"Once again, I did not say anything about the "assurity of hell."
Your words.
'They make life hell for others; they create a kind of hell inside of themselves; and then they get hell hereafter as well.'
'Do you usually determine the truth of a moral teaching based on whether the personnel of the teaching institution are sinless?'
No, but I consider the source when the institution has shown itself to be influenced by worldly considerations and currently preaches in some places a non-Biblical approach. ie liberation theology influenced by Marxism.
'First, the fact that huge numbers of people are unable to get out of a doomed city doesn't make them guilty of anything. Guilty of what? What are you thinking of?'
You don't support the contention that the people of these two cities both supported materially or by their acquiescence the activity of their govt. I do. As a result of this impasse, you shall always claim their innocence while I maintain their partial if not total complicity. They had a chance to leave, didn't, reaped the reward of a bad decision.
I'll grant you the points re God and the Israelites, I made them because you seemed to imply that total annihilation is never justified. Regarding Isaac, since God stopped Abraham, your point about child sacrifice is a little hyperbolic.
I am glad that the bombings of H/N forced the Japanese to surrender with terms favorable to the Allies. Greater good was sustained, more lived as a result of those decisions. As we have seen, many on this board might not have been born without their use compelling the surrender, and Japan may never had arisen but for the destruction they caused. I will gladly trade the children of those men who avoided death in the proposed invasion for the residents of the two cities in lockstep with their fanatical and murderous regime.
Evry word of this is true.
If any person the violates the moral law in such a grave matter, i.e. the deliberate killing of an innocent human being; and if the person is of the age of discretion, that is, of sufficient maturity to know that killing an innocent person is wrong; and if he is in control of his action (e.g. not mentally incapacitated or insane); and does this act intentionally -- then, if he does not repent, he faces hellfire.
Or he can repent, confess his sin, believe in the Good News and be saved:
"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:3-4, NIV)
Every word of this is true.
If any person the violates the moral law in such a grave matter, i.e. the deliberate killing of an innocent human being; and if the person is of the age of discretion, that is, of sufficient maturity to know that killing an innocent person is wrong; and if he is in control of his action (e.g. not mentally incapacitated or insane); and does this act intentionally -- then, if he does not repent, he faces hellfire.
Or he can repent, confess his sin, believe in the Good News and be saved:
"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:3-4, NIV)
Question: why would international law, US law, and the UCMJ all prohibit the intentional killing of civilians, if --- per your definition --- there is no such thing as an innocent civilian, since they are all (you say) in one way or another supporting the war effort?