Innocent Children of Guilty Parents

clirus

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2004
3,208
106
✟3,900.00
Faith
Baptist
Innocent Children of Guilty Parents

I do not like Pacifists, Socialists, Atheists and Extreme Environmentalists because they do more harm than good. I believe Liberal Christians, Atheists and democrats are good at hope propaganda but not the truth of reality. I believe the hope concepts avoid the tough love programs that could really work. Even if the tough love programs did not work, they are better than Socialism that requires stealing from most to give to the few.

The Bible has the following to say about the Innocent Children of Guilty Parents as part of the Ten Commandments.

TEN COMMANDMENTS Exodus 20:3–6;
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou 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; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

The concept of innocent children is often used by Pacifists, Socialists and Atheists to advocate their evil activities.

SOCIALISTS use the concept of innocent children to create massive socialist educational programs to give money to disadvantaged children. The Socialist would say they are helping the disadvantaged children, but in most cases they are just wasting money on children with low potential for success.

There is very low potential of helping a child during the 6 hours they are in a school, when the child had to go back into 18 hours of parents that set a very low lifestyle example.

A better way to deal with this situation is to get rid of guilty parents. America needs to have an Absolute Paternity Law that say parents must provide for their children. Failure to provide for their children (as proved by asking for government assistance) should be punishable by death using the three strikes and you are out concept.

No health care/welfare or any other Socialistic Program should be available to any child that has a living father. The Bible has the following to say about men that father children and fail to provide for their children.

I Timothy 5:8 states, "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

PACIFISTS use the concept of innocent children to make war look like an atrocity instead of eliminating an enemy that threatens your existence.

There are two ways to fight a war.

In the short war concept you rapidly eliminate the enemy, thus ending the war quickly. This means you maximize the casualties of the enemy and minimize your own casualties. If there is a shot from a house, you destroy the house and move on. The short war concept give the advantage to those that are trying to eliminate the enemy.

In the long war concept you act carefully to try avoid casualties of the enemy. This means you expose your own people to greater danger while you try to determine whether a person is a non combatant enemy or a combatant enemy. The long war concept give the advantage to the enemy.

Pacifists would make great distinction between non combatant enemy and combatant enemy. The military needs to keep a lot of reporters with them to send up to a house where there has enemy fire and let the reporters determine which are non combatants enemy and which are combatant enemy. When the reports don't come back, the military can proceed to destroy the house since there must be only combatant enemy there.

Judy Woodruff of the PBS Newshour cannot present a Middle East War story without bring up "the problem of civilian causalities". I believe the appropriate statement about Judy Woodruff and most Pacifists would be, "an useful idiot that aids the enemy"

The time to discuss Pacifism is before the war and not during he war. After the war has been declared Pacifists need to keep quite or risk being charged with being a traitor and sent to Guantanamo and face a military trial for treason (aiding the enemy).

Another person abusing the concept of innocence is Afghan President Hamid Karzai. I believe Karzai is just like Arafat that play both sides against each other to enrich himself and his cronies. I would hope the American policy would be to provide only military protection and financial aid to the rural areas so that a ground up democracy could take hold instead of a continuing top down corruption. An election (as in a democracy) does not insure good government, when there are no good people running for office. It may take many years for good people to learn how to use democracy.

The best way to do something good for innocent children is to deal with the guilty parents. It is sort of ironic that the Liberal Christians, Atheists and democrats that worry about innocent children usually are the same ones that support abortion.
 

cobweb

Cranky octogenarian at heart
Jan 12, 2006
3,964
413
Georgia, USA
✟20,938.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God."

I am a pacifist and very conservative in matters of Faith. We do exist. I recognize that sometimes war is unavoidable and the lesser of 2 evils, but I don't believe that it is good.

It is hard to love your neighbor and do good to those who persecute you (another teaching of Christ) while you are blowing them up.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I do not like Pacifists, Socialists, Atheists and Extreme Environmentalists because they do more harm than good. I believe Liberal Christians, Atheists and democrats are good at hope propaganda but not the truth of reality. I believe the hope concepts avoid the tough love programs that could really work. Even if the tough love programs did not work, they are better than Socialism that requires stealing from most to give to the few.

Actually, the desired end of Socialism is not to take from the most to give to the few, but rather, to take from all and to give to all.

SOCIALISTS use the concept of innocent children to create massive socialist educational programs to give money to disadvantaged children. The Socialist would say they are helping the disadvantaged children, but in most cases they are just wasting money on children with low potential for success.

How do you know that children in these programs have low potential for success when you advocate taking away the opportunity for any potential to become realized?

There is very low potential of helping a child during the 6 hours they are in a school, when the child had to go back into 18 hours of parents that set a very low lifestyle example.

Not necessarily. How many of the world's most renowned thinkers didn't have the most hospitable of home environments and yet they still had potential?

A better way to deal with this situation is to get rid of guilty parents. America needs to have an Absolute Paternity Law that say parents must provide for their children. Failure to provide for their children (as proved by asking for government assistance) should be punishable by death using the three strikes and you are out concept.

And what if the parent has a legitimate reason for asking the Government for assistance? Such as being unable to provide for his child because his business was destroyed in a natural diaster that was not of his making?

No health care/welfare or any other Socialistic Program should be available to any child that has a living father. The Bible has the following to say about men that father children and fail to provide for their children.

As I said above, what if that failure to provide is not the result of willful and deliberate negligence or laziness but rather an incapacity to do so due to extraneous circumstances that bring to bear on the situation? Why punish someone who wants to provide for his family, but can't, equally with someone who doesn't want to provide for his family, but can???

Judy Woodruff of the PBS Newshour cannot present a Middle East War story without bring up "the problem of civilian causalities". I believe the appropriate statement about Judy Woodruff and most Pacifists would be, "an useful idiot that aids the enemy"

The time to discuss Pacifism is before the war and not during he war. After the war has been declared Pacifists need to keep quite or risk being charged with being a traitor and sent to Guantanamo and face a military trial for treason (aiding the enemy).

If someone protests a war that they believe is unjust then they have the right to do that without fear of being prosecuted as a traitor.

By your venomous logic, if the US launched a war against Israel or Christianity, you would have to shut up, or otherwise risk facing a military tribunal under the charge of treason for simply disagreeing with the government's policy (aka. aiding the enemy).

I really wish you'd more thoroughly consider the final logical destination of your claims. Argumentum ad absurdum.
 
Upvote 0

peadar1987

Well-Known Member
Mar 22, 2009
1,009
57
I'm a Dub, but I live in Scotland now
✟1,446.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Innocent Children of Guilty Parents

I do not like Pacifists, Socialists, Atheists and Extreme Environmentalists because they do more harm than good. I believe Liberal Christians, Atheists and democrats are good at hope propaganda but not the truth of reality. I believe the hope concepts avoid the tough love programs that could really work. Even if the tough love programs did not work, they are better than Socialism that requires stealing from most to give to the few.
When 1% of the people control 90% of the wealth, socialism would involve taking from the few to give to the most. You cannot in any way argue against this, so please stop trying. Debate the morality, debate the practicality, but you can't argue against a concrete fact.

The Bible has the following to say about the Innocent Children of Guilty Parents as part of the Ten Commandments.

TEN COMMANDMENTS Exodus 20:3–6;
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou 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; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
So you're saying god is evil and malicious? Why take out peoples sins on innocents? If you cut me off on the motorway, would it be okay for me to come round to your house and punch your 6 year old son in the face?

The concept of innocent children is often used by Pacifists, Socialists and Atheists to advocate their evil activities.

SOCIALISTS use the concept of innocent children to create massive socialist educational programs to give money to disadvantaged children. The Socialist would say they are helping the disadvantaged children, but in most cases they are just wasting money on children with low potential for success.

There is very low potential of helping a child during the 6 hours they are in a school, when the child had to go back into 18 hours of parents that set a very low lifestyle example.
So why can't we have both? Free education and addressing of social problems? And something I really approve of; time in the curriculum dedicated to parenting classes?

A better way to deal with this situation is to get rid of guilty parents. America needs to have an Absolute Paternity Law that say parents must provide for their children. Failure to provide for their children (as proved by asking for government assistance) should be punishable by death using the three strikes and you are out concept.
And this is going to help the kids how, exactly? All you're going to end up with then is a whole load of angry kids, a load of angrier widows, and tens of millions of people willing to overthrow the government implementing this scheme. And I find it interesting that you consider state intervention in education and health care by way of funding to be extremely evil, but state intervention by way of executing people you, clirus, consider to be bad parents, as something not just acceptable, but desirable.


PACIFISTS use the concept of innocent children to make war look like an atrocity instead of eliminating an enemy that threatens your existence.

There are two ways to fight a war.

In the short war concept you rapidly eliminate the enemy, thus ending the war quickly. This means you maximize the casualties of the enemy and minimize your own casualties. If there is a shot from a house, you destroy the house and move on. The short war concept give the advantage to those that are trying to eliminate the enemy.

In the long war concept you act carefully to try avoid casualties of the enemy. This means you expose your own people to greater danger while you try to determine whether a person is a non combatant enemy or a combatant enemy. The long war concept give the advantage to the enemy.

Pacifists would make great distinction between non combatant enemy and combatant enemy. The military needs to keep a lot of reporters with them to send up to a house where there has enemy fire and let the reporters determine which are non combatants enemy and which are combatant enemy. When the reports don't come back, the military can proceed to destroy the house since there must be only combatant enemy there.
I think anyone who is not a monster would make a distincton between non combatants and combatants. Do you accept and agree with flying a plane into a crowded skyscraper, because it isn't making that distinction?

There's a difference between making sure there are no civilians in an area, and nuking an entire country into a puddle of radioactive glass (which I'm fairly sure I've actually seen you advocate before). Isn't there something in the bible about not committing murder? I'm fairly sure there is!!

Judy Woodruff of the PBS Newshour cannot present a Middle East War story without bring up "the problem of civilian causalities". I believe the appropriate statement about Judy Woodruff and most Pacifists would be, "an useful idiot that aids the enemy"
To be honest, people who kill civilians aid the enemy more, by giving them angry people who hate the Americans for killing their innocent friends and family, and fuel for propaganda, even when you leave out the morality of killing innocent people.

The time to discuss Pacifism is before the war and not during he war. After the war has been declared Pacifists need to keep quite or risk being charged with being a traitor and sent to Guantanamo and face a military trial for treason (aiding the enemy).
Are the wars in the middle east not supposed to be fighting against tyrrany? How is stamping down on legitimate free speech, something which, may I remind you, is enshrined in your constitution, any better than what people are doing in Saudi Arabia?
 
Upvote 0

peadar1987

Well-Known Member
Mar 22, 2009
1,009
57
I'm a Dub, but I live in Scotland now
✟1,446.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
And what if the parent has a legitimate reason for asking the Government for assistance? Such as being unable to provide for his child because his business was destroyed in a natural diaster that was not of his making?



As I said above, what if that failure to provide is not the result of willful and deliberate negligence or laziness but rather an incapacity to do so due to extraneous circumstances that bring to bear on the situation? Why punish someone who wants to provide for his family, but can't, equally with someone who doesn't want to provide for his family, but can???

Art, you do realise who you're talking to, right? The lady who thinks that all bad circumstances are caused by the cardinal sin of not being clirus, right?
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,489
13,109
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,517.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
With the number of people clirus hates/dislikes/castigates to hell, one has to wonder if she is ever happy.

I mean really, do you smile clirus? Where is your joy in this life? How do you contribute in a positive way to this world?
 
Upvote 0

jgarden

Senior Veteran
Jan 1, 2004
10,695
3,181
✟106,405.00
Faith
Methodist
Innocent Children of Guilty Parents

I do not like Pacifists, Socialists, Atheists and Extreme Environmentalists because they do more harm than good. I believe Liberal Christians, Atheists and democrats are good at hope propaganda but not the truth of reality. I believe the hope concepts avoid the tough love programs that could really work. Even if the tough love programs did not work, they are better than Socialism that requires stealing from most to give to the few.

The Bible has the following to say about the Innocent Children of Guilty Parents as part of the Ten Commandments.

TEN COMMANDMENTS Exodus 20:3–6;
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou 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; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

The concept of innocent children is often used by Pacifists, Socialists and Atheists to advocate their evil activities.

SOCIALISTS use the concept of innocent children to create massive socialist educational programs to give money to disadvantaged children. The Socialist would say they are helping the disadvantaged children, but in most cases they are just wasting money on children with low potential for success.

There is very low potential of helping a child during the 6 hours they are in a school, when the child had to go back into 18 hours of parents that set a very low lifestyle example.

A better way to deal with this situation is to get rid of guilty parents. America needs to have an Absolute Paternity Law that say parents must provide for their children. Failure to provide for their children (as proved by asking for government assistance) should be punishable by death using the three strikes and you are out concept.

No health care/welfare or any other Socialistic Program should be available to any child that has a living father. The Bible has the following to say about men that father children and fail to provide for their children.

I Timothy 5:8 states, "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

PACIFISTS use the concept of innocent children to make war look like an atrocity instead of eliminating an enemy that threatens your existence.

There are two ways to fight a war.

In the short war concept you rapidly eliminate the enemy, thus ending the war quickly. This means you maximize the casualties of the enemy and minimize your own casualties. If there is a shot from a house, you destroy the house and move on. The short war concept give the advantage to those that are trying to eliminate the enemy.

In the long war concept you act carefully to try avoid casualties of the enemy. This means you expose your own people to greater danger while you try to determine whether a person is a non combatant enemy or a combatant enemy. The long war concept give the advantage to the enemy.

Pacifists would make great distinction between non combatant enemy and combatant enemy. The military needs to keep a lot of reporters with them to send up to a house where there has enemy fire and let the reporters determine which are non combatants enemy and which are combatant enemy. When the reports don't come back, the military can proceed to destroy the house since there must be only combatant enemy there.

Judy Woodruff of the PBS Newshour cannot present a Middle East War story without bring up "the problem of civilian causalities". I believe the appropriate statement about Judy Woodruff and most Pacifists would be, "an useful idiot that aids the enemy"

The time to discuss Pacifism is before the war and not during he war. After the war has been declared Pacifists need to keep quite or risk being charged with being a traitor and sent to Guantanamo and face a military trial for treason (aiding the enemy).

Another person abusing the concept of innocence is Afghan President Hamid Karzai. I believe Karzai is just like Arafat that play both sides against each other to enrich himself and his cronies. I would hope the American policy would be to provide only military protection and financial aid to the rural areas so that a ground up democracy could take hold instead of a continuing top down corruption. An election (as in a democracy) does not insure good government, when there are no good people running for office. It may take many years for good people to learn how to use democracy.

The best way to do something good for innocent children is to deal with the guilty parents. It is sort of ironic that the Liberal Christians, Atheists and democrats that worry about innocent children usually are the same ones that support abortion.
Where does "clirus" get these extremist ideas - certainly not from the Bible!

Perhaps a "cult!"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bigbadwilf

Drinking from the glass half-empty
Dec 22, 2008
790
49
Oxford, UK
✟8,706.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
There are two ways to fight a war.

In the short war concept you rapidly eliminate the enemy, thus ending the war quickly. This means you maximize the casualties of the enemy and minimize your own casualties. If there is a shot from a house, you destroy the house and move on. The short war concept give the advantage to those that are trying to eliminate the enemy.

In the long war concept you act carefully to try avoid casualties of the enemy. This means you expose your own people to greater danger while you try to determine whether a person is a non combatant enemy or a combatant enemy. The long war concept give the advantage to the enemy.

Pacifists would make great distinction between non combatant enemy and combatant enemy. The military needs to keep a lot of reporters with them to send up to a house where there has enemy fire and let the reporters determine which are non combatants enemy and which are combatant enemy. When the reports don't come back, the military can proceed to destroy the house since there must be only combatant enemy there.

Given the choice, I think most reasonable people wouldn't chose My Lai writ large as the strategic plan for an entire war. But then again, most reasonable people aren't Clirus.
 
Upvote 0

ArnautDaniel

Veteran
Aug 28, 2006
5,295
328
The Village
✟14,653.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Even if the tough love programs did not work, they are better than Socialism that requires stealing from most to give to the few.

"stealing from the most to give to the few" sounds like laissez-faire capitalism to me.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
A better way to deal with this situation is to get rid of guilty parents.

That has an ominous, "Final Solution" sound to it...

America needs to have an Absolute Paternity Law that say parents must provide for their children. Failure to provide for their children (as proved by asking for government assistance) should be punishable by death using the three strikes and you are out concept.

So, applying for Welfare, Social Security, health insurance, or even Unemployment becomes a capital offense?

I was right -- it is The Final Solution.

PACIFISTS use the concept of innocent children to make war look like an atrocity instead of eliminating an enemy that threatens your existence.

Whereas CHRISTIANS apparantly see children as more enemies who need to be killed, right?

Now, I know a lot of Vietnam Vets were called "Baby killers" when they returned from the war -- personally, I find that to be a terrible insult.

Would you call it a badge of honor?


There are two ways to fight a war.

In the short war concept you rapidly eliminate the enemy, thus ending the war quickly. This means you maximize the casualties of the enemy and minimize your own casualties. If there is a shot from a house, you destroy the house and move on. The short war concept give the advantage to those that are trying to eliminate the enemy.

In the long war concept you act carefully to try avoid casualties of the enemy. This means you expose your own people to greater danger while you try to determine whether a person is a non combatant enemy or a combatant enemy. The long war concept give the advantage to the enemy.

Wrong as usual, clirus -- the "Long War concept," as you call it, seeks to avoid casualties of everyone but the enemy -- best way to avoid manufacturing more enemies.

I'm sure this is a moot point -- clearly you consider everyone an enemy.

Pacifists would make great distinction between non combatant enemy and combatant enemy. The military needs to keep a lot of reporters with them to send up to a house where there has enemy fire and let the reporters determine which are non combatants enemy and which are combatant enemy. When the reports don't come back, the military can proceed to destroy the house since there must be only combatant enemy there.

Let me guess -- reporters are enemies in your world?


The best way to do something good for innocent children is to deal with the guilty parents. It is sort of ironic that the Liberal Christians, Atheists and democrats that worry about innocent children usually are the same ones that support abortion.

So you save the "innocent" unborn children by executing the guilty parents.

Then what happens to the children?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TheNewWorldMan

phased plasma rifle in 40-watt range
Jan 2, 2007
9,362
849
✟21,275.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Innocent Children of Guilty Parents

I do not like Pacifists, Socialists, Atheists and Extreme Environmentalists because they do more harm than good. I believe Liberal Christians, Atheists and democrats are good at hope propaganda but not the truth of reality.

That's quite enough.

There's not enough Excedrin in the world to enable me to read the rest of that post without getting a splitting headache. Quite frankly, I'd almost rather have a root canal...
 
Upvote 0

clirus

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2004
3,208
106
✟3,900.00
Faith
Baptist
With the number of people clirus hates/dislikes/castigates to hell, one has to wonder if she is ever happy.

I mean really, do you smile clirus? Where is your joy in this life? How do you contribute in a positive way to this world?

It is difficult to judge a persons success or joy in the world, but I define success and joy as a good nights sleep without drugs.

I hope I am being a positive influence on the world by exposing the myths of the Atheists and offering the truth of Christianity.

I attack Socialism because it is one of the best tools of Atheists to deceive people into putting their trust in government instead of God.

Socialism has strong public appeal because it looks like people will be helped, but then it is realized that more get hurt than could be helped. Next you realize the help is not eliminating the need but rather the need is increasing.

Socialism is giving a person a fish, Christianity is teaching a person to fish.

PS Do you smile? Where is your joy in this life? How do you contribute in a positive way to this world?
 
Upvote 0

clirus

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2004
3,208
106
✟3,900.00
Faith
Baptist
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God."

I am a pacifist and very conservative in matters of Faith. We do exist. I recognize that sometimes war is unavoidable and the lesser of 2 evils, but I don't believe that it is good.

It is hard to love your neighbor and do good to those who persecute you (another teaching of Christ) while you are blowing them up.

How do you reconcile these statements with the instruction of God?

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:3

I reconcile the New and Old Testament by the Three Levels of Action

I believe the Bible teaches all things should be dealt with by the following three levels of action;
1) If it is good - accept it and nourish it.
2) If it is evil - rebuke it but tolerate (neither help not hurt) it.
3) If it threatens your existence - destroy it before it destroys you. This is self defense, which both the individual and society have a right and responsibility to do.

The first two are from the New Testament of the Bible and represent the Law of Love. The third is from the Old Testament of the Bible and represents the Law of Purity/Self Defense. The New Testament deals more with personal responsibility and the Old Testament deals more with the preservation of society. The Old Testament and the New Testament together present God's Law, a means of survival for a person, a nation and a world.

Also, I believe the New Testament is instruction of how Christians are to deal with fellow Christians and very little to do with how Christians are to deal with Atheists.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
There is very low potential of helping a child during the 6 hours they are in a school, when the child had to go back into 18 hours of parents that set a very low lifestyle example.

A better way to deal with this situation is to get rid of guilty parents. America needs to have an Absolute Paternity Law that say parents must provide for their children. Failure to provide for their children (as proved by asking for government assistance) should be punishable by death using the three strikes and you are out concept.

No health care/welfare or any other Socialistic Program should be available to any child that has a living father. The Bible has the following to say about men that father children and fail to provide for their children.
I was laid of twice during the worst of the economic crisis. Hope I don't live to see another economic downturn, or I might need to be executed.
In the short war concept you rapidly eliminate the enemy, thus ending the war quickly. This means you maximize the casualties of the enemy and minimize your own casualties. If there is a shot from a house, you destroy the house and move on. The short war concept give the advantage to those that are trying to eliminate the enemy.

In the long war concept you act carefully to try avoid casualties of the enemy. This means you expose your own people to greater danger while you try to determine whether a person is a non combatant enemy or a combatant enemy. The long war concept give the advantage to the enemy

Clirus... what denomination are you, precisely?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
How do you reconcile these statements with the instruction of God?

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:3

So who have you destroyed lately?

I reconcile the New and Old Testament by the Three Levels of Action

I believe the Bible teaches all things should be dealt with by the following three levels of action;
1) If it is good - accept it and nourish it.
2) If it is evil - rebuke it but tolerate (neither help not hurt) it.
3) If it threatens your existence - destroy it before it destroys you. This is self defense, which both the individual and society have a right and responsibility to do.

And you've done none of these things.


Also, I believe the New Testament is instruction of how Christians are to deal with fellow Christians and very little to do with how Christians are to deal with Atheists.

Jesus dealt with the people you would consider Atheists -- how convenient that you don't have to follow His example.
 
Upvote 0

peadar1987

Well-Known Member
Mar 22, 2009
1,009
57
I'm a Dub, but I live in Scotland now
✟1,446.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
It is difficult to judge a persons success or joy in the world, but I define success and joy as a good nights sleep without drugs.
I slept for 15 hours last night with no drugs at all. I finally have it made! :D

How well do you sleep knowing that there are probably homosexuals having intercourse somewhere in the world right now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LightHorseman
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
I slept for 15 hours last night with no drugs at all. I finally have it made! :D

How well do you sleep knowing that there are probably homosexuals having intercourse somewhere in the world right now?


And all those Atheists you haven't destroyed?

Or the fact that serial killers, child molesters, and various sociopaths sleep just as soundly as you do?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cobweb

Cranky octogenarian at heart
Jan 12, 2006
3,964
413
Georgia, USA
✟20,938.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
How do you reconcile these statements with the instruction of God?

A better question is how you reconcile your beliefs with the teachings of Christ?

38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The love Christ was talking about was for our enemies. It was for those who seek to do us harm. He specifically says it is not just for those who love us.

If you do not believe this, you do not believe Christ.
 
Upvote 0