Calling out Jorge Borges

Originally posted by twhitehead
Since on previous occasions when scripture has been quoted as an answer I have then been accused of misinterpreting it due to my not owning the correct decoder ring, please clarify that you are claiming that at that time everyone, including one day old infants were so corrupt that they deserved death.

You are the one using the term 'innocent.' I am the one informing that your use of the term is ill-placed. In our unregenerate state, we are not cut off from God on account of personal sins. Obviously no infant can be guilty of the same. God's plan considered all impacts, including minute-old, day-old, week-old and years-old children. Crazy, huh!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That almost sounds like you're trying to say something... right?

Should I slow it down for you, chief?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You are the one using the term 'innocent.' I am the one informing that your use of the term is ill-placed. In our unregenerate state, we are not cut off from God on account of personal sins. Obviously no infant can be guilty of the same. God's plan considered all impacts, including minute-old, day-old, week-old and years-old children. Crazy, huh!

Where in my post did I use the term 'innocent'?

Are you possibly replying to the wrong poster?

Originally posted by David C
Should I slow it down for you, chief?

Only if it allows you the clarity of thought necessary for a cohesive expression.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Where in my post did I use the term 'innocent'?

Are you possibly replying to the wrong poster?

Since you piggy-backed your thought on Nemesio's post, there is tacit agreement with the sentiments expressed within.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
Psalm 14:3

Again: You've proven it. Your 'god' is a monster. It thinks the slaughter of infants, whom it
contends are not sufficiently innocent as to deserve clemency, is a morally justifiable act.

That is: it's okay for your 'god' to slaughter whomever it wants whenever it wants.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Again: You've proven it. Your 'god' is a monster. It thinks the slaughter of infants, whom it
contends are not sufficiently innocent as to deserve clemency, is a morally justifiable act.

That is: it's okay for your 'god' to slaughter whomever it wants whenever it wants.

Nemesio

What's worse, Nemesio: a quick end to a miserable existence and a quick entry into heaven, or either of the two's opposites?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What's worse, Nemesio: a quick end to a miserable existence and a quick entry into heaven, or either of the two's opposites?

If I believed that these were the only three choices available to the omnipotent and omnibenevolent,
then of course, I'd pick the first. But I don't believe that. If I did, I'd encourage parents to
engage in infanticide because it would seemingly guarantee their child's entry into heaven.

Your question, of course, is akin to 'Do you still beat your wife?' If you constrain my answers,
of course you get the one you want. My real answer is: A loving God would never have to
command for the slaughter of infants because a loving God would command that infants be
fostered and nurtured by people such that they grow up to live lives conducive to heaven-entry.

Nemesio

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What's worse, Nemesio: a quick end to a miserable existence and a quick entry into heaven, or either of the two's opposites?

My wife and I get pregnant every chance we get, and euthanize each baby on its first birthday. We're going to have our own section in heaven's choir by the time we get there.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Only if it allows you the clarity of thought necessary for a cohesive expression.

Chief, if you're unable to follow my post, you'd be the only one. Does believing in "Jesus" affect your cognitive ability to that degree? What a shame.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
God lawfully has the right to execute judgment upon anyone. The Bible says that all people have sinned against God and are under his righteous judgment. Therefore, their execution is not an arbitrary killing nor is it murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of life. For example, we can lawfully take a life in defe ...[text shortened]... ation were it available. Should the former be able to steal that opportunity from the latter?

I know I am a moth late but that was an awesome post. I know that it was by the power of the spirit that you got that wisdom for that post.

Originally posted by RBHILL
I know I am a moth late but that was an awesome post. I know that it was by the power of the spirit that you got that wisdom for that post.

Was that sarcastic?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Since you piggy-backed your thought on Nemesio's post, there is tacit agreement with the sentiments expressed within.

All I was doing is asking for clarification from you as to what you meant by your post. It appears that you do not wish to clarify it, I guess because it would highlight how ridiculous your claims are. So you use your usual avoidance tactics of talking absolute nonsense, while appearing to be very fluent and intelligent.

What amazes me about you is you seem intelligent and your grasp of English and typing skills are impressive yet a number of posters who cant even use capitals and whose grammer is terrible, make far more sense and manage to post far more substance than you do.

Why don't you for once, simply answer the question?

Originally posted by Nemesio
If I believed that these were the only three choices available to the omnipotent and omnibenevolent,
then of course, I'd pick the first. But I don't believe that. If I did, I'd encourage parents to
engage in infanticide because it would seemingly guarantee their child's entry into heaven.

Your question, of course, is akin to 'Do you still beat your w ...[text shortened]... tured by people such that they grow up to live lives conducive to heaven-entry.

Nemesio

"Lives conducive to heaven-entry"
Maybe that's your problem. According to your thinking, a person can live or do something to gain the approbation of God. This is not biblical by any stretch of the imagination.

According to you, some other solution could have been found for the children. Why the children, exactly? Why not rehabilitate all of the rest of the population? Surely an omnipotent God could do so! The arrogance required of holding the view that you do is staggering: as though somehow your lofty position of hindsight confers upon you insight otherwise overlooked by God. That is chutzpah!

Originally posted by twhitehead
All I was doing is asking for clarification from you as to what you meant by your post. It appears that you do not wish to clarify it, I guess because it would highlight how ridiculous your claims are. So you use your usual avoidance tactics of talking absolute nonsense, while appearing to be very fluent and intelligent.

What amazes me about you is you ...[text shortened]... to post far more substance than you do.

Why don't you for once, simply answer the question?

What question did I avoid that hasn't been responded to within these last few posts?

When have I ever not answered a question?