Pat Robertson Explains Divine Genocide
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2014, 12:45 PM
RE: Pat Robertson Explains Divine Genocide
Could be the dimentia talking, but I am going with retardation in this case!

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 12:52 PM
RE: Pat Robertson Explains Divine Genocide
Naaah, not the demetia -- he's been spouting this sort of shit as long as he's been around.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 02:11 PM
RE: Pat Robertson Explains Divine Genocide
Lol. The most merciful thing Almighty God could do was command his people to slaughter men, women, and children. It sounds harsh, but it's merciful. I mean, what else is Almighty God supposed to do? His hands were tied!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 03:28 PM
RE: Pat Robertson Explains Divine Genocide
Ok, this just seems like too much of a fun opportunity to play devil's advocate. So, with the disclaimer that I do not agree with anything that I am about to argue...

First of all, you have to work from the assumption here that an Almighty God exists and that God did, in fact, order the slaughter of men, women and children (the last part of which I consider to be a pretty huge assumption). You have to then follow that assumption with the Christian conception of the afterlife. Innocents go to heaven, the guilty are judged and go to hell.

Based on those assumptions, who has been done wrong by God in that scenario? The soldiers in the battle would die, but that's no different than any other war, and certainly a risk that they took when they signed up as soldiers. It is really the non-combatants than then present the moral question. Those who were sinners would go to hell, but that is the judgement that they would have gotten eventually anyways. If anything, they just lost the opportunity to repent from those sins later in life and earn a spot in heaven.

But, what about the innocents? Well, that's where the potential good comes in. The innocents, particularly the children, benefit from the slaughter. In the moment, sure they die a gruesome death, but if they are innocent then they go to heaven. Moreover, in a sinful society such as that one, if those children had the opportunity to grow up and be indoctrinated by the sinful practices of their parents, they likely would have lost their innocence and, accordingly, lost their everlasting place in heaven.

So, for the innocents, they suffer a transient negative, but gain an ever-lasting positive, which would undoubtedly outweigh the negative an untold number of times over. In the end, they end up benefiting the most.

Pat's point, however, seems to focus on future generations. If those future generations were born into that society then they likely would have ended up in hell, due to indoctrination into a sinful culture. But, those future generations instead were spared, presumably being born into less sinful cultures instead, and getting a better shot at heaven.

Like I say, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I don't believe the argument I just made, but I grew up Christian, so I have heard similar arguments put forward before, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

Flame on!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 04:01 PM
RE: Pat Robertson Explains Divine Genocide
There's an error or something. Want to just tell me what the crazy fucker is saying now?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 09:09 PM
RE: Pat Robertson Explains Divine Genocide
(04-02-2014 03:28 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Ok, this just seems like too much of a fun opportunity to play devil's advocate. So, with the disclaimer that I do not agree with anything that I am about to argue...

First of all, you have to work from the assumption here that an Almighty God exists and that God did, in fact, order the slaughter of men, women and children (the last part of which I consider to be a pretty huge assumption). You have to then follow that assumption with the Christian conception of the afterlife. Innocents go to heaven, the guilty are judged and go to hell.

Based on those assumptions, who has been done wrong by God in that scenario? The soldiers in the battle would die, but that's no different than any other war, and certainly a risk that they took when they signed up as soldiers. It is really the non-combatants than then present the moral question. Those who were sinners would go to hell, but that is the judgement that they would have gotten eventually anyways. If anything, they just lost the opportunity to repent from those sins later in life and earn a spot in heaven.

But, what about the innocents? Well, that's where the potential good comes in. The innocents, particularly the children, benefit from the slaughter. In the moment, sure they die a gruesome death, but if they are innocent then they go to heaven. Moreover, in a sinful society such as that one, if those children had the opportunity to grow up and be indoctrinated by the sinful practices of their parents, they likely would have lost their innocence and, accordingly, lost their everlasting place in heaven.

So, for the innocents, they suffer a transient negative, but gain an ever-lasting positive, which would undoubtedly outweigh the negative an untold number of times over. In the end, they end up benefiting the most.

Pat's point, however, seems to focus on future generations. If those future generations were born into that society then they likely would have ended up in hell, due to indoctrination into a sinful culture. But, those future generations instead were spared, presumably being born into less sinful cultures instead, and getting a better shot at heaven.

Like I say, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I don't believe the argument I just made, but I grew up Christian, so I have heard similar arguments put forward before, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

Flame on!

This poses some interesting questions about the concept of heaven.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 09:41 PM
RE: Pat Robertson Explains Divine Genocide
The black and white nature of the bible is one of the more obvious indicators of its being fabricated. It's amazing that in bible times there were so many societies where every individual was completely corrupted and deserved death. Like Julia Sweeney said, they were all just really really bad, bad to the bone, every last one of them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 10:17 PM
RE: Pat Robertson Explains Divine Genocide
(04-02-2014 02:11 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Lol. The most merciful thing Almighty God could do was command his people to slaughter men, women, and children. It sounds harsh, but it's merciful. I mean, what else is Almighty God supposed to do? His hands were tied!

Wait.. God casts magic using his hands and they were tied, was he about ti get beheaded? Did a dragon interrupt? (Insert skyrim reference here)

Seriously, If he was a Omnipotent god, he could just snap his fingers. Or burp or thinkj or something.

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
04-02-2014, 10:28 PM
RE: Pat Robertson Explains Divine Genocide
(04-02-2014 03:28 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  First of all, you have to work from the assumption here that an Almighty God exists and that God did, in fact, order the slaughter of men, women and children (the last part of which I consider to be a pretty huge assumption). You have to then follow that assumption with the Christian conception of the afterlife. Innocents go to heaven, the guilty are judged and go to hell.

The problem is, back when that was ordered (before Christianity), there was no notion of heaven and hell. Everyone went to Sheol. So, according to the religion that spawned the stories, the victims were all getting sent to the same place where the murderers were going to end up.

The Old Testament makes a lot more sense if you don't view it through a Christian lens, and picture YHWH as the war god of a larger pantheon that was later consolidated down to one god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 11:09 PM
RE: Pat Robertson Explains Divine Genocide
Yeah, Robertson is so creepy. I heard him on women in the military once. The guy was livid and hateful, blamed women for the moral breakdown of the military and said, women in the military get what they deserve.

He is an embarrassment: I don't know how anyone can stand his hate and ignorance.

"If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story." Orson Welles
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: