₦airaland Forum

Roycemadeit:

If a child is caught stealing and claims, “the devil made me do it,” the parent still holds the child accountable because it was the child who acted. Blaming a supernatural entity removes human agency entirely. Moral accountability only makes sense when humans themselves are understood as the actors of their deeds, not as passive vessels manipulated by external forces. Responsibility cannot be shifted to imaginary agents without undermining ethics and observable behaviour.

I told you up here that "Acting under orders is not a defence to an offence. A rapist still remains guilty like the Muslim who was found guilty of raping his wife, even when he said Islam permits him.

That is why you see God punished male and female Adam, even when they blamed another person for making them commit an offence.

So responsibility for doing a wrong is never shifted simply because someone made you commit the crime.

I bet you do not know that even your criminal laws state that, someone who counsels another to commit a crime is treated as a principal offender, liable for the same offense and punishment as if they committed it themselves, often called an abettor, accomplice, aider, or procurer. (Sections 7 of the criminal code)

And it is under here you see why God punished the serpent along with Adam male and female

Roycemadeit:
For those who deem wrong doing to be due to the influence of spiritual entities, statements like “the devil made me do it” come from their belief system. However, their claim is not based on direct observation but on religious teaching.

Is there anyplace in the world where that statement "the devil made me do it” has never been made?

No, there is no place or culture or race where it has never been made.

So, that tells you that it is part of "direct observation".

thinkmoney:
The point is sinners don’t go to hell-a fiery place where they burn forever- they are destroyed/killed by God at some point and they cease to exist forever

And this thread proves that your statement is not true by your blatant refusal to give your meaning of the word destroyed.

For the bible said that sinners and bad things like hell, death say t han are cast into the fire. And we all know that whatever is cast into the fire will burn forever if not removed.

Truthseeker10:
Oga it is your assumption for me.

If you expect me to understand your destroyed, why is my destroyed now difficult for you to understand?

I put destroyed in my question simply because you used it in your statement. So how come my question is now more important than your statement?

If you did not understand my meaning of destroyed, you would have said so. But you responded and I did not complain. So that episode is past

But what stands now is that you said "So the people in the lake of fire too would be destroyed"

And I asked you to define what destroyed means to you, but you have been running up and down, even going backwards trying to raise non issues, all because you don't want to tell us your meaning of the word "destroyed".

As I said, all these your dodgings has told us everything.

triplechoice:
Finally, your claim that this is "rubbish" or "dark counsel" for those following Christ assumes that Christian faith cannot coexist with the awareness that other cosmologies exist. Many Christians mystics and theologians have engaged with such ideas without their faith being "swallowed up" . True understanding is not threatened by the existence of other maps. It is made clear by knowing which map one is using

I am already engaging this idea, the only issue is that I am completely antagonistic of it

In real eyeity, we are already co existing with the other religions in our respective spaces that do not cause us harm.

But for us Christian, we are aware of what engagement does for as a little dirt pollutes drinking water and causes sickness and death so also do those other religions bring harm and destruction unto us.

So, in engagement, I am here to reasonably point out the evils and wrongs and falls and the danger that the op presents for public consumption and why Christians can never subscribe to them

For, instance the ops header, it stands to reason that if I am the creator of that thing, I am the god of that thing.

So, it is really Stu wid if someone says that what I created is a god over me. Exactly like saying that the iPhone is a god over Steve Jobs

triplechoice:
You say,, "so we are not out of place to read Him in the light of our humanness?" Within your Christian tradition , you are " not out of place". That is your theology. But the philosophical discussion here is about recognising that this is a theological choice, not a universal fact. The very word, "Creator" is a human linguistic and conceptual model.

To assume it is the absolute and only description is to confine the infinite to the limits of human language and social relations..

First, it is we humans who are socially discussing about these things, so it must be in human language.

Then secondly, what word is greater than "creator"?

triplechoice:
In short, you have not engaged with the alternative models presented ( Ifa" formless source, Buddhism's non-theism etc). You have instead reaffirmed your own model as the default. That is the very heart of this conversation: to see our own projections so we can understand what is truly being projected upon.

You are accurate here. In respect to the other religions, I do not want to turn my eyes on them most especially as they did not attack mine.

But, I will clearly counter the ops attack on Christianity pointing out the falls he thought he should stand upon. And that is the point of my response.

DeepSight:
+
Good night.

This is a very childish man. How is it that when things get right for you, you run?

But when it comes to attacking others, you are very ready

This is low for you.

Truthseeker10:
So simply repeating your words means that I understand them, What kind of assumption is this?

If you don't understand "destroy" in the question that is asked you, how are you now sure that I understood your own "destroy" in your statement?

If you did not understand them, you won't have responded to them in the way you did.

And see how you are just moving from post to post all because you do not want to define your meaning of the word "destroyed".

As I said, your desperate dodgings has told us everything

DeepSight:
+
It is evil and nonsensical to say that whatever small child got killed will be rewarded with eternal life.

If your child was killed by bandits and he was made alive again, would you be happy and the punished by the taking of his own life, would you be happy?

Truthseeker10:
Lol...see this man saying that he did not remember using it🤣🤣 na wa oo.

Below is your statement.

"I don't care what happens to things put in the fire. For putting them in the fire means that they are useless things that should be destroyed."

Oga what does the destroy mean?

I also said "you clearly understood the meaning I was giving to it" (just in case I said so) which is why you did not ask me to define it.

So, it makes no sense for you to go backwards the meaning of something you understood which I did not complain about.

But I have asked you to define your meaning of "destroyed" and you are dodging and even going back to the past, doing everything not to answer the simple question.

That clearly tells us everything

DeepSight:
+
I have explained.

You were talking off point so I asked "what is the humane-ity in smashing and crushing and gassing your enemies?"

And you have not answered

thinkmoney:
I really want to help you really.
The “cast” which is another word for throw is used in Revelation. Revelation is allegorical and the lake of fire means the things thrown inside will be destroyed forever.
There is no where the Bible talk about an hell where people will burn even for a day.

So you are not defining the word destroyed?

Secondly, when things are cast into a fire, what happens to them?

Truthseeker10:
lol...what kind of logic is this...but you also used the word "destroyed".....so are you saying that you didn't know the meaning when you used it?

If I used it which I actually don't remember, you clearly understood the meaning I was giving to it which is why you did not ask me to define it.

But, I don't know your own meaning, so I am asking you to define it. That is the plain logic

DeepSight:
+
Yes I do but I am neither their creator nor have I ever claimed to love them. Furthermore, I do not make their suffering eternal, I make it as brief as possible.

Didn't ask you whether you are their creator or you loved them, so that part of your answer is off point

So, what is the humane-ity in smashing and crushing and gassing your enemies?

Truthseeker10:
Define it sir....you were the one that used the word "destroy".

Fallacy of reversing the burden of proof.
The thread shows that it is you who asked 'So the people in the lake of fire too would be destroyed"

So, you are the one to define what you mean by "destroyed"

DeepSight:
+
Do those things have feelings and are they conscious beings? If yes to either, I would find a more humane way to end them.

Do you smash cockroaches and mosquitos and rats?

Or do you poison them with gas, kind of gas chamber style, like the whole world does?

Truthseeker10:
So the people in the lake of fire too would be destroyed?

Define destroyed.

DeepSight:
+
I have done wickedness by defending your god from your lies against him?

If you are truly defending Him then come and prove your accusation of the crimes you have levied against me by giving truthful answers to the questions I have raised in the beginning of my defence to your accusation.

So, I stand accused and you are my prosecutor,

So, answer in Truth the question whether you have good and wonderful thoughts and plans for your enemies where you have good and wonderful thoughts and plans for your loved ones?

That is if robbers had stolen your things, raped and killed your loved ones, you would in love invite them to your house for a lunch or dinner or stay over and never report to the police but quietly bury your loved ones and give handkerchief to your raped loved one?

Truthseeker10:
Oga what is the point of burning hell and death if the lake of fire is for unrepentant sinners?

I don't care what happens to things put in the fire. For putting them in the fire means that they are useless things that should be destroyed.

To even remember that He also said unfruitful trees shall be cast into the fire.

But anyway, I don't care. My only care or rather my highest care is not to be one of those to be thrown in there. God please help me.

DeepSight:
+
I can't make sense of your first question and I have told you who to ask about your second one.

Hey, shey you know that you have done wickedness? I will hold it against you till Whoever gives just is, gives Just is.

Unless you answer the question whether you have good and wonderful thoughts and plans for your enemies where you have good and wonderful thoughts and plans for your loved ones?

That is if robbers had stolen your things, raped and killed your loved ones, you would in love invite them to your house for a lunch or dinner or stay over and never report to the police but quietly bury your loved ones and give handkerchief to your raped loved one?

Antichristian2:
This is what the LORD of Hosts says: ‘I witnessed what the Amalekites did to the Israelites when they ambushed them on their way up from Egypt. Now go and attack the Amalekites and devote to destruction all that belongs to them. Do not spare them, but put to death men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” 1 Samuel 15:2-3

Who commaded the reprisal attack above?

A. God
B. Jesus
C. Holy Spirit
D. All of the above

Oh, so you understand that it was a reprisal like what Hamas did to Isreal.

Then, the beginning of the passage has already said Who, so what are you looking for that you have not been answered before?

Truthseeker10:
So you Mean that death is a tangible object that can be burned and hell fire is a location that can also be burned?

Did you not hear that with God all things are possible? Or did you think that Christ was joking when He Said "Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him".

Then , He put death in that same place.

Then, you forget that He said "no eye hath seen nor no mind conceive...".

Men, it is something we can never know and me, I don't want to know or care to know. I am ok with the word fear Him.

But, if you want to test God and check whether death will burn, you can go there to see first hand.

triplechoice:
Your essay
To fully, embrace your conclusion about moving from projection to inner realisation, your analysis must also recognise that the spiritual map you have drawn, which accurately charts one continent, does not represent the entire globe of human religious experience

In any case thank you for what you have shared. It is in challenging our foundational assumptions that the deepest understanding grows.

Fair summation.

However, on behalf of Christianity, we see and believe that A creator has an unlimited right to create anything in the way and manner he so chooses, without any limit.

And it has pleased God, to create us to look like Him and resemble Him, as He told us.

So, we are not out of place to read Him in the light of our humanness.

And basically, you can see that the ops aim in life is to attack Christianity. That is why he is reading all the other religions in the eye of Christianity.

And so, for us Christians, he has challenged nothing but talking rubbish and definitely giving dark counsels that would swallow up any shallow and unlearned person who may have been planning on following the way of Christ.

Truthseeker10:
So death and hell fire were also burned in the lake of fire?

The Bible Said "cast in the fire". But me I would be free to say burn.
But again for precision, the bible did not say "burn", it only said "cast in the fire"

Antichristian2:
So what happened in 1 Samuel 15:3? You sabi give excuses o!

Change your moniker to Dliespeaker!

If I Lied you would have pointed it out, so you are the one keeping in your tradition of lying when you have no reasonable counter.

And in 1 Samuel 15:3?, do you not see that it was Saul who disobeys the commandment God gave and he was dethroned for it?

So, what about it?

thinkmoney:
The Bible doesn’t teach an hell where people burn after death.

That is your position. But you are forgetting that the argument is not about whether the bible taught it or not. But, whether the bible said so.

And it did. Shikena.

And if I want to make it more difficult, I would add that the bible only stated "cast in the fire". It did not say "burn".

So, you still have a problem here.

All the other things you said are off point. Let's concentrate on the issue

richmond500:
I answered exactly what God did, he didn't just kill pharoah, he killed Israelites, he didn't just punish those that killed Jesus, he punished the world.
So it's bad to bomb the continent just cos of bandits in sokoto.

Also, I will deal with my wife and divorce her but not kill the innocent child or lay curses on the child, for the child is completely innocent and is just a victim of circumstance

If you answer within context then we can address our different issues. But it is untidy that you join your contention with my attempt to freely answer your contention as best as I can.

So please, keep your issue and let's settle mine first, since I am trying to present my case on the dispute. For I must be free to conduct my case the way I want it, then you can do yours, which you have already hence why I am responding and fairness also dictates that I should get the freedom you enjoyed.

After that we would examine your own issue to see if it aligns. So don't align it now.

So please, within context answer the questions when you heard that bombs were dropped on bandits and kidnappers camp, did you think it was wrong?

And if your wife cheated on you and got pregnant for the other guy, did you drive away your wife but kept the innocent child?

richmond500:
Yes, it is wrong to bomb the entire continent just because there are bandits in Sokoto

Don't stretch it out of context, that also is not right for I clearly said "bandits and kidnappers camp".

So, on the bombing of the camp, do you say that it is Wrong?

And, also, note that you did supply the answer to the 2nd question on your cheating wife's child belonging to another man.

thinkmoney:
..The Bible when studied very well, while blocking out man made traditions, does not teach a fire that burns dinner forever. What the Bible teaches is total destruction of sinners- a death without the prospect of everlasting life. The soul that sinneth shall die.
What I thought is that you will fault my argument on Gehenna, Sheol and Hades. I even asked if it’s possible for righteous men to go to hell. You didn’t respond to those things, you have only been accusing me of somethings I don’t even understand.
*plus, all through the Old Testament you will never see any prophets tell sinners or a sining nation that they will burn in hell if they kept on sinning. Even you won’t find among the apostles. What they all said was total destruction as consequence of sin. Jesus symbolized this by using Gehenna

All these are a departure from the issue for you argued giving the impression that God cannot and would not burn people that it is "repulsive" to Him. And that is why I pointed out that Sodom and Gomorrah's people were burnt by fire contrary to your point.

And in this present reply, you did not counter it. So that means this is settled and you can see that burning and fire with a fire that burns forever is in the equation where you were trying to deny that it was not and that there is no such fire even when the bible expressly said so.

And since it is known that people start repenting in fear when dying starts, (body go tell you things) then there is no need for the prophets to preach, as even today no one preached it, if not that a cunning question was deviced around it

So, it is clear you are wrong.

And as you can see you have moved the argument to "Total destruction of sinners" which is another issue.

richmond500:
So because a town refuse to listen to Noah, God has to destroy everyone with flood?

God is not a human who does collateral damage, he could easily single out those he says disobeyed him, but he decides to kill everyone and saved only Noah

If you truly are fair and believe you are right, then don't argue answering a question with a different question.

Answer the questions I ask and let us settle issues one by one.

So, when you heard that bombs were dropped on bandits and kidnappers camp, did you think it was wrong?

And if your wife cheated on you and got pregnant for the other guy, did you drive away your wife but kept the innocent child?