ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[Nathon Detroit]

FOOLS POSSIBLE MOTIVATIONS BEHIND THE INSTIGATION:

• a) fool believes in the god of the bible but doesnt like him.
• b) fool doesnt believe in the god of the bible and is trying to disprove him.
• c) fool believes in (a) god(s) but not the god of the bible and is trying to disprove the god of the bible.

I hate to be picky but none of those options were fool's motivation for asking his question.


Sorry, you probably think I am picking on you (I'm not).

 

[Stripe]

I hate to be picky but none of those options were fool's motivation for asking his question.

*grin*

stop picking on me and tell me your ideas on fools original motivation. im historically bad at that game anyways...

even better would be for him to give his own idea(s)...

 

[Balder]

Prior to his call on Bob's show he tested his approach here on TOL but fool was too specific and received answers that didn't trick the audience so he altered his question and made it much more vague and ambiguous for Bob's show.

Yes, Fool's question was most likely purposefully general, but if you believe (as Fool and others here do) that it is never justifiable to purposefully cut down infants with swords (or to commit genocide), then there is no real "trick" involved. He doesn't have to list any conditions in his question if he doesn't believe there are conditions in which it would be okay.

 

[Balder]

Stipe, I submit that Fool's belief or unbelief in God is not really relevant. The question is one of moral values. It is a question that I think any Christian should honestly wrestle with, since it relates to so much that is contained in the Bible. When I was a Christian, I honestly wrestled with it for a couple years. (And was pretty consistently disappointed by the evasiveness of the elders in the faith that I went to with my concerns). I haven't met many Christians who are willing to ask these questions clearly and directly, but in my view they are important regardless of who asks them. I further submit that turning this into a question of "motivations of the questioner" is another distancing and evasive tactic and should be dispensed with. The question is simple and clear.

 

[Stripe]

Stipe, I submit that Fool's belief or unbelief in God is not really relevant. The question is one of moral values. It is a question that I think any Christian should honestly wrestle with, since it relates to so much that is contained in the Bible. When I was a Christian, I honestly wrestled with it for a couple years. (And was pretty consistently disappointed by the evasiveness of the elders in the faith that I went to with my concerns). I haven't met many Christians who are willing to ask these questions clearly and directly, but in my view they are important regardless of who asks them. I further submit that turning this into a question of "motivations of the questioner" is another distancing and evasive tactic and should be dispensed with. The question is simple and clear.

i can ask myself the question clearly and directly.
would i (grant .. thats you) kill a baby?

i can answer it clearly and directly.
no i (grant .. thats me) wouldnt.

what else do you want from me?

if fool has no qualms about his status with god then why does he insist on asking questions about him? i submit that his views on god must be relevant for this line of questioning to be logically consistent. that all remains conjecture on my part until he tells us exactly why he asks these questions though. up until he lays out what hes trying to prove (assuming my suggestions are wrong) i am completely immune to any hypothetical burden this thread (and its cousins) may potentially pose.

 

[Granite]

Stipe, did you mean me in post 179?

 

[Stripe]

uh . no? which bit?

i only quoted fool from here

 

[Balder]

if fool has no qualms about his status with god then why does he insist on asking questions about him? i submit that his views on god must be relevant for this line of questioning to be logically consistent. that all remains conjecture on my part until he tells us exactly why he asks these questions though. up until he lays out what hes trying to prove (assuming my suggestions are wrong) i am completely immune to any hypothetical burden this thread (and its cousins) may potentially pose.

You are only immune if you choose to ignore the presence of these incidents in the Bible and not to consider their import. You don't need any outside questioner, or you shouldn't need one. All you need to do is read the Bible and see the sorts of activities it attributes to God.

 

[Stripe]

You are only immune if you choose to ignore the presence of these incidents in the Bible and not to consider their import. You don't need any outside questioner, or you shouldn't need one. All you need to do is read the Bible and see the sorts of activities it attributes to God.

i do not ignore any part of the bible or ignore their importance. i could not do that and not reject god. i am immune to this line of questioning because i will never be guilty of anything remotely resembling anything suggested here.

 

[Stripe]

Stipe, did you mean me in post 179?

see your rep on your last post here..

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yes, Fool's question was most likely purposefully general, but if you believe (as Fool and others here do) that it is never justifiable to purposefully cut down infants with swords (or to commit genocide), then there is no real "trick" involved. He doesn't have to list any conditions in his question if he doesn't believe there are conditions in which it would be okay.

Yet Balder does not believe war can be morally justifiable therefore Balder renders himself irrelevant to the discussion.

Here is the rub....
It was a GOOD thing to drop atomic bombs on Japan. It ended their attempt to overtake the free world and therefore it was a GOOD thing even though innocent women and children were killed ~ such is the nature of true warfare.

There were no atomic bombs at Joshua's disposal, but had there been I have no doubt he would have rightly used them.

 

[Granite]

Yet Balder does not believe war can be morally justifiable therefore Balder renders himself irrelevant to the discussion.

Here is the rub....
It was a GOOD thing to drop atomic bombs on Japan. It ended their attempt to overtake the free world and therefore it was a GOOD thing even though innocent women and children were killed ~ such is the nature of true warfare.

There were no atomic bombs at Joshua's disposal, but had there been I have no doubt he would have rightly used them.

:shocked: :noway:

:think:

:rotfl:

Wow, I'm just trying to picture Joshua with the bomb.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

*grin*

stop picking on me and tell me your ideas on fools original motivation. im historically bad at that game anyways...

even better would be for him to give his own idea(s)...

fool's motivation was to show that Bob promotes moral relativism.

fool and the two retards (Granite and allsmilies) are the only knuckleheads left that refuse to acknowledge their argument has been soundly refuted. Not to "pat myself on the back" but the opening post of this thread covers this very nicely.

 

[Stripe]

fool's motivation was to show that Bob promotes moral relativism. fool and the two retards (Granite and allsmilies) are the only knuckleheads left that refuse to acknowledge their argument has been soundly refuted. Not to "pat myself on the back" but the opening post of this thread covers this very nicely.

ok .. im just easily confused when discussions continue ... i take that as evidence things are still somewhat unclear.

btw knight .. i alluded to this in that post 179 - i dont envy the postition youre taking at all. i consider myself to be hiding in the corner out of harms way while you take bullets in the chest on my behalf. i do wish to point out for those that dont have the armour that you have that one CAN reconcile faith in light of everything recorded in the bible without having to justify it all.

 

[allsmiles]

Yet Balder does not believe war can be morally justifiable therefore Balder renders himself irrelevant to the discussion.

not so, war is a facet of reality we all must face. anyone's opinion is relevant.

Here is the rub....
It was a GOOD thing to drop atomic bombs on Japan. It ended their attempt to overtake the free world and therefore it was a GOOD thing even though innocent women and children were killed ~ such is the nature of true warfare.

ever hear of necessary evils? they don't stop being evil. they are a means to an end, to try and justify them morally is absurd. survival is not a moral dilemma.

There were no atomic bombs at Joshua's disposal, but had there been I have no doubt he would have rightly used them.

and Sun Tzu, over two thousand years ago contradicts everything you say.

he was a better tactician than Joshua and your god, but you have yet to respond to that allegation.

 

[Balder]

i do not ignore any part of the bible or ignore their importance. i could not do that and not reject god. i am immune to this line of questioning because i will never be guilty of anything remotely resembling anything suggested here.

If you consider anyone who does or orders such acts to be "guilty," that's all I need to hear.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

and Sun Tzu, over two thousand years ago contradicts everything you say.

Sun Tzu thought Joshua had atomic weapons at his disposal??? What a nut! :kookoo:

 

[allsmiles]

Sun Tzu thought Joshua had atomic weapons at his disposal??? What a nut! :kookoo:

that's exactly what Sun Tzu thought.

 

[Balder]

Yet Balder does not believe war can be morally justifiable therefore Balder renders himself irrelevant to the discussion.

I have not said that. I said that it is wrong to target and purposefully massacre civilians, in war or outside of war.

 

[skeptech]

fool's motivation was to show that Bob promotes moral relativism.

fool and the two retards (Granite and allsmilies) are the only knuckleheads left that refuse to acknowledge their argument has been soundly refuted. Not to "pat myself on the back" but the opening post of this thread covers this very nicely.

Absolute morality is determined in light of the specific circumstance.

What is the difference between "Absolute morality is determined in light of the specific circumstance," and "Absolute morality is relative to the specific circumstance?"

Please tell me what I'm missing here, because as far as I can tell the only thing you've done so far to support your confusing position is to ban Allsmiles and call people rude names throughout this thread.