Thanks for posting using this format; much easier to reply to now.
*sigh* I'm trying to explain you the example again. Sure, we debate when we have different view... Example: You debate to support one side and I debate to support both sides between facts and feeling. Do you understand what I am trying to say?
No, I don't understand. I don't see how you can support both sides and call that "debate."
Okay, this is your POV to support one side only than both sides. I support both sides between facts and feeling.
What do you mean you "support
both sides"? I know that you don't support the Christian viewpoint, and that's one "side."
I already said that Military accepts both fact and feeling. Of course Military are for feeling than law. You know that I work for US government and have seen a lot of soliders here everyday... they talk feeling more than fact and law when they agree or disagree to.
I don't know what you mean by "Military accepts both fact and feeling." What does "accept" mean? Do you mean the military allows feelings to have equal weight with facts in judgment making?
Maybe you see a lot of soldiers but you don't really understand military philosophy, life and experience. Military people can discuss and complain about their situation but when crunch time comes, they must obey and perform. Military people have feelings but they must put personal feelings aside while performing their duties. The military can't succeed if every member performs according to personal "feelings" and emotions. It would be a disaster. Military victories aren't won by the side that is most sensitive. Military members must be well trained, disciplined, quick to respond, and willing to put aside personal needs for the sake of others and their mission. That doesn't mean they don't have feelings; it means they put their feelings into a different perspective.
It proves already that someone blame Pharaoh for his disobeyence with no think and no feeling for innoncent firstborns who have to die.
Don't forget the not-so-innocent first-born adults.
Do you have feelings for innocent Hebrew babies killed by Pharaoh and King Herod?
I know for a long, long time about those history including Nazi time as well... I do have sympathy feeling for them. Why should I repeat to say anything against them when they already accept their knowledge that those history are true and they are killer with no complication but beleiver?
I don't recall King Herod or Pharaoh ever saying they were sorry for killing Hebrew babies. I don't recall Egypt ever apologizing for killing the Hebrew babies and enslaving the Jews. Did the Romans apologize for killing the Christians martyrs, including babies and children? Why are those killings acceptable to you?
Pharaoh had the authority to let the Hebrews leave, and save the lives of the Egyptian firstborns. But he chose to sacrifice his own people. That was his choice. God (thru Moses and Aaron) gave Pharaoh several warnings, and thru the previous plagues proved that they weren't bluffing. But Pharaoh refused to let them go.
The beleivers are very complication to accept the fact that God killed firstborns and more people. All what I see is their denial and blame others for their disobeyence to support God etc. No, we are not angry over that but *sigh* to beleivers.
No one is denying that God sometimes sends death to those who refuse His way of escape. But you also fail to see the big eternal picture.
Suppose God didn't drown the Egyptian soldiers who were pursuing the escaping Jews. The Egyptians would have killed all the Jews.
Suppose God didn't destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Their sinful influence would have grown and spread.
Suppose God didn't cleanse the earth of sinners during the Great Flood. At that time the only righteous family on earth, Noah's family, would have died out, and sin would be victorious over the whole planet.
Suppose God didn't give battle victory to the Jews against various enemy tribes. The Jews would have been wiped out.
Christians see those killings as God's protection and preservation of His chosen people, the Jews.
Yes I know, it's not just firstborns but children and adult as well.
They were firstborn children
and firstborn adults
and firstborn animals. "Firstborn" has nothing to do with age.
Where have I say "all"? I only know what I point Kill is Kill when we referred between the God and a person who did the same thing to kill the people in our debate.
"
Kill is Kill." To kill someone is to cause that person's death. There are many ways and reasons to kill a person, and they aren't all "murders", and they aren't all equivalent. You can't possibly say that a mom who kills a man who is trying to strangle her child, is doing the same thing as a man who kidnaps, rapes, tortures, and then slowly kills a young girl. They are NOT doing "the same thing."
Killing is killing but killing is
not always murder.
God never commits murder.
Some people do commit murder.
I hope this is clear.