@Uyi, are we done? Or are you going to answer my question so we can address your arguments exclusively?

toba: What? Im just seeing this. Uyi. send me a msg on Facebook Asap

I have.

Uyi Iredia:

In the dictionary, of course !

A dictionary definition that constantly evolves with human understanding? Is that the definition you seek to hold God to for OT acts? Did God approve the definition of love in your dictionary?

Secondly, since this definition constantly evolves, how about using the definition of love in the OT times and juxtaposing that against God's actions at the time?

Punishing descendants of wrongdoers for a crime they didn't commit isn't justice - it's madness, neither is killing little children and babies.

If the punishment for an offence is set by the Judge as eradication from the face of the earth, why do you not consider it justice? Or do you regard your idea of justice as greater or superior to God's?

If the answer I get is simply an exposition of how great & mighty God is_which is how God responded to Job_ I should be disappointed since one's position should not be justification for doing evil. In any case I'll read Job, infact the whole Bible again. This time critically.

Like I said, I'm not into defending via expositions - go and read Job and read the bible again as you said. I pray the Holy Spirit will teach you about God as you study.

Uyi Iredia:

In the dictionary, of course !



Punishing descendants of wrongdoers for a crime they didn't commit isn't justice - it's madness, neither is killing little children and babies. If the answer I get is simply an exposition of how great & mighty God is_which is how God responded to Job_ I should be disappointed since one's position should not be justification for doing evil. In any case I'll read Job, infact the whole Bible again. This time critically.

I would have given you a few choice verse to meditate upon but it is good to read the whole horrible collection.

frosbel: "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand." - John 10:27-28

Wimp runs to his bible for comfort.

Alfamann:

Wimp runs to his bible for comfort.

My bible is indeed my comfort, if that makes me a wimp, glad to accept.

Ihedinobi:

Ok, my brother, let's take it from the top, shall we?

You said:



The arguments in the above are:

A
1. It is loving to forgive anyone.

2. It is possible and loving to just forgive.

3. It is brutal to kill a sinless child in order to forgive anyone.

4. The Christian God killed a sinless child in order to forgive a people.

5. Therefore the Christian God is not loving.


AND


B
1. It is not loving to wipe out villages and cities.

2. It is not loving to lay harsh curses for crimes in gardens.

3. The Christian God wiped out villages and cities and laid a harsh curse for a crime in a garden.

4. Therefore the Christian God is not loving.


AND


C
1. A God of love does not indiscriminately kill or punish those who had nothing to do with the crime in the garden.

2. A God of love does not punish down to the 3rd and 4th generations of sinners.

3. The Christian God indiscriminately kills and punishes those who had nothing to do with the crime in the garden.

4. The Christian God punishes down to the 3rd and 4th generations of sinners.

5. Therefore the Christian God is not a God of love.


These are the three arguments that you made. All I have done all this time is address the premises of A and you have continued to complain that I'm not addressing your points. How am I not? If your understanding of forgiveness is wrong, then your argument A is invalid. But you don't want your understanding of the principle examined.

I misconstrued your point about the baby. I was seeing it in the light of argument B. I apologize for that. I haven't even touched on argument C.

Now, if we're going to get anywhere with this discussion, you have to allow your arguments to be examined. If you're not, we can quit this right now. If you are, then let us continue from where we stopped with forgiveness.

My question was, "does the act of forgiveness imply that the debt or offence is treated as never having happened or not?"

In fact you summary in my argument in A is wrong for I did not say though I implied that it is loving to forgive neither did I say it is loving to forgive anyone. Read the OP. So points 1 & 2 in A are false. B & C are alright. Now to cut to the chase, my answer to your question is NO. Now I need you to answer my arguments.

frosbel:

My bible is indeed my comfort, if that makes me a wimp, glad to accept.

Calling you a wimp was indeed an understatement.
Reread the verse you quoted. It is an insult. It calls you a follow follow. A sheep. With promises of imaginary eternal life. It calls you a weakling! An animal incapable of intellectual ability. And you accept. You are an insult to wimps.

Uyi Iredia:

In fact you summary in my argument in A is wrong for I did not say though I implied that it is loving to forgive neither did I say it is loving to forgive anyone. Read the OP. So points 1 & 2 in A are false. B & C are alright. Now to cut to the chase, my answer to your question is NO. Now I need you to answer my arguments.

You'll do us a favor if you paid a little bit more attention. I was not necessarily quoting your exact words, I was reorganizing your complaint into three arguments of premises and conclusions. To do that, it was necessary to pick up on meanings implicit in your words. Now, what you implied is as good as what you said. If the issue is "anyone", then consider it to read "any offender", your meaning is retained. Argument A is in complete order, there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever. But if you don't agree, just re-craft it yourself and we'll take it from there.

Your answer. If the offence is not treated as though it never happened, what exactly does forgiveness accomplish? What is the point of forgiving a debt or offence if their record is still retained?

debosky:

A dictionary definition that constantly evolves with human understanding? Is that the definition you seek to hold God to for OT acts? Did God approve the definition of love in your dictionary?

Secondly, since this definition constantly evolves, how about using the definition of love in the OT times and juxtaposing that against God's actions at the time?

The definition of love has been constant as far as I know, what has changed is the word itself. Your question on God approving of the definition of love is silly. It is patently obvious He has given no disapproval, that can be taken as tacit permit.

debosky:
If the punishment for an offence is set by the Judge as eradication from the face of the earth, why do you not consider it justice? Or do you regard your idea of justice as greater or superior to God's?

It is evident to any reasonable person that punishment should be to the criminal and should fit the crime committed. With God, punishinhg the wrongdoer isn't enough the INNOCENT descendants are also punished. And the punishment is extremely harsh for the crime. Eg killing aman for putting out his hand to stabilize the ark, or cursing all humanity for the sin in the garden. If a human judge were like God, you and I would probably be in bars or long executed.

debosky:
Like I said, I'm not into defending via expositions - go and read Job and read the bible again as you said. I pray the Holy Spirit will teach you about God as you study.

You wouldn't, since. You would fail woefully at it given what you've written here. Your reply here could be summarized as: God is bigger than you so you can't ssay He isn't loving along with a polite dismissal to read Job - as if I haven't read it. So I must listen to proclamations of how powerful God is why simple questions I have for God are unanswered.

Alfamann:

Calling you a wimp was indeed an understatement.
Reread the verse you quoted. It is an insult. It calls you a follow follow. A sheep. With promises of imaginary eternal life. It calls you a weakling! An animal incapable of intellectual ability. And you accept. You are an insult to wimps.

You know, at some point, you should just go and disprove my God already. I'm getting tired of peeking in at that silly thread of yours every other minute.

Ihedinobi:

You'll do us a favor if you paid a little bit more attention. I was not necessarily quoting your exact words, I was reorganizing your complaint into three arguments of premises and conclusions. To do that, it was necessary to pick up on meanings implicit in your words. Now, what you implied is as good as what you said. If the issue is "anyone", then consider it to read "any offender", your meaning is retained. Argument A is in complete order, there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever. But if you don't agree, just re-craft it yourself and we'll take it from there.

Your answer. If the offence is not treated as though it never happened, what exactly does forgiveness accomplish? What is the point of forgiving a debt or offence if their record is still retained?

Let's work with B & C. As for A leave out points 1 & 2. Now the record is retained because the offence is done. One can't forget it. The point of forgiveness is to hold no grudge concerning the offence and to, as much as possible traet the offender fairly. If forgiveness involved forgetting the offence even God is unforgiving because in punishing the Israelites he sometimes recalled the wrongs of the past.

Uyi Iredia:

Let's work with B & C. As for A leave out points 1 & 2. Now the record is retained because the offence is done. One can't forget it. The point of forgiveness is to hold no grudge concerning the offence and to, as much as possible traet the offender fairly. If forgiveness involved forgetting the offence even God is unforgiving because in punishing the Israelites he sometimes recalled the wrongs of the past.

Without points 1 and 2, the premises for your argument in A are not sufficient. So, we may forget the question of forgiveness altogether. You cool with that? 'Cos it would mean that you don't have any argument against God's love based on forgiveness.

Edited.

Ihedinobi:

Without points 1 and 2, the premises for your argument in A are not sufficient. So, we may forget the question of forgiveness altogether. You cool with that? 'Cos it would mean that you don't have any argument against God's love based on forgiveness.

Edited.

Actually, they will be ssufficient but for the sake of not stretching the issue I accept it. Now let's move on.

Times do change, observe this thread...

https://www.nairaland.com/1096429/hell-believers-going-2-b

The op reads...

Logicboy03:
I dont believe in god and I wholeheartedly reject Jesus.

So, according to christian theology, I am going to hell. The question now becomes; Are you christians going to be watching us roast in hell while you are in paradise?

If there is only joy in heaven, would you be rejoicing while we are burning? Sounds like sadism to me.

Eventually,

Logicboy03:

Sadism. sad

Yet you guys claim to love. Sick christians

To which, this reply:

https://www.nairaland.com/1096429/hell-believers-going-2-b/2#12983409

uyi:
Love doesn't deny the truth whixh is exactly what atheists do. Love demands justice which is exactly what atheists get for going to hell. I will laugh at atheists in hell. They deserve what they get.

And then later on...

cyrexx:
I just got this facebook post from a friend and i feel like sharing it..

"God fathered himself by impregnating a virgin without her consent to sacrifice himself to himself to save his creations from his wrath, so they can live forever praising him in heaven and watch unbelievers suffer pain forever. He saved them by telling them to symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood and telepathically tell him they accept him as their Lord and Saviour, which was necessary because he needed to remove an evil force in their souls that was present in humanity because a rib-woman, made from a dust-man, was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree, which gave her the ability to know right from wrong, and this could have all been prevented if he would have protected the magical tree with a flying, flaming sword and cherubim with each having four faces, four wings and hooved feet.

Makes perfect sense"

And the response

https://www.nairaland.com/1096429/hell-believers-going-2-b/2#12983416

uyi:
The person who wrote this is a dunce who can't read. God got consent from Mary before impregnating her.

I did say about that post later on,

wiegraf:
The one about laughing at us from hell was good, but this even better. Especially when taken in context. Long shall it be remembered

And I still do. Good times.

Well, at least it seems you've always been worried about whether Mary was r.aped or not, personally I think that's awesome.

Ok, I'll leave now

Uyi Iredia:

Actually, they will be ssufficient but for the sake of not stretching the issue I accept it. Now let's move on.

Right, whatever. B goes:

1. It is not loving to wipe out villages and cities.

2. It is not loving to lay harsh curses for crimes in gardens.

3. The Christian God wiped out villages and cities and laid a harsh curse for a crime in a garden.

4. Therefore the Christian God is not loving.

Ok, with respect to wiping out villages and cities as depicted in the OT, I ask, is it possible that a Creator Who possesses all knowledge and has given man free will should act in ways inscrutable to man without in order to both accommodate man's free will and further His Purpose for creation at the same time?

Had a great rest.. Seems someone's still dancing to his own tune...

Oh well... Was expected anyways... They ignore direct questions like the federal government..

Ihedinobi:

Right, whatever. B goes:



Ok, with respect to wiping out villages and cities as depicted in the OT, I ask, is it possible that a Creator Who possesses all knowledge and has given man free will should act in ways inscrutable to man without in order to both accommodate man's free will and further His Purpose for creation at the same time?

No. Because we are endowed with intellect which enables us to scrutinize whatever God does. In any case, I suspect you are going about this the way I would have: by asserting that God ressevess the right to do what He pleases. Could you please answer this with a yes or no: Are the massacres sanctioned by God in the OT loving ?

he that will believe let him believe and he that will not... to each his own.

davidylan: he that will believe let him believe and he that will not... to each his own.

lol....commot for road jo!

wiegraf: What is this what is happening here I don't even...

That said, this should be more a personal thing, opening a thread seems a bit...excessive.

Good lucking figuring out your path @uyi

A bit excessive?

smh.

debosky:





Excuse? Hardly - the fact is that God is not only a God of Love, he is also a God of Justice, as well as being Sovereign. You need to discover the Sovereign nature of God in order to understand his actions. Like I said, God is not silent - if you seek him he will give you the answers you need, but maybe not the answers you want.

Unlike some, I am not in the business of 'defending' God on issues such as these - seek him for yourself. Job did in his time of disillusionment and received the answers he needed. I suggest you dust up your bible and study God's responses to Job - you may just find the answers you need therein.

Same thing i told him. Seek your answers directly from the accused- God.

alexleo:

Same thing i told him. Seek your answers directly from the accused- God.

Yes because god talks back to you


madness

Ihedinobi:

Right, whatever. B goes:



Ok, with respect to wiping out villages and cities as depicted in the OT, I ask, is it possible that a Creator Who possesses all knowledge and has given man free will should act in ways inscrutable to man without in order to both accommodate man's free will and further His Purpose for creation at the same time?

It baffles me when I see some of you Christians struggling to defend God. As if he cannot defend himself. Quit from this foolish act. If Uyi could devote time to search out and read the book that made him begin to question God why cant he also devote time and follow the due process and get his answers from God? You are just wasting time here with him. BE WISE Mr "holy spirit" and allow the Holy Spirit to do his job of guiding him into all truth.

Logicboy03:

Yes because god talks back to you


madness

A mad man replies a post not directed to him. What a mad dog you represent. Am not here for mad dogs like you, am here for Uyi. Cant you understand simple English? At least InesQor has been making frantic effort to heal you of your madness to no avail. Depart from me nairaland toddler.

Lol @ Mr 'holyspirit'... Lmao...

Thread's about to go south..

Logicboy03:

A bit excessive?

smh.

Hmmm? Yes, it would have been so if he did care (with you culpable) but he doesn't seem to mind and is even asking for answers himself. Cool, no harm done here but with others this could have come off as intrusive and needless. It's a deeply private issue, unless there was something obvious on the other thread (which I've not read tbf) how did you know he was willing to properly discuss this in public? Or are you just using him to advance your agenda, whatever that may be?

@InesQ: As I promised...

InesQor:
Imagine I had a large poultry farm and I'm developing a special breed of layers in a section. So promising that the yield from those few premium layers far surpasses that of the rest of the lot in thousands.
Now, an enemy of progress introduces a deadly virus strain into my poultry farm and the contamination is rapid, they are dying off in all directions. What is my best bet?

Quarantine. That's my best bet

This analogy fails, in my opinion, as it fails to highlight the omniscience of God. I assume you're referencing the Christian God. As a human, you would quarantine because that's the limit of your power. What if you could reset? Start all over from the beginning (an oxymoron considering that God is the Beginning and end)? Would you still quarantine, considering the harm and evil that could arise from that decision?

Uyi Iredia:

No. Because we are endowed with intellect which enables us to scrutinize whatever God does. In any case, I suspect you are going about this the way I would have: by asserting that God ressevess the right to do what He pleases. Could you please answer this with a yes or no: Are the massacres sanctioned by God in the OT loving ?

In other words, you hold that if God exists, we would be on the same intellectual level as Him?

Uyi, I've told you enough times, you're free to believe what you will. I am not obliged, however, to sign off on it. I am pursuing my own defence not yours. Therefore, I am free to do as I please with it within the reasonable limits of argument. As for your question, how can I give you a yes/no answer when I don't believe as you do that the incidents in question were massacres. Please stop skipping around and being so irritable, allow me to make the answer you demanded of me. If this is how you treat my response, how differently must you have treated the Lord's? Do you think that you have the God-like intelligence to have asked only the right questions?

Ihedinobi:
....As for your question, how can I give you a yes/no answer when I don't believe as you do that the incidents in question were massacres

Ihedinobi:

In other words, you hold that if God exists, we would be on the same intellectual level as Him?

Uyi, I've told you enough times, you're free to believe what you will. I am not obliged, however, to sign off on it. I am pursuing my own defence not yours. Therefore, I am free to do as I please with it within the reasonable limits of argument. As for your question, how can I give you a yes/no answer when I don't believe as you do that the incidents in question were massacres. Please stop skipping around and being so irritable, allow me to make the answer you demanded of me. If this is how you treat my response, how differently must you have treated the Lord's? Do you think that you have the God-like intelligence to have asked only the right questions?

You will soon turn atheist. You are just looking for the nudge in the right direction. The seeds of doubt are already in your mind but indoctrination is holding you back. That is why you are so desperate for me to give you proof so you can hold onto something when you declare your atheism.
Even your "friend" alexleo is sensing it. That is why he is admonishing you and asking you to stop speaking to us.
"if god exists"? hahahaha