ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[genuineoriginal]

Genuineoriginal, what about mercy? You yourself attest, I am sure, that all human beings are wicked -- "there is none righteous, no, not one" -- and yet you also believe that God intends to save as many people from destruction as possible. This is not consistent, if you argue that God must righteously destroy all evil without mercy.

Beyond this, you apparently think in black-and-white, corporate terms, and are willing to assign the sins of a nation to its children as well. You have no problems with genocide, apparently.

I can only say that that is a dangerous way of thinking, which has been at the root of a great deal of human violence and bloodshed.

Ignoring the God of the Bible has been at the root of most of the human violence and bloodshed.

Exodus 20
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;​

The people of the Cities and Nations that God judged include the children unto the third and fourth generation. They hate God, so what is the complaint if He punishes them for hating Him?

 

[Balder]

All those children hated God, eh?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Oh, I just saw the rest of your post. I get it. We should be thankful that there isn't even more genocide, because that's what everyone deserves.

Yeah. Happy Easter to you too.

Lets look at it the options:
God could destroy the entire earth because of our wickedness, and everyone would die.
God could leave the earth alone, and everyone would kill each other, starting with the ones advocating peace because they appear the weakest (Don't you love Darwinism?).
God could selectively destroy cities and nations to limit the spread of violence (which is what I believe He is doing!)

We should be thankful!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight, you said in a previous post that you do believe there can be murder in war, can you give an example of that?

Sure.

One example might be...

A soldier acting against the orders of his nation killing a person with premeditated malice, maybe he killed with the motivation of stealing something.

That would be one example or murder in the midst of war.

 

[Balder]

Is it murder if your commanding officer tells you to enter a village and kill every civilian and animal in it, no matter how young or if they are old and infirm?

 

[Aimiel]

Is it murder if your commanding officer tells you to enter a village and kill every civilian and animal in it, no matter how young or if they are old and infirm?

Yes, and it is an 'unlawful' order, which should be challenged (by those to whom it is given) as unlawful, according to the UCMJ.

 

[Balder]

Yes, and it is an 'unlawful' order, which should be challenged (by those to whom it is given) as unlawful, according to the UCMJ.

What if the commander, a religious man, says that God told him that this is what you are supposed to do?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Is it murder if your commanding officer tells you to enter a village and kill every civilian and animal in it, no matter how young or if they are old and infirm?

Assuming you are fighting a just war then NO!

Of course not!!!

Just as dropping a atomic bomb on a city for just reasons is not murder.

 

[Balder]

Assuming you are fighting a just war then NO!

Of course not!!!

Just as dropping a atomic bomb on a city for just reasons is not murder.

This is what I meant by having different ideas about how abstract principles play out in the field. In my view, if you are conducting a war which purposefully targets and massacres civilians and children, you are by definition not fighting a just war.

 

[allsmiles]

what's the road to hell paved with?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

what's the road to hell paved with?

Pagans.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This is what I meant by having different ideas about how abstract principles play out in the field. In my view, if you are conducting a war which purposefully targets and massacres civilians and children, you are by definition not fighting a just war.

So you would argue then that there is NEVER a just cause to drop a nuclear weapon?

Is that true?

 

[allsmiles]

not a morally just cause to drop a nuke.

as a practical matter, as a matter of survival, as a worst case scenario yes.

there's no justification morally for the use of a weapon that will massacre non-combatants.

 

[fool]

Assuming you are fighting a just war then NO!

Of course not!!!

Just as dropping a atomic bomb on a city for just reasons is not murder.

Knight;
I would still like to see you adress the fact that the Bible lays out two different modes of warfare. In the outside of Isreal mode killing everyone was not considered just. So outside of Isreal the scene Balder proposes would be murder, inside Isreal (according to the Bible) it would not be murder. I would like to point out that Outside Isreal (the rest of the planet Earth and in fact the Universe) the rules were much more in keeping with what most people would call just rules of engagement. The mode of warfare you keep defending was only allowed inside Isreal and hence was the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

not a morally just cause to drop a nuke.

as a practical matter, as a matter of survival, as a worst case scenario yes.

there's no justification morally for the use of a weapon that will massacre non-combatants.

So your answer is YES and NO? :dizzy:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The mode of warfare you keep defending was only allowed inside Isreal and hence was the exception rather than the rule.

And it was also the exception for Israel i.e., this was not the normal method of operation.

And I have asked you before and you have not answered.....

Why do you suppose that is?

If you are trying to prove God has a different standard of morality why would'nt God have His people engage in battle the same way every time? Why wouldn't God just have His people wipe out EVERY enemy the same way every time?

 

[allsmiles]

So your answer is YES and NO? :dizzy:

survival is not a moral dilemma Knight

 

[Nathon Detroit]

survival is not a moral dilemma Knight

You have said that several times... what does it mean? Are you saying you cannot do anything immoral if you are attempting to survive? What?

I don't get it.

 

[Balder]

So you would argue then that there is NEVER a just cause to drop a nuclear weapon?

Is that true?

Although I regard nukes as rather evil creations, I wouldn't say never. But I would say exceedingly sparingly, and not intentionally against primarily civilian targets.

Can you tell me which way your line of reasoning runs?

It's okay to go into villages and cut down all the women, children, elders, and other non-combatants in them THEREFORE it is okay to nuke cities.

OR

It's okay to nuke cities THEREFORE it's okay to individually shoot or cut down civilians as well

 

[fool]

And it was also the exception for Israel i.e., this was not the normal method of operation.

And I have asked you before and you have not answered.....

Why do you suppose that is?

If you are trying to prove God has a different standard of morality why would'nt God have His people engage in battle the same way every time? Why wouldn't God just have His people wipe out EVERY enemy the same way every time?

I did answer that before, he wanted to get rid of anyone that could later claim a birthright to Isreal.