The Moral Argument

[Archaeopteryx]

I am assuming you said something to the effect that I was a lousy apologist.

Something to that effect, yes. Although I didn't use the past tense.

And I was, up until now. For up until now I was ministering in unbelief, attempting to do a work that God has said I cannot do unless I abide in Him. Apart from Him, I can do nothing.

Didn't you say something similar months ago? You often seem to have these moments... And then you slip back into your usual ways.

 

[anonymous person]

Something to that effect, yes. Although I didn't use the past tense.

Didn't you say something similar months ago? You often seem to have these moments... And then you slip back into your usual ways.

The Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

That's one way of putting it. But one would think that you'd eventually learn what clearly doesn't work.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But I did answer your question. It's right there, in black and white.

No, you evaded the question.

I don't need to label you immoral; your words speak for themselves. Remember, I didn't ask you whether you would defend yourself. I asked whether, in your view, such actions are "morally commendable" when commanded by your God. Are they?

But you did label me immoral. I believe self-defense is morally acceptable.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I will ask again, does anyone believe that there are universal moral standards that transcend culture and time?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, you evaded the question.

It's there, in black and white, plain as day.

But you did label me immoral. I believe self-defense is morally acceptable.

That's not what my question asked.

 

[anonymous person]

That's one way of putting it. But one would think that you'd eventually learn what clearly doesn't work.

One would think so, yes.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

One would think so, yes.

But you haven't...

 

[anonymous person]

But you haven't...

I am learning.

Not that I have already obtained or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Philippians 3:12

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am learning.

Few signs of that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's there, in black and white, plain as day.

Arch, it is there in black and white and you didn't answer the question I was asking. Do you personally think that the bomb on Hiroshima was an act of genocide? Not whether or not it is classified as such.

That's not what my question asked.

I answered the exact question in post 566 and I gave my reasons for my answer. If you don't like that I gave my reasons so be it but it was answered.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Arch, it is there in black and white and you didn't answer the question I was asking. Do you personally think that the bomb on Hiroshima was an act of genocide? Not whether or not it is classified as such.

I already answered this, so stop lying.

I answered the exact question in post 566 and I gave my reasons for my answer. If you don't like that I gave my reasons so be it but it was answered.

Where in that question did I ask you about whether you thought self-defence was morally acceptable?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I already answered this, so stop lying.

Where in that question did I ask you about whether you thought self-defence was morally acceptable?

Arch asked: This question: Alright, you want to go down this road. Fine...

Suppose that you were among the Israelites when Yahweh commanded them to slaughter every man, woman, and child, as is recounted in the Bible. Would genocide still be a bad thing to engage in, or would it be "morally commendable" as you have stated in the past?

Looking forward to your evasions, which we all know are coming...

My answer: So we are talking about the Amorites? IF so, yes. If a group of people came up from behind me and my people while peacefully passing by and started killing the young, the old and the disabled and after seeing all the power of God during the plagues, I would most likely feel it was my moral duty to kill those that were trying to kill me and my children.

You then asked:
So you would take part in a genocide?



Now I didn't claim that anything was morally commendable that was Jeremy. However, I answered your question. I said Yes. I didn't agree that it was a genocide and in regard to that I asked you a question to determine what you personally believed was a genocide, I asked if you (personally) not whether or not it was classified as such.

You said: You asked whether I believed the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of genocide. Obviously this would require its own thread (presumably in the History subforum) to do the topic justice. For the sake of this discussion though,it is not classified as a genocide by the common definition of the term (i.e., "the intent to systematically eliminate a cultural, ethnic, linguistic, national, racial or religious group").

You didn't tell me if you believed the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of genocide. You told me it needed another thread and that it is not classified as genocide but you didn't answer my question.

These are our exact posts. You can see I answered Yes to yours. You said it wasn't classified as a genocide but not anything about what you believed personally. Who is lying. It is there in black and white, and it is not me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

My answer: So we are talking about the Amorites? IF so, yes. If a group of people came up from behind me and my people while peacefully passing by and started killing the young, the old and the disabled and after seeing all the power of God during the plagues, I would most likely feel it was my moral duty to kill those that were trying to kill me and my children.

Note the emphasis. I didn't ask you what you would do "if a group of people came up from behind you and your people while peacefully passing by and started killing the young, the old and the disabled." I didn't ask whether you would feel that "it was your moral duty to kill those that were trying to kill you and your children."

Now I didn't claim that anything was morally commendable that was Jeremy. However, I answered your question. I said Yes. I didn't agree that it was a genocide and in regard to that I asked you a question to determine what you personally believed was a genocide, I asked if you (personally) not whether or not it was classified as such.

You said: You asked whether I believed the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of genocide. Obviously this would require its own thread (presumably in the History subforum) to do the topic justice. For the sake of this discussion though,it is not classified as a genocide by the common definition of the term (i.e., "the intent to systematically eliminate a cultural, ethnic, linguistic, national, racial or religious group").

You didn't tell me if you believed the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of genocide. You told me it needed another thread and that it is not classified as genocide but you didn't answer my question.

In black and white:

How much clearer do I need to make it? For the sake of this discussion, I don't consider it an act of genocide, based on the common definition of the term (given above). Do I need to spell it out further for you?

These are our exact posts. You can see I answered Yes to yours. You said it wasn't classified as a genocide but not anything about what you believed personally. Who is lying. It is there in black and white, and it is not me.

Curious then that you omitted this post.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Note the emphasis. I didn't ask you what you would do "if a group of people came up from behind you and your people while peacefully passing by and started killing the young, the old and the disabled." I didn't ask whether you would feel that "it was your moral duty to kill those that were trying to kill you and your children."

In black and white:


Curious then that you omitted this post.

Ok fair enough, I said yes to your question and you said you don't feel it is genocide. So you don't believe that killing men, women, children and animals was an act of genocide for the US but you do believe that the killing of men, women, children and animals in the OT was. What is the difference here?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ok fair enough, I said yes to your question and you said you don't feel it is genocide. So you don't believe that killing men, women, children and animals was an act of genocide for the US but you do believe that the killing of men, women, children and animals in the OT was. What is the difference here?

After Japan surrendered, and WWII ended, did the US embark on a campaign to exterminate the Japanese? Was the purpose of dropping those bombs to "systematically eliminate a cultural, ethnic, linguistic, national, racial or religious group"?

 

[Oncedeceived]

After Japan surrendered, and WWII ended, did the US embark on a campaign to exterminate the Japanese? Was the purpose of dropping those bombs to "systematically eliminate a cultural, ethnic, linguistic, national, racial or religious group"?

The Amalekites didn't surrender but continued to attack the Jews and wanted to systematically eliminate a cultural, ethnic, linguistic, national and religious group. You seem to think that Japan surrendering was important and it is. But if Japan had not stopped and was out to annihilate the US would the US commit genocide if they killed the Japanese before they could kill us?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The Amalekites didn't surrender but continued to attack the Jews and wanted to systematically eliminate a cultural, ethnic, linguistic, national and religious group. You seem to think that Japan surrendering was important and it is. But if Japan had not stopped and was out to annihilate the US would the US commit genocide if they killed the Japanese before they could kill us?

So you are blaming them for what Yahweh commanded his followers to do?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you are blaming them for what Yahweh commanded his followers to do?

So how is it worse for God to command them to defend themselves than if they did it themselves?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So how is it worse for God to command them to defend themselves than if they did it themselves?

Defend themselves? He commanded their complete destruction (Deuteronomy 20:16-18). And not out of self-defence, but because "they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God."