Uyi Iredia:

* 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.

Lol. It is what you have given that I'm working with. Forgiveness withholds punishment why again?

And, oh, you want to go no further doesn't cut it, buddy. Your argument may be based on a wrong conception of forgiveness, but you don't want to find that out? How very curious.

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

No, you read it:

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.

See #2 up there?

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

Of course, you never did and there are no implicit meanings is verbal statements. What else could your reference to your intellect as authority mean, I wonder?

Right, about Scriptural backing, let's see.

And as I may so say, Levi also, who received tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. Hebrews 7:9-10

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Psalm 51:5

As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy 1 Corinthians 15:48

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23

^^^

Uyi Iredia:

* 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.

Like I said, a million times. Perhaps at the million and first typing, it'll become true

Yes, I'm indeed free to doubt your Christianity and I would if I could. Right now though, I'm pretty positive that you're not a Christian at all (try not to imagine that I'm just saying that, my friend there's very good reason for my saying it).

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

Let's start with one very large undetailed picture which indeed I'm still not obliged to give

A God Whose Nature is Love will spare nothing to save what He loves from destroying itself.

And, buddy, that up there is a really big statement. Think a bit about it before you consign it wholesale to that compartment of your mind where you put ideas that you don't like, mm.

* 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 ?

My friend, cogent points never sound like excuses except to those who need them to sound the same. I've mentioned some examples of what I called your excuses and you just want to rechristen them. They are excuses because they evince your unwillingness to accept the merits of an argument that you are not refuting at all.

For instance, what is the point in naming my argument apologetic gymnastics when you could better spend your energy showing how Adam's products cannot bear the stamp of his nature and character, when you could spend your energy showing just how clear it is that only two human beings were in the Garden with God and thus were the only ones culpable for their sin? The only point is to show that you dislike and reject the argument even though you won't, or, more likely, can't explain why.

Anyway, you have your answer up there. Feel free to make another excuse for rejecting it. You have every right to, you know

Ihedinobi:

Lol. It is what you have given that I'm working with. Forgiveness withholds punishment why again?

And, oh, you want to go no further doesn't cut it, buddy. Your argument may be based on a wrong conception of forgiveness, but you don't want to find that out? How very curious.



No, you read it:



See #2 up there?



Of course, you never did and there are no implicit meanings is verbal statements. What else could your reference to your intellect as authority mean, I wonder?

Right, about Scriptural backing, let's see.

And as I may so say, Levi also, who received tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. Hebrews 7:9-10

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Psalm 51:5

As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy 1 Corinthians 15:48

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23

* Witholding grudges or punishment is forgiveness. I can give no other reason for forgiveness other than the fact that one wants to. In any case, if my argument MAY bebased on the wrong concept of forgiveness prove so.

* I see it. I'm looking at 3.

* NONE of the verses provided satisfy what is required: to show that people other than Adam & Eve were present in the garden during the curse.

Ihedinobi:

Like I said, a million times. Perhaps at the million and first typing, it'll become true

Yes, I'm indeed free to doubt your Christianity and I would if I could. Right now though, I'm pretty positive that you're not a Christian at all (try not to imagine that I'm just saying that, my friend there's very good reason for my saying it).

Okay.

Ihedinobi:
Let's start with one very large undetailed picture which indeed I'm still not obliged to give

A God Whose Nature is Love will spare nothing to save what He loves from destroying itself.

And, buddy, that up there is a really big statement. Think a bit about it before you consign it wholesale to that compartment of your mind where you put ideas that you don't like, mm.

The idea of God you portrayed is infact agreeable. Unfortunately, it is not true given the reasons I gave in the OP. Once again, you FAIL to reconcile a loving God with the killings in the OT.

Ihedinobi:
My friend, cogent points never sound like excuses except to those who need them to sound the same. I've mentioned some examples of what I called your excuses and you just want to rechristen them. They are excuses because they evince your unwillingness to accept the merits of an argument that you are not refuting at all.

For instance, what is the point in naming my argument apologetic gymnastics when you could better spend your energy showing how Adam's products cannot bear the stamp of his nature and character, when you could spend your energy showing just how clear it is that only two human beings were in the Garden with God and thus were the only ones culpable for their sin? The only point is to show that you dislike and reject the argument even though you won't, or, more likely, can't explain why.

Anyway, you have your answer up there. Feel free to make another excuse for rejecting it. You have every right to, you know

How clear could it be ? The Bible only mentions 2 people between Genesis 1-3 now you talk about humans getting the attributed from Adam & Eve which isn't what's in contention but the issue of culpability. What better than to label it apologewtic gymnastics.

Uyi Iredia:

* Witholding grudges or punishment is forgiveness. I can give no other reason for forgiveness other than the fact that one wants to. In any case, if my argument MAY bebased on the wrong concept of forgiveness prove so.

My friend, withholding of punishment legally and legitimately due to an offender for some offence is the natural expression of forgiveness and from age to age it has always been the proof that the offence has been overlooked, ignored, in other words, considered never to have been done even without ever saying that the offence did not in fact happen. Forgiveness has always said that the offence being forgiven has been accounted for, therefore there is no further reason for punishment or a grudge.

Right there in your statement all the above is implied and you say somebody is stretching your words. Perhaps you're tired or something, but unless you just don't want to know the meaning of forgiveness so that your ridiculous argument holds, I can't imagine why you are reluctant to face meanings implicit in your own words.

The reason that we humans think it is wrong to raise issues that are said to have been resolved with forgiveness is that we associate forgiveness with aclearing of the wrong. You can't hold a grudge over a wrong you say you've forgiven, it's unnatural because forgiveness assumes that the wrong has been fully accounted for and thus is no longer there to hold a grudge for. You don't like that, sue human nature.

* I see it. I'm looking at 3.

Well? What about 3?

* NONE of the verses provided satisfy what is required: to show that people other than Adam & Eve were present in the garden during the curse.

Now I'm thoroughly convinced that you're tired or playing. Why would the Bible say that Levi who was born three generations after Abraham at least a hundred years later paid Melchizedek tithes when it was, by your assertions, only Abraham personally who did?

It's simple, my friend, either you'll believe what the Bible says or you might as well close it. The latter is what atheists keep trying unsuccessfully to do. Scriptures hold that the children are as culpable as their parents because they were with(in) their parents at the moment of decision. Thus, we were all with(in) Adam and Eve when the deal went down. We were part of that decision in every way. You don't like what the Scriptures say, do like the atheists do and invent your own principles.

EZEKIEL 18:20
The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them

Uyi Iredia: The idea of God you portrayed is infact agreeable. Unfortunately, it is not true given the reasons I gave in the OP. Once again, you FAIL to reconcile a loving God with the killings in the OT.

Lol. My man, you're cracking me up. I think I'll get back to work after this and give you some time to think.

You're saying that the reasons you gave in your argument for which you now hold that Yahweh is not a loving God somehow make it untrue that a God of Love spares nothing to save His beloved from destroying itself? I think you need to think a little more than you just did

How clear could it be ? The Bible only mentions 2 people between Genesis 1-3 now you talk about humans getting the attributed from Adam & Eve which isn't what's in contention but the issue of culpability. What better than to label it apologewtic gymnastics.

Oh I don't know, man. You could show that we fell out of the sky individually or sprouted inexplicably from the ground and thus have no membership in Adam and Eve. It shouldn't be too difficult.

Adam, you know, means Man or Earth and Eve means Mother. All those many years ago, my friend, two human beings who housed in their genetic makeup the whole population of humankind made a decision in the Garden carrying all of us in them and you insist that we can't be bound by it and its consequences? Feel free to say why any time now, my friend

musKeeto: EZEKIEL 18:20
The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them

Ah, very good, ex-house fellowship leader Do you perhaps know any human being that has managed somehow to not sin or commit wickedness? Name one if you do and, if you don't, how come?

Ihedinobi:

Ah, very good, ex-house fellowship leader Do you perhaps know any human being that has managed somehow to not sin or commit wickedness? Name one if you do and, if you don't, how come?

Jesus

Ihedinobi:

My friend, withholding of punishment legally and legitimately due to an offender for some offence is the natural expression of forgiveness and from age to age it has always been the proof that the offence has been overlooked, ignored, in other words, considered never to have been done even without ever saying that the offence did not in fact happen. Forgiveness has always said that the offence being forgiven has been accounted for, therefore there is no further reason for punishment or a grudge.

Right there in your statement all the above is implied and you say somebody is stretching your words. Perhaps you're tired or something, but unless you just don't want to know the meaning of forgiveness so that your ridiculous argument holds, I can't imagine why you are reluctant to face meanings implicit in your own words.

The reason that we humans think it is wrong to raise issues that are said to have been resolved with forgiveness is that we associate forgiveness with aclearing of the wrong. You can't hold a grudge over a wrong you say you've forgiven, it's unnatural because forgiveness assumes that the wrong has been fully accounted for and thus is no longer there to hold a grudge for. You don't like that, sue human nature.



Well? What about 3?



Now I'm thoroughly convinced that you're tired or playing. Why would the Bible say that Levi who was born three generations after Abraham at least a hundred years later paid Melchizedek tithes when it was, by your assertions, only Abraham personally who did?

It's simple, my friend, either you'll believe what the Bible says or you might as well close it. The latter is what atheists keep trying unsuccessfully to do. Scriptures hold that the children are as culpable as their parents because they were with(in) their parents at the moment of decision. Thus, we were all with(in) Adam and Eve when the deal went down. We were part of that decision in every way. You don't like what the Scriptures say, do like the atheists do and invent your own principles.

* I refuse simply because forgiveness doesn't overlook the fact that an offence is done. It overlooks the consequence of the offense.

* The part you overlooked. And still do.

* Did the Bible then mention that humans sinned because the were in the lions of Adam & Eve ? If it did, show me where. Not to mention the fact you overlook Ezekiel 18:20 which Muskeeto brought up.

Ihedinobi:

Lol. My man, you're cracking me up. I think I'll get back to work after this and give you some time to think.

You're saying that the reasons you gave in your argument for which you now hold that Yahweh is not a loving God somehow make it untrue that a God of Love spares nothing to save His beloved from destroying itself? I think you need to think a little more than you just did



Oh I don't know, man. You could show that we fell out of the sky individually or sprouted inexplicably from the ground and thus have no membership in Adam and Eve. It shouldn't be too difficult.

Adam, you know, means Man or Earth and Eve means Mother. All those many years ago, my friend, two human beings who housed in their genetic makeup the whole population of humankind made a decision in the Garden carrying all of us in them and you insist that we can't be bound by it and its consequences? Feel free to say why any time now, my friend

* You aren't serious, are you ?

* Yeah ! And Adam and Eve and over 4 billion humans were present in the garden. Going by your logic you slept with your mother since you were present when €opul@tion was going on between your parents. Pathetic !

musKeeto:
Jesus

Very true. He was guiltless. Did He then die for any sin He wasn't responsible for?

Uyi Iredia:

* I refuse simply because forgiveness doesn't overlook the fact that an offence is done. It overlooks the consequence of the offense.

Ok, I honestly have never heard it put like this. Explain?

* The part you overlooked. And still do.

How did I overlook it?

* Did the Bible then mention that humans sinned because the were in the lions of Adam & Eve ? If it did, show me where. Not to mention the fact you overlook Ezekiel 18:20 which Muskeeto brought up.

My word! Are you trying to make a song out of "you overlooked it"?

My friend, the Christian rule is two or three witnesses, and I gave you four. Their meanings are not so hard to see.

Levi was spoken of as paying a tithe that by your assertion he didn't pay. The Bible said it, not me. You don't like it, sue the Author if you can.

We are told that all who are earthy share in the destiny and history of the earthy. If it does not mean that we who are born of Adam, the earthy man, are regarded by the Bible as sharing in his history and destiny, it is up to you to show how.

The Scriptures hold that all, excluding none, have sinned. Why does it not except innocent babies who have done nothing as of yet? Do you think that there was a mistake there?

David confessed to God that sin was a very part of his nature, perhaps that was a unique case? Or perhaps you have some other explanation?

Uyi Iredia:

* You aren't serious, are you ?

Where?

* Yeah ! And Adam and Eve and over 4 billion humans were present in the garden. Going by your logic you slept with your mother since you were present when €opul@tion was going on between your parents. Pathetic !

Are you sure you haven't turned full atheist? Because if my father and mother make me me, then you're just graspimg rather pitifully at straws.

The argument is very clear. Adam and Eve dealt with that choice as full-fledged legal and spiritual representatives of the whole human race. If it is your opinion that they were incompetent representatives, just show us why you think so. For us today, a competent representative is actually the person or persons he represents, at least, we pretend that this is so. For God, it is actual and a study of genetic reproduction and population helps you grasp a little how it is so. That's wgy I took the trouble of explaining as much as I could how true and actual the representation was.

Now, if all I did was tell you that they represented before the Judge of the Earth all the generations that would spawn from them without bothering to paint a picture of how, I'd still have done my job. I went further in order to close the matter effectively.

Now, if you have no real arguments against what I have posited, there is no human court that would condemn you for deciding to hold onto your excuses and reject the arguments. None at all.

Ihedinobi:

Ok, I honestly have never heard it put like this. Explain?



How did I overlook it?



My word! Are you trying to make a song out of "you overlooked it"?

My friend, the Christian rule is two or three witnesses, and I gave you four. Their meanings are not so hard to see.

Levi was spoken of as paying a tithe that by your assertion he didn't pay. The Bible said it, not me. You don't like it, sue the Author if you can.

We are told that all who are earthy share in the destiny and history of the earthy. If it does not mean that we who are born of Adam, the earthy man, are regarded by the Bible as sharing in his history and destiny, it is up to you to show how.

The Scriptures hold that all, excluding none, have sinned. Why does it not except innocent babies who have done nothing as of yet? Do you think that there was a mistake there?

David confessed to God that sin was a very part of his nature, perhaps that was a unique case? Or perhaps you have some other explanation?

* There's nothing to explain. That staement is self-explanatory.

* By refusing tro reconcile aloving God with OT massacres.

* Their meanings are clearly NOT that there were people present with and culpable for eating the forbidden fruit other than Adam & Eve. That is what you fail to show.

Ihedinobi:

Where?



Are you sure you haven't turned full atheist? Because if my father and mother make me me, then you're just graspimg rather pitifully at straws.

The argument is very clear. Adam and Eve dealt with that choice as full-fledged legal and spiritual representatives of the whole human race. If it is your opinion that they were incompetent representatives, just show us why you think so. For us today, a competent representative is actually the person or persons he represents, at least, we pretend that this is so. For God, it is actual and a study of genetic reproduction and population helps you grasp a little how it is so. That's wgy I took the trouble of explaining as much as I could how true and actual the representation was.

Now, if all I did was tell you that they represented before the Judge of the Earth all the generations that would spawn from them without bothering to paint a picture of how, I'd still have done my job. I went further in order to close the matter effectively.

Now, if you have no real arguments against what I have posited, there is no human court that would condemn you for deciding to hold onto your excuses and reject the arguments. None at all.

* Here.

* I haven't yet turned atheist. I'm carefully considering it though. In any case, Adam & Eve represented no one but themselves. Of course, the example of you committing incest was to point out the absurdity of your extrapolations. Only Adam & Eve ate the fruit and they only should have been punished.

Uyi Iredia:

* There's nothing to explain. That staement is self-explanatory.

* By refusing tro reconcile aloving God with OT massacres.

* Their meanings are clearly NOT that there were people present with and culpable for eating the forbidden fruit other than Adam & Eve. That is what you fail to show.

You kept complaining of inanities, but for the past few posts, your responses have been incredibly inane. I find it very difficult to believe that you can say much of what you have been saying for a while now with a straight face because they sound like someone trying to have some childish fun.

I've given you benefit of the doubt even until now, but this is as far as it goes. You will have to figure out the meanings of everything I've said alone from here on out. I have no intention of indulging willfull "denseness" any further.

As for what the Scriptures say, you can proyest all you want but if the Scriptures hold that a man as good as paid tithes generations before he was born on the strength of the fact that his great-grampa did, it must also hold that all humans made the choice in the Garden. The contrary that you seem to be suggesting is double standards.

I've explained the rest of the Scriptures I cited. What you are now doing is stop your ears and sing "lalalalala, all I know is...." as is the wont of people hardening themselves to the Truth.

Oh yeah, as a bonus, that forgiveness...consequence thing in your last post was quite a bit of nonsense. That is not to say that there was zero value in it, because indeed forgiveness addresses consequences and it does so by addressing the offence that produced them.

Uyi Iredia:

* Here.

* I haven't yet turned atheist. I'm carefully considering it though. In any case, Adam & Eve represented no one but themselves. Of course, the example of you committing incest was to point out the absurdity of your extrapolations. Only Adam & Eve ate the fruit and they only should have been punished.

Funny that you employed an obvious absurdity to debunk a probably non-existent one. I am 50% my dad and 50% my mom, so how do I sleep with my mom when she's copulating with my dad before I was born? See your desperation?

Anyway, you might as well cease your consideration now, my friend. There isn't a lot of difference between your thinking ans that of the atheist or agnostic. I think that coming to terms with the fact that you and God are ordinarily on different wavelengths can be good for you. But where you go with it will prove what kind of choice it is that you've just made.

Anyhow, it was fun talking with you. I trust that if you're the Lord's you'll let Him find you. And that you'll eventually see that your "argument" was a rash of excuses to exalt yourself to the Place of the Most High. And an utterly untenable rash of excuses too.

Ihedinobi:

You kept complaining of inanities, but for the past few posts, your responses have been incredibly inane. I find it very difficult to believe that you can say much of what you have been saying for a while now with a straight face because they sound like someone trying to have some childish fun.

I've given you benefit of the doubt even until now, but this is as far as it goes. You will have to figure out the meanings of everything I've said alone from here on out. I have no intention of indulging willfull "denseness" any further.

As for what the Scriptures say, you can proyest all you want but if the Scriptures hold that a man as good as paid tithes generations before he was born on the strength of the fact that his great-grampa did, it must also hold that all humans made the choice in the Garden. The contrary that you seem to be suggesting is double standards.

I've explained the rest of the Scriptures I cited. What you are now doing is stop your ears and sing "lalalalala, all I know is...." as is the wont of people hardening themselves to the Truth.

Oh yeah, as a bonus, that forgiveness...consequence thing in your last post was quite a bit of nonsense. That is not to say that there was zero value in it, because indeed forgiveness addresses consequences and it does so by addressing the offence that produced them.

Of course, you fail to give at least an example of the inanity you complain of. I've pointed out, with an example, the absurdity of your extrapolations. I wonder why you don't extrapolate as well that Jesus was a sinner since his mother ate of the fruit, by your twisted logic, and He was doubtless in her loins. Check a Bible dictionary, you'll see it agrees with my definition of forgiveness.

Ihedinobi:

Funny that you employed an obvious absurdity to debunk a probably non-existent one. I am 50% my dad and 50% my mom, so how do I sleep with my mom when she's copulating with my dad before I was born? See your desperation?

And going by that logic how do you expect the whole of humanity to have eaten the fruit since they're 50% each of their parents and when theyweren't even born.

Ihedinobi:
Anyway, you might as well cease your consideration now, my friend. There isn't a lot of difference between your thinking ans that of the atheist or agnostic. I think that coming to terms with the fact that you and God are ordinarily on different wavelengths can be good for you. But where you go with it will prove what kind of choice it is that you've just made.

Ultimately, it's up to me and I intend to be CAUTIOUS in coming to a conclusion since I don't want to end up in a position I'll later recant.

Ihedinobi:
Anyhow, it was fun talking with you. I trust that if you're the Lord's you'll let Him find you. And that you'll eventually see that your "argument" was a rash of excuses to exalt yourself to the Place of the Most High. And an utterly untenable rash of excuses too.

No. The one who gave excuses was you by evading clearly outlined questions (particularly the one concerning OT massacres). By copping out with a feeble excuse on me being dense (an appelation that better fits you). Of course, I'm not interested in occupying God's place. I gave myself wholly to see if God's love as portrayed in the Bible was true. I found it false given the reasons in the OP. Your defense includes a denial of the OT massacres, pretending there's a definition of forgiveness which justifies killing someone in order to forgive, a particularly foolish stance that all humans ate of the fruit since they are descendants of Adam & Eve and a FAILURE to reconcile OT massacres with a loving God.

Uyi Iredia:

Of course, you fail to give at least an example of the inanity you complain of. I've pointed out, with an example, the absurdity of your extrapolations. I wonder why you don't extrapolate as well that Jesus was a sinner since his mother ate of the fruit, by your twisted logic, and He was doubtless in her loins. Check a Bible dictionary, you'll see it agrees with my definition of forgiveness.

Such nonsense! My friend, I did not say there were inanities in your posts. If I said that, the onus would have been on me to provide examples. I said that all of your recent posts have been inane. Each one is an example in itself of the inanity I talked about. And I showed you how: they are evidence of a refusal to consider arguments, a turning of a blind eye to what answers I have been giving and an insistence that I give answers you want. That is stuppid, my friend.

And this new one is no different. Scriptures themselves explain how Jesus was born free of Adam and Eve's failure. They say that His conception was the work of the Holy Spirit. There were no details beyond the fact that He was not conceived normally and that He was born of a virgin. It was because of the Holy Spirit's involvement, the Scriptures say, that He was born holy. If you have a quarrel there, take it up with the Bible.

I couldn't care less about a definition that you don't understand. So, if you want to publish treatises from nine thousand authorities, you can do it without my participation. When you jave understood the involvements of meanings, implications and alternate expressions in discussions, we can carry on. Until that last post of yours talking some nonsense about offence and consequences, I had no problem with how you defined forgiveness. I only had a problem with your apparent unwillingness to face the meaning of your definition. And you were so rebellious against any possibility that your definition of forgiveness might actually mean what I said it meant that you had to go and type that nonsense you did. But, well, everyone has a right to type whatever pleases them within the rules.

Uyi Iredia:

And going by that logic how do you expect the whole of humanity to have eaten the fruit since they're 50% each of their parents and when theyweren't even born.

I guess the above is further evidence that you are no longer engaging your head in this discussion. If everybody is 50% each of their parents and the first parents were together in the Garden at the beginning, neither of them uninvolved in the decision made, it only follows that everyone was there as well even if only as part of their genes.

And did you draw that part about not being born yet from my answer? Because I'm sure I said nothing alluding to physical presence.

Now that funny post that apparently sought to insult me rather than make any tangible point said that I slept with my mom when she copulated with my dad if indeed I can be said to be complicit in my father's actions and decisions. The stupidity of it arises from the fact that I have held that it was Adam and Eve together who made the choice in the Garden. Perhaps Adam could have made it for them both because the man can speak for his wife but the Scriptures hold that they both ate the fruit. Carry that over into your analogy then you'd see how it made zero sense.

Being part of both my mom and my dad I could not have been sleeping with my mom any more than with my dad. Their action is the action of a unit and I am complicit in the moral choices of that unit. Your analogy only serves to annoy me not point out any absurdity.

Ultimately, it's up to me and I intend to be CAUTIOUS in coming to a conclusion since I don't want to end up in a position I'll later recant.

I suppose then that you weren't cautious in coming to the conclusion that made you a Christian since you're looking to recant it now. That would only mean that it wasn't real making me right yet again.

No. The one who gave excuses was you by evading clearly outlined questions (particularly the one concerning OT massacres).

I evaded? How funny. Just say you don't like the answers I have been giving and get over it, ok. Evasion would have led away from your argument that Yahweh is not a loving God. My arguments have stayed on that. I have attacked the pillars of your argument and, if your protracted whining is anything to go by, they haven't proved capable of holding up your argument.

By copping out with a feeble excuse on me being dense (an appelation that better fits you).

Actually, "denseness" or willful stuppidity, I think it should be called, is a real hindrance to fruitful discussions. Thus it is a genuine and a very legitimate reason to discontinue exercises such as this.

Of course, I'm not interested in occupying God's place.

Uh huh. That's why you insist that God is bound to your intellect's rendering of love. However you define love, God is obliged to agree. Yeah, you're definitely not aiming for the Throne of Creation, you only want God to plead guilty to your charges and apologize to you for failing to live up to your lofty expectations of Him. I get it.

I gave myself wholly to see if God's love as portrayed in the Bible was true. I found it false given the reasons in the OP. Your defense includes a denial of the OT massacres, pretending there's a definition of forgiveness which justifies killing someone in order to forgive, a particularly foolish stance that all humans ate of the fruit since they are descendants of Adam & Eve and a FAILURE to reconcile OT massacres with a loving God.

And the nonsense again. The following is what you have been doing and how it ends.

Uyi: I charge Yahweh with beong unloving and misleading us to think that He is for the following reasons:

1. He ordered the indiscriminate killing of populations of men, women and children, old and young and pregnant women with their unborn babies as well as all their animals. That is massacre amd nobody may say otherwise because I have decided that that is what it is.

2. He killed somebody on the pretext that it was necessary so that He could forgive the rest of the world. That was brutal because I define forgiveness as requiring no such act. And I am not mistaken, to hell with anyone who thinks different.

3. He unjustly holds the whole of humankind guilty for a sin only the first parents committed in the Garden. And I say it is only the first parents who did because I am right to say so. Anyone who thinls different is stuppid.

Well, what say you, God? Guilty or not guilty? How do you plead?

God: Not guilty.

Uyi: Well, explain yourself. How could you do such wickedness and still call yourself loving?

God: I don't think you want to hear my explanation.

Uyi: I do too

God: Well, ok. You see, you may have got sone of your ideas wrong. For instance, forgiveness does require some....

Uyi (cuts in): Hold it right there. Did you miss the part where I said that I cannot be wrong? I researched the meanings of every word I used in drawing up those charges. I'm not wrong.

God: Well, there's nothing I can say then except I'm not guilty and you've got it all wrong. Perhaps someday you'll let me explain.

Uyi: There we have it. God has failed to show how He is not guilty. I therefore, by the power vested in me by my almighty, infallible intellect, pronounce God guilty of lack of love and deception. He is henceforth no longer to be regarded as God because I say so.


The typical nonsense of atheists, like I said.

*observing the moral implications*

Ihedinobi:

Such nonsense! My friend, I did not say there were inanities in your posts. If I said that, the onus would have been on me to provide examples. I said that all of your recent posts have been inane. Each one is an example in itself of the inanity I talked about. And I showed you how: they are evidence of a refusal to consider arguments, a turning of a blind eye to what answers I have been giving and an insistence that I give answers you want. That is stuppid, my friend.

And this new one is no different. Scriptures themselves explain how Jesus was born free of Adam and Eve's failure. They say that His conception was the work of the Holy Spirit. There were no details beyond the fact that He was not conceived normally and that He was born of a virgin. It was because of the Holy Spirit's involvement, the Scriptures say, that He was born holy. If you have a quarrel there, take it up with the Bible.

I couldn't care less about a definition that you don't understand. So, if you want to publish treatises from nine thousand authorities, you can do it without my participation. When you jave understood the involvements of meanings, implications and alternate expressions in discussions, we can carry on. Until that last post of yours talking some nonsense about offence and consequences, I had no problem with how you defined forgiveness. I only had a problem with your apparent unwillingness to face the meaning of your definition. And you were so rebellious against any possibility that your definition of forgiveness might actually mean what I said it meant that you had to go and type that nonsense you did. But, well, everyone has a right to type whatever pleases them within the rules.

Stop lying. You said 'your responses have been incredibly inane.' In any case, it is up to you to give your answer to my question even if we should work with your understanding of forgiveness.

Ihedinobi:

I guess the above is further evidence that you are no longer engaging your head in this discussion. If everybody is 50% each of their parents and the first parents were together in the Garden at the beginning, neither of them uninvolved in the decision made, it only follows that everyone was there as well even if only as part of their genes.

Hence, you slept with your mother even if you were only in part in her.

Ihedinobi:
And did you draw that part about not being born yet from my answer? Because I'm sure I said nothing alluding to physical presence.

Now how can you allude to NOT sleeping with your mum without alluding to your physical presence.

Ihedinobi:
Now that funny post that apparently sought to insult me rather than make any tangible point said that I slept with my mom when she copulated with my dad if indeed I can be said to be complicit in my father's actions and decisions. The stupidity of it arises from the fact that I have held that it was Adam and Eve together who made the choice in the Garden. Perhaps Adam could have made it for them both because the man can speak for his wife but the Scriptures hold that they both ate the fruit. Carry that over into your analogy then you'd see how it made zero sense.

No, you are making zero sense. Applying a principle in one case and ignoring it in another. The other being you sleeping with your mom. Weren't your parents both involved in their intercourse ? Yet somehow you weren't involved whilst you hold unborn people were involved in eating a fruit because they were in their parents.

Ihedinobi:
Being part of both my mom and my dad I could not have been sleeping with my mom any more than with my dad. Their action is the action of a unit and I am complicit in the moral choices of that unit. Your analogy only serves to annoy me not point out any absurdity.

You are complicit in the moral choices of your parents. So if your parents murdered someone you also mudered.

Ihedinobi:
I suppose then that you weren't cautious in coming to the conclusion that made you a Christian since you're looking to recant it now. That would only mean that it wasn't real making me right yet again.

I wasn't as informed then as I am now. I had no knowledge of philosophy, hadn't known many religions and knew little or nothing of atheism. This is given the fact that I was a young pre-teen.

Ihedinobi:
I evaded? How funny. Just say you don't like the answers I have been giving and get over it, ok. Evasion would have led away from your argument that Yahweh is not a loving God. My arguments have stayed on that. I have attacked the pillars of your argument and, if your protracted whining is anything to go by, they haven't proved capable of holding up your argument.

Please state one of your answers here for me to respond.

Ihedinobi:
Actually, "denseness" or willful stuppidity, I think it should be called, is a real hindrance to fruitful discussions. Thus it is a genuine and a very legitimate reason to discontinue exercises such as this.

And I say you epitomize such denseness. Shown by how you insist you didn't sleep with your mom though you were in your Dad's loins whilst somehow all humans ate the fruit since they were in Adam's loins.

Ihedinobi:
Uh huh. That's why you insist that God is bound to your intellect's rendering of love. However you define love, God is obliged to agree. Yeah, you're definitely not aiming for the Throne of Creation, you only want God to plead guilty to your charges and apologize to you for failing to live up to your lofty expectations of Him. I get it.

Typical 'thus saith the Lord' when He hasn't spoken. Since God hasn't come out to say wqhether or not he agrees withh the common understanding of love. An understanding Jesus worked with.

Ihedinobi:
And the nonsense again. The following is what you have been doing and how it ends.

Uyi: I charge Yahweh with beong unloving and misleading us to think that He is for the following reasons:

1. He ordered the indiscriminate killing of populations of men, women and children, old and young and pregnant women with their unborn babies as well as all their animals. That is massacre amd nobody may say otherwise because I have decided that that is what it is.

2. He killed somebody on the pretext that it was necessary so that He could forgive the rest of the world. That was brutal because I define forgiveness as requiring no such act. And I am not mistaken, to hell with anyone who thinks different.

3. He unjustly holds the whole of humankind guilty for a sin only the first parents committed in the Garden. And I say it is only the first parents who did because I am right to say so. Anyone who thinls different is stuppid.

Well, what say you, God? Guilty or not guilty? How do you plead?

God: Not guilty.

Uyi: Well, explain yourself. How could you do such wickedness and still call yourself loving?

God: I don't think you want to hear my explanation.

Uyi: I do too

God: Well, ok. You see, you may have got sone of your ideas wrong. For instance, forgiveness does require some....

Uyi (cuts in): Hold it right there. Did you miss the part where I said that I cannot be wrong? I researched the meanings of every word I used in drawing up those charges. I'm not wrong.

God: Well, there's nothing I can say then except I'm not guilty and you've got it all wrong. Perhaps someday you'll let me explain.

Uyi: There we have it. God has failed to show how He is not guilty. I therefore, by the power vested in me by my almighty, infallible intellect, pronounce God guilty of lack of love and deception. He is henceforth no longer to be regarded as God because I say so.


The typical nonsense of atheists, like I said.

I see. Here now you and God have a CLEAR CHANCE. Explain what forgiveness requires which justifies killing someone in order to forgive. Also respond to other points made. Of course, trying to portray me as pompous fails and I will leave my previous posts unaltered as a testament to that.

Uyi Iredia:

Stop lying. You said 'your responses have been incredibly inane.' In any case, it is up to you to give your answer to my question even if we should work with your understanding of forgiveness.

This will be my penultimate response because you have become too insulting and too dense to continue reasoning with.

"For the past few posts, your responses have been incredibly inane" and "all of your recent posts have been inane" are not the same, abi? You are the one lying now, my friend. And if you are now brazen enough to engage in underhanded tactics such as these, I am effectively done with this discussion.

You can lock God up now. I'm sure you'll figure out a way to manage without him.

Uyi Iredia:

Hence, you slept with your mother even if you were only in part in her.



Now how can you allude to NOT sleeping with your mum without alluding to your physical presence.



No, you are making zero sense. Applying a principle in one case and ignoring it in another. The other being you sleeping with your mom. Weren't your parents both involved in their intercourse ? Yet somehow you weren't involved whilst you hold unborn people were involved in eating a fruit because they were in their parents.



You are complicit in the moral choices of your parents. So if your parents murdered someone you also mudered.

I figured there was no point allowing myself to get upset at all this talk of sleeping with my mother, but it's typical of ffools to think that insulting someone is the same as making a point. I just figured that you'd get the point if I gave you a hint, but ever so dense, you wouldn't take it.

Believe whatever pleases you, my friend. I'm not changed by it. All I need to say to you I have already. Should you really need an answer to the nonsense above reread my preceding posts.

I wasn't as informed then as I am now. I had no knowledge of philosophy, hadn't known many religions and knew little or nothing of atheism. This is given the fact that I was a young pre-teen.

Wonderful. And now, you have all the information that you could possibly need. I'm sure there's nothing new you could learn since now you know everything.

Anyhow, I'm proved right yet again. You were never a real Christian.

Please state one of your answers here for me to respond.

You must think I'm yours to command as you please. So I am obliged to produce my arguments at the pleasure of your highness whenever it suits you to demand it. I made a post first quoting your arguments and responding with my own counters systematically. And since then, I have defended them without wavering. Feel free to go back to them if you've forgotten what my answers are.

And I say you epitomize such denseness. Shown by how you insist you didn't sleep with your mom though you were in your Dad's loins whilst somehow all humans ate the fruit since they were in Adam's loins.

Well, I was in my mom's loins too. And you deserve none of the attention I gave you throughout this discussion.

Typical 'thus saith the Lord' when He hasn't spoken. Since God hasn't come out to say wqhether or not he agrees withh the common understanding of love. An understanding Jesus worked with.

What does all the above mean exactly? Have your brains totally calcified?

I see. Here now you and God have a CLEAR CHANCE. Explain what forgiveness requires which justifies killing someone in order to forgive. Also respond to other points made. Of course, trying to portray me as pompous fails and I will leave my previous posts unaltered as a testament to that.

Why should you care what I think of you or portray you as? Anyhow, as far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over. It was dead on arrival but I humored you because in the valley of decision there stands a sign. It will tell you where each trail leads. That's my job.

You will come home if you want to and you won't if you don't want to. The road has been shown to you and it is this: man is not God and can never be. Go be an atheist for a bit. Live out in the cold and fend for yourself a bit. Be silly and party a bit. Let the lonely wilderness knock some sense into you if you have any capacity for it at all. You'll come running if therr is that in you that does not belong in the wild.

There, you can lock God up now...but you'll need a really big box. I'm done. Knock yourself out being abominably dense...yeah, and insolent.

Uyi Iredia:

* Here.

* I haven't yet turned atheist. I'm carefully considering it though. In any case, Adam & Eve represented no one but themselves. Of course, the example of you committing incest was to point out the absurdity of your extrapolations. Only Adam & Eve ate the fruit and they only should have been punished.

Do so and spare us the long long tomes my brother.

Ihedinobi:

This will be my penultimate response because you have become too insulting and too dense to continue reasoning with.

Feeble excuse, for you have failed to show how I'm dense. Why I OTOH have continually pointed out how you fail to respond to my arguments or evade questions as done in the preceding post.

Ihedinobi:
"For the past few posts, your responses have been incredibly inane" and "all of your recent posts have been inane" are not the same, abi? You are the one lying now, my friend. And if you are now brazen enough to engage in underhanded tactics such as these, I am effectively done with this discussion.

Yes they are the same. That's my point. Ending this discussion while failing to answer questions I asked shows how fraudulent you are.

Ihedinobi:
You can lock God up now. I'm sure you'll figure out a way to manage without him.

Ihedinobi:

I figured there was no point allowing myself to get upset at all this talk of sleeping with my mother, but it's typical of ffools to think that insulting someone is the same as making a point. I just figured that you'd get the point if I gave you a hint, but ever so dense, you wouldn't take it.

Of course. The point would be lost on a meathead such as yourself. You CLEARLY extrapolated the collusion of all humans in eating the fruit from a verse that talk about someone paying tithe since he was in the father's loins. I LIKEWISE extrapolated you slept with your mother since you were certainly in your Dad's loins. Instead you uphold the extrapolation in one sense while IGNORING pointed out in my point. You are a fool.

Ihedinobi: Believe whatever pleases you, my friend. I'm not changed by it. All I need to say to you I have already. Should you really need an answer to the nonsense above reread my preceding posts.

You mean the nonsense you've been spewing out since the beginning of this thread. Nonsense such as the killings in the OT not being massacres.

Ihedinobi:
Wonderful. And now, you have all the information that you could possibly need. I'm sure there's nothing new you could learn since now you know everything.

I never said or implied that I know everything.

Ihedinobi:
Anyhow, I'm proved right yet again. You were never a real Christian.

Typical nonsense a fundamentalist says to a Christian in doubt or who turned to atheism or another religion.

Ihedinobi:
You must think I'm yours to command as you please. So I am obliged to produce my arguments at the pleasure of your highness whenever it suits you to demand it. I made a post first quoting your arguments and responding with my own counters systematically. And since then, I have defended them without wavering. Feel free to go back to them if you've forgotten what my answers are.

Simply summarize them here. Let's not forget I added please to that request. Of course my politenesss was lost on you.

Ihedinobi:
Well, I was in my mom's loins too. And you deserve none of the attention I gave you throughout this discussion.

And you slept with her. If by your logic Adams descendants ate of the fruit since they're geneticall related to him.

Ihedinobi:
What does all the above mean exactly? Have your brains totally calcified?

It is you whose brain has calcified proven by your asking for a meaning to a simple statement. I meant what I wrote.

Ihedinobi:
Why should you care what I think of you or portray you as? Anyhow, as far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over. It was dead on arrival but I humored you because in the valley of decision there stands a sign. It will tell you where each trail leads. That's my job.

And I must say you've failed woefully at your job.

Ihedinobi:
You will come home if you want to and you won't if you don't want to. The road has been shown to you and it is this: man is not God and can never be. Go be an atheist for a bit. Live out in the cold and fend for yourself a bit. Be silly and party a bit. Let the lonely wilderness knock some sense into you if you have any capacity for it at all. You'll come running if therr is that in you that does not belong in the wild.

That is not an answer. You have to provide a REASON that could possibly justify killing people. Saying man is not God is obvious and abviously answers nothing.

Ihedinobi:
There, you can lock God up now...but you'll need a really big box. I'm done. Knock yourself out being abominably dense...yeah, and insolent.

You just described yourself not me. If I need a really big box then God is not infinite as generally defined. Once more you display you stupidity.

Some thing tells me that Ihedinobi and anony are the same person. . .