Logicboy03: Inesqr is a pseudo-intellectual.

Twisting here and there, throwing illogical arguments eg slaves in the bible are not "real slaves"....no problem of freewill with omnipotence in his worldview etc.

Pseudo-intellectual? That's not even as bad as you make it sound. It is better than being a non-intellectual.

Unfortunately for you and your friends, I have a business to run. Toodles, à tout à l'heure

mazaje:

Just imagine, according to the bible this is god speaking here. . .

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. Exodus 21:2-6

It talks about belonging to a master freedom. . .How can he compare this to nannies and footballers?. . .

lol.......Inseqr has nothing to argue here. He was being overconfident after being praised for some of his posts.


A slave is a slave. Slavery was worse in the bible. Imagine being a slave to a barbarian Jew that killed children if they disobeyed their parents or thought it sensible to stone people who didnt observe the Sabbath

ifeness: [size=15pt] Give it up mate! There is no god anywhere.... Stop acting stupid! You have been brainwashed! [/size]

mazaje:

I have been following your hogwash reply here with lots of amazement, you evenh deny basic facts to further your belief in mythical stories written by ancient savages. . .

I don't believe that it is courtesy that's preventing you from stating exactly what facts I denied.

Taken literally, there is nothing in the OT myth that can be described as approaching 'love'. The old testament is a racist diatribe glorifying the imagined trials and tribulations, as well as genocidal rampage of a single group of human beings. The only justification it offers for itself is that this group of human beings are somehow more 'significant' than any other group of human beings by some divine authority they alone cooked up.

And all this is not your invention how?

Now, ignoring that virtually none of it actually occurred as described as it relates to actual and real history , even if we gave it the benefit of the doubt it would still be a violent and racist series of 'stories'. So what exactly is supposed to be love as uyi has been asking you since?

I don't see how your describing the OT as a "violent and racist series of stories" makes it so.

Funny that you say that Uyi has been asking me what love is supposed to be considering that what he has been saying is only that the Christian God is not loving. Perhaps it really is you who want the answer to that question. Is it?

Notice that you don't really offer any true explanation as to how it is love or exactly what is love to uyi, you instead just reduce your answer to a single pleaded statement,"god is a loving god." and you expect uyi to accept it with out showing how.

For someone who claims to have been following my "hogwash", it's rather curious that you say I reduce my answer to "god is a loving god". Because I most certainly have so far said nothing like that. My comments have been focused on the validity of Uyi's arguments. In effect, I have been consistently saying that the assumptions that led him up to saying that God is not a loving God are worth examining. If they prove to be false, the arguments built upon them become questionable.

Has all you have written down tell us how any of the OT show any bigger picture? No.

And this is relevant how?

Does it tell us why?No

Why what?

Does it even reasonably offer any explanatory information whatsoever beyond the self reinforcing platitude? No.

Well, I have been doing what Uyi's post demanded: an examination as to the truth of the claim that Yahweh is not a loving God. The self-reinforcing platitude you're on about is news to me. I'm not even sure you're really referring to my activities with respect to this discussion with Uyi.

What exactly are you on about?. . .

The exact same question I have for you.

Ihedinobi:

I don't believe that it is courtesy that's preventing you from stating exactly what facts I denied.



And all this is not your invention how?



I don't see how your describing the OT as a "violent and racist series of stories" makes it so.

Funny that you say that Uyi has been asking me what love is supposed to be considering that what he has been saying is only that the Christian God is not loving. Perhaps it really is you who want the answer to that question. Is it?



For someone who claims to have been following my "hogwash", it's rather curious that you say I reduce my answer to "god is a loving god". Because I most certainly have so far said nothing like that. My comments have been focused on the validity of Uyi's arguments. In effect, I have been consistently saying that the assumptions that led him up to saying that God is not a loving God are worth examining. If they prove to be false, the arguments built upon them become questionable.



And this is relevant how?



Why what?



Well, I have been doing what Uyi's post demanded: an examination as to the truth of the claim that Yahweh is not a loving God. The self-reinforcing platitude you're on about is news to me. I'm not even sure you're really referring to my activities with respect to this discussion with Uyi.



The exact same question I have for you.

[size=18pt]
Gaddemit! Stop your Anonyism for once and explain how your old testament God is lovinhg~[/size]

Deja vu...

Logicboy03:


[size=18pt]
Gaddemit! Stop your Anonyism for once and explain how your old testament God is lovinhg~[/size]

[size=40pt]WHY?!![/size]

Atheists in the house, let's look this up.
www.nairaland.com/1219531/understanding-atheism/2#14776622

Ihedinobi:

[size=40pt]WHY?!![/size]

Do tell, wth have you been trying to do? Good thing I don't bother with your posts anymore, that would have been a waste of precious time.

@Uyi, I will not be available on nairaland this coming week. But I'll take on what answers you have for me at the coming weekend, God willing.

However, allow me to point one very crucial thing out in matters of this sort. To call God on the carpet is tremendous arrogance, but it does not mean that He won't answer. He will, He always does. But, when you play plaintiff, witness, judge, jury and executioner and even the accused all at the same time, what chance do you give God to make any kind of answer? There is a reason that we humans respect jurisdiction and talk of the rights of the accused. We respect jurisdiction because for each different catchment area, the peculiarities of conditions there require different applications of the law for justice to be achieved. We respect the rights of the accused because justice demands that even the accused caught in the act be given a fair hearing, who knows but that there's a perspective that the accuser is unaware of which had he known he would have recognized that no crime had been committed at all.

If God will be docked, He must be docked in the appropriate court under the appropriate jurisdiction and authority. If He is accused, He must be given liberty to render a defence for Himself and He must be allowed the right to repulse every attempt by His accuser(s) to misconstrue His answer or defence. These are basic.

In the charges you have leveled against Him, as I have said before, you have made assumptions. There is nothing wrong with making assumptions, but there is everything wrong with attempting to convict a person on the wrong assumptions. This is always why the defence is allowed to cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecutor and to examine the case of the prosecution. God Himself exercised this right countless times down the millenia that man has foolishly held Him accountable for all kinds of wrong. Many times, to answer man's questions, He asks a few of His Own. Anybody is free to accuse Him of dodging when He does so, but their freedom to do so does not make them right.

He answers questions with questions essentially to tell the questioner that they have the wrong idea of things. Debosky referred you to the story of Job, that story and Jesus's habit of answering the questions of the "wise men" of His day with questions and puzzles will tell you that God knows that the best way to answer us is to force us with His Own questions to see the true state and meaning of our questions. A refusal to see this is why many so-called wise men in Jesus's day, before and after, have been blind to the Truth.

The only man who can truly and rightly judge God is the man who is willing to be judged by Him as well.

Till next weekend then if, of course, you're minded to continue this "inquiry" of yours and I am able to carry on.

wiegraf:

Do tell, wth have you been trying to do? Good thing I don't bother with your posts anymore, that would have been a waste of precious time.

Uh, why did you bother with that post, wiegraf?

Ihedinobi:
If God will be docked, He must be docked in the appropriate court under the appropriate jurisdiction and authority. If He is accused, He must be given liberty to render a defence for Himself and He must be allowed the right to repulse every attempt by His accuser(s) to misconstrue His answer or defence. These are basic.

He has being declared wanted by the Intergalactic Cosmic Court of Gods(ICCG), and General Devil and his troop of demons have been deployed to chase him down like US forces did Saddam.
He is accused of genocide, racism, infanticide, manslaughter, 1st degree murder, 2nd degree assault, aggravated r@pe, statutory r@pe and for being a nuisance to all the other gods and besmirching their names.
But so far, just like christians and jews couldn't tell you his whereabouts, General Devil has been confused about his whereabouts too and the powers that be are getting impatient.
The GREAT LEPRECHAUN has told me that ihedinobi's god is hiding out in the somewhere in the Anromeda galaxy and he has created a race of humans who frolick naked in a garden and he just blends in with them.

lol, happy New year.. Heard you had to take care of some rover we humanoids sent to your planet.


Back to earth..

For the evil non-Yahwehists and everyone else who is tired of watching Ihedinobi attempt to break the diving, hurdles, pole vault and long jump records all at once..
https://www.nairaland.com/990487/morality-possible-without-authoritative-source/13#11527943

Martian:

He has being declared wanted by the Intergalactic Cosmic Court of Gods(ICCG), and General Devil and his troop of demons have been deployed to chase him down like US forces did Saddam.
He is accused of genocide, racism, infanticide, manslaughter, 1st degree murder, 2nd degree assault, aggravated r@pe, statutory r@pe and for being a nuisance to all the other gods and besmirching their names.
But so far, just like christians and jews couldn't tell you his whereabouts, General Devil has been confused about his whereabouts too and the powers that be are getting impatient.
The GREAT LEPRECHAUN has told me that ihedinobi's god is hiding out in the somewhere in the Anromeda galaxy and he has created a race of humans who frolick naked in a garden and he just blends in with them.

Lol. You must have been deep undercover in the Andromeda for us to not have heard from you in so long, Martian. Hope you're transmitting safe, man, I mean, with all that stuff Yahweh's wantes for, you can't afford to blow your cover. Or you're out?

Religion: Morality defined by the God who wins.

Ihedinobi: Um, @maclatunji, are you perchance saying that it is ok to stir up Muslim sentiment against the rest of the world but not ok for anyone to call the doer of such a thing on his wrongs? I haven't seen even a little bit of sympathy displayed by you for the victims mentioned by tiarabubu, rather it does seem as if you want to wish them away and make them of no consequence. Why exactly is that?

https://www.nairaland.com/1221369/srebrenica-massacre#14721560

musKeeto: lol, happy New year.. Heard you had to take care of some rover we humanoids sent to your planet.


Back to earth..

For the evil non-Yahwehists and everyone else who is tired of watching Ihedinobi attempt to break the diving, hurdles, pole vault and long jump records all at once.
https://www.nairaland.com/990487/morality-possible-without-authoritative-source/13#11527943

musKeeto: Religion: Morality defined by the God who wins.



https://www.nairaland.com/1221369/srebrenica-massacre#14721560

Are you my new cheerleader?

*yawns*

Still waiting a justification.

Ihedinobi:

Uh, why did you bother with that post, wiegraf?

[size=40pt]IT WAS SHORT AND WRITTEN IN BIG RED BOLD LETTERS...LIKE THIS[/size]

Or you didn't notice that?

musKeeto: Religion: Morality defined by the God who wins.



https://www.nairaland.com/1221369/srebrenica-massacre#14721560

That thread is just. Its all been said before, again and again. Just... Jus...

wiegraf:

That thread is just. Its all been said before, again and again. Just... Jus...

brah, I taya..

From that thread

Purist:
You desperately tried to fit in your own God as a moral authority, while stifling other Gods out on the very same basis that your own God disqualifies, and you have the gumption to claim that people are deliberately trying to misunderstand you. Your friend, Ihedinobi, is also a very dishonest debater: playing dumb when called out and outrightly attempting to deny things that are so obvious (just see his last response to Kay17: who does not know what Sabbath means? or that adultery was a crime punishable by stoning?). Honestly, you two are the first set of "Christians" I would see that would deny the DRASTIC change in nature of Yahweh between the OT and the NT. I know the feeling: defend your god at all cost, even if it means lying through your teeth. Been there, done that.

Meanwhile, I feel you should also realize that your god fails to meet your own criteria #5 as seen in Rom 9:10-16 (his own admission in verse 13 especially).

Ultimately, it's up to Uyi to find his own path. Asking fellow Xtians might well....

Ihedinobi:

My friend, let me explain something to you one last time, ok. I am not obliged by anything to give you any answer, neither is my Father. If you want our answer, you have to let us give it. You have not only asked the wrong questions, you have also given yourself the wrong answers and we cannot sign off on all that for you.

To show you our answers, we must deconstruct your arguments and expose their error, we must show you what the right questions are and then show you how to ask them and identify their answers. If none of this appeals to you, you shouldn't waste your time with either me or my Father. And you should stop fooling yourself with the lie that you want answers, you should just come to terms with the fact that you want God and His Family to sign off on your error so that you can perpetuate it and with the fact that we won't.

I won't say any of the above again. I've said it all enough already. If you want answers from someone other than yourself, don't insist on giving them yourself.

Apart from the obvious irresponsibility in the statement that you and God aren't obliged to give answers (which isn't given the fact that you have to fulfill the RESPONSIBILITY of a Christian brother and God as the source and sustainer of the Christian not to talk of the onus on a 'loving' Father). I find your statement that you ask the 'right' questions condescending. It shows a CLEAR unwillingness to tackle my points prima facie. Of course, your shenanigans will be well remembered by me.

---

Ihedinobi:
Now, you said that we can scrutinize what God does. That presupposes an intellect that can judge God's actions. And if it presupposes that, you cannot go on to say that we are not on an intellectual level with God unless you mean He is on a lower level than us. But I don't think you mean either because of the phrase, "God-given intellect", in an earlier post on this thread. That phrase implied that the intellect we are scrutinizing God's actions by is dependent on God for existence and thus operation.

If this is so, then God is His Own Judge and can only ever be rightly judged by Himself not us. If we ever judge Him, our intellect can only do so rightly by appealing to His Conception of the issue in question. Therefore, it is not the right approach to declare God guilty of lack of love because He ordered the extermination of whole nations of people for sin when the same God has said of Himself that He is Love. At least, that approach is impossible to an intellect that considers itself God-given, such an intellect would rather ask, "why would God Who has said that He is Love order an entire nation of men, women, children, unborn babies and old people destroyed? How exactly does Love do that? I don't understand."

That latter approach is born of humility, it says to God, "I agree that only You can explain You and I want to understand You, teach me Who You are and what Love really means for it is clear that I do not know." It is also born of Faith because it counts first on a God Who cares enough to answer a question that He, being God, has no obligation to answer and second on a God Whose answers are always true and thus are to be believed and accepted.

Not quite, that our intellect derives from God doesn't exclude Him from our application to it. Even you partially violate this principle: you say my intellect isn't at par to scrutinize God on His actions and YET I can APPLY MY INTELLECT by asking God why He took certain actions. That is not to speak of the apparent inanity of saying that I'm guilty of saying God is not loving (given certain precedents) simply because God said so. Now I would like to know how whole families and towns being wiped out by God can be reconciled with the concept of God as loving.

Ihedinobi:
God would not answer that He did no such thing as the OT recorded, rather He'd show you the fuller picture that helps you understand how even these "massacres" are actions taken by and sanctioned by Love.

To judge God guilty of a lack of love is to suppose that you know what love is and to do so in the face of God's Own declaration that He is Love is to call God to the dock on an authority that is not Him. In other words, your argument is not upheld on the authority of a God-given intellect. If it is not, what authority is great enough for you to appeal to to arraign the Christian God Who also considers Himself the Most High or the Highest Possible Authority for actions irreconcilable to Love? Simply put, by what authority have you judged God's actions in the OT incompatible with Love and thus called Yahweh a liar?

And indeed, what love is, and implies is generally understood. You can check a dictionary if it is unclear to you. And I need not appeal to any authority other than my intellect. Killing especially by a God who commands against killing isn't loving. I would like to understand what fuller picture it is God would show me.

wiegraf:

[size=40pt]IT WAS SHORT AND WRITTEN IN BIG RED BOLD LETTERS...LIKE THIS[/size]

Or you didn't notice that?

So you feel obliged to answer everything that is short and written in big, bold, red letters.

Ihedinobi:

This argument turns on the meaning of forgiveness and who the "innocent" child God "killed" is. If your concept of forgiveness is wrong, @Uyi, and your appreciation of the Christ's mission is also wrong, then this argument is false. I ask you questions in order to draw out clearly what you understand the founding assumptions of your arguments are and to see whether or not they are correct and valid assumptions. This is why I asked you about the meaning of forgiveness.

You hold that forgiveness does not imply an expunging of the wrong done. And I asked you what then forgiveness accomplishes. The reason for that further question is to get a clearer picture of how you think forgiveness functions. Forgiveness must necessarily accomplish something for it to be such a major and universal issue in resolving conflicts. So, what do you think forgiveness really does to effectively end a conflict?

Forgiveness ceases to hold a grudge for the offence committed and witholds due punishment.

---

Ihedinobi:
My preceding post has answered to some of this. I'll integrate your response to that post with the sequel to this one in my next response.

As for crimes in gardens and what follows, this universe was created to run on cause and effect. If it is possible for effects to occur without causes or for causes to produce no effects when they have operated, it is really quite inconceivable to us. This is why the origin of God is impossible for man to comprehend.

In the Garden of Eden, God instructed man to refrain from a particular tree in the middle of the Garden. He told him that if he didn't he would die. Man failed to obey because of a conviction that God had lied to him. God responded to his disobedience with...what? Curses? Yes, but in what sense, really? Because, consider that man had effectively chosen to find his own way and make his own destiny without reference to God.

What is the natural result of refusing to live upon God's providence? Now, whether or not the events of Genesis 1-3 were literal renderings of actual historical events, they were very much indeed symbolic, by which I mean that they held deeper meaning than the surface occurences. Man's eating from the tree under the conviction that God had lied to him was a deliberate choice to support and sustain himself independent of a God he was convinced that could not be trusted. That is not so different from God's curse that he would have to sweat and toil and labor against an unyielding God to feed, or rather sustain himself and perpetuate his existence. Consider that if God exists, then He is the source of all things. If man decides that he cannot trust God to sustain him, he would automatically look for his sustenance everywhere but in God. Outside of God, there is nothing but a frustrating search, therefore man would lead a frustrated life, nevertheless still sustained by the God he had rejected (same as a kid who rebels against his father and runs away from home and still can't help using his ATM to pull money out of the allowance his father continues to provide. Of course, in this analogy, everywhere he turns all the help he can get ultimately comes from his father if such a man owned everything right down to the group of outcasts that the kid joins). Compare Genesis 3:18.

I have only used one curse to explain that all those harsh curses were essentially God stating what should have been obvious: if man cut himself away from God his Source, he would wither and die. If you look at the rest of God's words in that chapter in that light, you will realize that God may well have been speaking to His beloved Creation (the serpent representative of Satan included) with tears in His eyes stating just how much trouble they'd all brought on themselves and how He would fix their mistake.

But if you don't, you'll hold on to the false argument that God failed in loving because He told His beloved creation how badly they'd messed up and how He was going to fix everything.

Does this even begin to answer the arguments posed ? I think not. I am talking of massacres and you go on a long diatribe on God's providence and curses. SMH.

---

Ihedinobi:
This argument hinges on the fact that only those in the Garden were responsible for the trouble in the Garden and thus should have been the only ones to suffer any consequences. This is true, but the argument also implies that the only people or creatures culpable were Adam, Eve and the Serpent as individuals. That part is false for the following reason.

If we accept the Bible to be Truth, then the story of creation is true even if only as an allegorical representation of the actual events that took place. Therefore, in creating the individuals Adam and Eve, God effectively created the whole of humankind that genetically and psychologically resulted from them. So, while indeed Adam and Eve were in the Garden in their own respect as individual humans, they were also there as the entire race of humanity representatively. They were true and worthy representatives because outside of their own makeup, it is impossible to describe anything as humans. We are human because we are Adam and Eve's children. No human exists whose full individual makeup is not totally resultant from Adam and Eve's. In other words, my friend, had it been you and your wife or me and my wifein their place with their experience and understanding, we would have done the exact same thing.

People are indeed different, but Adam and Eve were biologically all of us (since their genes were the full gene set of the entire human race), psychologically all of us (they had the intellect, will and emotions from which ours derived), spiritually all of us (well, until anyone is born of the Spirit of God, it is Adam's spirit that they have, the same intuition, understanding and attitude toward God). Unless you can define one human without referring in some way to Adam and Eve, we were all in the Garden with Adam and Eve and consented with their choice.

Therefore, no human being is born without that innate leaning toward disobedience to God and independence of Him. It is part of the definition of the human being now. And it became so because the ones from whom we resulted deemed it fit to choose the destiny we are all born into.

Therefore every single one of us is culpable. And every single one of us is subject to whatever sentence Adam and Eve came under as a result of their failure in the Garden.

The part of this argument which holds that God indiscriminately kills and punishes those who had nothing to do with the events in the Garden is thus thrown out as false unlesa you can show an example of one person who cannot be brought under the umbrella of Adam and Eve's representation whom Yahweh killed and punished. And, of course, the person must be human. If he is not, you must show how he is not covered by the Serpent too.

This, my friend, is called apologetic gymnastics. Indeed, I'm familiar with that facile excuse that all humans were represented by Adam & Eve and consented to their choice. But the truth is, given the obvious fact that no one else apart from Adam and Eve, by coercion from the serpent, committed that crime, the punishment was to be for them only. Trying to extrapolate the presence and collusion of the rest of humanity with Adam and Eve on account of biological, genetic or psychological similarities fail since the presence of other beings is what counts. They weren't present and it is therefore -ILLOGICAL to attribute the sin to them.

Uyi Iredia:

Apart from the obvious irresponsibility in the statement that you and God aren't obliged to give answers (which isn't given the fact that you have to fulfill the RESPONSIBILITY of a Christian brother and God as the source and sustainer of the Christian not to talk of the onus on a 'loving' Father). I find your statement that you ask the 'right' questions condescending. It shows a CLEAR unwillingness to tackle my points [I]prima facie[/i]. Of course, your shenanigans will be well remembered by me.

---

Lol. Feel free to remember what you will. You're also as welcome to my post history.

My friend, I am not responsible to you, however much you may wish that I am. I am responsible to my Father. It is because He loves me that I love Him (it is His Love with which I love Him) and you. It is because you number among the people for whom my Big Brother and Captain and Father died that I care about you. I owe Him the responsibility of using all the powers He has entrusted me with to bless you with all the wealth of His Love, not you. If I owe you any responsibility, it is only because I owe Him it. As for Him, He owes you absolutely none. He loves you simply because it's normal to Him to love, not because He'd be wrong not to. There's nothing by which you can judge God right or wrong except God Himself.

As for my arrogance, it's quite funny that you assume that I ask the right questions from the fact that I recognize the "wrongness" of your own questions. It doesn't occur to you, does it, that I recognize your error because I was rescued from at least one like it.

And it is really funny that you assume that a refusal to address your points in their state amounts to an inability to deal with them. That is akin to a child's demand to be taken to disneyland without any thought for the trouble involved in getting a visa, paying for tickets, getting the right clothes for the weather and all the issues that the trip demands. How can I answer questions that are in themselves altogether wrong? Your questions are based on a multitude of false premises and you want me to accept them as they are and answer you according to such grievous errors?

Not quite, that our intellect derives from God doesn't exclude Him from our application to it. Even you partially violate this principle: you say my intellect isn't at par to scrutinize God on His actions and YET I can APPLY MY INTELLECT by asking God why He took certain actions. That is not to speak of the apparent inanity of saying that I'm guilty of saying God is not loving (given certain precedents) simply because God said so. Now I would like to know how whole families and towns being wiped out by God can be reconciled with the concept of God as loving.

My friend, your intellect exists for you to realize God in the material realms. With your intellect you interpret God in the material realms. That means that your intellect is only a tool, it is not the source of the meaning of love or even the meaning of anything. It is the vehicle by which man realizes the meaning of absolute realities in the material world. To assume that rather than ask God what love means, you can indict Him based on your intellect's conception of it is plain arrogance.

And indeed what love is and implies is generally understood. You can check a dictionary if it is unclear to you. And I need not appeal to any authority other than my intellect. Killing especially by a God who commands against killing isn't loving. I would like to understand what fuller picture it is God would show me.

The typical nonsense of atheists. And you want me to answer you like you're a Christian. Do you indeed think that dictionaries without any help originated the concept of love? Was it not human beings like you with their own questions and wonderings that created dictionaries? Do you suppose that your intellect or any other human one produced the concept of love?

Your intellect is as much an authority on love as a car is an authority on travel. Just because it's been driven really long distances and gone to diverse exotic places does not mean that it originated the concept of exotic beaches. It can only provide information put into it by its operator. Now, of course, the analogy breaks down at the point where humans are sapient and cars are not. I can feed a car's computer with information about trips and destinations but it has no choice in the matter. You do, being human. You can let God feed you correct information on what love is or you can manufacture yours from odds and ends in a contingent reality and attempt to apply it all to a Necessary Being. Of course, the latter is really very arrogant and foolish.

And, my friend, you still don't have what it takes to make me tell you anything. I am still not obliged to show you any fuller picture or even how to find it.

Uyi Iredia:

Forgiveness ceases to hold a grudge for the offence committed and witholds due punishment.

---

In other words, the act of forgiveness treats the offence as though it never happened. Because if it didn't, due punishment would not be withheld, would it?

Does this even begin to answer the arguments posed ? I think not. I am talking of massacres and you go on a long diatribe on God's providence and curses. SMH.

---

What is a diatribe, my friend?

You alleged that God laid harsh curses on the criminals in the Garden, did you not? And from there you proceeded to accuse Him of failing to love because He did so. I have only shown you how the "curses" were actually the ordinary consequences of their actions, effects that were produced directly by their choices in the Garden. That is, I have told you that God did not introduce something foreign in the chain of events by reason of His sovereignty, but that He only explained to each player what they had done to the game. And thus, I have debunked the thought that He laid a harsh curse as though He were reacting in anger to some personal hurt.

As much as God has the right to curse and bless, He didn't doless than help everyone in the Garden then.

This, my friend, is called apologetic gymnastics. Indeed, I'm familiar with that facile excuse that all humans were represented by Adam & Eve and consented to their choice. But the truth is, given the obvious fact that no one else apart from Adam and Eve, by coercion from the serpent, committed that crime, the punishment was to be for them only. Trying to extrapolate the presence and collusion of the rest of humanity with Adam and Eve on account of biological, genetic or psychological similarities fail since the presence of other beings is what counts. They weren't present and it is therefore -ILLOGICAL to attribute the sin to them.

And my argument was that they WERE PRESENT and it is therefore LOGICAL to attribute the sin to them. It's up to you to show me how my argument is wrong. Saying it is won't do the job.

Ihedinobi:

In other words, the act of forgiveness treats the offence as though it never happened. Because if it didn't, due punishment would not be withheld, would it?



What is a diatribe, my friend?

You alleged that God laid harsh curses on the criminals in the Garden, did you not? And from there you proceeded to accuse Him of failing to love because He did so. I have only shown you how the "curses" were actually the ordinary consequences of their actions, effects that were produced directly by their choices in the Garden. That is, I have told you that God did not introduce something foreign in the chain of events by reason of His sovereignty, but that He only explained to each player what they had done to the game. And thus, I have debunked the thought that He laid a harsh curse as though He were reacting in anger to some personal hurt.

As much as God has the right to curse and bless, He didn't doless than help everyone in the Garden then.



And my argument was that they WERE PRESENT and it is therefore LOGICAL to attribute the sin to them. It's up to you to show me how my argument is wrong. Saying it is won't do the job.

* The act of forgiveness doesn't erase the fact that the offence has been done. However, punishment is witheld as well as any possible grudge. I couldn't make it any plainer than that.

* You talked about curses when the argument YOU quoted was about massacres.

* No one other than Adam, Eve and the serpent was mentioned or present. It is therefore CLEAR that there were NO other humans in the garden. Pretending there where would be the height of bufoonery.

Ihedinobi:

Lol. Feel free to remember what you will. You're also as welcome to my post history.

My friend, I am not responsible to you, however much you may wish that I am. I am responsible to my Father. It is because He loves me that I love Him (it is His Love with which I love Him) and you. It is because you number among the people for whom my Big Brother and Captain and Father died that I care about you. I owe Him the responsibility of using all the powers He has entrusted me with to bless you with all the wealth of His Love, not you. If I owe you any responsibility, it is only because I owe Him it. As for Him, He owes you absolutely none. He loves you simply because it's normal to Him to love, not because He'd be wrong not to. There's nothing by which you can judge God right or wrong except God Himself.

As for my arrogance, it's quite funny that you assume that I ask the right questions from the fact that I recognize the "wrongness" of your own questions. It doesn't occur to you, does it, that I recognize your error because I was rescued from at least one like it.

And it is really funny that you assume that a refusal to address your points in their state amounts to an inability to deal with them. That is akin to a child's demand to be taken to disneyland without any thought for the trouble involved in getting a visa, paying for tickets, getting the right clothes for the weather and all the issues that the trip demands. How can I answer questions that are in themselves altogether wrong? Your questions are based on a multitude of false premises and you want me to accept them as they are and answer you according to such grievous errors?



My friend, your intellect exists for you to realize God in the material realms. With your intellect you interpret God in the material realms. That means that your intellect is only a tool, it is not the source of the meaning of love or even the meaning of anything. It is the vehicle by which man realizes the meaning of absolute realities in the material world. To assume that rather than ask God what love means, you can indict Him based on your intellect's conception of it is plain arrogance.



The typical nonsense of atheists. And you want me to answer you like you're a Christian. Do you indeed think that dictionaries without any help originated the concept of love? Was it not human beings like you with their own questions and wonderings that created dictionaries? Do you suppose that your intellect or any other human one produced the concept of love?

Your intellect is as much an authority on love as a car is an authority on travel. Just because it's been driven really long distances and gone to diverse exotic places does not mean that it originated the concept of exotic beaches. It can only provide information put into it by its operator. Now, of course, the analogy breaks down at the point where humans are sapient and cars are not. I can feed a car's computer with information about trips and destinations but it has no choice in the matter. You do, being human. You can let God feed you correct information on what love is or you can manufacture yours from odds and ends in a contingent reality and attempt to apply it all to a Necessary Being. Of course, the latter is really very arrogant and foolish.

And, my friend, you still don't have what it takes to make me tell you anything. I am still not obliged to show you any fuller picture or even how to find it.

* By saying you aren't obliged you are failing in your duty to a fellow Christian. No need to flog the dead horse further. You have FAILED to sshow how my arguments in the OP are wrong and instead gone ahead to bypass otherwise simple and clear points which need no further deconstruction.

* You contradict yourself. Because love is an absolute reality in the material world which the intellect as you say realizes and OTOH you say it isn't the source of the meaning of love.

* You mean the typical nonsense you are spewing out - unquestioningly. For if you had no intellect, you would have no conception of love just as a baby who has yet to develop its intellect. Of course, you fail to answer the crucial problem of reconciling an all-loving God with massacres_which you deny_in the OT.

Uyi Iredia:

* The act of forgiveness doesn't erase the fact that the offence has been done. However, punishment is witheld as well as any possible grudge. I couldn't make it any plainer than that.

I'm not sure why you seem very reluctant to see what you are saying yourself. The withholding of punishment as a result of forgiveness is because the offence is regarded as inexistent, never having occured, NOT THAT IT DIDN'T IN FACT HAPPEN. You withhold punishment when you have forgiven because forgiveness says that there is nothing to punish anymore. Is that not so? Or do you believe that it is true to forgiveness to raise the matter up at a later date, after saying that you have forgiven, and apply the punishment due for the offence?

* You talked about curses when the argument YOU quoted was about massacres.

The argument was about massacres and curses. I had given my answer concerning massacres in an earlier post and I said as much.

Besides, I believe you called that part of my post a diatribe. I'm waiting to hear how it was one.

* No one other than Adam, Eve and the serpent was mentioned or present. It is therefore CLEAR that there were NO other humans in the garden. Pretending there where would be the height of bufoonery.

Lol. Just like it isn't bufoonery to imply that the concept of love originated with you? Now you say what you sayand it becomes truth, is that right? Maybe you really are God.

My friend, the Scriptures themselves, if they mean anything to you, hold that we were all there in the Garden with(in) our parents. They hold us as responsible as they themselves were. I don't cite them as authority here because I don't believe that you regard them as such, but if it makes a difference, just say the word and I'll provide Scriptural backimg for what I say, my "Christian" brother.

I have made a comprehensive argument for the stand that we were all complicit in Adam's and Eve's failure in the Garden. At some point, I hope you'll actually show how the argument is so obviously wrong and so much buffoonery.

Ihedinobi:
I'm not sure why you seem very reluctant to see what you are saying yourself. The withholding of punishment as a result of forgiveness is because the offence is regarded as inexistent, never having occured, NOT THAT IT DIDN'T IN FACT HAPPEN. You withhold punishment when you have forgiven because forgiveness says that there is nothing to punish anymore. Is that not so? Or do you believe that it is true to forgiveness to raise the matter up at a later date, after saying that you have forgiven, and apply the punishment due for the offence?



The argument was about massacres and curses. I had given my answer concerning massacres in an earlier post and I said as much.

Besides, I believe you called that part of my post a diatribe. I'm waiting to hear how it was one.



Lol. Just like it isn't bufoonery to imply that the concept of love originated with you? Now you say what you sayand it becomes truth, is that right? Maybe you really are God.

My friend, the Scriptures themselves, if they mean anything to you, hold that we were all there in the Garden with(in) our parents. They hold us as responsible as they themselves were. I don't cite them as authority here because I don't believe that you regard them as such, but if it makes a difference, just say the word and I'll provide Scriptural backimg for what I say, my "Christian" brother.

I have made a comprehensive argument for the stand that we were all complicit in Adam's and Eve's failure in the Garden. At some point, I hope you'll actually show how the argument is so obviously wrong and so much buffoonery.

* Don't stretch what I say. Instead of trying to bring up your own insinuations simply work with what I've given you. I'm willing to go no further. Forgiveness regards the crime as having taken place but witholds grudges and punishment. Simple.

* No. It was just about massacres. You read it.

* I never said the concept of love originated with me. Provide the Scriptural backing.

Uyi Iredia:

* By saying you aren't obliged you are failing in your duty to a fellow Christian. No need to flog the dead horse further. You have FAILED to sshow how my arguments in the OP are wrong and instead gone ahead to bypass otherwise simple and clear points which need no further deconstruction.

What fellow Christian? You? How have you proved that you indees belong to Christ and are no impostor? Or you insist that just like with everything else in this discussion you want me to just take your word for it, evidence be damned?

You can type it a million more times and it still won't become true that I have not shown you how your arguments are wrong anymore than a blind man's protestation that he didn't see the stop sign means in fact that he wasn't shown and even helped to touch and trace it in Braille.

* You contradict yourself. Because love is an absolute reality in the material world which the intellect as you say realizes and OTOH you say it isn't the source of the meaning of love.

Lol @ absolute reality in the material world. And you say I contradict myself. Absolute realities are found in absolute realms, my friend and the material world is, by no means, absolute. It is totally contingent upon higher realms. Love is an absolute reality that is mirrored or reflected into the material realms by man. You cannot hence find Love as an absolute reality, or, in other words, its true meaning within the material world. You will only see interpretations of it there. And each interpretation is only as reliable as the fidelity of the interpreting medium.

That means that a poor appreciation of the Absolute results in a poor interpretation of it. Love is the Nature of God and the intellect that grasps it best is the one most or beat engaged by God.

* You mean the typical nonsense you are spewing out - unquestioningly. For if you had no intellect, you would have no conception of love just as a baby who has yet to develop its intellect. Of course, you fail to answer the crucial problem of reconciling an all-loving God with massacres_which you deny_in the OT.

Is it nonsense because you say it is, Uyi Iredia?

I am not at all challenged reconciling Love with your massacres. You are challenged seeing it. And what good would it do trying to paint a mental picture for you again when you reject my efforts with rather curious excuses - "this is called apologetic gymnastics"; "you didn't answer any of my arguments with your long diatribe"; the human intellect is infallible and when it says this is love, that is love"? I'm sure you probably won't recognize some of that as what you have been saying all along.

You must think that God thrives on frivolous questions, my friend. ?D

Uyi Iredia:

* By saying you aren't obliged you are failing in your duty to a fellow Christian. No need to flog the dead horse further. You have FAILED to sshow how my arguments in the OP are wrong and instead gone ahead to bypass otherwise simple and clear points which need no further deconstruction.

What fellow Christian? You? How have you proved that you indees belong to Christ and are no impostor? Or you insist that just like with everything else in this discussion you want me to just take your word for it, evidence be damned?

You can type it a million more times and it still won't become true that I have not shown you how your arguments are wrong anymore than a blind man's protestation that he didn't see the stop sign means in fact that he wasn't shown and even helped to touch and trace it in Braille.

* You contradict yourself. Because love is an absolute reality in the material world which the intellect as you say realizes and OTOH you say it isn't the source of the meaning of love.

Lol @ absolute reality in the material world. And you say I contradict myself. Absolute realities are found in absolute realms, my friend and the material world is, by no means, absolute. It is totally contingent upon higher realms. Love is an absolute reality that is mirrored or reflected into the material realms by man. You cannot hence find Love as an absolute reality, or, in other words, its true meaning within the material world. You will only see interpretations of it there. And each interpretation is only as reliable as the fidelity of the interpreting medium.

That means that a poor appreciation of the Absolute results in a poor interpretation of it. Love is the Nature of God and the intellect that grasps it best is the one most or beat engaged by God.

* You mean the typical nonsense you are spewing out - unquestioningly. For if you had no intellect, you would have no conception of love just as a baby who has yet to develop its intellect. Of course, you fail to answer the crucial problem of reconciling an all-loving God with massacres_which you deny_in the OT.

Is it nonsense because you say it is, Uyi Iredia?

I am not at all challenged reconciling Love with your massacres. You are challenged seeing it. And what good would it do trying to paint a mental picture for you again when you reject my efforts with rather curious excuses - "this is called apologetic gymnastics"; "you didn't answer any of my arguments with your long diatribe"; the human intellect is infallible and when it says this is love, that is love"? I'm sure you probably won't recognize some of that as what you have been saying all along.

You must think that God thrives on frivolous questions, my friend.

Ihedinobi:

What fellow Christian? You? How have you proved that you indees belong to Christ and are no impostor? Or you insist that just like with everything else in this discussion you want me to just take your word for it, evidence be damned?

You can type it a million more times and it still won't become true that I have not shown you how your arguments are wrong anymore than a blind man's protestation that he didn't see the stop sign means in fact that he wasn't shown and even helped to touch and trace it in Braille.



Lol @ absolute reality in the material world. And you say I contradict myself. Absolute realities are found in absolute realms, my friend and the material world is, by no means, absolute. It is totally contingent upon higher realms. Love is an absolute reality that is mirrored or reflected into the material realms by man. You cannot hence find Love as an absolute reality, or, in other words, its true meaning within the material world. You will only see interpretations of it there. And each interpretation is only as reliable as the fidelity of the interpreting medium.

That means that a poor appreciation of the Absolute results in a poor interpretation of it. Love is the Nature of God and the intellect that grasps it best is the one most or beat engaged by God.



Is it nonsense because you say it is, Uyi Iredia?

I am not at all challenged reconciling Love with your massacres. You are challenged seeing it. And what good would it do trying to paint a mental picture for you again when you reject my efforts with rather curious excuses - "this is called apologetic gymnastics"; "you didn't answer any of my arguments with your long diatribe"; the human intellect is infallible and when it says this is love, that is love"? I'm sure you probably won't recognize some of that as what you have been saying all along.

You must think that God thrives on frivolous questions, my friend. ?D

* SMH. You haven't answered the arguments posed. In any case, if you doubt I'm a Christian (albeit one with doubts and questions) feel free.

* Let's say I accept this explanation you have proffered. Answer how a loving God is reconciled with killings in the OT.

* Curious excuses or cogent points which you fail to heed and go on pretending to answer. Now you say I'm challenged seeing the reconciliation. I now offer you a chance once again. Explain in SHORT, SIMPLE terms how a loving God can be reconciled with OT massacres ?