₦airaland Forum

kingxsamz:
I will not only kill it, I'll eat it.
Also, vipers and humans are not the same. Humans grow to learn and unlearn. A murderer could change and become law abiding in a society. A viper is a viper, it cares about nothing but itself.
If killing children and infants is okay to you, you should be the last person talking about morals and how upright everyone should be. If most religious folks reason the same way, same applies to them.

Lmao , eat a fellow animal?
If you can eat a fellow animal, you can eat humans, that's canibalism.

Are you the one that will take the responsibility to ensure the children turn out well?

kingxsamz:
And his heart was also hardened before that.

But he was still able to repent despite the hardening didn't he?

With all that happened to Job, would you have blamed him if he did something rash? But he decided not to despite the repeated plagues hitting him

kingxsamz:
A rule is a rule bro.
You can't be telling me there are certain options where killing innocent children is okay while telling me it's not okay. Emphasis on "innocent children".

Innocent threats should be killed. Atheists will kill innocent threats, same with theists.

Lol, that reminds me, will you kill a harmless pretty baby viper in the bush whose only crime was being born to a viper that bit a man who died under 10mins

Namdio:
And who said so for the bolded?

What we've been trying to prove to you is exactly what the italicized is, depending on circumstance what may be right may be wrong (jasminer correct me if I am wrong).

You have been trying to prove the bolded and have ignored all proof brought before you that doesn't fit into your view of Christianity.

I agree, every circumstance is different but the only constant thing is that actions have consequences.

kingxsamz:
Oh well,
The next verse clearly shows he was forced so as to prevent him from letting them go.

And Pharaoh repented again in verse 24 just like he repented earlier in chapter 9 vs 27... Rinse and repeat.

kingxsamz:
Exodus 10:17

Exodus ch 10 vs 17-19
Now therefore forgive, I pray thee, my sin only this once, and intreat the LORD your God, that he may take away from me this death only.
And he went out from Pharaoh, and intreated the LORD.
And the LORD turned a mighty strong west wind, which took away the locusts, and cast them into the Red sea; there remained not one locust in all the coasts of Egypt.

When he repented, the plague was lifted. After that, did Pharaoh let the Israelites go?

kingxsamz:
Those going to foreign countries have more advantage of being helped to understand other people unlike a place where everyone who understood each other suddenly lost that ability.
Anyways, there's no need talking about this, it's been established that the Christian god interfers in man's decision.
Now back to my point of killing children.
Namdio already accepted that the Christian god was wrong for what he did. So I need to ask you the same question. He answered me well like I expected you to, but you're too scared. So can I ask you again?

Nobody forced them to scatter. They could still have stuck together. But don't worry... Argument here is weak... Back to your "forte"

kingxsamz:
The Bible stated it, what are you talking about?
He asked for forgiveness and acknowledged that he had sinned.

Show me where the bible stated it

kingxsamz:
The Bible stated it, what are you talking about?
He asked for forgiveness and acknowledged that he had sinned.

Please quote the chapter and verse

kingxsamz:
I do and we all have alternatives to understand each other. If English doesn't work, Pidgin must work. So...

What about those japaing to Russia, Finland and Norway.

My point is that they could have still lived together and even learnt each other's languages.

kingxsamz:
Their decision was to live as one and he interfered by confusing them in order to break that bond, which worked.
You're just pretending not to know it at this point.

Don't you live with people who speak different languages?

kingxsamz:
Do you know Pharoah was remorseful and agreed he had sinned at that point but his heart was hardened by force. Any how you look at it, his decision was influenced.

We're you there to know Pharaoh was remorseful

kingxsamz:
So you agree you were wrong?

Then I take back my previous statement. God didn't interfer with Pharaoh's actions. God interfered with the thought making process but still Pharaoh still had the ability to let them go like he finally did

kingxsamz:
Pharoah's heart was hardened against his will.
The people building the tower were confused against their will because they wanted to be one.
In conclusion, the Christian god does interfere in man's decisions. Simple as that. You can't say that something is white then argue within same breath that it's black.

Lolz ... Even though Pharoah's heart was hardened, Pharaoh could still have decided to release them just like he did in the end. God never softened Pharaoh's heart. So if he hardened it, it still didn't stop Pharaoh's from obeying after several warnings

kingxsamz:
Do you think those builders wanted to be confused?
The intention was to confuse them so as they won't be able to live as one. Which worked perfectly. Task carried out, goal achieved. Simple as that.

Without interfering in their decision

kingxsamz:
Let me even excuse that one because it's sketchy. How about the decision of the people to build a tower and live together?
He interfered in their plan. At least we can agree on that.

Did He tell them to stop building? Or place an angel in front of the tower like He did in Eden?

They could still find a way to keep building but they didn't

kingxsamz:
If he doesn't interfer, he wouldn't have done all the things I mentioned that he did.
If another law can triumph one of his previous laws then his words do break.

If I pray, God hears and answers. That's also one of His laws: When His children call Him in sincerity, He hears and answers.

Pharaoh afflicted people, he must be afflicted one way or the other as well. Israelites prayed for freedom, justice etc. God hardened Pharoah's heart, Pharaoh got punished , Pharoah gave the children of Israel freedom. Which law was broken?

But if I pray in sincerity that the devil should be forgiven, doesn't that break the law of karma? So God won't answer me. Does it mean that God's word has been broken? No, he maintained His word by not granting my request.

Omo this one na micro course in Christianity oooo

kingxsamz:
Did he interfere or not?

Yes he did interfer to fulfill his word, to answer the prayers of the Israelites who have been praying for justice and freedom

Same way he interferes to answer my prayers when I pray

Namdio:
For this, you have to understand the man's intention. He did it because he didn't want to have children on his brother's behalf, not because they had mutually agreed to not have children and were using it as a method to prevent contraception.

https://biblehub.com/genesis/38-9.htm

He did it out of spite and made Tamar suffer unjustly, so he was killed.

By spilling his seed on the ground, wasn't he killing his potential children?

Why sleep with a woman when you know you won't keep to your end of the bargain? Isn't that injustice to the woman?

kingxsamz:
Well, except he actually interfered which you claimed he doesn't. So are you being confused or you just haven't studied the Bible well enough?

Let me give you a revision of the Laws of God

1. He doesn't interfer in your actions
2. What you sow, you'll reap
3. His word doesn't break no matter what and if the first stated law conflicts with the second law, the second law will trump.
That is to say: if God not interfering will make you avoid reaping what you have sown, God will interfer.

kingxsamz:
Well, except he actually interfered which you claimed he doesn't. So are you being confused or you just haven't studied the Bible well enough?

He fulfilled His word by hardening Pharoah's mind.

kingxsamz:
So it's an eye for an eye thing right?
What tribe are you from?

Yes, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth under the Mosaic law

Whatever a man or woman sows, he reaps.

Guess my tribe

kingxsamz:
-

Well, your words not mine.

Wether he interferes or not, your karma will catch up with you in anyway possible.

Your karma is God's word, God is His word and His word is Him. You should know this.

kingxsamz:
Lol, except he's the one who's responsible for the death of children. Being blind to evil is one thing, commanding men to slaughter children is another thing.

Who commanded the Amalekites to slaughter the men, women and children of the Israelites in the first place? That's the genesis of this whole story...

kingxsamz:
You've deflected but no wahala. He hardened Pharaoh's heart, he confused many people building a tower because they planned to live as one. He literally drowned everyone because he was pissed. He killed a man for pulling out during sex. Omo, I can go on and on.

Pharoah's heart had to be hardened so that his karma will catch up with him.

Those building the tower were building it as a means to escape God's judgement, next time they rebel.
Stopping the building would even dissuade them from planning to sin so the diverse languages turned out to be a blessing.

kingxsamz:
Nawa, but the benevolent god was capable of making them forget, embracing them since they were also his children. It shouldn't be too hard for an omnipotent god to stop that from happening now. Chai. Those poor babies.

We're back to God doesn't interfer in the decisions of man

Namdio:
I'm sorry, jasminer but he does have a point.

I guess you're Igbo.
There's an Igbo prover that if a child who isn't old enough goes looking for what killed his father, what killed his father will kill him.

My point is this: A child will grow to seek revenge. Every male had a sword or knife and trained and practiced to kill with it in those days.

So how can you exact revenge on the parents and if the children survive the death of their child,expect the children not to come for revenge?

It's like a hydra, you cut off one head, two grows up. If you're serious, you'll uproot the hydra totally. That's the only way to stop the hydra from growing.

kingxsamz:
"Everybody was trained for war that time so it was right to kill babies for the actions of adults because everybody can fight". Eh sorry, that logic is not working out. Try something else.

Not just because of the actions of the adults but because the children will grow to fight unless they were dead

Namdio:
Even the context is different. It's like asking if it was right if the children of Judah killed all the children of another tribe of Israel because of some grievances.

Lol, he's trying to play with my senses. He just doesn't know how many times I've had this same conversation with atheists.

kingxsamz:
According to who or what?
If it was okay then, why shouldn't it be okay now?

Every male citizen then was trained for war, so every citizen was a soldier or a soldier in training or will soon be a soldier in training. Unlike now we have military and civilians.

For example, Ukraine tried to use the civilians as means of attacks but had to halt that method once Russia began to kill the attacking and non attacking citizens and claiming it was self defense.

kingxsamz:
So would it be right for Buhari to hunt and kill every child in igbo land if he happened to kill many men in that rejoin for fear of revenge? Would it be right?

Wrong... Like I stated, war then isn't the same with war of now

Every citizen was trained for war, was a soldier or a soldier in training or will soon be a soldier in training. Unlike now we have military and civilians.

kingxsamz:
That's why I'm asking you what threat those children posed seeing that they were killed unprovoked. What threat does an infant pose?

If the children were spared, and they miraculously survived, they'll definitely come back to attack Israel to avenge the death of their parents.
That's enough threat

Wars of today aren't the same as the wars of then, a soldier's son can't go looking for the soldier that killed his father. Then, everyone from that country or tribe old enough to hold a weapon is a soldier and must take part in the war. This means that if they spare anyone from the attacked city, anyone who survived will come after them.

That's enough threat to kill all of them.

Now, this is not necessary because only the military personnel go to war and the winners rarely go to the homes of the defeated to massacre them.