked or vile.
Thankfully we do not live in a time like existed in the past.
The spiritual battles we fight today are personal ones and not ones on the battlefield. It is hard for us to comprehend that there was a time when evil forces were physically attempting to thwart God's plan to redeem mankind. Entire groups of people were corrupt and wicked in everything they did.
Praise the Lord that God's followers were brave enough to follow His instruction. If not we might not be here arguing about this today.
Cause he told you to do something wrong!Knight said:
I would tell him no, if I thought he was wrong, and I wouldn't let the bomb be dropped if I thought it was wrong, and when I'm standing in the village I would put that baby under my arm and take my sword in the other and I would tell you that if you want to kill it you got to go thru me first, and if Yaweh wants it dead he can come get it himself!
We're done here.
God would never tell me to do anything wrong. Why should I act against the source that I trust?fool said:
Then its obvious you don't actually trust your source.
Earlier you said you would drop the bomb and now you are changing your mind and saying you wouldn't. Make up your mind!
fool why would you act against the source that you trust? Are you irrational?
Maybe I should split fool's argument and my responses into a new thread.
I could name the new thread....
"It takes slain village to teach a fool."
I could name the new thread....
"It takes slain village to teach a fool."
Nope... not even close.Granite said:
The Berean
Well-known member
Knight,
Are you a cessationist and if so what Biblical evidence led you to such a conclusion? :think:
Are you a cessationist and if so what Biblical evidence led you to such a conclusion? :think:
Knight said:
:rotfl:
Fool asked: "What 'source' makes plunging a sword into a newborn right!?"
To which you responded: "The source doesn't make the action any more or less right. However our trust in our source directly relates to how we should respond to theirs instructions."
In other words, the source is ethically neutral in regards to your actions; your trust and ultimate obedience is the important thing. You are presupposing the source must always be correct and that the command or order you are given is absolutely just.
This is a clever way of absolving yourself of personal responsibility and putting it on a distant higher power.
You follow it up with this sick, twisted, blood soaked rationalization:
"God would never tell anyone to do anything so severe if it wasn't absolutely necessary. [In other words, the butchery of infants was necessary; so much for this sanctity of life claptrap.] If the God of the Bible is real, then God is righteous and would never do anything wicked or vile and never tell anyone else to do anything wicked or vile." [In other words, ethics change because slaughtering infants at knifepoint is bad now but not bad then. Situational ethics here I come.]
You add: "Thankfully we do not live in a time like existed in the past" to which I'd add: you are so damn right. Thankfully we don't. Women who got captured and raped, husbands who were killed, and infants who were slain did not have such a luxury. Bummer.
"The spiritual battles we fight today are personal ones and not ones on the battlefield."
So you would not call the struggle with militant Islam a spiritual battle?
Granite... you are flying along in a military bomber.Granite said:
You are flying with a person (the Pilot) who you have complete trust in.
He tells you to open the hatch and drop the atomic bomb. You have no idea where you are or who you are dropping the bomb on, all you know is you have complete trust in your instructor (the Pilot). You know for a fact that the Pilot would never tell you to do anything you shouldn't do, you know that the Pilot would want to protect your family just as much as you would. Do you drop the bomb?
Knight said:
Knight: maybe this should be split into a new thread but I don't appreciate questions of mine being answered with more questions, especially a weak hypothetical you've already trotted out once before.
The hypothetical's flaws: one, it assumes military action of the most violent magnitude is the only option, and two, it assumes you absolutely trust someone. It also assumes that the pilot will never use you, deceive you, or keep you on a need to do know basis, which of course the military does all the time. (Of course that's why they're called hypotheticals.)
I would not drop the bomb.
At this point I'd appreciate a response to my post.
Too bad!Granite said:
Who's website is this? Yours or mine?
My hypothetical is intentionally vague so that it can closely mirror the vague hypothetical that fool started this line of reasoning with.
fool asked me if I was a Hebrew soldier and God told me to destroy a village and all the people in it, would I? (that's as far as the example goes, no further details)
Therefore why should I add further details to my hypothetical?
Why?
Do you make a habit our of rejecting the advice of those that you have COMPLETE trust in?
Knight said:
It's vague enough to provide wiggle room for both of us. That's the downside of a hypothetical--it's also way easier to deal with that as opposed to addressng what I (or fool, or anybody) said.
Not engaging what I said or asked tells me you're not interested in an actual discussion here, which is fine; this is your party. Says more about you (and your deity) than me.
If you want to put yourself on the side of a man so blind and so unquestioning and so monstrous he's willing to butcher an infant at knifepoint, that's your call. Good job.
If I can answer the question why can't you?Granite said:
What are you afraid of???
Knight said:
Ummmmmm...I did. You didn't like my answer. There is no way in heaven, hell, or the rest of the afterlife that I'm pushing that button.
The one person I trust is myself* and I'm not incinerating thousands of people. And I am not killing a baby, either.
Meanwhile you aren't addressing what I said--you keep trying to force anyone who talks to you of addressing this absurd Dr. Strangelove Scenario. That's not intellectually honest, Knight. If you were comfortable addressing my questions, you would.
_________
* Feel free to insert WELL THAT'S WHY YOUR WIFE LEFT YOU potshot.
We are left with several possibilities concerning you...Granite said:
1. You do not trust those that you trust - which is irrational.
2. You lied about the fact that you trusted your source.
3. You are morally opposed to warfare for any reason whatsoever.
4. You have no ability to discuss hypotheticals.
Which one of the above are you?
Knight said:
Do you always trust those who you "trust" or has that trust ever been broken in any way?
This is your hypothetical, so I wouldn't be lying...
Most reasons.
Honest ones, yeah.
Unless you address my original post this discussion should be split as not to hijack this thread or the discussion's over.
Yes... I always trust those I trust. Don't you?Granite said:
Why on earth would you not trust those that you trust? Are you irrational?
- Status