₦airaland Forum

kingxsamz:
Except his heart was hardened by force in order to make him take a certain decision.

I don't think that's how that works

to stop having kind or friendly feelings for someone or caring about something

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harden%20one's%20heart

Pharaoh never had kind feelings for the Israelites, if not he wouldn't have made them suffer in the first place, or ordered the killing of the Hebrew Males.

If we are considering the context, Pharaoh's heart was probably hardened towards Moses, as they had grown up together.

Since his heart was already hardened, there was no way that would have influenced his decisions in anyway

to involve yourself in a situation when your involvement is not wanted or is not helpful:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/interfere

In the case of Pharaoh, the Israelites invited God, so He didn't interfere.

Edit: it was also helpful

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.

Pharaoh agreed he had sinned because he went through tribulations. If you beat a child the child will say anything.

Showing remorse doesn't mean someone influenced your decision. It means that you would have done differently in light of current circumstances.

kingxsamz:
And what makes it wrong?

Because one situation is one people to a different one. Another is infighting.

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.

Technically, we have no idea if his heart was hardened against his will. Hitchen's razor applies here.

Second, if they truly wanted a tower, they could have paused the construction and spent some time learning each other's language, or at least training some people to be interpreters. The fact that they didn't shows they had no dedication to the work.

They faced a set back and ran away as a result.

I can't disagree that God doesn't interfere (after all he did send Jesus to us) but I also can't agree.

jasminer:
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

Actually but I still have to agree, he did interfere

kingxsamz:
I brought up the case of killing children, she said it's because it had to be done, so I brought up the Buhari case and you said it was the norm back then. Isn't that you justifying it? I already know it was the norm back then but I'm bringing up the Buhari case because you both agree that killing the children and babies was the right thing to do. If it can be right back then why should it be wrong now if Buhari does it?

I said wrong example.

Now try again

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.

The law is being fulfilled. He didn't interfere, because if he did, something outside of those laws would have happened. But the man sowed (or rather didn't show, lol) and the law was fulfilled. He reaped.

How the reaping came is not relevant. It is the reaping

kingxsamz:
Then why did you bring up the "it was a norm" talk when I brought up the Buhari case if you didn't consider it right?

I don't see how the 2 relate please explain

kingxsamz:
He killed a man for pulling out during sex. Omo, I can go on and on.

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.

kingxsamz:
Why is it not right?
If you agree it was right, why are you now against it? If pedophilia should be considered okay tomorrow, does that make it right?

First of, emphasis on the was.

I never said I believed it was right, you're trying to paint me as someone who is for slavery. I am not.

I can't answer your question, I don't know enough. But you can look up on why slave trade was abolished to know.

Second, I don't know. For me it won't, but perhaps to the people who made it okay it would?

Also this is a fallacy of popularity

First I want to say, thank you.

Your logical methods is helping me on another front.

uche40:
Your argument, however, accidentally negates God's omni- attributes (particularly his omniscience and omnipresence), because it assumes that God is subject to change in time. This is in direct contradiction to the traditional philosophy that God is timeless and can observe all events simultaneously along the space-time continuum. It would therefore be erroneous to suggest that such a God experiences time-related progression.

I just thought of something, which I think is very funny.

One of the names we call God is the Unchanging Changer. (it has nothing to do with your argument just wanted to point it out)

Now to the argument. Being omniscient, indicates that God would be aware that we experience this continuum, even if he doesn't. And he could relate to us, with the notion that we experience this continuum in mind.

uche40:
I understand your reasoning here but I don't think it really does anything to refute the reality that God is intolerant. Sure, given that he possesses infinite knowledge and infinite goodness, he should know all things which are true and beneficial to his creation and want his people to abide by those things. Thus he labels all things which do not benefit his creation as evil, and he demonstrates numerous times in the Bible that he is disgusted by this evil and doesn't tolerate it.

I should point out here that being highly intolerant is not necessarily a flaw in God. It's just his nature. The Bible illustrates him as an authoritarian figure. Some Christians even see it as an admirable quality of their God. Some others perceive it as an insult when others say their God is intolerant. But it's just the truth. He is intolerant.

I have to agree with you. God is, characteristically, intolerant (just not in the way I expected).

uche40:
Forgive my response if it seems less detailed than expected. I'm pretty busy at the moment.

Ah, it's fine

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.

You have come to an age old argument. If God is so good, why does evil happen?

The benevolence of God is seen because evil can happen. He doesn't control his people but wants them to exercise their freedoms. So if you want to do evil, you can, but you can't escape from the consequences of your evil.

Edit: You have gone off topic once more, and have now moved to the benevolence of God, which wasn't what we were discussing.

jasminer:
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.

Okay, now I'm seeing your point, thanks for the clarification.

kingxsamz:
Slavery was a norm, is slavery right?

In that time period most did consider it right. We are not in that time period again, so no slavery is not right

kingxsamz:
Also, assume that Nigeria has separated and Igbo land isn't part of Nigeria and try again with your response.

We keep going further and further away from the original argument, from your original argument.

Which was since killing children (depending on the circumstances) is permissible, then raping them should be as well.

Which once again is a fallacy of equivalence

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.

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

kingxsamz:
Buhari's actions are a result of the constant attacks from men in that region. So he's fed up and wants to end it all. You should not have a problem with that.

Once again, fallacy of equivalence.

But to address you. The people who the children of Israel attacked weren't part of them.

The people who Buhari will attack are part of the nation of Nigeria.

I hope you can see where you've gone wrong?

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

Firstly, it was the norm to do so then, hence no one would bat an eyelid.

Second, fallacy of equivalence

Third, in your scenario, no one would trust Buhari again (other nations and even the people), because if he can turn on his own citizens, he can turn on his own allies who have an even weaker connection to him. The nation will wither and die (and this is regardless of time period)

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

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.

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?

Is Buhari fighting a war with every Igbo in existence? Is he living in a place where such is the norm and won't have any repercussions, both politically and socially?

it's like asking if it would be right if you uncle starting killing all his family members because he is afraid they will come and steal back his stolen inheritance.

But to directly answer your question. It would not be right.

kingxsamz:
Great, you can start from here.

Please link me to the next one, following the thread is difficult

jasminer:
Why? Atheists say we're all animals...
Humans cross breed species like the lion+tiger =Liger, goat + spider = spider goats who produce silk from their milk, the wolf dog breeds, zonkeys etc.
So if you truly believe we're all animals, what's wrong in crossbreeding?

Spider goat is killing me, lol

I can't stop laughing

kingxsamz:
I didn't answer it because she refused to answer mine the way she should. I will answer hers when she does.
Thanks. You can remove yourself from the convo. I thought you said you were done replying to me.

I am not God, I can change my mind

kingxsamz:
Can you not involve yourself in this argument because you obviously don't understand what's being discussed?
Thanks

lol, I'm just laughing.

Alright, explain. I want to understand

kingxsamz:
If she can justify killing innocent children because of the crimes of their parents, she can justify that too.

I'm sorry, please help me understand where the 2 are connected?

Edit: fallacy of equivalence

kingxsamz:
Yes because what is right and wrong has been established in your religion. You have certain laws to uphold.

Distracting again. Focusing on the wrong part of my reply.

kingxsamz:
And I said that because she thought I was scared of her question or something.

So you didn't answer the question, because it was what you would do in that situation. Answer it directly.

kingxsamz:
She understands the scenario, you should ask her.

She didn't ask the question, you're looking for an opportunity to say oh that's not what I meant.

The one who asked the question should clarify the scenario I. which the question takes place

kingxsamz:
1st Samuel 15:3. I already told her.

Alright cool. So where did rape come from?

kingxsamz:
And what point is that?

That you clearly said you would allow the killing of children (funny how you didn't say you would do so) but we shouldn't because we are Christians

kingxsamz:
ahn ahn. But the Christian god clearly told them to kill children and infants before the war started nw. No where did it state that they had to it because of the mode of attack.
Suicide bombers? Cmon now, be real.

Which war is this, so we can get our facts straight

kingxsamz:
I said show me where I justified it. You don start.

You are trying to distract us from your point

kingxsamz:
What if it was necessary for them to satisfy their sexual urges? I mean if they can hold a 5 months old baby and slaughter it into different pieces, then they probably won't have an issue doing other things to it.

There is literally no relationship between the two