If the child knows what they are doing is wrong, then you don't warn, you discipline.
Sure, if you do not desire to show mercy, or give them a second chance.
I was talking about raising a child correctly (in the same vein as God). No, even if you desire to show mercy, you cannot show mercy without (at least) repentance. You carry out discipline until there is a valid option not to, regardless of your feelings.
But I think we have a misunderstanding because you think what Nineveh got was a warning that amounted to a threat. They did not, no more than a child that is getting a spanking is told to go to their room that they are being warned of an upcoming spanking. I guess that's why we discuss these things because now I see for me to be clear on this issue I need to differentiate the difference between a warning that is a threat and a warning that is a promise. What Nineveh got was a warning that was a promise.
On the flipside, are you implying that people who do wrong do not know they are doing wrong, and thus the reason God "warns" people of their wrong doing before actually destroying them?
Why confused? This isn't that complicated, but what you say here doesn't follow from what I said. Could you clarify?
In our case as humans, we sin everyday, and we know we are doing wrong. According to you, God must not warn us, but instead, destroy us on the spot.
Maybe according to someone else, but not me. What I would say is that God has the option of killing us on the spot, not that God
must kill us on the spot. As you mention later, thank God He doesn't follow that option.
One cannot give a child that is misbehaving warnings that are threats in the post-infraction phase of training. That only encourages the child to misbehave more. Only warnings that are promises work to train a child.
And, btw, most children that are brought up correctly do not consider the time when they are told they are getting a spanking to the time they actually get it, a warning because it is a promise, not a threat. Likewise when a sentence that is handed down from the judge after a conviction takes time to be carried out, it is not considered a warning, because it is not considered a threat, but a "done deal" (a promise). Why do you consider God's promise to destroy Nineveh a threat?
Which, I agree. We shouldn't receive any mercy from God whatsoever, but He shows mercy anyways. Everytime a sinner takes a breath it is evidence that God is a merciful, patient, loving God, one who desires repentance of the hearts of men.
Like you say, we agree. So, let me ask. Does God ever desire something, but not get it?
What would be good to know is that if a child does something wrong and they know it is wrong, then if you warn them without discipline, you are only encouraging the bad behavior. There is no reason not to grant a second, third, forth warning ad infinitum.
I'll have to disagree with you there. Giving warning is not an "encouragement" to continue in bad behavior; it's giving that person a second chance. In the case between God and men, God is simply allowing His mercies to grant us repentance. Giving a "warning" awakens people to their evil deeds, as in the case with Ninevah. Because God sent Jonah to warn them, they repented. They weren't encouraged to continue in their wicked ways...
Well, it was because the king realized that God was not threatening, but promising destruction. This is the same as with a child, if you are consistent in carrying out your promise to discipline regardless of their response to being told to go to their room for a spanking, then you also have the option to change your promise and grant mercy on that time when you feel the repentance is a genuine change in their life before the spanking is actually administered.
If done your way, then the child will quickly become an expert actor/actress, and their behavior will get worse.
And, by the way, do you understand that if you give a second chance, there is no good reason not to give a third, forth, ad infinitum number of chances?
It would be like finding the child had done something wrong, then told them they were grounded (fully expecting to ground the child), but when you were sure they were sorry for what they had done, and that they had repented (turned away from that wrong behavior), then you change your mind and tell them they aren't grounded.
That's lying, and if anything, would definitly encourage the child to do wrong again. Telling them thier grounded, then turning right around and changing your mind tells the child that they can get away with anything…
When you responded with, "then turning right around and changing your mind" I think you missed the part where I said, " but when you were sure they were sorry for what they had done, and that they had repented (turned away from that wrong behavior)". That is a far cry from "turning right around".
But this is amazing, I describe the exact thing that God did, and you call God a liar.
