₦airaland Forum

If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you

This I think is the best way to assimilate ALL the peoples of a foreign culture into your culture.

This is markedly different from a situation involving only a few foreigners.

Imagine if America colonizes a small African country and they intend to stay in that country as opposed to just plundering the country and returning to America. The only logical way to maintain dominance in that African country is to force the citizens to work for them.
If the small african country is also full of people with proven genocidal and inhuman traits then the decision can be justified.

10. When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.

11. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.
12. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city.

13 .When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.

14. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.

15.This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.(Deuteronomy 20:10-15).

If the nations that were being refered to here had proven track records of inhuman behaviour and sparing any of them would result in a backlash so great that it would invalidate the victory won by the israelis then it might be argued that they should be killed.

Women and children generally pose no harm as opposed to men who can make an organized come-back.

Generally, we should do unto others what we expect them to do to us.

No. I know for sure. fictional characters can't create things, be it the green leprechaun, a comic super hero or gods invented by ancient middle easterners. so, i guess we can't move on

Fictional characters cannot create things. True
gods invented by ancient middle easterners cannot create things. True (because the gods were invented)

If an ancient middle easterner is worshipping God that was not created by him/her or anyone then that God is not fictional and can create things.
You have to prove that the being I refer to as God is fictional to prove that He didn't create anything.

you can also argue per se that it's the same way i don't know for sure if allah, zeus, guru maharaji, santa clause, the incredible hulk, the spaghetti monster or the easter bunny was the one who created me. but i'm not that dumb to think that any of those human invented fictitious characters created me

Yes you don't know for sure.
The only thing you can know for sure is that someone created you and your creator is of a higher order than you.

If you agree with that then we can move on.

well, maybe that thing is the big bang; i dunno. but i'm pretty sure it's not mr. I AM of bible fame

If you don't know what created you then you don't know for sure that it's not mr. I AM of bible fame.

@ bolded, using your own "if god is real then he came from somewhere or something cannot come out of nothing" analogy leads to the ultimate questions since you've proven to be so sure about who created humans through your analogies

That's a question that plagues everyone and every concept of creation.
Where did the first matter or substance or substances that interacted to create the big bang come from?

I believe that in our realm or universe something cannot come out of nothing.
There is an explanation to God's existence but it is beyond human comprehension for now.

A fact and its opposite cannot be true at the same time (the law of non-contradiction)
Therefore if we can prove that it is not possible for God not to exist then God exists.

If we exist and we were created by something then that thing exists because it is not possible that we were created from something that does not exist.
Therefore by debating backwards we can prove that God exists.

Step 3: Establish that God is of a higher order than Humans.

Humans do not understand everything about themselves. We don't have the cure to all diseases.
We have very little knowledge
Therefore if God created all the things that we know and the things that we don't know then God must be of an order higher than we are.

@baboonYansh

Step 2: Establish that God is a God that thinks and is aware of His creation

1. A being can only create another being of at most equal order to it.

2. Human beings can think, they are aware of their surroundings, and they can create

3 If 1 and 2 are true and God created Human beings then God can think and is aware of His creation.

4. Therefore God is not "Nature" or a set of natural laws. God is a being of the same or a higher order than Human beings which are of the highest order that we are aware of physically.

are you are christian cos you don't seem to be sounding like a christian here. the christian answer is "because the bible tells me so"

Yes I am a Christian.

OK sir.

Step 1: Prove that God exists.

My belief in the existence of God rests on the following pillars

1. The fact that we are discussing about the existence of God means we are real.
2. If we are real then we came from somewhere. Either we were created by another being or we somehow materialized from nothing.
3. I believe we were created by another being because as far as I know no human being has ever proved that something can come out of nothing at least not in the known universe.
4. If we were created by another being then that being is who I refer to as God.

Do you understand the above explanation?

Is it moral for an an army in war to enter a city which has raised a white flag in surrender and FORCEFULLY enslave its citizens?

Is it moral for an army to attack and kill innocent unarmed civillians including women and children/infants?

No sir, I don't think it is moral.

I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT GOD

OK. Let me attempt to start from there. I admit it is going to be really hard though.

I am going to have to ask you questions as I go on. Hope that is welcome.

1. Do you believe God exists? Yes or No?
I am asking so I will know whether to start explaining that there is a God or to start from a theistic point of view.

Here we are talking about God. You dont need my life story. The relevant thing here is what I know about God and the truth is I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT GOD.

I don't want your life story sir.
If I don't know what you know about physics how do I go about proving to you that einstein's theory of relativity is true?

It would mean that I'd have to start teaching you from secondary school physics, through university physics and on and on.
That's going to take a very long time. This is exactly what I'm trying to avoid.

Hope you get it now.

I'm a very pragmatic fellow I dont really have time for abstract philosphical banter. Such discussions only raise alot of empty dust and the participants now hide under the dust cloud feeling safe, secure and victorious.
I'd rather ask simple and pracctical questions.

Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that impractical ideas are to be rejected.

I am simply asking you to be pragmatic.
How can I show you the practical consequences of accepting christianity when I don't know anything about you?

I'm not asking for your life's most guarded secret. I'm only asking for general information. I'm only asking for a place to start sir.
Pragmatism is based on practice sir.

another lie. When I was taught mathematics as a child I was told 1+1=2. I asked why and what did teacher tell me? Take one token, take another token, put them in that basket. How many tokens are in the basket? I gave an answer

In the above example,
1. the teacher obviously had access to you.
2. You did not ask the teacher why you should believe him, you asked him why 1 + 1 = 2 and he told you why HE (the teacher) believes it

3. The above example is obviously an oversimplification.
When you were in science class and your teacher was teaching you evolution did you ask your teacher why you should believe him?
and what was his reply?

There is no version of the Bible that translates Genesis 1:2 the way you wrote it above except the NIV in its footnote of Genesis1:2.

The Old Scofield Bible [Also Dake's Bible] maintains that the condition of the earth in verse two is the result of judgment, and therefore interprets the verb "hayah" as "became".

You yourself said that the Dakes annotated reference bible refers to the Gap theory.
So it's not only the NIV.

Exodus 20:11 teaches that all the universe, including the heavens and the earth, was created in the six day period mentioned in Genesis 1.

(Exo 20:11 MSG) For in six days GOD made Heaven, Earth, and sea, and everything in them; he rested on the seventh day. Therefore GOD blessed the Sabbath day; he set it apart as a holy day.

The word translated made is not the same word translated created in Genesis 1.

Strongs Translation
Created = baw-raw which means (absolutely) to create
Made = aw-saw which means to fashion, gather, fulfill, finish, accomplish, advance, appoint

Exo 20:11 gives room for a previous creation.
Made could mean that God recreated it in 6 days.

The gap view claims that Genesis 1:1 describes an original creation which was followed by the fall of Satan and great judgment.

What the Gap theory describes is an ORIGINAL CREATION not an Original Human Creation.
There can be creation without Human beings.

I believe the above misunderstanding is at the root of your rejection of the Gap theory.

Most importantly, the gap theory undermines the gospel at its foundations.

By accepting an ancient age for the earth (based on the standard uniformitarian interpretation of the geologic column), gap theorists leave the evolutionary system intact (which by their own assumptions they oppose).

Even worse, they must also theorize that Romans 5:12 and Genesis 3:3 refer only to spiritual death. But this contradicts other Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15; Genesis 3:22-23). These passages tell us that Adam's sin led to physical death as well as spiritual death. In 1 Corinthians 15 the death of the last Adam (the Lord Jesus Christ) is compared with the death of the first Adam. Jesus suffered physical death for man's sin, because Adam, the first man, died physically because of sin. Genesis 3:22-23 tells us that if Adam and Eve could have partaken of the fruit of the Tree of Life, they would have lived forever, but God decreed that they should die physically because of their sin.

The gap (or “ruin-reconstruction”) theory is based on a very tenuous interpretation of Scripture.

I do not believe in Evolution. My theory of the Gap does not support evolution.
The fact that we accept an ancient age of the earth does not mean we support evolution.
God could have created a set of beings that lived for millions of years. The beings did not have to have evolved.

Therefore My theory of the Gap does not undermine scripture in any way.

2. It puts death, disease, and suffering before the Fall, contrary to Scripture.

My theory of the Gap does not put death disease and suffering of Humans before the fall.

Humans were not in existence during the GAP

Exodus 20:11 says, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and made it holy”. Thus, the creation of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1) and the sea and all that is in them (the rest of creation) was completed in six days. Where is there time for a gap?

The Gap is before the six days.

The problem is that most people assume that during the "GAP" we had a race of humans.
I do not think so.

When you gave me YOUR questions and the correspondings answers of christianity, since I had NO IDEA , i told you most religions have one form of answer or the other the the same questions, Why Should I believe your story. Many years later you're yet to give an answer instead telling me "you know gaot", "you know cow", "you know computer". Na wa o

What I did was to prove to you that ONLY you knows why you should believe anything.
I can only give you reasons why I believe what I believe.

I can give you my answers to many questions but only YOU can determine if you believe them or not.

Oh so your Truth is now a game of probabilities and throwing dice? You're not even 100% sure and you're trying to convince me? Is this not the joke of the century? Lol

You were the one that asked the question in the first place baboonYansh.
All I was trying to do was to answer your question not to convince you. I believe that everyone should come to their own conclusions.

All I am doing on this thread is trying to answer questions.

Have you considered that no one is actually right?

If you believe that no one is actually right then it may be right to conclude that you were never seeking for the truth as you do not believe that anyone has it.

I gave the example of slavery - How do we know that slavery is morally bad?

Slavery - buying and selling of people in itself may not be entirely bad if you consider that football clubs buy and sell players (human beings) to each other. I was asking a friend yesterday why Ronaldo da lima agreed to go to Inter Milan where he was eventually severly injured and he replied that Barcelona SOLD him. Is this wrong?

What I consider to be wrong is the way slaves were treated during the American Slave trade.
If a slave is given rights that enable them to work themselves out of slavery then slavery in itself will be reduced to what we have in the corporate world where some employees sign bonds to work for a certain employer for a certain number of years.

Look Mr Logic, Its obvious you're bent on wasting my time. You have NO answers. I have admitted ignorance and told you I Know NOTHING about God you decide to argue with me and claim I indeed know but being mysterious.
So coz I know NOTHING about God, I cant have access to the truth? Lol

You say you know nothing and then you turn around and say I have NO answers.
It means you KNOW that I have NO answers. How is that possible?

Let me tell you some of the things you know.
1. You know your name.
2. You know that your nairaland username is baboonYansh
3. you know the name of your parents
4. you know the religion of your parents or whether they don't have any religion
5. You know whether you went to university or not
6. you know whether you believe in GOd or not.
7. you know whether you trust science or not
8. you know how to use a computer
9. You have some idea as to the questions that the truth must answer for it to be the truth (or else you would have believed wholesale when I told you the things that made me to believe that Christianity is the right way).

Except you can prove #9 wrong, please give me a head start or at least acknowledge that you do not really want to know the truth.

I'm sorry but woldviews you mentioned above are not up to 50% of the various worldviews out there. Even if it where 90% that is not enough to take a stand and call your views the "truth". What stops the truth from being amongst the 10% you have left to peruse?

If you want to get results, you must be honest in the search for truth.
Even a search as basic as wikipedia will show you that the religions I mentioned make up about 90% of world religions.

I forgot to include judaism because to really study Christianity you must have studied Judaism.

Yes indeed, we cannot with 100% empirical certainty say that the truth is not amongst the remaining 10% but the likelyhood of that is extremely remote.
With the advent of the internet and with so many people seeking the truth it would (in all probability) have been found by now.

Hmm lets see. Of all the millions of ways let me think of a futuristic way.
Well the blind dude has a problem with his eyes, you bypass the eyes and beam the optic rays directly to his optical cortex using the artificial eyes. Simple (at least not yet).

Also realise that I don't have access to the blind man in question here because he is hiding behind a shroud of mystery.

If the blind man comes out and I can see him then I will have a shot at beaming the optic rays directly into his optical cortex.

I already gave you the questions.
Why should I follow your GOd and disregard others? Why should I believe you.

The "right way" should at least answer these basic simple questions.

Those are the original questions baboonYansh.
It's like you are saying the only way I can believe that your display name is baboonYansh is if your display name is baboonYansh

Now who is being cyclical?

You dont think most religions have the "satisfactory" answers lol. Really? I know quite a number of their respective adherents who find the answers "satisfactory" lol.

Many Christians find Christianity satisfactory because they have never questioned it. Is that sufficient for you?

Let us assume that the blind man has had a standard education and so know about geography and astronomy and also is capable of making inferences. I would take him a riverside, or seaside and let him stand there. in a few hours he will feel that the river is rising and rising. and then afterwards he will feel that it is ebbing away again. He will notice that there is a rhythm to the rising and falling of the river. he will recognise these as the tides. I could take him around the world repeating the experiment for him to realise that the tides is a global phenomenon

Ok let's say baboonYansh is the blind man.
What I have been asking from baboonYansh is for him to tell me what he knows because I don't know if he knows Geography and astronomy or if he is a carpenter or a meat seller.

If he tells me he knows Geography and Astronomy then I can start.

BaboonYansh, I sincerely hope you can give me a head start.

really? You dont know all religions in the world then somehow you are certain christianity has the best answers? Oh my this is hilarious.

The probability of anyone knowing all the religions in the world is extremely slim. Does that mean that no one should believe anything?

In mathematics we have what is known as an asymptote and I believe this is a clearly an asymptotic situation.

I have looked at Islam, Communism, Atheism, Deism and Pantheism which account (together with Christianity) for about 90% of the world's population.
I think it is enough to take a stand. Don't you think so?

I also intend to keep studying and asking questions. That's one of the purposes of this thread.

Standing behind a shroud of mystery and hurling insults is not a sign of one who is truly seeking knowlege.