cyrexx: @ anony
are you aware that your thread has been moved from religion to islamic section?

lol, are you serious? Na true o! Well perhaps more muslims will read it and come to Christ. I just hope I don't get severely censored and even banned in the typical "islamic tolerance" style

An omnipotent being definitely has more discretion than an average Joe.

Kay 17: An omnipotent being definitely has more discretion than an average Joe.

so are you saying that the mere fact that the being is omnipotent is unsavoury? I am at loss now as to what you mean

No, I didn't say that.

thehomer:

Do you agree that he commanded a certain group of people be killed because he wanted to take their land?

Of course not! How absurd!

thehomer:
If God doesn't tell people that they're to worship him, how can you fault them for not worshiping him? Especially when his entire aim was to take their land and to avoid any mixing between the tribes? Do you know of any prophets that God sent to those people that he killed?

And you know somehow for sure that He didn't send?

thehomer:
In other words, you don't know of any other tribes that he has wiped out since then.

Nope! In other words, I know of a bunch that He will yet wipe out.

thehomer:
No I haven't met any Christians that begged me to flee. Some have tried to talk about the goodness of God but what I've noticed is that we don't share a common conception of goodness.

Well, here's one begging you right now to flee. The kind of terror that the Day of the Lord will bring is beyond the capability Hollywood's horror movie producers and all the Stephen Kings in the world.

thehomer:
Counting with the Bible, the grace period is still much shorter than say 2000 years.

There's a law that says a grace period cannot exceed a given length of time? By the way, what's the benchmark?

thehomer:
What is it that you know that you think may make me give up sleep? I've heard, read and watched a lot of those Christian claims but you see, I've become immune to them.

Oh bruv, you can't stand it. I shudder, I quake for dear. You know that kind of terror you see in horror movies that make kids think there's a bogeyman in the dark at every corner waiting to grab them? Well, this kind makes very powerful men run to the mountains and beg them to fall upon them if only death could somehow hide them from His Wrath.
An invading force takes over a land, totally unmerciful in their destructive mission: they don't pity crying children (the ones you call innocents), the men are worse off by far. They rip pregnant women apart. They burn and destroy everything in sight. Imagine that you were one of those villagers way back in the time of the Vikings. You know how that feels? Of course not, but if you did, you'd still not be close to the terror of the Day of the Lord.

thehomer:
Your God cannot be a man because e.g Christians would say their God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent while humans have none of those features. How can a God have all six features?
It violates the law of non-contradiction that says according to Aristotle: "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time"

What makes you or Aristotle right? How does God choosing to become something so limiting negate His Godhood? If He's omnipotent, sure enough He can pull it off right. Matter of fact, He did.

Ihedinobi:

Of course not! How absurd!

So who commanded the killing of the Canaanite tribes?

Ihedinobi:
And you know somehow for sure that He didn't send?

You shouldn't be so evasive. Do you know whether or not he sent any prophets before commanding their slaughter? Does your Bible say anything about this?

Ihedinobi:
Nope! In other words, I know of a bunch that He will yet wipe out.

All believers know the people their Gods want to destroy. They usually coincide with the people they want to destroy.

Ihedinobi:
Well, here's one begging you right now to flee. The kind of terror that the Day of the Lord will bring is beyond the capability Hollywood's horror movie producers and all the Stephen Kings in the world.

I've grown beyond that level of being manipulated by fear.

Ihedinobi:
There's a law that says a grace period cannot exceed a given length of time? By the way, what's the benchmark?

I don't know what the benchmark is. You're the one talking about the grace period so you'll be in a better position to answer.

Ihedinobi:
Oh bruv, you can't stand it. I shudder, I quake for dear. You know that kind of terror you see in horror movies that make kids think there's a bogeyman in the dark at every corner waiting to grab them? Well, this kind makes very powerful men run to the mountains and beg them to fall upon them if only death could somehow hide them from His Wrath.
An invading force takes over a land, totally unmerciful in their destructive mission: they don't pity crying children (the ones you call innocents), the men are worse off by far. They rip pregnant women apart. They burn and destroy everything in sight. Imagine that you were one of those villagers way back in the time of the Vikings. You know how that feels? Of course not, but if you did, you'd still not be close to the terror of the Day of the Lord.

Sorry but your God doesn't scare me. Like I said, I've seen, read and heard the best stories of your God's terrorist capabilities but I'm unmoved. As I would be if Santa Claus were said to be a mass murdering psychopath today.

Ihedinobi:
What makes you or Aristotle right? How does God choosing to become something so limiting negate His Godhood? If He's omnipotent, sure enough He can pull it off right. Matter of fact, He did.

If he limits or negates his Godhood, then he isn't God. That also means that your God has changed.
You need to realize that this isn't just about Aristotle. Attempting to have a conversation while violating these laws would mean that the person is simply saying nonsense.
By omnipotent, do you mean that he can violate the laws of logic?

Lol

thehomer:

So who commanded the killing of the Canaanite tribes?

Yahweh did.

thehomer:
You shouldn't be so evasive. Do you know whether or not he sent any prophets before commanding their slaughter? Does your Bible say anything about this?

YOU implied that He didn't. My answer was fitting. Sure my Bible said something about it but then wouldn't you say that I'm wrangling things if I showed it to you?

thehomer:
All believers know the people their Gods want to destroy. They usually coincide with the people they want to destroy.

Let me assure you, dude, I don't want to destroy anybody. One of my best friends on facebook is an atheist poet. She taught me some of the really useful skills I've got in poetry and I love her to bits.

thehomer:
I've grown beyond that level of being manipulated by fear.

Who was it said a while back no Christian'd ever told him to flee?

thehomer:
I don't know what the benchmark is. You're the one talking about the grace period so you'll be in a better position to answer.

Why're you making it my problem? I told you that Yahweh gave a longer grace period than He's ever done and you implied that 2000 yrs was too long. Doesn't that mean that you somehow know how long grace periods ought to be?

thehomer:
Sorry but your God doesn't scare me. Like I said, I've seen, read and heard the best stories of your God's terrorist capabilities but I'm unmoved. As I would be if Santa Claus were said to be a mass murdering psychopath today.

Thought you said no one ever told you to flee.

thehomer:
If he limits or negates his Godhood, then he isn't God. That also means that your God has changed.
You need to realize that this isn't just about Aristotle. Attempting to have a conversation while violating these laws would mean that the person is simply saying nonsense.
By omnipotent, do you mean that he can violate the laws of logic?

Everytime that you refrain from speaking, bruv, be sure about this: you're dumb. If you ever close your eyes, you're blind. If you ever take a break from everyone and just take a nap in your room, you cannot socialize.

You guys should go easy on yourselves. Didn't you set out to prove that my points didn't stand up to scrutiny? We've been scrutinizing them ever since with you wriggling about. I said that Yahweh never changed, and you've been pressing me for specifics ever since. How about you show me some clear arguments for how He changed? What's with telling me He doesn't scare you? Was that my argument? In fact, aren't you proving by saying so that Yahweh is still in the words of your friends, "the same bloodthirsty butcher" He was way back when. That's my point, bruv

Mr_Anony:
You ask for no gimmicks but you ask the question out of context.
The sin here is adultery. The sin today is still adultery and not the stoning. The stoning is the punishment
Find something better

lol. thanks for proving my point.

Mr_Anony:
The sin here is adultery. The sin today is still adultery and not the stoning. The stoning is the punishment
Find something better

Here's the aftermath of stoning, so you can have an idea of your god's idea of punishment. An idea he shares with his arab brother, allah.

Ihedinobi: You guys know that moment when maybe two or three guys in a bus are discussing something they find puzzling about women and there are two young ladies near them when they come to certain absurd (not to the guys though) conclusions concerning those things and the ladies have themselves a laugh? Well, this is one of them moments for me. You imagine some really very absurd things about God just cos you don't like Him, or whatever your problem is.

I'm not really intending to digress here, I want to prepare the grounds for something I have to say.

Did God order the wiping out of whole nations that did not worship Him? Yes He did. Was He right to do so? Absolutely. How so? He's God, He owned them and could do as He wished with them. Therefore if He had expectation of them that they were neglecting to fill, He had every right in the book and beyond to wipe them out of existence. That's what being God means, guys. It means being boss. Yeah! You don't like it, you can go howl at the moon.

Has God changed? Absolutely not. Does He still wipe out nations? Not yet. Why? He has never ever wished to destroy the sinner, so He has brought about a way to lengthen their sentencing in case they repent. What'll He do if they don't? Oh, wipe them out just like He did before.

Is all the foregoing like meek, mild Jesus Christ? Hehehehe...sure, boys. Let me tell you, that kitty cat's got very sharp teeth and a fearsome roar. Today, He's pleading for everyone to repent, just like He used to with the Law and the sacrifices and the Temple and the Prophets. But just like what happened when everyone turned up their noses at His warnings and pleadings, tomorrow... oh my, believe me you don't wanna hear His roar.

My point? Oh, God hasn't changed. He can't. He's very much the same. His mercy was as evident under the Old Covenant as it is under the New. In fact, you know what your plans and schematics are to the actual thing you put on ground? That's what the Old Covenant or Testament was to the New.

Finally, what kind of God would God be if He were courting your favors, guys? God as God is not your leader. He's your owner and you better do what He says or else... But God in Christ? Now, there's another matter altogether. That's God coming down and becoming one of us. That's where you can rightly demand that God lead by example. And did He? Boy, oh boy, He sure as heck did! Did I hear someone say, "I can't emulate Christ". Well, sure you can't. But dare you say now that God has no moral right to demand this and that of you? Hasn't He led by example? Better follow o, dude, for your own good. Being the best you can be was not the standard you set for God. You demanded He be absolutely good and never do wrong (though like my bro, Mr Anony said, you guys conveniently skipped the part of saying what you defined good and evil as and by). Now, you gotta keep your own part of that deal. Follow the example.

Sum? Per the criteria, Yahweh met the requirement for being unchanging, barring any disagreements with my submissions above. If you disagree, boys, say why!

I have always said, not on this forum but elsewhere, that all arguments against God are really arguments against straw gods.

caezar:

I have always said, not on this forum but elsewhere, that all arguments against God are really arguments against straw gods.

Bro, are u right or what!

Ihedinobi: Lol



Yahweh did.

Is Yahweh God?

Ihedinobi:
YOU implied that He didn't. My answer was fitting. Sure my Bible said something about it but then wouldn't you say that I'm wrangling things if I showed it to you?

Where did your Bible talk about sending them prophets telling them to repent of their deeds? If the answer you give is accurate and relevant, I'll accept it.

Ihedinobi:
Let me assure you, dude, I don't want to destroy anybody. One of my best friends on facebook is an atheist poet. She taught me some of the really useful skills I've got in poetry and I love her to bits.

Good for you. But still, your God wants to destroy some people and more often than not, the people those who follow him want destroyed, coincide with those their God wants to destroy. You seem to have my point the wrong way around.

Ihedinobi:
Who was it said a while back no Christian'd ever told him to flee?

I did and your response doesn't really affect it.

Ihedinobi:
Why're you making it my problem? I told you that Yahweh gave a longer grace period than He's ever done and you implied that 2000 yrs was too long. Doesn't that mean that you somehow know how long grace periods ought to be?

I don't have to know how long it ought to be in order to tell from the Bible that Yahweh doesn't give grace periods that long. If you have no idea how long his grace periods are, then you cannot say that the absence of his usual destruction is due to him giving longer grace periods.

Ihedinobi:
Thought you said no one ever told you to flee.

Yes I did. Do you think my answer contradicts anything I said?

Ihedinobi:
Everytime that you refrain from speaking, bruv, be sure about this: you're dumb. If you ever close your eyes, you're blind. If you ever take a break from everyone and just take a nap in your room, you cannot socialize.

What is your point? Are you trying to demonstrate poor poetry or what?

Ihedinobi:
You guys should go easy on yourselves. Didn't you set out to prove that my points didn't stand up to scrutiny? We've been scrutinizing them ever since with you wriggling about. I said that Yahweh never changed, and you've been pressing me for specifics ever since. How about you show me some clear arguments for how He changed? What's with telling me He doesn't scare you? Was that my argument? In fact, aren't you proving by saying so that Yahweh is still in the words of your friends, "the same bloodthirsty butcher" He was way back when. That's my point, bruv

The fear thing was part of your argument. I already showed you that he's changed in that he no longer wipes out tribes since those iron chariots were invented.
Pointing out that I'm not scared of him or that he is too weak to actually kill people on a large scale doesn't mean he isn't a blood thirsty butcher.
I already presented you with one way in which he had changed which is by him limiting or negating his own Godhood.
You never responded on whether or not this God of yours was capable of violating the laws of logic.

thehomer:

Is Yahweh God?

You didn't see my point then Your original question was a why not a who. I'm assuming it wasn't a deliberate calculation on your part to lure me into accepting your reason for what God did. Here's my answer: Yahweh did the ordering you asked about but not for the reason (which is an absurd one, by the way) you posited.

Where did your Bible talk about sending them prophets telling them to repent of their deeds? If the answer you give is accurate and relevant, I'll accept it.

Where does it say He did not? I'm deliberately rescinding my offer to show that He did for the sole reason that I've had enough of the side eddies that result from such generosity.

Good for you. But still, your God wants to destroy some people and more often than not, the people those who follow him want destroyed, coincide with those their God wants to destroy. You seem to have my point the wrong way around.

The bolded part is entirely your opinion.

I did and your response doesn't really affect it.

Ok.

I don't have to know how long it ought to be in order to tell from the Bible that Yahweh doesn't give grace periods that long. If you have no idea how long his grace periods are, then you cannot say that the absence of his usual destruction is due to him giving longer grace periods.

Your argument doesn't quite follow. My position is only that God gives grace periods and by their very nature, it is entirely God's prerogative how long to make a grace period. You did note the word, "grace", there, didn't you? In fact, all through the Bible, it has been God's way to keep the length of the grace period to Himself such that His action at the end of it usually took those who didn't heed His warnings by surprise (that is one proof of consistency, I daresay). So my not knowing how long He chooses to make any given grace period does not in any way invalidate my argument. Rather your insisting on putting a span on it lays the burden of proof at your door.

Yes I did. Do you think my answer contradicts anything I said?

Your insisting that God's wrath doesn't scare you means you've heard of it before and by saying previously that no Christian ever told you to flee it, you implied that you hadn't. In that sense, yes, you contradicted yourself. Also you've left an impression of dishonesty on me. The other sense in which your answer is relevant to this discussion is that with warnings of that sort, we can say that Yahweh still punishes sin like the Old Testament depicts Him.

What is your point? Are you trying to demonstrate poor poetry or what?

hehehehe...definitely not. With how much work you're making me do I can't let you see my poetry for free, I promise you
I was showing you the parallel of your argument about God limitting His Godhood.

The fear thing was part of your argument. I already showed you that he's changed in that he no longer wipes out tribes since those iron chariots were invented.
Pointing out that I'm not scared of him or that he is too weak to actually kill people on a large scale doesn't mean he isn't a blood thirsty butcher.

Dude, I really don't like it when I'm made responsible for my opponent's argument. Fear was never part of my argument. I told you of an integral feature of Christianity - the presence of a fearsome punishment for sin. It was meant to tell you that Jesus Christ and Yahweh are one and the same. If in the past, Yahweh flooded the world, destroyed nations by raining fire from heaven or by sending another nation to fight against it and destroy it, in the future Jesus Christ will not do less. Fear came into this from you (and that's curious since it's not supposed to be real according to you).

I already presented you with one way in which he had changed which is by him limiting or negating his own Godhood.

No, you didn't. See my answer to your questiin about my point.

You never responded on whether or not this God of yours was capable of violating the laws of logic.

I failed to see its relevance to the subject at hand and still do.

@thehomer: the way I see it, dude, we'll keep going back and forth with this effort of yours to disprove my submission about Yahweh's consistency of behavior till kingdom come. So I'll address the argument with which you claimed to have shown me inconsistency in His behavior: that Yahweh limited and negated His Godhood in becoming man.

Put simply, you do not have an argument here. In fact, I think I'll go on and add another one (and, in my opinion, the nearest thing to a real {pun fully intended 8-)} argument in everything you've said): that Yahweh is not currently destroying nations and hasn't done so in much longer than He used to.

Well, first one first.

Yahweh changed by becoming man because in doing so, He limited and negated His Godhood
This argument makes no sense. It does not show how Yahweh's consistency of behavior faltered in becoming man. Even taking Aristotle's submission into account doesn't help you since it also fails to show how Yahweh's taking human flesh and form amounts to inconsistency of behavior. But I'll go one step further and take into consideration the fact that as a human He couldn't be omni-everything. Even this fails to show inconsistency of behavior, moral behavior as the case here is. In fact the limitation (not negation, unless you can show negation of Godhood in God taking the form of mortal man, this is thrown out. Even if you did, it would still fail to sufficiently show inconsistency of behavior in Yahweh) of which you speak is on the order of the analogy I gave you: closing your eyes briefly does not mean you've gone blind any more than shutting your mouth makes you dumb or taking some time to be by yourself turns you into a sociopath. All of these are done as of choice, they are all deliberate limitations of ability that you possess nonetheless (if you start an argument about this, I won't answer you). For a while, God restricted Himself to one human body. He was still God no less. The president could strip himself of the paraphernalia of office for an evening and hang out incognito at a remote village here in Nigeria with a bunch of farmers, he wouldn't be any less the president. And it couldn't in any sense be judged a change in moral behavior. Because the fact of the change itself did not equate a change in His approach to good and evil such that some things He previously punished as bad were now rewarded as good and vice versa.

Yahweh hasn't been destroying nations like He used to and He's given a longer grace period than He used to
Evidently, the key to this argument is the grace period. So, I'll define it. A grace period is like the parole in that it is a length of time in which a sentencing authority observes the behavior of the person under sentence during which time said person's punishment or sentence is suspended in the hopes that there will be concrete enough change in their behavior to allow the cancelling out of the punishment altogether, barring which the suspended punishment is carried out. Seeing that this is a favor done the sentenced person by the sentencing authority, it is perfectly reasonable for said authority to have latitude in determining the length of the grace period. It is also perfectly reasonable for the sentencing authority to vary said length in different instances according to its wisdom since it is not under compulsion of any sort in this regard. Therefore, it is illogical to posit that because Yahweh appears to have given a much longer grace period than He ever did in the past He is inconsistent in moral behavior. I protest that[b] inconsistency of behavior would be if He gave no grace period at all[/b] and He did. I put it to you, thehomer, that the length of the grace period, current or past, is a non-issue in this regard and does not in any way show inconsistency of behavior in Yahweh.

QED, bruv.

Ihedinobi:

You didn't see my point then Your original question was a why not a who. I'm assuming it wasn't a deliberate calculation on your part to lure me into accepting your reason for what God did. Here's my answer: Yahweh did the ordering you asked about but not for the reason (which is an absurd one, by the way) you posited.

So why do you think God ordered the Israelites to kill those Canaanites? Forbidding them from having any sort of relationships with them? I don't know about you but Deuteronomy 20:16 seems to give the reason as being for their land.

Ihedinobi:
Where does it say He did not? I'm deliberately rescinding my offer to show that He did for the sole reason that I've had enough of the side eddies that result from such generosity.

Rubbish. No side eddy will result from it. Either you have the quotes that he did or you don't.

Ihedinobi:
The bolded part is entirely your opinion.

Actually, the vast majority of Christians share that opinion. I on the other hand simply know what Christians generally think about these issues.

Ihedinobi:
Ok.



Your argument doesn't quite follow. My position is only that God gives grace periods and by their very nature, it is entirely God's prerogative how long to make a grace period. You did note the word, "grace", there, didn't you? In fact, all through the Bible, it has been God's way to keep the length of the grace period to Himself such that His action at the end of it usually took those who didn't heed His warnings by surprise (that is one proof of consistency, I daresay). So my not knowing how long He chooses to make any given grace period does not in any way invalidate my argument. Rather your insisting on putting a span on it lays the burden of proof at your door.

What you're basically saying is that one cannot tell from the Bible whether or not there actually is a grace period in place since it could well be that God no longer wishes to punish people and you wouldn't know it.

Ihedinobi:
Your insisting that God's wrath doesn't scare you means you've heard of it before and by saying previously that no Christian ever told you to flee it, you implied that you hadn't. In that sense, yes, you contradicted yourself. Also you've left an impression of dishonesty on me. The other sense in which your answer is relevant to this discussion is that with warnings of that sort, we can say that Yahweh still punishes sin like the Old Testament depicts Him.

I never said that I hadn't heard of it before. What I said was that no Christian told me to flee from it. Obviously, one could have come across such descriptions in various media without having to encounter a Christian saying that to me.

Ihedinobi:
hehehehe...definitely not. With how much work you're making me do I can't let you see my poetry for free, I promise you
I was showing you the parallel of your argument about God limitting His Godhood.

Sorry but your argument didn't translate clearly.

Ihedinobi:
Dude, I really don't like it when I'm made responsible for my opponent's argument. Fear was never part of my argument. I told you of an integral feature of Christianity - the presence of a fearsome punishment for sin. It was meant to tell you that Jesus Christ and Yahweh are one and the same. If in the past, Yahweh flooded the world, destroyed nations by raining fire from heaven or by sending another nation to fight against it and destroy it, in the future Jesus Christ will not do less. Fear came into this from you (and that's curious since it's not supposed to be real according to you).

You're denying your own posts that are still available. The first post of yours to which I responded to contained the following quotes.

Ihedinobi:
. . . .
Is all the foregoing like meek, mild Jesus Christ? Hehehehe...sure, boys. Let me tell you, that kitty cat's got very sharp teeth and a fearsome roar. Today, He's pleading for everyone to repent, just like He used to with the Law and the sacrifices and the Temple and the Prophets. But just like what happened when everyone turned up their noses at His warnings and pleadings, tomorrow... oh my, believe me you don't wanna hear His roar.
. . . .
Finally, what kind of God would God be if He were courting your favors, guys? God as God is not your leader. He's your owner and you better do what He says or else...

What was the point of making such statements that are generally associated with threats of harm?

Ihedinobi:
No, you didn't. See my answer to your questiin about my point.

Was that the incomprehensible poem? I'll address it in your new post.

Ihedinobi:
I failed to see its relevance to the subject at hand and still do.

The relevance is to know what concept of omnipotence you're using.

Ihedinobi: @thehomer: the way I see it, dude, we'll keep going back and forth with this effort of yours to disprove my submission about Yahweh's consistency of behavior till kingdom come. So I'll address the argument with which you claimed to have shown me inconsistency in His behavior: that Yahweh limited and negated His Godhood in becoming man.

Put simply, you do not have an argument here. In fact, I think I'll go on and add another one (and, in my opinion, the nearest thing to a real {pun fully intended 8-)} argument in everything you've said): that Yahweh is not currently destroying nations and hasn't done so in much longer than He used to.

Well, first one first.

Yahweh changed by becoming man because in doing so, He limited and negated His Godhood
This argument makes no sense. It does not show how Yahweh's consistency of behavior faltered in becoming man. Even taking Aristotle's submission into account doesn't help you since it also fails to show how Yahweh's taking human flesh and form amounts to inconsistency of behavior. But I'll go one step further and take into consideration the fact that as a human He couldn't be omni-everything. Even this fails to show inconsistency of behavior, moral behavior as the case here is. In fact the limitation (not negation, unless you can show negation of Godhood in God taking the form of mortal man, this is thrown out.

This is why I asked you if your God violates the laws of logic because a God cannot at the same time be a man. It is logically invalid. I'll get to the moral behaviour later.

Ihedinobi:
Even if you did, it would still fail to sufficiently show inconsistency of behavior in Yahweh) of which you speak is on the order of the analogy I gave you: closing your eyes briefly does not mean you've gone blind any more than shutting your mouth makes you dumb or taking some time to be by yourself turns you into a sociopath. All of these are done as of choice, they are all deliberate limitations of ability that you possess nonetheless (if you start an argument about this, I won't answer you). For a while, God restricted Himself to one human body. He was still God no less. The president could strip himself of the paraphernalia of office for an evening and hang out incognito at a remote village here in Nigeria with a bunch of farmers, he wouldn't be any less the president. And it couldn't in any sense be judged a change in moral behavior. Because the fact of the change itself did not equate a change in His approach to good and evil such that some things He previously punished as bad were now rewarded as good and vice versa.

Your analogy of God with a president is simply a bad analogy because what is being addressed here is the core characteristic of a God. Nothing in the characteristic of a president prevents him from staying incognito in a remote village but for an omnipotent God to decide to become not-omnipotent and still be a God is logically incoherent. A God cannot be both omnipotent and not-omnipotent and still be a God.

On the moral issue, simply ask yourself this, does your God still find slavery acceptable? If he doesn't, then he has changed. If you say he never did, then you're saying the Bible is wrong.

Ihedinobi:
Yahweh hasn't been destroying nations like He used to and He's given a longer grace period than He used to
Evidently, the key to this argument is the grace period. So, I'll define it. A grace period is like the parole in that it is a length of time in which a sentencing authority observes the behavior of the person under sentence during which time said person's punishment or sentence is suspended in the hopes that there will be concrete enough change in their behavior to allow the cancelling out of the punishment altogether, barring which the suspended punishment is carried out. Seeing that this is a favor done the sentenced person by the sentencing authority, it is perfectly reasonable for said authority to have latitude in determining the length of the grace period. It is also perfectly reasonable for the sentencing authority to vary said length in different instances according to its wisdom since it is not under compulsion of any sort in this regard. Therefore, it is illogical to posit that because Yahweh appears to have given a much longer grace period than He ever did in the past He is inconsistent in moral behavior. I protest that[b] inconsistency of behavior would be if He gave no grace period at all[/b] and He did. I put it to you, thehomer, that the length of the grace period, current or past, is a non-issue in this regard and does not in any way show inconsistency of behavior in Yahweh.

QED, bruv.

While your definition of grace period is acceptable, you do realize that you're implying the Bible cannot be used to try to predict what Yahweh wants. I also don't understand why you're even limiting this change to one of moral behaviour. If Yahweh has changed, then he has changed whether moral or otherwise.

One can reasonably conclude from your definition and argument that God used to punish people within a short period of time but that with the current system of things, it could well be that God may decide to no longer punish people in the long run for reasons personal to him. If one discards the sorts of durations of grace periods that he's been giving in the past, why should they think that they're in a grace period now? Why not even think that maybe God has given up on dishing out such punishments?

thehomer:

So why do you think God ordered the Israelites to kill those Canaanites? Forbidding them from having any sort of relationships with them? I don't know about you but Deuteronomy 20:16 seems to give the reason as being for their land.

Irrelevant.

Rubbish. No side eddy will result from it. Either you have the quotes that he did or you don't.

See my comment above. I won't answer anything again until you show its relevant. About this, I will dare to go on and say that the burden of proof is on you. My original statement was that if God had an expectation that the nations He destroyed were neglecting to fill, He had every right to destroy them. It was you, friend, that brought up the issue of warnings. I did not posit that He did or did not warn them, you implied that He did not. Therefore, YOU have to show that He did not. And in doing so, I'd like to see that I'm wrong in the beginning of yet another side eddy.

Actually, the vast majority of Christians share that opinion. I on the other hand simply know what Christians generally think about these issues.

Here we have us another problem. Very easy for me to rip into your answer but then all I'll get is another merry-go-round for my trouble. God's wanting or not wanting to destroy anybody (YOU will have to prove that Yahweh has ever wanted to destroy anybody or that Christians do if you keep pushing on this. I do not accept this position as valid) is tangential to whether or not He has changed in behavior.
But rather than contend about that, I'll go back to the original argument. Is Jesus Christ different from Yahweh with regard to sin? The Christian says no. That Jesus Christ only continued what Yahweh (which is the same as Himself actually) used to do: give people time to repent while sending people to warn them at the same time and plead with them to repent. That is what has resulted in all that running around. Somehow, you have managed to avoid showing that this is not true and have turned it into an argument about God's bloodthirst.

What you're basically saying is that one cannot tell from the Bible whether or not there actually is a grace period in place since it could well be that God no longer wishes to punish people and you wouldn't know it.

Guv, do you think you could quit putting words in my mouth? It's quite irritating. You yourself have shown that grace periods exist in the Bible. My position is that I am not burdened with showing how long they must be. YOU are burdened with proving that a longer span shows that punishment has been cancelled.

I never said that I hadn't heard of it before. What I said was that no Christian told me to flee from it. Obviously, one could have come across such descriptions in various media without having to encounter a Christian saying that to me.

I'm not going to answer that because it's irrelevant.

Sorry but your argument didn't translate clearly.

Well, now it is.

You're denying your own posts that are still available. The first post of yours to which I responded to contained the following quotes.



What was the point of making such statements that are generally associated with threats of harm?

The point was that Jesus Christ is not different from Yahweh.

Was that the incomprehensible poem? I'll address it in your new post.

Ok.

The relevance is to know what concept of omnipotence you're using.

I'm not gonna start running around and digressing with you over what omnipotence does or does not mean. I've already shown how far we can go with something like that in my second answer in this post.

thehomer:

This is why I asked you if your God violates the laws of logic because a God cannot at the same time be a man. It is logically invalid. I'll get to the moral behaviour later.

We're still talking about the law of non-contradiction, right? We will have to examine its validity to pursue that argument.

Your analogy of God with a president is simply a bad analogy because what is being addressed here is the core characteristic of a God. Nothing in the characteristic of a president prevents him from staying incognito in a remote village but for an omnipotent God to decide to become not-omnipotent and still be a God is logically incoherent. A God cannot be both omnipotent and not-omnipotent and still be a God.

I disagree with both bolded. But I will not pursue an argument here until I'm shown its relevance to the subject.

On the moral issue, simply ask yourself this, does your God still find slavery acceptable? If he doesn't, then he has changed. If you say he never did, then you're saying the Bible is wrong.

Here we go again.

While your definition of grace period is acceptable, you do realize that you're implying the Bible cannot be used to try to predict what Yahweh wants.

Huh?

I also don't understand why you're even limiting this change to one of moral behaviour. If Yahweh has changed, then he has changed whether moral or otherwise.

It's because we have a working criteria.

One can reasonably conclude from your definition and argument that God used to punish people within a short period of time but that with the current system of things, it could well be that God may decide to no longer punish people in the long run for reasons personal to him. If one discards the sorts of durations of grace periods that he's been giving in the past, why should they think that they're in a grace period now? Why not even think that maybe God has given up on dishing out such punishments?

Huh?

Like all theologians @ihedinobi is acting like a crook. The supposed moral giver is the same breaker, the Devil ought to be the breaker. Also, the God is an Israeli god.

Jesus didn't continue the trend in the OT, there was more like a substantial break away from Mosaic morality. Jesus disregarded Sabbaths, punishments doled out by Moses, insulted the prophets and workers of God.

Jesus did create a NEW religion.

Kay 17: Like all theologians @ihedinobi is acting like a crook. The supposed moral giver is the same breaker, the Devil ought to be the breaker. Also, the God is an Israeli god.

Jesus didn't continue the trend in the OT, there was more like a substantial break away from Mosaic morality. Jesus disregarded Sabbaths, punishments doled out by Moses, insulted the prophets and workers of God.

Jesus did create a NEW religion.

Prove it, guv.

^^

The 10 commandments:

1. Thou shalt not kill. Yet God commanded genocides and murder.

2. Keep the Sabbath. Jesus broke that several times and pointed to the hypocrisy and impractibilty of the Sabbath.

Jesus dined with "sinners", rescued a prostitute from capital punishment of Moses, constantly insulted the Pharisees.

Kay 17: ^^

The 10 commandments:

1. Thou shalt not kill. Yet God commanded genocides and murder.

2. Keep the Sabbath. Jesus broke that several times and pointed to the hypocrisy and impractibilty of the Sabbath.

Jesus dined with "sinners", rescued a prostitute from capital punishment of Moses, constantly insulted the Pharisees.

Point 1 is thrown out. The lawgiver is not subject to the law he/she/it gives. Furthermore, it has no bearing on the subject.

Point 2. Define the Sabbath and describe how Jesus broke it. Also explain how He "pointed to its (the Sabbath's) hypocrisy and impracticability."

I'm making the last paragraph Point 3. Show how Jesus's dining with "sinners" and "rescuing" an adultress (I'm being generous here, your response to this generosity will decide my attitude to you through the rest of our debate) amounted to breaking the Mosaic law. I'm leaving out the insult part for lack of relevance. Don't make me pick it up, please. I won't go easy on you if I have to.

Ihedinobi:

Point 1 is thrown out. The lawgiver is not subject to the law he/she/it gives. Furthermore, it has no bearing on the subject.

The uncommanded commander concept is obsolete. Lawgivers provide such rules for a society which they are part of. It is also taken that even absolute monarchs must respect certain rules of a universal community and moderation.

ihedina: Point 2. Define the Sabbath and describe how Jesus broke it. Also explain how He "pointed to its (the Sabbath's) hypocrisy and impracticability."

Jesus used a scenario of a farmer rescuing his sheep from a ditch. In order words, work is inevitable. And Sabbath: a day of no work is impracticable. Even miracles should be done on Sabbath.

inhunedon: I'm making the last paragraph Point 3. Show how Jesus's dining with "sinners" and "rescuing" an adultress (I'm being generous here, your response to this generosity will decide my attitude to you through the rest of our debate) amounted to breaking the Mosaic law. I'm leaving out the insult part for lack of relevance. Don't make me pick it up, please. I won't go easy on you if I have to.

By Mosiac laws, a prostitut.e MUST be stoned, but Jesus disobeyed and disregarded it.

Ihedinobi:

Irrelevant.

How on earth is it irrelevant? Demonstrating that your God is willing to order genocide for such a reason demonstrates how immoral he is. Can you tell me how it is irrelevant?

Ihedinobi:
See my comment above. I won't answer anything again until you show its relevant. About this, I will dare to go on and say that the burden of proof is on you. My original statement was that if God had an expectation that the nations He destroyed were neglecting to fill, He had every right to destroy them. It was you, friend, that brought up the issue of warnings. I did not posit that He did or did not warn them, you implied that He did not. Therefore, YOU have to show that He did not. And in doing so, I'd like to see that I'm wrong in the beginning of yet another side eddy.

One of the assumptions you were working with is that he is actually right in doing that. What I'm demonstrating is that for any person to do that to any other person without warning them before hand shows that he is also immoral. The way I show that he didn't is that it wasn't recorded in the Bible that he did. Now if you wish to say that the Bible isn't a complete account of what transpired, then you're welcome to say that and you'll be off the hook just keep in mind the further implications of such a claim.

Ihedinobi:
Here we have us another problem. Very easy for me to rip into your answer but then all I'll get is another merry-go-round for my trouble. God's wanting or not wanting to destroy anybody (YOU will have to prove that Yahweh has ever wanted to destroy anybody or that Christians do if you keep pushing on this. I do not accept this position as valid) is tangential to whether or not He has changed in behavior.

Again, a person changing isn't limited to their behaviour. And seriously what do you think hell is about if not about God's desire to destroy some people? You keep talking about tangents when I'm simply presenting you with clear Christian dogma which demonstrate my point.

Ihedinobi:
But rather than contend about that, I'll go back to the original argument. Is Jesus Christ different from Yahweh with regard to sin? The Christian says no. That Jesus Christ only continued what Yahweh (which is the same as Himself actually) used to do: give people time to repent while sending people to warn them at the same time and plead with them to repent. That is what has resulted in all that running around. Somehow, you have managed to avoid showing that this is not true and have turned it into an argument about God's bloodthirst.

Is working on the Sabbath a sin? Obviously they disagree. Jesus says Sabbath was made for man not the other way around but Yahweh ordered a man killed for gathering sticks on the Sabbath.
How can you say I've avoided showing anything here? God's bloodlust shows his immorality. His reduction in bloodlust shows his change.

Ihedinobi:
Guv, do you think you could quit putting words in my mouth? It's quite irritating. You yourself have shown that grace periods exist in the Bible. My position is that I am not burdened with showing how long they must be. YOU are burdened with proving that a longer span shows that punishment has been cancelled.

Actually, all I need to show is that your God is being inconsistent and given the Bible, I've pretty much shown this. Note that I haven't put any words in your mouth. What I'm doing is showing based on the Bible that God doesn't give the sort of grace period you're claiming. If you disagree, then you need to show that he actually does give such extended grace periods rather than simply asserting that he is doing so now.

Ihedinobi:
I'm not going to answer that because it's irrelevant.

Come on now. That wasn't a question. I was simply answering your claim that I was being inconsistent.

Ihedinobi:
Well, now it is.



The point was that Jesus Christ is not different from Yahweh.

Are you actually going to demonstrate this beyond making a mere assertion?

Ihedinobi:
Ok.



I'm not gonna start running around and digressing with you over what omnipotence does or does not mean. I've already shown how far we can go with something like that in my second answer in this post.

This is just a shameful evasion because different Christians mean different things by omnipotence and it would help in clarifying what you actually have in mind.

Kay 17:

The uncommanded commander concept is obsolete. Lawgivers provide such rules for a society which they are part of. It is also taken that even absolute monarchs must respect certain rules of a universal community and moderation.

Jesus used a scenario of a farmer rescuing his sheep from a ditch. In order words, work is inevitable. And Sabbath: a day of no work is impracticable. Even miracles should be done on Sabbath.

I understand from here that your definition of the Sabbath is that it was a day of no work. What do you base this definition on? When you answer that, we will address the other two issues on this matter.

By Mosiac laws, a prostitut.e MUST be stoned

Therefore, it was perfectly right that Jesus prevented the stoning of the "woman taken in adultery". Unless you can prove that she was a prostitute like you said. In which event, we will address whether Jesus did indeed break the Mosaic law in that incident.

Ihedinobi:

We're still talking about the law of non-contradiction, right? We will have to examine its validity to pursue that argument.

I'm saying it has to be valid to even be able to make an argument. Claiming otherwise is to be making meaningless statements.

Ihedinobi:
I disagree with both bolded. But I will not pursue an argument here until I'm shown its relevance to the subject.

Seriously, you're starting to sound like you're in way beyond your depth. How on earth can you disagree that a being cannot be both omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time? How can you seriously be wondering what the relevance of the laws of logic are in an argument?

Ihedinobi:
Here we go again.

What stumped already?

Ihedinobi:
Huh?

What baffles you? Don't you think that the Bible is a good source of what to expect from God?

Ihedinobi:
It's because we have a working criteria.

Which was change and not just a change in his morality.

Ihedinobi:
Huh?

Again, why is that surprising? Isn't that a reasonable conclusion?

thehomer:

How on earth is it irrelevant? Demonstrating that your God is willing to order genocide for such a reason demonstrates how immoral he is. Can you tell me how it is irrelevant?



One of the assumptions you were working with is that he is actually right in doing that. What I'm demonstrating is that for any person to do that to any other person without warning them before hand shows that he is also immoral. The way I show that he didn't is that it wasn't recorded in the Bible that he did. Now if you wish to say that the Bible isn't a complete account of what transpired, then you're welcome to say that and you'll be off the hook just keep in mind the further implications of such a claim.



Again, a person changing isn't limited to their behaviour. And seriously what do you think hell is about if not about God's desire to destroy some people? You keep talking about tangents when I'm simply presenting you with clear Christian dogma which demonstrate my point.



Is working on the Sabbath a sin? Obviously they disagree. Jesus says Sabbath was made for man not the other way around but Yahweh ordered a man killed for gathering sticks on the Sabbath.
How can you say I've avoided showing anything here? God's bloodlust shows his immorality. His reduction in bloodlust shows his change.



Actually, all I need to show is that your God is being inconsistent and given the Bible, I've pretty much shown this. Note that I haven't put any words in your mouth. What I'm doing is showing based on the Bible that God doesn't give the sort of grace period you're claiming. If you disagree, then you need to show that he actually does give such extended grace periods rather than simply asserting that he is doing so now.



Come on now. That wasn't a question. I was simply answering your claim that I was being inconsistent.



Are you actually going to demonstrate this beyond making a mere assertion?



This is just a shameful evasion because different Christians mean different things by omnipotence and it would help in clarifying what you actually have in mind.

Talk about a wearisome argument. Yours wins by far. Give you an instance of irrelevant arguments from you and what it results in:

How does an argument questioning God's morality prove inconsistency in Him?
I get into it to show that God did not commit any immorality in His doings with the Canaanite nations among others and then you keep throwing every curve you can to prove me wrong and we in no way address consistency or inconsistency of morality or moral behavior (one of the criteria for the moral authority we have accepted) in Yahweh. I try to point out that labelling Yahweh as immoral for destroying whole nations and peoples in the past for sin and saying that hell amounts to the same thing establishes consistency of behavior and immediately you do an about-face. That's dishonest debating. And when I try to show you that, you throw another curve and off we go into another la la land until you come back to admitting consistency of behavior in Yahweh and when I try to hold you to that, you throw another curve and demand I follow you into la la land again. See? Annoying and time-wasting way to debate.

You see, when you reject absolute standards because you want to be absolute to your own self, your thinking will follow that route. You'll subscribe to the laws of logic and then violate them and then try to make new ones and find that they don't work and after all the running around, you blame me for the failure of your own arguments. How's that sensible and fair?

Your friend, Kay 17, has taken up the gauntlet and wants to prove out God's inconsistency through the Sabbath, perhaps you should let him. I don't mind your lending him help o, if you can manage it. But I doubt it'll end up going in a different direction than ours has done.

Suffice to say, you have not sufficiently refuted my arguments for God's consistency of behavior, even when I have accommodated the tangents you threw in. I will not go on commenting on anything you say with respect to our own debate unless you can sufficiently show by some clear logical reasoning that my argument for God's consistency of behavior (and, no, a person cannot change if their behavior remains the same. Go on and start another argument on that, if you like) does not hold.

Na wa Oh! Una still dey here dey argue??

@Ihedinobi abeg free these people. It is unprofitable debating with someone when the the person is deliberately trying to misunderstand you.
These guys have been arguing with everyone and everything for years over the details of a "fairytale".
You can continue if you like, perhaps you'll break the deadlock.
as for me, personally I have given up on this unnecessary endeavor in this thread as it is now obvious to me thru most of the conversations I've had on this forum that the aim is "stand your ground" and not "let's find the truth".
Cheers.

Mr_Anony: Na wa Oh! Una still dey here dey argue??

@Ihedinobi abeg free these people. It is unprofitable debating with someone when the the person is deliberately trying to misunderstand you.
These guys have been arguing with everyone and everything for years over the details of a "fairytale".
You can continue if you like, perhaps you'll break the deadlock.
as for me, personally I have given up on this unnecessary endeavor in this thread as it is now obvious to me thru most of the conversations I've had on this forum that the aim is "stand your ground" and not "let's find the truth".
Cheers.

Thanks bro. I'm seriously considering doing so. I think it'll end for me today. What's important to me is to leave an unquestionable witness for the Lord here. I'm trusting that I'm finishing that now.

Mr_Anony: Na wa Oh! Una still dey here dey argue??

@Ihedinobi abeg free these people. It is unprofitable debating with someone when the the person is deliberately trying to misunderstand you.
These guys have been arguing with everyone and everything for years over the details of a "fairytale".
You can continue if you like, perhaps you'll break the deadlock.
as for me, personally I have given up on this unnecessary endeavor in this thread as it is now obvious to me thru most of the conversations I've had on this forum that the aim is "stand your ground" and not "let's find the truth".
Cheers.

That's very funny coming from you. Just about anyone can accuse anyone of the bold part.

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).

There can only be one

Ihedinobi:

Talk about a wearisome argument. Yours wins by far. Give you an instance of irrelevant arguments from you and what it results in:

Seriously, you're way beyond your depth. Notice that each time you claim I'm making an irrelevant argument, I show you how it is relevant. Each and every time.

Ihedinobi:
How does an argument questioning God's morality prove inconsistency in Him?

From this, it is clear that you have no idea what you're doing and thus what you're supposed to do. From the first post of yours that I responded to, you made two claims.

1. Your God is moral.
2. Your God is unchanging.

I took on both claims and you began questioning the laws of logic. Once you began doing that, I knew that this conversation couldn't go too far.

Ihedinobi:
I get into it to show that God did not commit any immorality in His doings with the Canaanite nations among others and then you keep throwing every curve you can to prove me wrong and we in no way address consistency or inconsistency of morality or moral behavior (one of the criteria for the moral authority we have accepted) in Yahweh. I try to point out that labelling Yahweh as immoral for destroying whole nations and peoples in the past for sin and saying that hell amounts to the same thing establishes consistency of behavior and immediately you do an about-face. That's dishonest debating. And when I try to show you that, you throw another curve and off we go into another la la land until you come back to admitting consistency of behavior in Yahweh and when I try to hold you to that, you throw another curve and demand I follow you into la la land again. See? Annoying and time-wasting way to debate.

Again, it is clear that you really have no idea what you're doing. The first line in this quote above shows you that you need to resolve whether or not your God is moral. I'd already pointed out to you that what you began with was that your God hadn't changed not just that he hadn't changed morally.
I pointed out to you that he was immoral for that recorded destruction in the Bible for an entirely separate reason and even if hell amounts to the same thing, the situation of those he killed in the past is still different because they hadn't heard about him. You claimed they had but for some reason, you refused to demonstrate this.

Ihedinobi:
You see, when you reject absolute standards because you want to be absolute to your own self, your thinking will follow that route. You'll subscribe to the laws of logic and then violate them and then try to make new ones and find that they don't work and after all the running around, you blame me for the failure of your own arguments. How's that sensible and fair?

You have now decided to go with the usual tactics of religious people of attributing all sorts of false claims to others rather than actually demonstrating it from their own arguments. My posts are still up why didn't you clearly indicate these assertions?

Ihedinobi:
Your friend, Kay 17, has taken up the gauntlet and wants to prove out God's inconsistency through the Sabbath, perhaps you should let him. I don't mind your lending him help o, if you can manage it. But I doubt it'll end up going in a different direction than ours has done.

He's more than able to demonstrate it to you. The question is whether you'll actually respond to the points he's making rather than trying to wriggle out of making a response.

Ihedinobi:
Suffice to say, you have not sufficiently refuted my arguments for God's consistency of behavior, even when I have accommodated the tangents you threw in. I will not go on commenting on anything you say with respect to our own debate unless you can sufficiently show by some clear logical reasoning that my argument for God's consistency of behavior (and, no, a person cannot change if their behavior remains the same. Go on and start another argument on that, if you like) does not hold.

Sure you may see it that way but the exchange is quite clear for any interested party to make up their own minds on whether or not I've refuted your assertions.

When you're ready to actually defend your assertions rather than simply make them, just let me know.