Four questions for Christians

[Consilius]

"They did it first" is the much of way the legal system works today and exactly the way it did in 2000 B.C.

No one cares, I certainly don't. Whether or not something works a given way doesn't have anything to say with regards to whether or not it;s right. Here again you attempt to paint the character in the narrative as "no worse than".

Attacking soldiers are killed in battle because "they attacked first".

Not always, but who cares?

Murderers are killed because "they murdered first".

Not always, but who cares?

The "tu quoque" defense would only apply to this case if the Israelites had killed the Egyptian children themselves. The judgement was carried out by a judge.
Death is only a punishment on anyone if they are attached to the world around them. This being a biblical event, death for the innocent is the passing on into a better life. It is only a punishment to the people who have to live with the fact that they are dead.

TQ is not a defense...it's the name of a logical fallacy. If you form an argument around it, your'e communicating and arguing incoherently. End of. It doesn't matter whether or not the judgement was carried out "by a judge". Being a judge does not make you right, it simply makes you a judge. If simply being a judge excused any given judge for some decision then police officers would be incapable of breaking the law - along the same lines, because, you know..they're cops..and judges would be incapable of making bad decisions..because..you know, they're judges.....



It doesn't matter what sort of life people "pass into" or how many lollipops are handed out, the event and responsibility for that event is not changed. "I killed a bunch of kids but I made them totally happy in the hereafter"- that doesn't matter. That you even have to imagine it to reconcile the narrative tells me that you understand perfectly well why the narrative is soup sandwich to begin with. Why is the "god" character handing out lollipops again? What is it he's making up for?

Uh-huh.



@Frodo. My bastardization? I'm the one telling people that they might want to discard the narrative as obvious fiction. I'm criticizing your fellow christians demands of the narrative...so, as usual, bullshit.

It depends on your attitude towards death. From a theistic viewpoint, God kills people every day. I believe that deaths serve a purpose to the living.
There is an aspect of death that makes killing itself a crime. It is…?

[The Grand Nudger]

It depends on your attitude towards death. From a theistic viewpoint, God kills people every day. I believe that deaths serve a purpose to the living.
There is an aspect of death that makes killing itself a crime. It is…?

No..it does not. Culpability for ones own actions does not depend on ones attitude towards their consequences. Again, no matter how many lollipops are given out, or how necessary it is that people die to make lollipops, they are still dead. It does not matter if we wish to consider killing a crime. We can say that both parties in the story involved just went around offing folks and it's completely amoral - we'll still be left with two parties running around offing folks (that's less than satisfying, isn't it , and it doesn't leave much room for one to babble on about the goodness and moral authority of their favorite spirit). You're flirting with an ends and means now....and that;s not going to go over any better. Regardless of what purpose we might imagine the act to have served, -the act itself- will either stand or fall on it's own. We could say, for example, that a shitty thing was done in service to a noble goal (I'd disagree, but it wouldn't matter...and it's equally as unsatisfying as the last example if you want to go from there to the goodness or moral authority of said favorite spirit).

The reason that this particular argument does not work does not hinge upon either of our opinions or attitudes towards death. It doesn't work because it forms a statement who's conclusion cannot be garaunteed to be accurate -even if- the assertions are true (even if they are sound). That's what it means for something to be logically invalid. It is a categorical, and all-encompassing failure to form a coherent position. No amount of shuffling around, adding, or subtracting ancillary assertions will change the fallacious nature of the argument. Understand? No matter what you imagine for the particulars of the situation, so long as you appeal to hypocrisy -it does not work-.

[fr0d0]

So by that reasoning Rhythm, there would never ever be mitigating circumstances for taking life.

But only because you refuse to address the subject of this discussion.

[The Grand Nudger]

So by that reasoning Rhythm, there would never ever be mitigating circumstances for taking life.

But only because you refuse to address the subject of this discussion.

So what if there weren't? A mitigating circumstance provides a reason that you might do something, but it doesn't provide any justification for why you were -right- in doing something.....sigh. How many times are you going to make bullshit claims about what I do or don't do? Will I ever end up getting some acknowledgement about the last bit of bullshit or are you hoping to bullshit your way out of it?

While I'm at it "by that reasoning" lets be clear...is by the reasoning of refusing to acknowledge the validity of fallacious arguments.

[fr0d0]

A fallacious argument of your own invention, granted.

What you do is plainly obvious. Or are you saying that you do consider God?

Now we have the misdirected ad Homs out of the way...

So if there we're mitigating circumstances.... you stuck your knife into a bag and you didn't know you'd stuck the hick sleeping under it killing him.

So you're saying that you're guilty of murder because you took a life. We must assume your intention was immoral right?

[The Grand Nudger]

A fallacious argument of your own invention, granted.

I'm not the one peddling the exodus tale Frodo, bullshit.

What you do is plainly obvious. Or are you saying that you do consider God?

I'm starting to think that I consider god and gods more often and more competently than those who believe in them...yes, and it's disappointing the shit out of me.....

So if there we're mitigating circumstances.... you stuck your knife into a bag and you didn't know you'd stuck the hick sleeping under it killing him.

So you're saying that you're guilty of murder because you took a life. We must assume your intention was immoral right?

No, but if you want to bring that pile of straw a little closer I have a box of matches. I'm responsible for killing the man - simply because..in your example, I killed the man. If I offer an incoherent justification for this act it will not matter whether you would call me a murderer -or if i was a murderer- the justification offered is incoherent in either case. If my intentions, whatever they were, are moral, amoral, or immoral - this will not modify the incoherent nature of my justification.

Anything there unclear to you?

[Ryantology]

Your obfuscation knows no limits Ryan. Answer the justification for your claim or we shall all know to ignore it for the nonsense that it is.

Oh, I'm perfectly willing to accept that you're right about everything, once you show it all to be the certain truth you believe it to be. Until then, your claims are in no way discernible from fiction or nonsense, which is how most people view claims from people who lack the willingness or capacity to demonstrate otherwise.

Even some tiny scrap of evidence would be nice. We can do this using baby steps.

[fr0d0]

You two idiots make a good double act.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well that's all well and good (happy to entertain, I guess?), but was there anything in my post that was unclear to you?

[Ryantology]

You two idiots make a good double act.

If my viewpoint makes me an idiot, perhaps you can explain to us precisely why we should consider your viewpoint to be anything besides fantasy or nonsense? Educate us.

Many of your responses have been nothing except ad hominem attacks lately. Makes me think you don't have a position you can actually defend.