₦airaland Forum

frosbel:
Every Sunday, many parents remind their children of the obligation to go 'church'. Any child who refuses to go is blackmailed, screamed at, abused and sometimes even beaten.

So my question is , if the bible says we should not provoke our children and since God is also tender with his children, why do parents use brute force to make many children go to church against their own will and then use the basics of life like shelter and money to threaten them if they fail to comply ?

Is this productive ? Could this be the reason why such families / homes are 'manufacturing' more atheists/agnostics/unfundamental Christians than those from other backgrounds?

Is a child going to church evidence that he is a Christian ?

Comments welcome.

Do you force children to go to school, or you try not to provoke them?
I don't know where you pulled your stats about what homes are manufacturing. Anyways, i believe unbelieving children of PROFESSING christians are a result of either devil's attack, hypocrisy of the parent, or not training UP the children in the Way they should go.

Yes, i hope so. Also, i think he wrote ecclesiastics after repenting from his backsliding.

lionduke:
my dear. the truth about fayemi 's loss will still surface, as for buhari being the better option at 75 is the recycling will not stop any time soon. was he the only the only one that contested the primary. tambuwal would have been a better alternative. as for GEJ, he has spent six years yes. and has relatively done well except you belong to the supporters of APC, he is seeking his constitutional enabled 2nd tenure, he has been tested, young and will surely prevail and deliver the dividends of democracy

Why do i have to belong to APC if I'm not satisfied with what the current government has done? Do we all have to be politicians to vote or see or assess? If i see option A-E, I'm old enough to decide which is a good option or better option of the five. I don't have to be a party member or tribal person to choose. Pastors Adeboye and Kumuyi are older than Buhari and still good leaders in my opinion, so let's not play the age card. Buhari won his primaries while Tanbuwal stepped down. He is exercising his constitutional enabled right to vote and be voted for.
What exactly are dividends of democracy? To tell me infrastructure, because we know that the military gave us better infrastructure in short time. The airports, federal universities, refineries, and many long roads and bridges were built by the military.

calaway:
The last thing a circular country like Nigeria needs is a fanatical Bigot (old or young). Regardless of his cosmetic handbag pastor associate\s.

The last thing we need is calumny and a campaign built in lies and smearing and distorting other people's image. The current government have done nothing concrete about boko haram except for unfounded allegations. They have shown little or no care to the wanton loss of lives. I'm yet to see the president do more than the president of Sri Lanka concerning boko haram. Of course everybody condemns boko haram, please do more than condemn on Twitter through Abati. The current president lives largely in denial and considers boko haram actions as just excesses happening in the fringes. He's not just the president of Abuja or Bayelsa, he should do more and stop finger pointing and playing opposition party politics. Arrest Buhari already if he's the one responsible for boko haram. As far as i know, not one attack has been carried out in Otuoke or Bayelsa or involving the people in power. Instead, the current government has made a lot of money from this crisis. God will definitely judge, but it will be a shame if we do not use the talent, power and opportunities God has given us to better our country. Righteousness exalts a nation but sin remains our reproach in this country.

bobharro:
The majority of Nigerian are just incompetent with there ideology, u want change yet u want an old cargo army for a president the same old cargo army that has destroyed this country from onset (obasanjo, abacha, ibb, now we are talking of change same old cargo Buhari) what a shame to nation of corrupt leaders, bad education system etc, we are on a long tin I tell u

What is so old cargo about him that is made up for in the present government? What new cargo is the current administration giving us that you think Buhari is too old to give? Please be objective. Both the military and democratic governments have destroyed this country. They both have blame and play a part. I'm of the opinion that the tangent of the country needs a change, whoever brings that change. The unfortunate thing is that the present government seems blinded to that change and want things to continue as it is. To me, that is unacceptable.

lionduke:
madness is when a 75 years old malam who truncated a Democratic government will come back to tell us that he is the Messiah. Stupidity is when our SW brothers will be blinded by the personal interest of a man who has ruled for 8 years, wife a Senator, son in law, in the house of reps and presented a house boy senior advocate of Nigeria instead of tested kayode fayemi. Jonathan might not be perfect, we will surely defend him from the gambaris. the day of reckoning is here

Dunno if he called himself messiah or whatever, but he does seems a good option if not a better one among the candidates on ground. GEJ has been there for about six years, so the recycled argument hits him more. We need competence not emotionalism and calumny. Why would anyone gamble Fayemi who could not win his own local government and state of origin even as incumbent? Fayemi will do well as an appointed minister if the time comes. Playing up the tribal, religious and superstitious card will not help our country.

thehomer:
Are we the only people that exist in the world or that use language?

No, we are the two people discussing together and talking about the other individual's knowledge of God and the Bible.

He could have set up everything else without the tree. What did the tree do that couldn't have been done without the tree? According to your Bible, your Jesus was God remember? Do you expect God to fail his own test?

What things could He have set up without the tree? It's easy to assume vaguely. What you are doing is akin to saying that your lecturer could have set up the exam without the question. Well, maybe, but how? What things could/should He have set up without the tree? It's easy to assume vaguely. Jesus was also man, remember? He was tested as man, lived as man, was tired and hungry as man, died as man, sacrificed His life as man. What is with you and selective/suspended thinking? Jesus was tempted by the devil BTW.
Luk 4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

You're presenting as your role model, a man that was ready to kill his own son because someone told him to? Are you ready to kill your own son at the command of someone else? Sure you don't need to be a Christian to cut out hearts but the fact that you're a Christian and cutting out hearts shows that being a Christian doesn't help.

i wasn't really presenting any role models but showing you other humans that did all that(or similar to) you need to do, even though they were born with the sin nature and negative deficit that we all are/have. Abraham, Paul, Job, Daniel, Peter all were born in sin and born of Adam. The real problem is not to be born of Adam. You can overcome that deficit like they did. That is the simple point passed across. You cannot be a christian and 'cut hearts'. Maybe a professing christian(we have millions of those), but not a genuine christian. It is an unchristian thing to do. Hatred, imprisonment, murder and crime are not products of being a christian but of the human nature.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Your God doesn't know what love is. So I should do what your God wants in order not to go to hell?

God meets your definition of love and more. Yes, you should do what God wants in order not to go to hell. That is as common sense as saying to do what your prospective employer says in order to get the job. He wants a test, do the test, wants a medical, get the medicals, he wants a certificate, obtain the certificate. Terms and conditions do apply.

Your God is evil by nature and in deed. He has done abominable works. You are like an infected file trying to spread his religious virus to anyone he reaches but you've reached someone with some immunity so your virus won't spread.

Stop the childish attempt to mimic me, you do it a lot when you are at your wits end. i have shown you why you should repent and told you that God loves YOU.

Genocide has a specific meaning. The fact that you deny it means that you either don't know the meaning of the word or you're merely lying about your God. Are you a goat?

Yes of course, genocide has a specific meaning and specific usage, there is no denial in that. It is impossible and senseless to say God committed genocide. Genocide is murder and it is also a crime. The relationship and similarity between you and goats is nearer and appropriate, compared to your relationship to God. By you/your, i mean Humanity in general. You are a created animal like other animals, albeit an higher animal. The whole world and everything inside is like dust and lighter than dust to God. And He owns and formed it all, that is the perspective.
Psa 62:9 Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie: to be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than vanity.
Isa 40:15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.

Do you know what the theory is about? And what sort of demonstration are you looking for? Your refusal is religious and that religious refusal has lead to your intellectual stunting. Ignorant people deny it.

i know it is a silly and unproveable theory, unlike gravity and relativity. With all your mouth mouth intellectual progress, kindly demonstrate evolution for us all to see it as our origin.

You never explained how it was loving to command genocide, have Job tortured or drown the world. Once again, you try to run from a clear question.

You defined love as An intense feeling of affection and care towards another person. i showed and explained how God fitted that context, i said "this your definition of love proves that God is loving, not only loving. God is Love. God loves us so intensely that He became us to save us. God SO loved us that He gave His only Son. While we were yet enemies and sinners, He died for us. He made the first step even though we were the ones that offended Him. Adam went into hiding and blaming every other person, but God came looking for him and clothing him, and promising a solution, and sparing man from living forever in the fallen condition.
Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Rom 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."
You brought in your red herring to attach genocide or torture. Deal with the facts presented on love, you cannot erase them. We are already talking about genocide on this same thread. Meanwhile, the paragraph is on love and its demonstration, focus. i showed you earlier how we could ignore your previous silliness and recklessness and childishness, and those of your nobel laureate heros and intelligently discuss their/your ideas of what good/morality is. When you present your humanist manifestos, we look at the manifesto and its content, not sidestepping issues and talking about how the authors behaved in secondary school or at age 3. When we are talking about love, focus and talk about it. It other paragraphs of the post, we will address your fantasies.

One has to be insane to say that Paul, Daniel, Moses, Joseph, David, Job and Luke are superior to Ingersoll. The devil has deceived you into thinking that genocide is a sign of love.

Stop mimicking me, it is childish. Have you run out of ideas again? Paul, Daniel, Moses, Joseph, David, Job and Luke are superior to Ingersoll. If you have any counter arguments, give appropriate reasons and contexts. Genocide is not a sign of love, stop presuming falsely.

If I show you that your God ordered people to be killed for having different ideas, would you accept that your God made it a crime to think?

Talking about accepting, you should be the one accepting what you said. When i showed you what you said, you typed "No, I said your God once ordered that people should be killed for having different ideas."
Now, Who are the people that God once ordered to be killed for having different ideas, i'd like to discuss the context. Does God order that people be killed for having different ideas? You sidestepped my question once again.

Sorry that was my mistake. I James now God? According to your theology, God is the source of all things and thus the source of all failures.

The Bible was WRITTEN by many writers, the Bible is the Word of God. Go and understand that. That God knows people doesn't mean that He is the source of your failures. Your father Adam is. Are you the source of everything you know? Who wrote that God is the source of all things? Is that person now God? Again, you failed to answer the question(s).

Are you saying that he is like something and not like the thing you're saying he is like? Your poor command of the language is your own problem.

When i say He is like something, i also say just that He is not. No point asking me what i said when you can simply go and re-read what i said.

I've not said that either.

Do you want me to follow your idea of morality?

No, that is the answer to your question. You can look up the meaning of my response.

Mu, that is one of your responses when cornered and can't mimic me.

And these are good reasons for killing 6 month old babies? Do you really not see what you're doing? You're defending the killing of 6 month old babies. This is why I say that with your God, no act is actually evil because if your God commands it, people like you will say it was good.

You asked for why He had those children killed. i think they are good reasons, if you think otherwise, why? i think i've seen you defending the killing of babies in the womb, those are even younger than 6months, whatever your reasons.

Merely saying that doesn't make it so. Anyone who commands the killing of 6 month old babies is evil as far as I'm concerned. To you, such a person may not be evil.

Oh, but when the Bible merely states stuff about your perceived genocide, torture and co, it makes it so for you. You believe it and are absolutely convinced not to follow God ever. We have been addressing what God did in the Old Testament, only that you have being selective and suspended in thinking. Do you also know that in the Old Testament, God created man, created the earth, divided the red sea, used His prophets to raise the dead and perform many miracles? Are you afraid to consider all that God did in the Old Testament? The fact remains that God is INCAPABLE of evil, meditate on that till it sinks. Some things are simply IMPOSSIBLE for God to do.
Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

So it meaningless to ask you to think about what you would do if you found yourself in a certain situation? Seriously you must either be the most mentally deficient person I've encountered in a long while or you're just revealing your deep dishonesty. If I asked you what you would do if you were on a deserted island you would find it difficult to respond reasonably. This is the epitome of childishness. When you grow up, give me the response to my question.

It meaningless to ask me to think about what i would do if i found myself in an IMPOSSIBLE situation. i can go to a deserted island tomorrow morning(even today), i CANNOT go to the Old Testament era. No amount of money or known technology can help achieve that. If you cannot see this difference, it is because the devil has being fooling around with your brain. Jesus can set you free. It is a foolish, baseless and childish question to ask what will never happen. i cannot be in the Old Testament era, so stop asking foolishly if i was there.

Stop being childish for a moment and think. Does having many followers make you right?

This is a needless red herring. You brought up Zeus when i talked about God being SUPERIOR. i have shown you just one aspect where God is SUPERIOR to Zeus. You either accept, bring up a better candidate, or show how God is not SUPERIOR to Zeus. We were not discussing who is more right, again, wash that face and focus.

Giving a childish response doesn't make it less childish. What would you have done in their shoes?

Stop the pathetic, childish mimicry. You are permitted to THINK out your own original responses.

But you've tried to defend it as being good already? Are you confused?

Now, you are trying to confuse me, haven being apparently confused yourself. i did not try to defend genocide. 3 facts.
1. Genocide is not good.
2. Genocide is a crime.
3. God did not and cannot commit genocide, much like you cannot give birth to a lizard.

Just answer the question and stop acting childish.

i have answered you several times already. God did not order or command us to kill babies. Do i need to paint it, bold it, italicize it, quote it or what?

Even if I don't measure up to it, I'm still better than your God. Your God is guilty as sin. Which he caused by the way.

Talk is cheap. Can you die for me? Can you heal me? Can you give me air to breathe in and out for free? Can you take me to heaven? Can you answer my prayers? Can you write a book? Of course, you know who does these things.

Being disingenuous isn't a good sign. Didn't the verse contain verbs? Didn't it give instructions?

It contained verbs, it gave instructions, you flopped on your tenses. These two questions below are different, work harder on your tenses. You are almost there.
1. Explain what these commands ask people to do?
2. Explain what these commands askED people to do?
i have answered question 1 which you asked. The answer is NOTHING. Because that is the truth, the verses do not ask us to do anything.

I clearly know more than you do.

Good for you. You need some wisdom then, in order to put that presumed knowledge to good use.

Yet he commanded the genocide of those Canaanites that you were defending earlier? Or are you drunk again?

i've you seen me drunk before, or you do not know the meaning of the word "AGAIN"? God never commanded genocide. He killed the Canaanites in judgement.

Your God has already given that command according to your Bible. You're the one deliberately confusing yourself by talking about tenses in order to try to evade the fact that your God is evil. You say genocide is never okay yet you tried to defend it earlier. You're saying Israelites weren't permitted to enslave fellow Israelites. Was it okay to enslave non-Israelites? Once again, talking about the New Testament does nothing to cover your evil God of the Old Testament. The standard of love in the Bible proclaimed long ago we would consider as being hateful because your God commanded genocide. No amount of lies or self delusion will save him.

And your tenses let you down yet again. God has already given that command, what command? To who, you? Slavery in the context you refer to it, was well contained in God's commands. Some relationships and agreements today are worse than the so called slavery. The truth before us today though is that no one should be enslaved. Listen to these beautiful commands of love. You cannot beat it, not with a hundred revised manifestos.
1Pe 3:8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
1Pe 3:9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
1Pe 3:10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:
1Pe 3:11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.
1Pe 3:12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

ALL of one mind, having compassion, loving as brethren. Being pitiful, courteous, not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing. Hehehehe, you cannot do that one, i'm sure. You are filled with sin, hate, blasphemy, unforgiving spirit, bile, curses, abuses, immoral thoughts, indecency and such likes. There is no saving God, you cannot hold Him. What we need here is to save you, from the shameful grip of sin and satan, and from coming judgement.

Tymax:
Just look at ignorant youths claiming he is "unpopular"- even that term is inappropriate. If you ever cared about the economy of Nigeria and actually sought knowledge on her advancement, you would have come across Prof Osinbajo.

It is a pity he would become Vice President. In Nigeria, the VP or Deputy Governor is just like an appendage because our kind of politics renders him/her powerless.

I think that even during the military regime, Buhari had the most popular and free handed of them all in Idiagbon. You can almost argue that Idiagbon was running the show. With Buhari, i don't think the VP would be just a powerless appendage.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. #the Good News.

thehomer:
The truth is that you're the one who is showing his gross ignorance of "theology". Realize the fact that the Christian God isn't the only God that people talk about when talking about "theology".

You've been allowed to say what you want to say. We're talking about you and i, not other people.

According to your theology, God made man and he knew what man would do when he set up the tree. He could have set things up without the tree. Humans carry out tests because we don't know everything but your God doesn't need tests in order to know what would happen. What did Abraham overcome? The man who wanted to kill his own son? And David? The man who killed another man to take over his wife? You better think these things through.

What things could He have set up without the tree? It's easy to assume vaguely, the reality on ground was that your father Adam was permitted to eat any of the millions of trees on planet earth except one. You should be holding him accountable for piss-poor performance despite not being deceived. God didn't need the test, duh, Adam did. Your lecturers don't need tests, you do. Adam could not be the best without passing the tests. Jesus passed His tests, remember.
Abraham and the others i mentioned overcame, what i mean by that is that they did not continue moaning and blaming in their default sin nature position. The took the challenge and rose above it, to please God and glorify God through their lives. These were some of the finest and virtuous men ever in their days. The Ingersoll quote is as usual living in denial and like the proverbial ostrich, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. You don't need to be a christian to cut out each other's hearts, or live in hatred, imprisonment, murder and crime. These are not products of being a christian but of the human nature. These are products that are observable in any society, even without being professing christians. Remember your brother, Stalin.

So rather than telling me these stories, what is the good? All you've done is to say that things are how they are and for no sensible reason claimed that God did everything. All I want to know is what the good is.

The good is that God loves you, and that you do not need to perish in the afterlife.

Why should I "repent" and do what your God wants? After all, your God is evil and I don't want to be evil.

God is good, not evil. You are evil by nature and by deed. You need to repent of your sins. Forgiveness is hinged on your repentance and faith, that is why you need to repent. Every person that has not repented will perish, that is why God gave us Jesus, so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life. Right now, what you have is just your natural life and everlasting condemnation hanging around the corner. You are like an infected file, that is going to be deleted(as it were) if you do not submit to the cleansing of God's antivirus. It doesn't really matter your content, be it an important pdf or software. The fact is that you are infected/corrupted.
Psa 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

So what have you seen that makes it okay to command genocide? What I see is that the commander of such an act is evil. You're welcome to give me the perspective that would make it okay to command genocide when you have the power to do everything.

We've talked about this before, it's not genocide. Why? Genocide is a crime, it's murder. Just like you don't talk of murdering your unreasonable goats, in a bigger way, you cannot talk about God committing murder.

All you're doing is demonstrating the point. The theory of evolution has been demonstrated. The fact that you refuse to accept it due to your religious views doesn't make it wrong or without proof. It is a far better plow than the mythical stories in your Bible.

Gravity and relativity are not silly theories, evolution is a silly theory. Demonstrate the theory please, its very convenient to live for about 30-60 years and make noise about millions of years. My refusal to take in evolution is not just religious but intellectual, it doesn't pass. Only desperate people and gullible people take it in.

How is it loving to command genocide? How is it loving to have Job tortured by the devil? How is it loving to drown the world? Would you command soldiers to kill people you love? Maybe you don't know what love is or your idea of love has been corrupted because of your Bible.

It is loving to save us. God SO loved us that He gave His only Son. While we were yet enemies and sinners, He died for us. He made the first step even though we were the ones that offended Him. Adam went into hiding and blaming every other person, but God came looking for him and clothing him, and promising a solution, and sparing man from living forever in the fallen condition. Deal with these facts, you cannot erase them.

No, he is far more superior than all those people you mentioned. They are only achievers in your mind.

One has to be insane or simply disillusioned to say that Ingersoll is superior(fare more) than Paul, Daniel, Moses, Joseph, David, Job and Luke. The devil has deceived you too much, you make it too easy for him.

No, I said your God once ordered that people should be killed for having different ideas. Having people killed for having different ideas is trying to stop them from thinking. What do you think I meant?

You said that God already made it a crime to think, stop lying. i'm not going to flog you or punish you. Who are the people that God once ordered to be killed for having different ideas, i'd like to discuss the context. Does God order that people be killed for having different ideas?

Is Paul now God? According to your Bible, your God knows people even before they were born so I don't see how Paul saying one thing changes anything.

i quoted James, not Paul. You again show your weak and presumed knowledge of the Bible. The Bible was WRITTEN by many writers, the Bible is the Word of God. Go and understand that. That God knows people doesn't mean that He is the source of your failures. Your father Adam is. Are you the source of everything you know?

When you say he is "like" something, you're comparing him to that thing in certain qualities. You don't seem to understand language.

When i say He is like something, i also say just that He is not. You deliberately refuse to demonstrate your ability to read/hear well the first time.

I never said it was better.

Good. So, you are not saying mine is better or that yours is better. But you want me to follow yours.

Mu.

Are you learning a new language?

So why did he have those children killed?

Because He saw that they were not going to grow up to glorify Him, and their community's cup of judgement was full. It's killing four birds with one stone as it were. He got the kids in a better place, stopped them from growing to become miscreants, served judgement to their community, and avenged Himself.

I didn't misrepresent you. You're simply not addressing what I've said. We also know of what God did in the Old Testament. Why don't we address that? Or are you afraid of the fact that it will show the evil that is your God?

You misstated me and as usual are trying to divert issues. Of course, we have being talking about God. If you try to misrepresent Him, you are not going to get anything much. We have been addressing what God did in the Old Testament, only that you have being selectived and suspended in thinking. Do you also know that in the Old Testament, God created man, created the earth, divided the red sea, used His prophets to raise the dead and perform many miracles? Are you afraid to consider all that God did in the Old Testament? The fact remains that God is INCAPABLE of evil, meditate on that till it sinks.

How is it a foolish question? Is there a word or phrase in that question that you didn't understand? Or are you showing dishonesty in your poor attempts at dodging a direct question?
What you've quoted is one way you Christians use to avoid thinking about anything. A question is foolish because it reveals the evil nature of your God.

Something is not foolish because one does not understand it. Do you need a dictionary? Something is foolish when it is silly, mindless, lacking good sense or judgement, ridiculous, unadvised, revealing stupidity, or misguided. It is a meaningless question asking me the frivolous and impossible. i am not in the past and cannot be. It is a foolish, baseless and childish question to ask what will never happen. i cannot be in the Old Testament era, so stop asking foolishly if i was there. If i asked you what you would do if you are in 1914, it is a waste of time and folly.

Does having many followers mean you're right?

Duh, we are talking about being superior. Go and wash your face and focus.

If you were one of the soldiers that was given this command by God, would you have joined them in the killing?

Asking the same foolish question more than once does not make it less foolish.

You're already deceived. You're calling genocide good.

Genocide is not good.

He ordered believers didn't he? You must really stop being disingenuous. It is a mark of dishonesty.

You initially skewed it by saying that He ordered/commandS US. God did not order or command us to kill babies.

Okay. Your God is guilty of being evil. What am I guilty of? Not following his evil?

You do not measure up to your morals. See the way you have being fidgeting all through when asked questions AS WELL. God is not guity, neither can be.

Of course. Your dishonesty knows no bounds. Now you find English language difficult. Well that is your own problem to deal with. You can always go back to school for lessons. I'm sure there are adult education classes.

You flopped on your tenses. When you say to explain what these commands ask people to do, i must say NOTHING. Because that is the truth, the verses do not ask us to do anything.

All I know is that I'm better than your God. Your God is far more evil than any human can possibly be.

Then you do not know much as i initially stated.

So genocide used to be okay with your God? What is wrong with you? Based on your analogy of gears, it means that your God may decide to one day go back to gear one and command people to command genocide.

Genocide is NEVER okay with God. When Saul for instance committed genocide, the Israelites got punished later for it.
2Sa 21:1 Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David inquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites

There is nothing wrong with my tenses. You're just complaining about how well I exposed the evil nature of your God.
If ethical values shouldn't change with culture or time, then what is the point of talking about the Old Testament? Why are you talking about "gear 2"? Was there a time when genocide and slavery was okay? Abandon your theology.

You exposed nothing except your deliberately poor grasp of english tenses. The fact stands that God is not commanding that witches be killed.
change is constant as it were and good, but change at the whims and caprices of perverted society and ridiculous nobel laureates is not good enough. God created man and knows all about man to effect the desired changes, like a skilled doctor knows his patients and bio stats to change prescriptions as and when due. Genocide is never okay, neither is slavery. Slavery was however well contained in the Old Testament, and is non existent in the new testament in the context that you understand it. The Israelites were not permitted to have fellow Israelites as slaves. In this dispensation, everyone is equal as it were and you therefore cannot have slaves of others. There is no higher law or better standard of love than already proclaimed in the Bible long time ago.
2Jo 1:5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.

Ubenedictus:
but the gospel is full of doctrines! The bible clearly say that sound doctrines should be taught. Why then do you think that is is somehow ok to how false doctrines?


Remember i am talking about doctrines not judicial pronucements.

The gospel is not full of doctrines, the gospel is simply the good news. The good news that gets us saved and free as it were.

Joh 8:30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.
Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

The above is an instance where Jesus was telling people that believed on Him about further truth. Believing is basic and is the gospel. Whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life, like the thief on the cross. Anyone can believe in the Lord Jesus and be saved, that is the gospel. Doctrines are further knowledge and instructions, they are not requirements for eternal life. The thief on the cross probably knew little or no doctrine but he got the gospel. His views on hell and heaven, tithes and baptism may be different and less than or more(superior to) mine. i don't really care, but he is my brother nonetheless, and i expect to see him in paradise. This is what i'm talking about, i'm not saying false doctrine or false teaching is okay, i'm saying it is not a major requirement to belong to Jesus or the Body of Christ(the Church).
In the same chapter i quoted, Jesus Christ said He did not condemn a woman that was caught in adultery. It doesn't mean He supports adultery. In a similar vein, God wants all believers to grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth(Jesus). Not everybody has that same knowledge or sees things the same way. That would happen, but it is yet to happen.

AgentOfAllah:
Man did not "evolve" from apes. Judging from all existing evidence, including anatomical, genetic, physiological and anthropological, man IS ape, no more a species of, than lions are a species of cats. Study the theorem before you vomit your ill-informed opinion, and stop being blinded by religious zealotry in spite of painfully obvious facts.

We are both in agreement that man did not evolve from apes, that's okay.

Psa 119:133 Order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me.

What better news than these? This is the gospel, that we can proclaim, and pray, and possess with all possibility the freedom from the dominion of sin. Let not ANY iniquity have dominion over me. Like Galatians 3 talked about "preached before the gospel unto Abraham", permit me to state that this was the gospel preached before unto the psalmist. Now, it is preached to us, iniquity can lose its dominion over you. Every iniquity, any iniquity. Your inner and outer struggles, your weakness and weak point, your vulnerabilities and insecurities, your easily besetting sins. Let not ANY iniquity have dominion over me. What a prayer, what good mews. God answers prayers today, Jesus had this one also in mind when He declared "It is finished". He came to set the captives free, deliverance to the captives. The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up. #the Good News.

thehomer:
And I say you're also ignorant about God. Merely complaining that your God is the only God isn't good enough.

You can say what you want to say, the truth stands that you have shown gross ignorance of theology. Learn to take note that when a christian refers to God, he is talking about God(what you naively call the christian God).

God made man sin. The buck lies at his door. Why did he decide that sin must be transmissible? Why did he set up the tree? I don't set up tests in order to torture people in hell.

God made man, God did not make sin. It is like an unserious student blaming the lecturer for his failure even though he was well taught. You don't blame the test or the lecturer, a serious person would look at what he did wrong, where he missed it and how he can improve on it, instead of blaming every other thing but himself, just like Adam. The tree was a test, why do you set up tests? Is it for people to fail? Why do companies and schools set up tests before appointment, promotion, admission and selection? Someone failed the test and is asking why the test, why not just give me G.M. or B.Sc. That is ridiculous. When precious metals and mineral resources are made to pass through intense conditions, it is that we may get the best and the most refined from them, not to torture them. When those lovely cars and machines are simulated in different conditions, heat test, speed test and whatever other tests, it is not to destroy them but to bring out the best and newest and latest and most efficient models. Why is sin transmissible, i don't think i can discuss that at the moment or even seek to convince anyone. But what i know i will say. Sin by default in every man(what you call transmissible) is the least of the worries. The sins by deeds(commission and omission) are worse, that i know. Another thing that i know is that man can have victory over sin despite all. Man can please God still and yet. Abel, Job, Abraham, Moses, Enoch, David, Paul, Peter, John, Daniel, Joseph and many believers all over the world all started with this same default 'transmitted' condition. They overcame and are overcoming. You too can overcome, you have no excuse.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

You claim it is for my own good but what is this good? I don't obey anyone blindly so simply let me know what this good is?

Here is the fact, God loves you. But God does not need you in the sense that you need Him. Every human needs God, we are all eternal beings, and it will be for each individual's good to have eternal life than eternal condemnation. It's your survival we are talking about here as it were. That is why He COMMANDS you to repent.
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

One thing i noticed about God is that God is not desperate about a lot of people making it, whatever the it. He makes countless stars and the Sun is the main one we need, He made a whole galaxy and universe and to our knowledge so far, they are not inhabited but he took one small planet earth somewhere and put people in His image there. He makes millions of cells waste and only one gets to connect with the egg to form the human at conception. He took just one Noah's family and destroyed the rest of the world, He took just one Lot's family out of two cities, even the family barely made it. He's going to do similar when our judgement comes. The multitude are on the broad way of destruction. Humans are not in a position to negotiate as it were, it is a survival of the fittest. Do you care to survive or you don't believe you need to. i believe and i'm going to survive for my good. You can.

Since I'm influenced by the past and rather God making me start out good, he made me start out the way he did, why don't I continue the way I started out?

Because you don't have to. You have in you all that it takes to repent.

I don't see how a certain actor makes ordering genocide the best action. Especially if this actor could do absolutely anything. Humans who can't do everything are considered as cruel if they command genocide or commit it. Why should a God who knew better and could have done better not be considered as even more cruel than any human?

You do not see because you deliberately fail to. When i handcuff you or imprison you because you offended me, that is wrong and illegal. When the law officer handcuffs you or imprison you(according to law) because you offended me, that is legal. Same action, different actors. God can do absolutely anything including judgement. What is better than judgement? What i notice is that humans would complain and murmur if God judges and if He does not. God is wiser than all men and so your little perspective and my little perspective may not suffice, He sees it all.

It is a scientific theory just like gravity and relativity are scientific theories. Your denial merely demonstrates Ingersoll's point.

Gravity and relativity are not silly theories. They are also demonstrable to almost anybody. Evolution is baseless and without any shred of proof, when i mean evolution, i am majoring on the inanity that man evolved from apes as against being created by God. It is not a better plow. Find another.

Wiktionary:
An intense feeling of affection and care towards another person.

Again, this your definition of love proves that God is loving, not only loving. God is Love. God loves us so intensely that He became us to save us. God SO loved us that He gave His only Son. While we were yet enemies and sinners, He died for us. He made the first step even though we were the ones that offended Him. Adam went into hiding and blaming every other person, but God came looking for him and clothing him, and promising a solution, and sparing man from living forever in the fallen condition.
Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Rom 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

No you're not talking about reality.

Ingersoll is in every way inferior to those people that i mentioned. He is an achiever only in your mind.

Your God once ordered that people should be killed for having different ideas.

God hasn't made it a crime to think or stopped anyone from thinking. i think and so do several other christians. You said God made thinking a crime, now you are shifting base again. It's also good to see you working on your tenses, work harder.

Well according to you Christians, everything leads back to your God.

Ask for the context in which that is said.
Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jam 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Jam 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

So your God is incapable of moral reasoning. Why then do you think appealing to him is a good idea?

God is like, just that He is not. You don't seem to read/hear well the first time.

What is your position on corruption and adultery?

What makes my position/opinion on corruption, adultery to be better than yours?

Then you shouldn't have misstated it.

You are the father of misstate. Are goats unreasonable or not? Yes or No.

In that case, it would be better to kill all 6 month old babies yet he has let them live. Why has he let other babies live?

One reason is because His reason for creating us is to glorify Him on earth. You grow up to do that mainly.

And this is why I say that with God, there is no morality. You're saying that if God commands you to kill babies, you would do it.

There goes the misstate lord. i didn't say anything close to what you are writing. We know what God will do in this new testament period, so no need for tactless ponderings.God will not command anybody to kill babies. You would support killing of babies though, through abortion. i know it. You have your reasons which you argue as fair.

According to your Bible, God asked Israelites to kill 6 month old babies. If you were in that army, would you have killed them?

i like this improvement on your tenses, very good of you i must commend. Nonetheless, i don't answer foolish questions, i'm commanded not to.
2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do engender strifes.
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

You didn't show it, you merely said he has many followers. Or do you think that if someone has many followers, that means they are right?

He has more followers, showing He is superior in that aspect. Need more? how many followers of Zeus have you met? i have met none. i laugh almost to tears to ask how many professing christians you have met.

Did your God command people to kill babies in the Old Testament? This is why I say you're very dishonest. I specifically quoted a passage from Numbers but you ignored it for some reason.

You said that God has given US the order and advice to kill babies and molest people, that had to be straightened out. Now, you have asked the right question perhaps. My God commanded people to kill in the Old Testament. To be specific, God ordered the children of Israel to kill all the male Midianites and some of the females. This judgement was because the people of Midian had made Israel to sin against God and caused a plague that killed thousands of Israelites. He is God. Israel cannot and must not do that on their own, or for personal revenge. What is your next question? If you have valid, straight-forward and true questions, i will try the best to answer them.

Apparently you're the one who needs it.

Don't let the devil deceive you on this one also.

Because the Bible spoke about your God commanding the killing of babies. It is in Numbers 31. I've already quoted it in my previous posts.

i've answered this, you initially skewd it by saying that He ordered/commandS US. God did not order or command us to kill babies, there is something called scope and context.

In other words, you're running from the fact that I've demonstrated how evil your God is.

You are wrong. i'm putting you on the stand as well and it glaringly shows you are guilty as charged. You don't measure up to your morals. Learn to multitask.

Nothing? Are you serious or do you find reading difficult? So those two verse asked people to do nothing? And with this, you reveal your deep dishonesty.

Your tenses thehomer, tenses arew very important and do change context. The verb "ask" is a different tense from the verb "asked". In this post, you are using "asked" which is past tense. When you say to explain what these commands ask people to do, i must say NOTHING. Because that is the truth, the verses do not ask us to do anything.

And this is how you try to run when you're confronted with the deep evil of your God.

Your tenses were amusingly horrible. i can see you are putting some work into them. There is no deep evil that God has done. You are evil by nature, remember.

Well, that depends. Are you agreeing that your God has learned and revised his previous thoughts about something being bad?

It doesn't depend, you act unaware of the distinction between the Old Testament and the New testament. God did not revise His previous thoughts about something being bad. He simply changed from gear 1 to gear 2, as it were, in the same gearbox and car. If you have a child, your rules and behaviour to the child changes with time, without you necessarily changing or revising previous thoughts. Humanity is in a different stage and phase, come on the bus already.

I think they are unless of course you think that there's nothing wrong with commanding that witches be killed or that it is sometimes okay to kill 6 month old babies.

And your tenses fail you yet again. God is not commanding that witches be killed. Have you found an alternative to abortion? ethical values cannot be derived from human needs alone. Some humans need to sleep with another's wife or with young children, some need to eat other humans, and take other's possessions. Ethical values shouldn't be on those, even culturally and in time, those needs and interest differ and change. The Bible gives the best advices and commands on how to treat one another, including subordinates. Update your theology, there are no 'slaves' in the context you refer in this era.

Schematics:
Did you watch Buhari's speech yesterday?

It was obvious to everyone that voting this guy in power is tantamount to voting an uneducated retired soldier into power.

Nigeria of 1982 is not Nigeria of 2014. Buhari belong to our dark past and we shall demonstrate to him next year that he truly belong to the past.

What was uneducated about him? The present government hasn't given a bright present.

simplemach:
The worst thing that can happen to Nigeria is to have Buhari elected as president. I feel that even those people who have been making noise behind him in his support will all live to detest his leadership and regret giving him their votes.

The FG should not focus on a calumny based campaign. People already detest the ineptitude, lies and recklessness of the present leadership.

Sunnycliff:
Buhari will still be surrounded by The same sect of recycled polithiefcians? is there still a Hope for real change we anticipated?

Would GEJ be surrounded by angels and seraphims?

davien:
Omniprescence and omnipotence reduces your excuse to shambles....
Unless you believe your "god" is the same as a pregnant woman...hence incapable of changing any situation...

I wasn't talking to you or making excuses.

thehomer:
What you refer to as "theology" isn't theology but "Christian theology". Don't mix them up. Then there are subsets of Christian theology like Catholic theology, Baptist theology, Anglican theology etc. Sure you can say I'm ignorant about the Christian God but so are you. But I'm not ignorant on what people have said about God and that is what theology generally amounts to.

Again, why did God make sin transmissible when he could easily have made it non-transmissible? If God didn't intend for Adam to sin, why did he place the tree in the garden at all. Why did he even make the tree in the first place? Or didn't he know what Adam would do before he was formed? You can keep making excuses for your God but they simply won't fly.

You should know the brand of theology i referred to when i said that you are ignorant about God. i would not make special references to the christian God, He is simply God. Take good note.
God made man, not sin. The buck lies at man's door. Why did man sin. If he didn't sin, we would not be talking about transmission. Man was tested and he failed. Why do you conduct tests? Everything we make we test and then certify as approved or not. Man was made/built capable to pass the test, he decided to flunk it instead, in disbelief that he could fail. So blame your father, not God.

And why should I obey his command? God has wondered about things before so I don't know why you're complaining here. After all, he wondered whether or not Abraham would be willing to sacrifice his son. He wondered whether or not Job would always obey him.

You would obey His command for your own good, like you would probably obey a doctor or a law enforcement agent.

What exactly do you mean by freewill? Sure it is in the Bible. Doesn't make it true or a good idea. A better idea would have been for every single person to start out good.

Unfortunately for you, you have a pedigree, so you are influenced by the past, the present and the future actions of OTHERS. Deal with the facts, instead of fighting them. Freewill is complex and i'd rather we don't delve into that. There is already a lot on the table as it were. Shortly, freewill is the ability to will freely. Makes us different from every other creation which are either programmed or led only by instinct. e.g the planets, the trees, the animals. The river, the sun have their course, they have no will of their own. The Sun will rise tomorrow, it has no choice as it were. Chicken will eat corn except there is a problem.

I'm not making much about it. I'm happy with it.

Okay.

For some reason, you find it difficult to understand that someone can criticize an idea without believing it. Yes based on what your God did in the Bible, he is cruel. But guess what? I don't believe in your God as a serious entity.
The more false we destroy the more room there will be for the true.
Robert Ingersoll

Psa 49:13 This their way is their folly: yet their posterity approve their sayings. Selah.

i'm not exactly asking you to believe, but to see the full perspective. You are looking at the action and failing to consider the actor as it were. i showed you earlier that an action might be right by one and wrong by another. i talked about soccer players and their umpire/referee. i mentioned justice as rendered by an individual in society and by those with legal backing. When you criticize, remember the perspective that the Actor is the Owner and Judge, don't remember only the action. That's suspended.

Well, I didn't say it, Ingersoll did.
You demonstrate your ignorance when you claim that your God is loving.

Don't argue needlessly next time then. What is love?

I was about to ask you the same question with regards to exams. Demonstrating your inability to deal with literary works is your own failing. One of the "better plows" would be something like the theory of evolution rather than the Bible being the better explanation on how humans came to exist.

Evolution is a THEORY, a silly one at that. It's not in any way a better plow but a desperate attempt by some to deceive themselves and the gullible.

And I disagree that he would die of inferiority complex.

Yeah yeah, for your mind. i'm talking about reality.

Your God has already made it a crime.

God hasn't made it a crime to think or stopped anyone from thinking. i think and so do several other christians.

Yes I'm the one wondering. Wondering why your God keeps complainig. Nope God caused it. He could have made sin non-transferrable but he chose not to.

Get the root cause. Your father Adam is the source of your failures, not God.

Good. Good. Steps in the right direction. So God is like inanimate objects like the sun, fire and water. What you're saying is that your God is a being that is incapable of moral reasoning. Or that even if your God were to command genocide, then genocide may be good.

Yes, God is like, just that He is not. The Bible uses inanimate objects to describe Him so that you can understand Him better. He is a Rock, Fortress, Sun and Fire.

Maybe some people have better moral reasoning than I do. The thing is that I'm willing to consider what they say. You can use the "degree analogy" if you want. Just let me know what your position is or what your God's position is.

What makes your position/opinion on corruption, adultery to be better than another's.

What I said is that goats are incapable of reason.

i know what you said.

You've still demonstrated nothing surprising. You can always tell me the context that would make killing 6 month old babies the best thing to do by an all powerful entity.

The context that He made them and owns them, and will take them to a better place rather than having them grow up corrupt and fit for destruction.

You do realize that you're giving a justification for killing all 6 month old babies. Based on your reasoning, someone who really loves children would kill them all to ensure that they all get into heaven. Is that a position you're willing to defend?

Sure, if God does it. i have consistently told you that NO MAN has a right to take another's life. To preempt you, if you killed all babies, they would all go to a better place. Nonetheless, you would have sinned and probably altered God's plan for some of the babies. Imagine if you killed me as a baby, we would not be having this discussion. God's current ultimate plan is not to have many babies in heaven but to get a few good men. Notice that right from conception, the millions of other spermatozoa not needed.

I wasn't confused about that but if you really believe in your God, then you'll be confused about it. Here's another question. Would you kill a 6 month old baby if you were ordered to do so by God?

God would not ask me so to do, i am 100% sure.

Numbers don't make your God right. Otherwise, hell would be the better destination since more people would be there.

You said He wasn't superior, i showed you He is.

Please where is the lie? Hasn't God ever oredered someone to kill babies or advised someone to rape female victims? Saying that God hasn't told you to do this personally doesn't mean that he hasn't told someone else to do it.

Paul delivered witches. God said kill witches. What is your point? Are you saying that just because something was mentioned in the Bible, it was a good idea? God never said "free all your slaves" he gave laws on who to enslave and what to do with them.

The lie again is that you are saying that God has ordered me and us(any christian) to kill babies and molest. i didn't get the memo, you are lying.
We are in the New Testament, you would need to come to terms with that.

I see your dishonesty really struggling. Playing with grammar still won't save your God. You've already pointed out that I said your God has ordered the killing of babies so please can you quote what I said that you're interpreting in this strange way?

Get that Brighter Grammar i adviced.

It actually is irrelevant because I'm the one who asked you a certain question. Asking me some other question doesn't answer my original question. Asking me if God is telling you something today makes no sense to me because your God isn't talking to me about you. All I have to go on is the Christian Bible and I'm merely asking you what your opinion is about someone who gives a certain command.

If God is not talking to you about mew, why do you say that He ordered/commandS US?

You're not answering my questions, you're asking your own question as a sort of comparison to mine about your opinions which may or may not reveal somethings about you and your God.
And once again, you reveal that you're comparing me to your God. What you suggested isn't my insinuation. I'm saying that given the sorts of evil actions your God has commanded in the past, he is an evil entity rather than a good one that should be worshipped.

Well, you are wrong. i'm putting you on the stand as well and it glaringly shows you are guilty as charged. You don't measure up to your morals.

There is nothing wrong with my tenses. If you find my plain words confusing, please can you explain what these commands ask people to do?

Nothing.

You're shouting that God doesn't support killing 6 month old babies. Please did God ever support the commands given above?

Work on your tenses.

You speak as though people learning and revising their previous thoughts is something bad. Having modern editions isn't something terrible. In fact the absence of modern editions is why your Bible is such a good source of things not to do.

You have a problem with God doing same.

Really some people "need" to sleep with another's wife or young chldren? Some "need" to eat other humans? What sort of needs do you have? I hope you're not one of the people with those "needs".
I'd say that any book that doesn't recommend killing witches, suggest that it is sometimes good to kill 6 month old babies or give advice on how to keep slaves is already a huge improvement over the Bible.

These are not greater alternatives or substitute for the Word of God.

Bidam:
Yeah some things do have consequences and yet i kept wondering why God will disinherit esau's blessings which was his by birthright. Is it that esau made the mistake because he was hungry? Or God knew before they were born that esau will turn out the way he did.Even before they were born God already put the sentence on Esau( Romans 9:13) why is that so?

That's one of the not so easy questions, i would only share my thoughts/opinions . There are differences in its understanding and that is permitted. It's teaching is not saving faith or something required for us to be saved or whatever. i was trying to explain something similar to italo about holding differing positions/understandings. Again, my THOUGHTS are that Esau made a mistake AND God knew before they were born. i think it is so because God is omniscient. Being omniscient doesn't exactly mean that He did it, but that He knew it. i think its like a pregnant woman going to the doctor and the doctor knows the gender of the baby, time of delivery, health of the baby etc. It's a projection of knowledge that was not feasible about two centuries ago. The doctor knows but is not necessarily the cause. Also, things can change in between, like there may be premature delivery or death or some other thing caused by other factors. i think that is the way God sees us, though in a more advanced way. He can project as it were, but of course there needs to be a conception before a projection as it were. He probably has various simulations from the sperm cells and eggs, the millions of scenarios into the future, and then zoomed in into the lucky sperm. i'll call it an omniscient permission, not a sentence.

Bidam:
My question is Esau as a man sought repentance with tears.why did God not forgive him?

I think it was the birthright he sought. While God may forgive and save eternally, some things have consequences.

Forgiveness in this context is for the repentant. Also, Satan is already condemned and judged, unlike man.

Ubenedictus:
actually my dear, it isn't ridiculous, i simply wanted to point out that your post was side stepping the question. Italo talked about "contradictory doctrines" and you were busy talking about judicial pronoucements, that shows a clear attempt to sidestep the question.

In your quick rage to point out "fact" about legal pronoucement and run away from the issue of doctrines, you started to post misinformations and lies (i do not mean to call you a liar) by boldly claiming that a pope KILLED galileo, sorry galileo was not killed he died a paceful death inside his own mansion.


Now please inform us how manage you believe it is ok for every Christian to hold and teach contradictory DOCRINES when scriptures clearly says we should hold "one faith" and in another place say that "if an angel teaches a different gospel...let him be anathema"

It doesn't sidestep, if not you would not be talking about me believing it's okay to hold contradictory position. The pope declared Galileo an heretic, it's not the same today. That was the simple point. Understanding of doctrines is not the gospel.

Splashme:
[size=13pt]Does this Buhari smoke?

I watched the video - his dark lips, dark gum, teeth, dark inner mouth . . . . hmmm[/size]

It's not a beauty pageant. We're talking about electing the right people to high places of government.

DJHayes:
And I have done no twisting of Deuteronomy 12:8. When read in conteaxt (with its surrounding verses, it clearly is speaking of tithe.

Clearly, we have nothing to discuss. I don't have time for aimless argument.

Ubenedictus:
Image123 pls tell me again who killed galileo?

That's a ridiculous thing to want to argue of everything said. The point was clearly made.

davien:
Image123 have you forgotten this comment...



https://www.nairaland.com/1932478/reason-why-atheists-dont-cant/3#26911559

The only question I would ask you,is what you would have done if you were the one commanded by "god"(as speculated in the "bible" ) to smash a baby's head on a rock as the child's mother is screaming and begging you not to......would you still smash the child's head because "god"(allegedly) said so?

No, i've not forgotten the comment. The ONLY question indeed, let's see how truthful you are. God didn't command anyone to smash any head. Don't be stupid, go back to that thread and read what i wrote on that.

i'm not a politician, neither do i have any political party. i feature on this forum usually on the religion section. i saw this thread on frontpage and it was such a pity the comments i read compared to the Buhari i know. i had to go and watch a part of the interview because of time and interest. however, i thought to help those who would want to really hear what was said in the interview. Here is a part of the interview, the first two links provided.

ChannelsMan: Thank you for joining us, General.
Buhari: Thank you very much.

ChannelsMan: I must ask you, tonight. You are on PoliticsToday, and a lot of Nigerians are looking at you, and they see someone who has run 2003, 2007, 2011 and now 2015 you want to run for President. Why?
Buhari: Well, errmmmmm, the Nigerian constitution. The Nigerian constitution says you cannot vote neither can you be voted for if you have not reached the age of 18. From the age of 18 upwards, a Nigerian can seek to be nominated from councillorship to the Presidency and there was no age limits. And I felt that I'm, in my experience I have something to offer to this country, especially at this particular time.

ChannelsMan: Interesting. I must say that you look graceful, you are 71?
Buhari: Yes.

ChannelsMan: Interesting, what is the secret of you looking this young?
Buhari: Well I think errr, partly I think the military training. You have to maintain yourself fit, and having being there for more than 22yrs, I think it's a habit that has been inculcated in one and not easily abandoned. So I try to keep myself fit.

ChannelsMan: interesting. And this time around, you are running and people are thinking that the signs of time. It's the coming of young people into the leadership atmosphere and in politics. Do you think that you are not too old?
Buhari: No, I don't think I am. And by the system, nobody is blocked. It is up to the people to make up their mind to go through the processes. And then in the end, what the people want is what should happen. And with that in place, I don't think there should be any reason to get obsessed with the age of aspirants.

ChannelsMan: And, you think that you have something different that you are bringing to the table. With your experience. The last time you were Head of State, that's about three decades ago. some people would be asking, "Is there something the General left at the first number one position that he wants to go and pick up?"
Buhari: Well, we look at the condition of the country, then and now. If we reflect very seriously from 1999 to date, we'd find out there are calls of people who feel that the country can be better run, to come out and seek to do so. What position were we in 1999, economically and security wise, and what is our position now? And how much have we earned in-between? What happened to our infrastructures? What happened to power? What happened to the roads? What happened to Nigerian Railways? What happened to Nigerian shipping line? What happened to Nigerian Airways? I look at all that we have earned, and the standard of education, and healthcare. So I think that there is a lot that can be done.

ChannelsMan: You think things have gone really bad since the last...
Buhari: They have, in the terms of unemployment and so on. I will give you an example with one industry I know because I am associated with that. Textiles, the Nigerian Textiles at the time the PDP took the affairs of this country, was employing at least 320,000 people. Between Ikeja, Aba, Kaduna and Kano. I beleieve they are employing less than 30,000 now. A serious government will be very very upset. If in one industry alone, 300,000 people are out of job. And we believe, behind every Nigerian worker, there is about 4 people behind him. This is only one industry.

ChannelsMan:
Buhari: So, this culture of unemployment, especially of able bodies.I think it's a very very serious security issue, additional to what we are facing now.

ChannelsMan: To the issue of your ambition, you said in 2011 that you will not be running for the Presidential seat anymore. this is the statement attributed to you, and I quote "This campaign is the third and last one for me, since after it. I will not present myself again for election into the office of the President." Are you going back on that word that you said that time?
Buhari: Yes.

ChannelsMan: Why?
Buhari: With a reason. My supporters. and there was a time that I mentioned people that came from states, by name. The came in groups, my party then. They said that they need me to continue.

ChannelsMan: Against your personal convictions?
Buhari: Against my personal, well against my personal wish. Let me put it that way. Because to them, the important thing is that I never said I will leave partisan politics. They said that once I am in partisan politics, then I have to participate in looking for the highest office in the country. And since I remained in partisan politics, I had to give in to what my supporters want.

ChannelsMan: A lot of people would think in 2003 ANPP, 2011 CPC and now you are of the APC. That you are perhaps working with some of the people you stood against in 2011. How do you feel, being in the same camp with som e of the people who do not have the same political beliefs that you do?
Buhari: I believe I've explained why I left ANPP and we got registered in CPC. And why we again, the opposition parties then, ACN, ANPP, CPC, and to some extent APGA and DPP. We decided to come together because we felt that none of the opposition parties will make any impact against the PDP. But when we come together, and form an opposition, we will make a difference. And we hope Nigerians will support us, and see the difference. Because the type of impunity that the PDP perpetrated in this country from 1999 till now, I think can no longer be tolerated.

ChannelsMan: We talk about decadence in a lot of aspect of Nigerian life. And a lot of people, if you take the days of the military out of the almost 60years of Nigeria's existence. The military spent close to 70% of it, and a lot of people attribute that some of the problems we have as a country today can be blamed on the military. Do you agree?
Buhari: Well, I don't think no government whether military or civil can be absolutely blameless. It is very important for some who want to blame the military for anything to articulate the forms or issues the military are to be blamed, and then educate Nigerians about it. And let Nigerians get it properly put in our history. But it's so easy to open one's mouth and accuse one of one thing or the other. But the important thing, people must not be intellectually lazy. They must find out what people have done wrong, and why the system then failed to fetch that wrong or failed to correct it. Not just to assume that because the military refused to register parties, conduct elections. But then try and find out what damage has it done. And later, we look at Nigeria's development. When were most of the ports, the airports, the teaching hospitals, the universities were built. Try and do some finding.

ChannelsMan: So you don't agree that the military has done a lot of damage to our growth and development as a country?
Buhari: No, I don't believe so.

ChannelsMan: Well we have a lot of monies that are being returned to us, as a result of corruption in the military rule at some point.
Buhari: How many leaders who were involved in that?

ChannelsMan: In the space of 6 months, we have 3 situations where monies were returned to the Nigerian government.
Buhari: Exactly.

ChannelsMan: Monies taken away by military government.
Buhari: I agree, I agree. But that will involve 1 military administration as far as I know. Abacha's administration. Do you have any issues of such wanton(work in) corruption in 9years of Gowon's administration, or in Murtala's 7months, or in my 20 months? Do you have any issues of such corruption internationally?

ChannelsMan: You said at some point that you leaving. In 1995{i guess he meant 85}, that you leaving power that time when that coup happened was as a result of some people in your government who are corrupt, and because of your stand against corruption, they wanted you out. So you didn't believe that corruption in the military government.
Buhari: Some of the military government, there were no corruption in them.

ChannelsMan: So, the military government. We benefited from military rule, isn't it? Is that what you're saying?
Buhari: Well, if there were no corruption, automatically it means there are sources available for development. But when there is corruption, I will try and make some statements here. The National Assembly was concerned, I think about a year ago. About what happened to NEPA, or PHCN, both of blessed memory. And the Pension Funds and Petroluem Industry, they conducted hearing in Abuja, in the geo-political zones. They sent their recommendations to the Executive, this is the last Nigerians heard about it. And of recent, soldiers out of all decency i will put it, were giving foreign press interview, that they are being sent to the front without weapons. And again, the National Assembly, attempted to conduct hearing. They went and collated how much money was voted for the military and so on in trillions of dollars over the last 3-4 years. But that hearing was scuttled. What do you say about that?

ChannelsMan: General Buhari, at this point, we know that it is popular. Your stand against the issue of indiscipline and corruption. But looking at the situation of things now, if you are given that ticket and if you are elected President of Nigeria. Do you think that it is the same methods that you used when you came as head of government in 1983 that you would still use this time around?
Buhari: The system is different. That one a military administration. Although we had the Supreme Military Council, the National Council of States, and the Federal Executive Council. But this is a multi-party democratic system. But there are constitution in place. 1999 Constitution as amended, and one has to go through that. And that Constitution does not allow for corruption. The problem is that the Government, the Central Government and some of the State Governments were not applying sanctions. While the constitution recommends that corruption should be checked. If such should have been applied, I sure that hearing conducted by the National Assembly, something would have happened. And probably, we'll know the actions taken by Government for those who'v e short-changed the Government.

ChannelsMan: Because, you know. What we see most of the time is how courts scuttle or frustrate the efforts of fighting corruption. Would you be frustrated by this kind of situation?
Buhari: I think the office of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice will have to work hand in hand with the police, and do their constitutional role properly. We don't believe they are not properly trained, or not experienced. But there was no determination by the leadership to really check corruption. Because actually hearing, I referred earlier on, some of what has happened. But nothing has happened as far as we know.

There's more to the interview, interesting perspectives if i may say.

thehomer:
You're the one who has successfully demonstrated his ignorance here. All religions with an idea of a God have a theology so there is Islamic theology, Hindu theology etc. You're making it up as you go along otherwise there won't be such a huge disparity within Christian theology itself. After all, the various Christian factions occur due to theological differences. So sin is genetic? Why did God make sin genetic and then wonder why people don't want him? Why did he make it something transmissible? After all, he hasn't made stealing genetic. Neither has he made murder genetic.

For your level of dishonesty and insincerity, we shouldn't even be talking about any other's morality but yours. Of course, there are other religion's theology, our context of discussion was obviously the christian perspective. Everytime i mention(ed) God, i refer to the christian God {who is the only God} and you know that. The study of that God is what i refer to as theology which you are ignorant about. i have no business/concerns what you know about other gods. i boldly say you are ignorant about God(the christian God). Register it in your brain that i refer to the christian God as God. Theology is principally the study of God. You are IGNORANT on the study of God.
Now, you do understand english more than you pretend, stop stalling your comprehension needlessly. "making it up" means that one is improvising or inventing. There is nothing i have said(to you on this thread) that is new or that i did not know ever before i ever knew you on this forum. It is all in the Bible as it were. Man became a sinner after Adam sinned, man was created good. This is in the Bible and i showed you, i'm not making it up. i wouldn't exactly say sin is genetic, because sin is more than the physical, it is spiritual. i only gave the genetic/hereditary ANALOGY to describe and explain things. i also gave analogy about forefathers decisions having an effect on the descendants, so lets not tie wishful strings to ONLY genetics. God is not wondering why people don't want Him, where do you get that? People want God, billions of them are forever searching as it were, albeit wrongly. It is like asking why did God make HIV or some new blood disease transmissible. God did not intend/purpose for man to sin. The question should be on the man, why was man so careless as to sin or contract the HIV? Why did the man have the accident, not why did God allow accidents, man should be held accountable and responsible for what he did. Power comes with responsibility. Should we hold world leaders accountable for their acts and crimes or whine about why God allowed them to be there since they are put there by God in a sense, according to the Bible?

If he isn't surprised, then he expected me to have nothing to do with him. What does freewill (if that is true) have to do with anything? If I already have a sinful nature, then it is natural for me not to repent. Therefore I'm only following the nature that your God caused me to have since he could have made Adam's sin non-genetic.

Why are you asking IF? Why did you initially go ahead to make a baseless and ignorant statement that He is surprised or wonders? God expects and commands you to repent.
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Freewill is what separates you from other creatures, and makes you in the image of God. Freewill makes you capable of holiness or sin in a sense, despite your nature unlike other creatures. i had a sinful nature(default state) too, all men[humans] have. But i repented, and so can you. A sinful nature means that you start on a bad or negative or deficit slate, instead of a clean one or even good one. It takes a CONVERSION or a re-born(being born again) to come out of that. This is all in the Bible.

Is that a problem?

This is the question i should be asking you. i made a statement and if you didn't have problems with it, you should not have made much ado about it.

I know what I said.

That is such a relief.

No God did not create the world and does not own me.

That is as SUSPENDED as your thinking gets. On the basis of what the Bible writes, you conclude what God did and commanded(which in your opinion are cruel), On the same basis of what the Bible writes, you do not believe that God created the world and owns you.
Psa 24:1 The earth is the LORD's, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
Num 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

How long are you going to suspend your thinking, hence thinking less according to you?

It was clear the first time. What I wrote was immediately after what you highlighted in bold. No Ingersoll doesn't naively suppose that, he simply points out that believers aren't willing to admit their ignorance of the God they claim to believe in. In fact you've done that yourself several times already.

So why were you initially arguing needlessly like a hen running away from a male chicken? You denied ever saying that "believers weren't expressing their real opinions." Your role model said "if the world ever advances beyond what it is to-day, it must be led by men who express their real opinions." Believers aren't willing to admit Ingersoll's naive opinion of the God they claim to believe in. Please show the several times that i have been ignorant of God?

That refers to believers generally resisting any changes.

What is the BETTER plow? BETTER is in capital letters, how do/did you pass exams.

He said he knew more than all those dead theologians and I have to agree with him. Those theologians claim to know a God that is supposed to be beyond human understanding.

That is not a MODEST claim, that is preposterous and silly. Ingersoll has nothing on many of the great theologians before him. Not to bore you with the not well known ones, he would die instantly and naturally near dead theologians like Paul, Daniel, Moses, Joseph, David, Job and Luke. He would die of inferiority complex.

Your God made it a crime when he says just love me or be burned in hell forever as punishment.

Loving God doesn't preclude thinking, Who made it a crime to think or stopped your right from thinking?

I'm not complaining. I'm simply wondering why your God is complaining when he caused me to be this way.

There we have it, you are the one wondering not God. So stop making ridiculous suppositions. God did not cause you to be the way you are, your father did, and you do. Adamite.

What act can God perform that would make you say he is cruel?

None, He is incapable of cruelty, they are not on the same wavelength. Compare it to the Sun for instance as you may understand it that way, the sun cannot be said to be cruel whatever its acts. Neither can fire or water. Our God is greater. Man like you and i, i know what you can do and i can do and we will both agree as cruel.

No, whether or not one position is more moral than another depends on what the other position is. When you tell me what your position is on the things you listed, I'll be able to tell you if my position is more moral and why.

Hahahaha, if i used this 'degree' analogy to weigh man's morality with God's, you would immediately frown like you were forced to swallow a bitter pill. What makes your position/opinion on corruption, adultery to be better than another's. Are you suggesting that there may be superior morality to yours? Of course not, you are dodging like the devil.

Goats aren't capable of reasoning.

Okay, i know that but i'll remember that YOU also said so. Goats are unreasonable.

That depends. Why is he killing these chickens? How is he killing them? How did he treat those chickens?

Definitely, you are saying saying yes sometimes and no sometimes. Very good. You are not basing a man's cruelty only on one action but on different situations. Remember that when you attempt to judge God(a quite ludicrous act/attempt if i may say). Don't judge Him(again that sounds crazy because it is) based ONLY on His actions but also on His personality, Word, Agreement, context etc.
Imagine somebody is arguing with me on WHY i am killing my chickens, telling me i could be cruel to kill my chickens, i'm supposing that is amoral? Watch it, thehomer has respect for chicken lives.

What does this destination have to do with anything? Are you saying that sometimes it may be right to kill some innocent children because they may be going somewhere later?
Yes it would be cruel to kill a baby because it has some infection. Do you think it would be cruel to kill a baby because of an infection?
No it isn't cruel to terminate an ectopic pregnancy. Do you think it is cruel to terminate an ectopic pregnancy?
Another question. Why does God allow ectopic pregnancies?

The destination has something to do with EVERYTHING. The Bible teaches that humans live forever, eternally. It teaches that it is BETTER not to be born at all than to be born and live eternally in hell. Your six month old new found victims are not going to hell forever, a 99.9% likelihood if they lived to adulthood and wrecked many lives and destinies viewing/projecting their life's graph as it were. You complain if God allows people to live, you still complain if God does not, you seem a frustrated man.

I said living morally is right for its own sake. That is a question I'm asking you and would like you to answer directly rather than just trying to dodge it.

You now see that you were wondering whether or not it is right or wrong to order the killing of 6 month old children. i was never confused on that. That is your question and i have already answered it. IT IS NOT RIGHT FOR ANY HUMAN TO ORDER THE KILLING OF ANOTHER. Are your reading glasses expired?

I made the right conclusion that all God's are equal so your God is no more superior than Zeus. I'd rather worship myself or Ingersoll than worship your God since at the very least, I'm alive and Ingersoll was once alive.

Zeus? God has superior coverage, followership and book already. They say if someone has not being to another person's farm, he would always assert that his father's farm is the biggest.

Living morally is not NOTHING. According to your Bible, he has already given the order and the advice.
Many people have suggested that we shouldn't keep slaves and that we shouldn't kill people who have been accused of being witches. That's just off the top of my head.

Me: Does God order us to kill babies or advice us To Molest female victims?
You: According to your Bible, he has already given the order and the advice.

You my friend are a barefaced and shameless LIAR. God has not ordered US to kill babies or adviced us to molest female victims. Again, i said "Mention the better suggestions many people have made that are better than what we already have in the Bible." What you mentioned is already in the Bible and has being christian practice for centuries. Paul didn't kill witches, he delivered them. He called Onesimus his master's brother and it so to his master philemon.

You're the one not working on your tenses and being disingenuous. I said God has already ordered the killing of children. I notice that you've not denied that your God has given those orders.

You said God WANTS to kill babies. Except that you do not know your tenses, that means that God desires/wants that act in the present continuous. ALREADY ORDERED is past tense. Your tenses failed you, look for "brighter grammar" my friend.

I'm not evading that question because it is irrelevant. My question has always been whether or not God has ever given such a command. Asking me what he does now doesn't demonstrate anything because he could always give you that command. And I see that once again, you've not answered that direct question.

What sort of grammar is this one again? YOU are EVADING my question because you think it is irrelevant, that is the correct sentence you should write. Now, the question is not irrelevant, it answers your question. Does God command me to kill my child and offer her as burnt offering? You asked your question in a PRESENT continuous tense "What do you think about a person who command[b]s[/b]". It is pertinent to ask if God indeed commandS.

I'm not the one being questioned here, it is your God that is being assessed. When you asked that question, you were asking it in the context of comparing it to what I pointed out your God had done. That is why I think it is an honest response that you made accidentally.

Don't go delusional, you are being questioned and i am the one questioning you. You need to learn to multi-task, i am answering your questions and questioning you. The reality on ground is that you took my question as a response(an appropriate and honest response) in this instance. Be consistent and stop complaining about my other responses that are in question format. i didn't make it accidentally, i THOUGHT it through, deeper than your 'little thinkings'. i simply debunked your insinuation that doing a bad thing compulsorily rules out your good thing. You are ignorantly posing that God did some bad/cruel things so He is not to be taken serious on any good thing. On that same basis/criteria, you should not be taken serious, because you(and every human) have done silly things and rubbish in the past.

Yes the humanist manifesto is a much better alternative than your Bible. Sure you check it out and tell me whether or not it supports killing 6 month old babies like your Biblical God does.

IF you kill 6 month old babies, you would go to hell. If i kill 6 month old babies, i will go to hell. GOD DOES NOT SUPPORT IT, write that down in an exercise book several times until it sinks. Your tenses are horrible or there is something worse wrong with you.
From your link, the so called human manifesto is about three already and still subject to change The page even says that "the three differ considerably in their tone, form, and ambition." Your touted book has differences in its editions already as small as it is, and you were moaning about theological difference. Manifesto 11 says some mumbo-jumbo about being resplendent with the promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of 'love thy neighbor' will finally be achieved. So in essense, you want to achieve the Bible's aims, nothing good that is new or a greater alternative than the Word of God below(1John4v7-9; 3v15-19).
The more recent Manifesto 111 gives seven things as summary;

-Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. (See empiricism.)
-Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of evolutionary change, an unguided process.
-Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. (See ethical naturalism.)
-Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
-Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
-Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.
-Respect for differing yet humane views in an open, secular, democratic, environmentally sustainable society

These are not greater alternatives or substitute for the Word of God. Numbers 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are found in the Bible already. Except that God supersedes everything else. He is 1st. 2 and 3 is rubbish, evolution is not a greater alternative, ethical values should not be derived from human need. Some humans need to sllep with another's wife or with young children, some need to eat other humans, and take other's possessions. Ethical values shouldn't be on those, even cultural and in time, those needs and interest differ and change. Who knows whether Manifesto 4 will ask for all the poor people to be wiped out, signed by 70 Nobel Laureate, nonsense.

DJHayes:
so you think God is delusional, eh? I think it is you who should beware.

Leviticus 27:30 (KJV) 30 And all the tithe of the land, [whether] of the seed of the land, [or] of the fruit of the tree, [is] the LORD'S: [it is] holy unto the LORD.

Leviticus 27:31 (KJV) 31 And if a man will at all redeem [ought] of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth [part] thereof.

Leviticus 27:32 (KJV) 32 And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, [even] of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD.

Leviticus 27:33 (KJV) 33 He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.

He did say, " ALL THE TITHE OF THE LAND," did He not? Yes, I believe He did. Last time I checked, the word "all" meant "entirety".

Deuteronomy 12:8 (KJV) 8 Ye shall not do after all [the things] that we do here this day, every man whatsoever [is] right in his own eyes.

God said the entirety of His holy tithe was agricultural.

If you are trying to refer back to Abram's tithe, need I remind you that nowhere in the text concerning that tithe does it say that that tithe was "holy"? Obviously, because Abram's tithe was the property of a pagan king, it was not holy. God never called it holy.

And God said that the Israelites were not to tithe until the crossed Jordan. The tithe then was to be observed, and was then called holy. And under the Law, the Israelites could not offer anything as tithe but that which God decreed to be titheable... agricultural produce and livestock.

Since Mark's post is totally supported by the Word of God, it is clear he is not lying. Your accusations against him are unwarranted.

What i referred to as delusional was the God's only holy tithe definition that Mark propagates. Comprehend? NO ONE is contesting ALL THE TITHE OF THE LAND. What we have simply and straightly contested is the addition "ONLY" which changes the context. For instance, i believe that Jesus is the ONLY way, my perspective is different from the random religious person in Lagos that believes all religions lead to God. ONLY has not changed in meaning.
In Deut 12v8, the Israelites were in the wilderness and were not tithing there. Don't twist that passage to refer to tithes again. Again, we are not under the law so stop prescribing it to us(even though you naively missed the import and interpretation). The principle of the tithe is so plain that it takes so much twist and letter for the common man to miss it. It is akin to the principle of Jesus as the Lamb or as Adam(last Adam). Jesus is the our passover lamb but not an animal. The passover lamb was offered by each family and sprinkled on each door post. The lamb wasn't necessarily crucified etc. In God's eyes the same principle however applies, Jesus is our paschal Lamb that takes our sins away. Jesus is the last Adam. In the similitude of Adam, He is the beginning of God's creation as it were. He doesn't however have to live in a garden or have a physical wife or be created, He was born etc. In the same principle, the tithe is simply a tenth and the Holy Spirit through the Bible recognises it so. He refers to Abraham's tithe, Leviticus tithe, pharisee tithe etc as simply tithe which is 1/10. It doesn't say any one is unholy or make silly demarcations as monetary tithe and other such seminary terms. Go and start reading your Bible instead of listening to Mark.

thehomer:
You're just getting yourself more and more confused. You said I was born in sin. Please can you tell me how I existed before I was born? This is why I and many others keep pointing out to you the fact that theology is an imaginary field. You're just making things up as you go along. Go on declare me ignorant. I also declare you ignorant in theology.

Edit: According to your theology, you declare that I'm born with a sinful nature. Why then is God surprised that I don't want anything to do with him? If he isn't surprised, then he expected me to have nothing to do with him before I was born.

Actually, you are the one getting more confused as you obviously didn't expect this. It proves your ignorance on theology. Theology basically being the study of the christian religion/faith and God's relation to the world. i'm not making things up as we go along, all i have said are in the Bible and have been there before you and Ingersoll were born. You didn't EXIST before you were born, asking me how lamely supposes that i said you existed. You do have a pedigree and geneology. That determines some things about you, like your genotype, nationality etc. It also determined your sinful nature. You were BORN that way, because your father(everyone's father-Adam) became that way. Like i mentioned the blood disease analogy or some other hereditary trait. NOTE AGAIN that Adam wasn't CREATED that way, neither was anyone. It's pitiful that you are ignorant of these plain facts/explanations written in the Bible. Adam the first man was created good, he went rogue/bad, jeopardizing his entire lineage/descendants in the process. Just like some of your forefathers decisions have some effect on you today e.g the wars they fought and didn't, and the political and economic struggles.
God is not surprised at you or anyone. You're possibly losing focus on this and going another lane entirely. You should ask nicely and make efforts to understand instead of asking slyly. Anyway, you have a freewill, unlike planet Earth or Saturn that God expects and is certain of their position in the next 4 million years. Heck, some scientists may even be able to project that. Why, they don't have a will of their own. They are obedient to what they are "programmed" to do. You have a will and can actually make decisions, like repenting.

I already said I don't see anything wrong in how they lived or died.

And i said you couldn't.

Sure. I said it. I already told you the amount of doubt I had in such issues.

You were the one that said only idiots have no doubts.

So it is thinking less to point out the actual fact of what your God did?

On the same basis, did God create the world and own you? Suspended thinking is thinking less, you said so.

Are you now unable to read? Or don't you know what a statement in bold refers to? Okay I'll point it out to you again. Take note of what you highlighted there in bold.

You are one funny fellow. You should have made your post this clear the first time. i didn't know the exact bold you referred as that was a post/statement made days earlier. Other posts had come in between and you have to be specific like you just did. You denied ever saying that "believers weren't expressing their real opinions." Your role model said "if the world ever advances beyond what it is to-day, it must be led by men who express their real opinions.". He said that in the same breathe/paragraph as the inglorious assertion that "only idiots are absolutely sure of salvation. It is incredible that the more brain you have the less your chance is." You probably cannot see what is wrong in these two because your morals hang on nothing. Ingwersoll naively supposes that antitheists are the ones expressing their real opinions and that they are the ones to lead the world as it were. then you go ahead to haplessly and frivolously quote him again and introduce more absurdity.
1. What is the BETTER plow that has been invented that a father is objecting to?
2. how is it modest to vaguely assert knowing more than ALL good men dead?
3. Who made it a crime to think or stopped your right from thinking?
You are free to say what you will, don't shy away or complain about the consequences. Freedom shouldn't be confused for laxity.

Actually we've not carried out the analysis because you're not answering the question I asked. Again, this is the question I asked.

Do you think it is cruel to order the killing of 6 month old babies? I've not said anything about God so just answer the actual question and stop being scared.

It is cruel for any man to order the killing of another, God is not man. Start being real.

Well, that depends on what your view/position is on the things you listed. So, what are your views on the things you've listed?

Oh, so your view depends on my view? That's new. What makes your view/position more moral than others', that was the question.

No

Hmmm, it is not cruel for a goat to kill seven other goats according to you. Any factors, or no matter the factors?

That depends on various factors.

Okay, that's fair. You seem to be saying yes sometimes and no sometimes, right? Do you think it is cruel for a human being to kill HIS 6chickens before this year runs out?

No, the point of 6 months is the innocence of the baby involved.

Hmmm, the innocence. How about the destination involved? Would it be cruel to kill an infected baby or an ectopic pregnancy considering that it posed immediate danger to others?

You're merely confused again. What I've said is that living morally is right for its own sake. That is different from wondering whether or not it is right or wrong to order the killing of 6 month old children. Well since you've concluded that I have no basis for my morality, I'm happy to tell you that you have evil as the basis of your morality.

What is the difference, you said it is just right, or it just is right, or it is right for its own sake. No difference in meaning. You have no basis for your morality, it is an evident and logical conclusion. Who is wondering whether or not it is right or wrong to order the killing of 6 month old children? You seem to be the one wondering as you have being on about it in question format.

All Gods are equal. Equally imaginary so I'm sorry I won't be able to find you a better God to worship. Though if you really want something to worship, you can worship the sun or stars. I on the other hand don't need anything to worship.

i made the right assertion, you cannot find a more superior God than mine. All gods are not equal, they don't even claim to be. You worship yourself and Ingersoll(and his likes) BTW.

I never said morality should be based on nothingness. I said living morally for its own sake is enough. Your God has ordered people to kill babies and rape female prisoners of war. Aren't those crimes?
Many people have made better suggestions than your God.

You IMPLY that morality should be based on nothingness when you say that living morally for its own sake is enough. That means NOTHING. Does God order us to kill babies or advice us To Molest female victims? Stop being evasive like Adam, hiding his sorry self from God like he can hide. That's the adamic nature at play. Mention the better suggestions many people have made that are better than what we already have in the Bible.

You've not been reading your Bible I see. Check out Numbers 31:17 and 18

i see you have not been working on your tenses. You said God WANTS to kill babies, the verse you quoted doesn't tell us that God WANTS to kill babies. i asked you if you want to kill babies remember?

That's not the question I asked. You need to learn to answer the actual question I ask rather than just inventing yours and ignoring it. Please here's the question I asked again. What do you think about a person who commands you to kill your child and offer her as burnt offering? Is this command right or wrong?

Please answer the actual question I asked.

THAT is the question i am asking and that you are evading. This is the question. Does God command me to kill my child and offer her as burnt offering?
AGAIN, i have not seen any person(that is human being whom we can subject to the same standard) command me to kill my child and offer her as a burnt offering.

Finally an honest response. You're saying that God once ordered something that can now be considered as rubbish or silly. That's a great step forward.

Again, you were evasive like Adam. Here it is again; Have YOU ever done or ordered anything that YOU now think was rubbish or silly?
Can we take YOU serious now or not? i'm hoping YOU would be straight enough to answer this simple questions instead of/before side-stepping and diverting issues.
Hope you can see your inconsistency? i asked a question and you accept it as an honest RESPONSE because you presume that you can twist it. You didn't consider the other a response when you said to learn to answer the actual question you ask rather than just inventing mine. Now, i didn't say anything about God but asked you a question about yourself. Are you under the delusion of being some imaginary God?
If you let go of that suspension, you'd see that i simply debunked your insinuation that doing a bad thing rules out your good thing. You are ignorantly selling that God did some bad/cruel things so He is not to be taken serious on any good thing. On that same basis/criteria, you should not be taken serious, because you(and every human) have done silly things and rubbish in the past. Get it now.

The criticism is first to show you that what you've suggested as a moral guide isn't one.
You can start with something along the lines of what is outlined here.

Notice that in my responses, I answered the questions you asked directly. Please try to return that favour in your next response to me. Try answering my actual questions.

Lol, the humanist manifesto. That is your greater alternative than the Word of God below(1John4v7-9; 3v15-19), Your Substitute for the Bible as a Moral Guide? i'll check that later, got to do some other things ATM.

aletheia:
Nice thread!

Merciiii beaucoup. Good to read you again, long time.