Amaleq13

To which Job should have replied:

"What the hell does that have to do with you making a bet with Satan that involved killing my family?"

BTW, if you had read the entire thread, you would know this is an example of the logical fallacy of special pleading.

Your faith is admirable though clearly misplaced.

I have to wonder if you even know what the phrase "straw men" means since you don't appear to be using it correctly here. The Bible does portray God murdering and/or requiring the murder of infants. If anyone has created a false caricature of God it can only be the authors. I believe the link Vinnie provides above will give some specifics.

Based on this post, I agree that you are not prepared to defend God's murdering of infants. Why you would feel compelled to make this inability public is a mystery.

Another example of special pleading. Appeals to logical errors are rarely a sign of a strong position.

What a ridiculously foolish question! Who on the planet is more deserving of anyone's mercy than an infant? Surely, questions like these only serve to highlight the moral bankruptcy of the position you wish defended.

winstonjen

Well then, in the bible, why does god choose to NOT commit genocide when evil once again claims the world, and instead chooses to help Abram? No mention of mass killings here.

Strange that these infants were more important than previous infants. Wouldn't it be easier to simply drown A&E before they became too old and accountable, hence preventing ANYONE from going to hell at all?

BDS

To Amaleq:

In deference to your suggestion that infantile behavior deserves mercy, I won't bother giving your post the drubbing it deserves.

Have a good day, though. And think about what the Job quote means. If you think very hard, perhaps you can figure it out.

Amaleq13

LOL! I have not nor will not suggest that "infantile behavior" deserves mercy. Neither does your persistent lack of substantive argument. You won't "bother" because you are unable to give a "drubbing" to something demonstrably true (i.e. the notion that murdering infants can be considered moral is without any rational support).

It does not require much intellectual effort to recognize it as nothing more than an example of special pleading.

Here's a very similar quote for you to chew upon:

"Ignore the man behind the curtain!" --Wizard of Oz

Keep the faith, "agnostic"!

BDS

"Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition." -- Jane Austen, Sense and Sensibility

Amaleq13

Why waste bandwidth repeatedly establishing you have no "rational opposition"? Respond to the points that have been made or let those who feel capable do so.


"Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do."
--Bertrand Russell

The Other Michael

Sniping between users is a good way to get a thread locked and/or horrible retribution handed out to said users, yea, even unto the seventh generation.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator (horribilus)

BDS

Apologies to all.

I couldn't resist the Jane Austen quote, just because I think it's funny.

As far as who is refusing to argue rationally, I refer my fair readers to Ameleq's response to my perfectly reasonable question as to why infants should deserve mercy more than anyone else.

Ameleq says, "What a ridiculously foolish question! Who on the planet is more deserving of anyone's mercy than an infant? Surely, questions like these only serve to highlight the moral bankruptcy of the position you wish defended."

Huh? Aren't you dodging the question, Ameleq? Why not simply say, "Infants deserve mercy because I say so" and be done with it?

Amaleq13

I did not offer a direct response to the question because it seemed too ridiculous to bother. There is nothing "reasonable" about your question. In fact, I cannot imagine any rational person honestly asking it.

The most fundamental problem with your question is that the use of the word "mercy" presupposes that infants have done or could do something to deserve execution. This is clearly not the case with regard to the Bible and arguably not rationally possible in general. Their only "crime", according to the Bible, is being the offspring of the enemies of Israel. Questioning whether they deserve "mercy" is entirely inappropriate because they have done nothing to warrant punishment.

Infants should not be executed because infants are incapable of any acts that might warrant such a severe punishment.

Quit while you are behind.

BDS

On the contrary, Amaleq. There are many reasons for killing people other than that they "deserve execution". Indeed, when the angel of death killed all the first-born Egyptians he had a reason for killing them, which was to persuade Pharoah to set the Jews free. You may not find it a sufficient reason, but surely you don't suggest it isn't a reason.

Infants (and those of other ages) were killed for this reason (according to the Bible story, that is). So of the First Borns who were killed by the Angel of Death, were the infants more deserving of mercy than, say, the five year olds? Neither were killed for any crime they had personally committed, were they?