Steep:

Your argument has being thrashed immediately you said human Judge are qualified but God is a more higher Judge is not qualified ,you nailed yourself bro.

There's no thrashing anywhere. You just seem to have run out of points.
Kindly point out where I said any of that. Point out where I said your god isn't qualified.
You don't know what else to say because your sky daddy didn't give you guidelines on how to defend him and handle arguments. Now You've embarrassed yourself and You're stylishly avoiding the argument. Don't fall sky daddy's hand nw.

You opposed me saying there are contradictions in the bible by posting a Wikipedia with so many sections talking about History of the bible, Canons and lengthy articles about some sort of contradiction. You expect me to look for what you think is a contradiction.

budaatum:


I don't believe I need to tell you what you can look at and see for yourself because I trust you know how to use your eyes.

.

PastorAIO:



EZEKIEL 20:
25Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life, 26and I defiled them through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.



Yhwh confesses to giving commands that were no good, commands to sacrifice their firstborns.

typical strawman
Cutting out a Verse or two, interpreting out of context and then attack it.

Newsflash, those were not yahweh's laws, when the bible says God does something it means God allowed it to happen.
God allowed Israel to practice pagan practices because they rejected his own law.

You skipped from vs 1 to 19 why don't you quote the full verse if it doesn't expose your fraud

kingxsamz:


There's no thrashing anywhere. You just seem to have run out of points.
Kindly point out where I said any of that. Point out where I said your god isn't qualified.
You don't know what else to say because your sky daddy didn't give you guidelines on how to defend him and handle arguments. Now You've embarrassed yourself and You're stylishly avoiding the argument. Don't fall sky daddy's hand nw.

These were your words, you implied God is not qualified.

Your argument has being thrashed and refuted by this points
1. If you assume the God of the bible
Then
2 He created all life and owns them
Then He can take any life he wishes
3. He determines morality
The God of the bible abhors human sacrifice
4. He is what he says he is.

Ykingxsamz:


That's because a judge is qualified for the job. And anyone can become a judge if they follow the right precedures, even you. It's not a position you just wake up to and begin to execute.
That's like asking why elected officials have to control the affairs of a state and not just random citizens. It's a position you work towards and earn.
Did anyone grant your god the position to murder innocent children? Your question is unintelligent and a sorry piece of an excuse to exempt your god from holding the title of being a genocidal tyrant. You're only proving my point. Come up with something reasonable.
Your colleague said it's okay if rape is allowed by your god, as long as it's his law. Y'all are sick.ou don't have right to kill because you didn't create and own any life.

As usual you can't respond to any of these without creating a strawman

kingxsamz:


That's because a judge is qualified for the job. And anyone can become a judge if they follow the right precedures, even you. It's not a position you just wake up to and begin to execute.
That's like asking why elected officials have to control the affairs of a state and not just random citizens. It's a position you work towards and earn.
Did anyone grant your god the position to murder innocent children? Your question is unintelligent and a sorry piece of an excuse to exempt your god from holding the title of being a genocidal tyrant. You're only proving my point. Come up with something reasonable.
Your colleague said it's okay if rape is allowed by your god, as long as it's his law. Y'all are sick

Steep:

typical strawman
Cutting out a Verse or two, interpreting out of context and then attack it.

Newsflash, those were not yahweh's laws, when the bible says God does something it means God allowed it to happen.
God allowed Israel to practice pagan practices because they rejected his own law.

You skipped from vs 1 to 19 why don't you quote the full verse if it doesn't expose your fraud

The only fraud exposed is your claim that Yahweh didn't ask for human sacrifice. What does yhwh mean when he says "I gave them statutes..."
It doesn't mean, 'I allowed them...' It means I commanded them to.. , I gave them commands to.....

A statute is more than just allowing something to happen. It is a law that something must happen.

You talk about context, please put 'I gave them statutes' into any context you desire and interpret it to mean anything other than a direct command from ywhw. I'd be interested to see the exercise.

While you do that I will go on to further buttress my point that human sacrifice was an integral part of the worship of ywhw, which also provides perfect context for the christian belief that Jesus was the ultimate human sacrifice that would finally appease him.

The bible is full of human sacrifices and the only reason you don't see them is because your sight has been hoodwinked.

Try this from 2King 23

19And Josiah removed all the shrines also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which kings of Israel had made, provoking the LORD to anger. He did to them according to all that he had done at Bethel. 20And he sacrificed all the priests of the high places who were there, on the altars, and burned human bones on them. Then he returned to Jerusalem.


Josiah the beloved King of Ywhw who 'reinstituted' the Law is reported to be making human sacrifices (way yiz bah) to yahweh.

Many many more examples. When ywhw commands that all first fruits must be offered to him as burnt offering what does mean when he says that the human first borns could be redeemed? redeemed from what? What should happen to them if they are not redeemed?

Steep:

These were your words, you implied God is not qualified.

Your argument has being thrashed and refuted by this points
1. If you assume the God of the bible
Then
2 He created all life and owns them
Then He can take any life he wishes
3. He determines morality
The God of the bible abhors human sacrifice
4. He is what he says he is.

I'm building up to demonstrate that
1 ywhw is not the creator as told in the bible
2He did not create life neither does he own them.
3 He does not determine morality. Otherwise how come so many people find him and his actions morally repugnant
4. He is a liar. He is not what he says he is and he loves mendacity. He is even boastful about how mendacious he is.

Steep:

These were your words, you implied God is not qualified.

Your argument has being thrashed and refuted by this points
1. If you assume the God of the bible
Then
2 He created all life and owns them
Then He can take any life he wishes
3. He determines morality
The God of the bible abhors human sacrifice
4. He is what he says he is.

Ykingxsamz:


That's because a judge is qualified for the job. And anyone can become a judge if they follow the right precedures, even you. It's not a position you just wake up to and begin to execute.
That's like asking why elected officials have to control the affairs of a state and not just random citizens. It's a position you work towards and earn.
Did anyone grant your god the position to murder innocent children? Your question is unintelligent and a sorry piece of an excuse to exempt your god from holding the title of being a genocidal tyrant. You're only proving my point. Come up with something reasonable.
Your colleague said it's okay if rape is allowed by your god, as long as it's his law. Y'all are sick.ou don't have right to kill because you didn't create and own any life.

As usual you can't respond to any of these without creating a strawman

You're only repeating what I already typed. I said show me where I said your god is not qualified, or is that too hard for you?
Or is comprehension now a herculean task for you people? Point it out na.

1. If you assume the God of the bible
Then
2 He created all life and owns them
Then He can take any life he wishes
3. He determines morality
The God of the bible abhors human sacrifice
4. He is what he says he is.

If your god determines morality, that means if he decides that rape is morally right tomorrow, you'll agree?
Whether your god makes the rules or not, it doesn't change the fact that he commanded men to kill Children. Which is the contradiction we're talking about.

Steep:

when the bible says God does something it means God allowed it to happen.

This is proof that fanatics are quite dull. Extremely dull in most cases.
Here, we have a supposed adult who must have acquired a certain degree or level of education, twisting words to massage his ego, all in a bid not to convince himself he's been wrong all along. Since when does "doing something" translate to "allow something happen"?
I mean, if the bible says "God did something", it clearly means he did it. Abeg, you people never cease to amaze me.

kingxsamz:


Mr man.
You said the law "Thou shall not kill" was given to the Israelites. Please tell us which army the Christian god gave orders to kill and slaughter children.

@kobojunkie, you can avoid this question from now till next year. It'll always be here waiting for you.

PastorAIO:


The only fraud exposed is your claim that Yahweh didn't ask for human sacrifice. What does yhwh mean when he says "I gave them statutes..."
It doesn't mean, 'I allowed them...' It means I commanded them to.. , I gave them commands to.....

A statute is more than just allowing something to happen. It is a law that something must happen.

You talk about context, please put 'I gave them statutes' into any context you desire and interpret it to mean anything other than a direct command from ywhw. I'd be interested to see the exercise.

Why are you avoiding from vs 1 to19? quote them first

While you do that I will go on to further buttress my point that human sacrifice was an integral part of the worship of ywhw, which also provides perfect context for the christian belief that Jesus was the ultimate human sacrifice that would finally appease him.

Do provide the evidence where yahweh commanded the children of Israel to offer human sacrifice.

The bible is full of human sacrifices and the only reason you don't see them is because your sight has been hoodwinked.

Try this from 2King 23

19And Josiah removed all the shrines also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which kings of Israel had made, provoking the LORD to anger. He did to them according to all that he had done at Bethel. 20And he sacrifice all the priests of the high places who were there, on the altars, and burned human bones on them. Then he returned to Jerusalem.


Josiah the beloved King of Ywhw who 'reinstituted' the Law is reported to be making human sacrifices (way yiz bah) to yahweh.

@ bolded the word sacrifice was added by you.

2 Kings 23:10 And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.

23:19 And all the houses also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made to provoke the Lord to anger, Josiah took away, and did to them according to all the acts that he had done in Bethel.

23:20 And he slew all the priests of the high places that were there upon the altars, and burned men's bones upon them, and returned to Jerusalem.

These priest were all involved in human and the king killed them upon their own altar.
sacrifice vv10, secondly the high places are not places were yahweh is worshiped, the high places were places that sacrifice to pagan gods were offered.

Many many more examples. When ywhw commands that all first fruits must be offered to him as burnt offering what does mean when he says that the human first borns must be redeemed? redeemed from what? What should happen to them if they are not redeemed?

You mean this

Exodus 13:14 And it shall be when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand the LORD brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage:

13:15 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.

This was a ceremonial practice in Israel to teach their descended how the Lord God killed all the firstborn of Israel but saved Israel.
Israel is God's firstborn. To redeem is to save or to deliver.
What happens when an Israelite is not able to redeem his son, then his son will continue to be in the service of the Lord

You are only building up to demonstrate your own stupidity.
Bring them out and see them crushed before your face

PastorAIO:


I'm building up to demonstrate that
1 ywhw is not the creator as told in the bible
2He did not create life neither does he own them.
3 He does not determine mortality. Otherwise how come so many people find him and his actions morally repugnant
4. He is a liar. He is not what he says he is and he loves mendacity. He is even boastful about how mendacious he is.

kingxsamz:


You're only repeating what I already typed. I said show me where I said your god is not qualified, or is that too hard for you?
Or is comprehension now a herculean task for you people? Point it out na.



If your god determines morality, that means if he decides that rape is morally right tomorrow, you'll agree?
Whether your god makes the rules or not, it doesn't change the fact that he commanded men to kill Children. Which is the contradiction we're talking about.

you are not to be taken seriously

Steep:
you are not to be taken seriously

Can't keep up an argument?
Lmao.
The clownery will always jump out in the end.

kingxsamz:


This is proof that fanatics are quite dull. Extremely dull in most cases.
Here, we have a supposed adult who must have acquired a certain degree or level of education, twisting words to massage his ego, all in a bid not to convince himself he's been wrong all along. Since when does "doing something" translate to "allow something happen"?
I mean, if the bible says "God did something", it clearly means he did it. Abeg, you people never cease to amaze me.

See, you now departed from the argument to personal attack him since you could not find any valid rebuttal king Ad hominem!

kingxsamz:


Can't keep up an argument?
Lmao.
The clownery will always jump out in the end.

Because you left the argument and attacked his person and he is being mature about it by leaving you in your failure for the world to see.

And we do see it.

kingxsamz:
@kobojunkie, you can avoid this question from now till next year. It'll always be here waiting for you.

I already answered this question for you several times but you reject my answer and so there isn't much I can do there for you.

[quote author=Rosement post=109400324][/quote]

It's ok to acknowledge that the bible has it flaws.
Do not deny the obvious.

Instead find the reason and explanation as to why.
But denying that there are contradictions and errors makes you look religious.

Kobojunkie:
I already answered this question for you several times but you reject my answer and so there isn't much I can do there for you.

You said the law was meant for the Israelites and not for anyone else, hence, no contradiction.
So tell us which army was ordered to slaughter children in 1st Samuel 15:3.
Answer.

kingxsamz:
You said the law was meant for the Israelites and not for anyone else, hence, no contradiction.
So tell us which army was ordered to slaughter children in 1st Samuel 15:3.
Answer.

The law is pretty much similar to a National Constitution, so how you not see how even the interaction with and treatment of enemy population can be defined in it?

Kobojunkie:
The law is pretty much similar to a National Constitution, so how you not see how even the interaction with and treatment of enemy population can be defined in it?

I ask again, which army was ordered to slaughter innocent children?

kingxsamz:
I ask again, which army was ordered to slaughter innocent children?

Kobojunkie:

Be like say the question na hot dodo for your mouth. You go answer abi you no go answer?

Dtruthspeaker:


See, you now departed from the argument to personal attack him since you could not find any valid rebuttal king Ad hominem!

Oh but you failed to point that out when he did the same thing earlier without any cause for it.

Steep:
These atheists prove to be very stupid and ignorant.

Steep:
A human judge is qualified but God is not qualified? Your foolishness is really atheistic

Your hypocrisy stinks.

kingxsamz:

I ask again, which army was ordered to slaughter innocent children?

A very tough question for kobojunkie

kingxsamz:
Be like say the question na hot dodo for your mouth. You go answer abi you no go answer?

Again, the law is pretty much similar to a National Constitution, so how do you not see how even a Nations interaction with and treatment of enemy population can be defined in and by it?

The Amalakites where considered enemies of Israel, were they not?

Dtruthspeaker:


Because you left the argument and attacked his person and he is being mature about it by leaving you in your failure for the world to see.

And we do see it.

Thanks, but I needed to remind him of his dullness as he kept running away from the argument.
But here you have him, insulting me from the very beginning of the argument, but of course you won't see that one because you sef dull like the guy. Maybe na u dull pass sef. Either ways, I'm still right about fanatics being dull and you proved it.

Steep:
These atheists prove to be very stupid and ignorant.

-

Steep:
A human judge is qualified but God is not qualified? Your foolishness is really atheistic

Go and tell him the same rubbish you typed in my mention. We don't allow stinking hypocrisy here.

...

Kobojunkie:
Again, the law is pretty much similar to a National Constitution, so how do you not see how even a Nations interaction with and treatment of enemy population can be defined in and by it?

The Amalakites where considered enemies of Israel, were they not?

Why you dey change mouth na?
Op said the bible contradicts itself and I showed you all that the bible says "thou shall not kill", yet the same bible shows the Christian god asking men to "kill innocent" children.
You came up with a defence and said "thou shall not kill" was a law meant for the Israelites, therefore, there's no contradiction.

So since the law was meant for the Israelites, tell us which men were asked to slaughter those innocent kids.

kingxsamz:
Why you dey change mouth na?
Op said the bible contradicts itself and I showed you all that the bible says "thou shall not kill", yet the same bible shows the Christian god asking men to "kill innocent" children.
You came up with a defence and said "thou shall not kill" was a law meant for the Israelites, therefore, there's no contradiction.

So since the law was meant for the Israelites, tell us which men were asked to slaughter those innocent kids.

You do realize you are not making any sense here stil.

The constitution in Nigeria, does it not define murder as a crime - "thou shall not kill" ?

Does the same constitution not allow for the death penalty as punishment for crimes?

Doesn't the same constitution also not allow for the killing of those considered enemy combatants by the Nigerian army?

---

Why is this even a conversation for Pete's sake?

kingxsamz:
...

No answer yet.
I'm disappointed no one could even make an attempt to your question.

Kobojunkie:
You do realize you are not making any sense here stil.

The constitution in Nigeria, does it not define murder as a crime - "thou shall not kill" ?

Does the same constitution not allow for the death penalty as punishment for crimes?

Doesn't the same constitution also not allow for the killing of those considered enemy combatants by the Nigerian army?

---

Why is this even a conversation for Pete's sake?

Did you miss the part where I mentioned "Innocent" kids?
So kindly tell us which army was ordered to kill Innocent children still sucking their mother's breasts. Answer, mr man.