foolish question

[allsmiles]

How many times would you like me to respond to this??????? You can trust this will be the final time.

God desires that all men choose Him. He likes us! For the life of me I don't know why.

so, it was beyond your god's capability to find a peaceful and beneficial resolution to not only Pharaoh, but Og and Sihon and Arad.

thanks.

Yet God also knows that when men have the truth shoved in their face men tend to pridefully choose otherwise.

Therefore... it is counterproductive (at times) to shove the truth in peoples faces. God handles each situation at any given moment in the most productive way possible in light of man's will.

but you've ignored Romans 9... your god lifted Pharaoh up for the purpose of destruction and is merciful to those whom he chooses to be merciful to.

Is that a yes or a no?

i've already answered that question Knight, it's right there in front of you.

can you answer Romans 9?

 

[allsmiles]

How effective was that for the Israelites on their journey to the promised land?

yes yes yes, condemn everyone because your god had poor taste in choosing his chosen people.

 

[allsmiles]

Have you considered moving to Canada? We could protect you and your wussful ways, just like now, except then the majority of the country would agree with you...

let's say you're in charge of an army and there is a threat of battle. the consequences of the battle surely means the deaths of thousands upon thousands of soldiers on both your side and theirs. you know you can win the battle, but not without the vast blood shed.

there is an alternative to the blood shed that would result in a peaceful resolution to the impending conflict. neither side has to suffer casualties and in fact, the alternative also promises rewards for both armies and countries and a new, diplomatic, relationship between you and your enemy.

you would opt for the blood shed?

 

[kmoney]

let's say you're in charge of an army and there is a threat of battle. the consequences of the battle surely means the deaths of thousands upon thousands of soldiers on both your side and theirs. you know you can win the battle, but not without the vast blood shed.

there is an alternative to the blood shed that would result in a peaceful resolution to the impending conflict. neither side has to suffer casualties and in fact, the alternative also promises rewards for both armies and countries and a new, diplomatic, relationship between you and your enemy.

you would opt for the blood shed?

:sozo: NO BLOOD SHED!!!

and I'm pretty sure that Shimei will say the same thing given that hypothetical.....

 

[kmoney]

Oh go ahead - it won't hurt.

I'll even repeat 'em.

Well, I think we're all working within the assumption that it is God.

 

[fool]

Well, I think we're all working within the assumption that it is God.

We had to stay in that box because that's the premise of Bob's show. But in reality I'd say that a God that makes you do bad things is a bad God (or a figment of your imagination). Now, he still could be the real God cause I see no reason to presupose that God is good. He could be a total jerk. But if he is a jerk then he should be opposed.

 

[drbrumley]

We had to stay in that box because that's the premise of Bob's show. But in reality I'd say that a God that makes you do bad things is a bad God (or a figment of your imagination). Now, he still could be the real God cause I see no reason to presupose that God is good. He could be a total jerk. But if he is a jerk then he should be opposed.

Stargate anyone?

 

[allsmiles]

:sozo: NO BLOOD SHED!!!

and I'm pretty sure that Shimei will say the same thing given that hypothetical.....

then Shimei shouldn't have opened his/her big mouth after i made my position perfectly clear.

 

[koban]

:sozo: NO BLOOD SHED!!!

and I'm pretty sure that Shimei will say the same thing given that hypothetical.....

Wuss! :darwinsm:

 

[koban]

Well, I think we're all working within the assumption that it is God.

Is that knowable? Can one ever be sure, especially if God's actions or commands conflict with our expectations of His nature?

 

[allsmiles]

Wuss! :darwinsm:

:crackup:

i'm still incredibly interested in having Knight reconcile free will to reject the real presence of the power of god in the examples of Pharaoh, Og, Sihon and Arad with Romans 9.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

can you answer Romans 9?

God used an "already marred" vessel to His benefit. He didn't MAKE a marred vessel.

I would suggest you have a better understanding of the Bible before you attempt to abuse it for your weak argument.

Paul was referencing Jer 18 in Romans 9.

Jeremiah 18:2 “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.” 3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.

God didn't MAKE Pharaoh a marred vessel. The Pharaoh was ALREADY a marred vessel (he was evil) therefore God used Pharaoh to His benefit to demonstrate His power and wisdom. Just as He can do in any situation.

Once again, God wins, and the wicked lose.

NEXT TOPIC:

So... you are not morally opposed to war. Great! Only idiots are. Would you agree that in warfare things that are normally morally wrong might now be morally right?

For instance... it would be wrong for me to take a gun and shoot and kill a man standing across the street in normal circumstances (that's murder). However, in war if that man is my enemy it would be perfectly acceptable to shoot and kill the man standing across the street (that isn't murder).

Likewise... in war you might drop a bomb a kill thousands of people in an effort to defeat your enemy as a whole, yet outside of warfare that would be murder.

Would you agree that if war can be morally acceptable then the morality associated with certain tasks is different than it would be when you are NOT at war?

Would you agree with that?

 

[kmoney]

Is that knowable? Can one ever be sure, especially if God's actions or commands conflict with our expectations of His nature?

Not really. I don't think it would be possible to prove it was God, which is why if this sort of thing ever came up in the real world I would definitely say no.

 

[allsmiles]

God used an "already marred" vessel to His benefit. He didn't MAKE a marred vessel.

I would suggest you have a better understanding of the Bible before you attempt to abuse it for your weak argument.

Paul was referencing Jer 18 in Romans 9.

Jeremiah 18:2 “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.” 3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.

your god is the potter, according to Jeremiah the the vessel of clay that he made marred "in his hand". once again, it's the not the part of the rejection that i'm stumped on Knight, it's the part about us taking responsibility for the acceptance and in this case the rejection. this passage also states that your god fashioned the marred clay into what seemed good to him. it seems in the rest of the Jeremiah passage that what seems good to him can either be tearing down and destroying or building. Pharaoh's fate was already sealed, he was made into a marred vessel in the potter's hand and his destiny was to be destroyed to serve your god's purpose and act as an example of his "mercy" to the faithful.

Romans 9 explicit in that it says your god is responsibile for the hardening and he has vessels prepared for destruction. Jeremiah is explicit that the vessel has no choice.

"Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

God didn't MAKE Pharaoh a marred vessel. The Pharaoh was ALREADY a marred vessel (he was evil) therefore God used Pharaoh to His benefit to demonstrate His power and wisdom. Just as He can do in any situation.

i disagree.

Once again, God wins, and the wicked lose.

NEXT TOPIC:

So... you are not morally opposed to war. Great! Only idiots are. Would you agree that in warfare things that are normally morally wrong might now be morally right?

i think things that are normally morally wrong would be justifiable, not moral.

For instance... it would be wrong for me to take a gun and shoot and kill a man standing across the street in normal circumstances (that's murder).

sure.

However, in war if that man is my enemy it would be perfectly acceptable to shoot and kill the man standing across the street (that isn't murder).

survival is not a moral dilemma Knight. don't confuse necessity with moral rightness.

Likewise... in war you might drop a bomb a kill thousands of people in an effort to defeat your enemy as a whole, yet outside of warfare that would be murder.

Would you agree that if war can be morally acceptable then the morality associated with certain tasks is different than it would be when you are NOT at war?

Would you agree with that?

i think war is justifiable as a means of survival.

i do not believe war can be justified morally.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

i disagree.

You are free to be wrong.

i think things that are normally morally wrong would be justifiable, not moral.

Anytime we state that something is morally correct we are in essence saying it is morally justified. Therefore you haven't really said a thing.

i think war is justifiable as a means of survival.

And therefore war is (or can be) morally acceptable.

i do not believe war can be justified morally.

Which of course directly contradicts your above statement.

You seem to have a hard time with simple words and concepts or is it that you enjoy a certain level of obfuscation?

 

[allsmiles]

You are free to be wrong.

you are free to correct me any time you feel ready to.

let me know when it happens, i wouldn't want to miss it.

Anytime we state that something is morally correct we are in essence saying it is morally justified. Therefore you haven't really said a thing.

i've said plenty.

morals are irrelevant in a situation where survival is the top priority. that goes for an American GI or an Iraqi insurgent. introducing morals into a life or death situation is absurd.

the example of the slaughter of the innocents of Jericho is not a life or death situation.

morals come into play when you're destroying defenseless women and children, not when you're defending yourself on the battle field. a kill on the battlefield is justified because of the necessity of the only viable option (survival).

And therefore war is (or can be) morally acceptable.

war is acceptable as a means of survival. to try and justify it morally is unnecessary.

survival is not a moral dilemma... do you disagree? can you disagree without introducing superfluous examples that will only waste our time?

Which of course directly contradicts your above statement.

survival is not a moral dilemma. in no way have i contradicted myself Knight. if you'd like to point out the obfuscation in that statement please do so.

war is justifiable as a means of survival.

You seem to have a hard time with simple words and concepts or is it that you enjoy a certain level of obfuscation?

for the record, you're the one who introduced ad hominems to this discussion... not me :nono:

obfuscation is when you try to make an argument hard to understand... introducing morals into a life or death situation is obfuscation.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

allsmilies you aren't saying anything.

When you type something like....

war is acceptable as a means of survival. to try and justify it morally is unnecessary.

You may as well save us all time and simply not post anything.

The instant you state... "war is acceptable" you are justifying it morally which you then claim is unnecessary. :hammer:

Your double speak and obfuscation is a waste of all our time.

 

[allsmiles]

allsmilies you aren't saying anything.

on the contrary Knight, your posts are getting smaller and the time it takes you to reply is getting shorter.

When you type something like....You may as well save us all time and simply not post anything.

you're the only one taking issue with what i'm saying Knight.

i'm not entirely sure who you mean when you say "us".

The instant you state... "war is acceptable" you are justifying it morally which you then claim is unnecessary. :hammer:

no, the instant i say war is acceptable as a means for survival, i am justifying it as a practical necessity, not as a moral judgement. i noticed (and i'm not the only one to notice) that you left out the rest of my "war is acceptable" quote to make your point.

for all the grief christians give us non's about taking the bible out of context you certainly don't have a problem doing it to us.

Your double speak and obfuscation is a waste of all our time.

i defined obfuscation and demonstrated how you're the only one employing it in this discussion.

i defined my stance in one sentence and when i implored you to either agree or disagree with it, you declined.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

on the contrary Knight, your posts are getting smaller and the time it takes you to reply is getting shorter.

Of course!

When the truth is on your side, dealing with idiots like you is easy.

you're the only one taking issue with what i'm saying Knight.

i'm not entirely sure who you mean when you say "us".

Us, in this case is everyone except you.

no, the instant i say war is acceptable as a means for survival, i am justifying it as a practical necessity, not as a moral judgement.

You ARE making a moral judgement in that very statement!
Seriously... you are an idiot. :rotfl:

TO THOSE KEEPING SCORE.....

Truth be told you have already conceded the argument. Truth shines through again, it's uncanny isn't it? The instant you acknowledged warfare is morally acceptable (or justifiable) in any manner you have conceded that it could indeed be justifiable for God's people to kill their enemies in war.

Case closed, you receive no parting gifts and better luck next time.

 

[allsmiles]

Of course!

When the truth is on your side, dealing with idiots like you is easy.

this is the second time you've chosen to insult me rather than deal with what i say.

i'll remember that.

Us, in this case is everyone except you.

that's a laughble exaggeration Knight.

You ARE making a moral judgement in that very statement!
Seriously... you are an idiot. :rotfl:

no.

survival is not a moral dilemma.

you have yet to dispute that.

i challenge anyone and everyone to dispute that statement.

for the record you have declined.

TO THOSE KEEPING SCORE.....

so far SUTG is the only person i see viewing this thread right now.

i might be going out on a limb here, but i doubt he agrees with you.

Truth be told you have already conceded the argument. Truth shines through again, it's uncanny isn't it? The instant you acknowledged warfare is morally acceptable (or justifiable) in any manner you have conceded that it could indeed be justifiable for God's people to kill their enemies in war.

claiming victory is a shallow way to end an argument Knight.

you haven't demonstrated how "survival is not a moral dilemma" is untrue.

Case closed, you receive no parting gifts and better luck next time.

:yawn: