₦airaland Forum

naijadeyhia:
Randomperson can you answer my question pls.

Let me post it again here

Starting from the bottom Felixomor has already answered you regarding that.

Now to the main issue. Why would you think the human law is now a proper guide when even the human law givers still steal and kill and go against the very law they put up? If they gave the law on what foundation was the law given? Was it on no moral values or based on randomness or trial and error basis?

If the human law giver gave the law who gave them the fact that the law was right or wrong and how did they arrive at this right or wrong position since even they also break the same laws they put out?

If the human law is now our stop then why do people still have the desire to commit crimes even in the face of the law? Is it that the human law cannot stop the inherent evil nature in man?

Think carefully before you respond. And please do not goalshift to atheist countries comparison because i have given an envelope analysis

The human law is a proper guide. It's not perfect but it's better than anything god supposedly gave us.
U don't seem to understand government. The human law givers are the citizens themselves. Check the Nigerian and US constitution, the preamble says "we, the people." The legislators are merely representatives and we can reject any law we don't like. So u got that part wrong.
And humans arrive at what is wrong or right through reason and instinct. I know u believe God gave this laws but that's wrong. The bible doesn't prohibit slavery or paedophilia but there are laws against it. If we waited on god to determine right or wrong, drugs abuse won't be wrong. So, no god doesn't tell us what's right or wrong.
And human laws are the best we have. That people still have desire to commit crimes is no issue. Even with your law and grace hullabaloo, Christians as still as terrible as others. They commit as many crimes as others. In fact, u won't like this but atheists have the lowest tendency for crimes... Human laws are still more effective than God's laws or grace..
Now for the umpteenth time, answer my questions

felixomor:
I told u by the principles then, sins were transferred.
Stop running around one spot

Yes... By your god's principle... Any god that can make a principle where children get killed is a sick bastaard. Any body who believes and worships that kind of God is terrorist at heart

felixomor:
Of course,. God is righteousness Himself

So killing was good.... Now, I know the type of person am arguing with... Killing of babies and children is good... That's what I needed to hear

felixomor:
Yes.
By the principles that existed then.

Next.
Besides, God has created billions of lives since then.
He is the almighty

OMG... babies were guilty of idol worshipping. Babies that can't even think?? ... Christians are the best...

felixomor:
U r the one making such conclusion without reading the bible.
In the olden days, if u sinned, u r punished.
Simple

So i dont know what the big deal is?
Really

But the babies and children didn't sin now... Did they??

felixomor:
What God did is not genocide, as u claim.
He simply punished his creation for disobedience and idol worship.
Just as a judge would sentence criminals.

Simple.

The two year olds too were guilty of disobedience and idol worship... Hmmm

felixomor:
Jesus said
Love ur enemies.

With That commandment, no more killing.

It covers everything.

Next

So Jesus allowed killing before. Was it right when he allowed it

felixomor:
God will not tell me to kill babies, after the life of Jesus Christ was shed.....
Sorry.

Oh... So the life of the children killed before Jesus blood was shed was worthless...
Funny Christians, God killed millions of children, he stopped killing children, then he's a good god...

naijadeyhia:
See where you lie so easily in attempt to dodge the truth. So does the Bible or Jesus preach for or against the law or evil?

Please point out the lie abeg.... Countries with significant atheist population have less crime and murder rates than the Christian or Muslim ones so it's not God's law that's working for them.
Please, rephrase your question to be clear and while doing that u could answer my questions. Thank you

naijadeyhia:
@ the bolded why would you say CHRISTIANS USUALLY DO NOT DO THESE THINGS ANY LONGER? Can you answer me pls?

Because humans have created laws themselves which prohibit this.... When God said thou shall not kill, there were still killings galore but when man said it, killings reduced. Ergo, man more effective than god
Now answer my questions!!

felixomor:
It was right under the law.

Next

Am not talking of the law. Am talking of your own moral compass. Is it right to you?? If God told you to kill children, would you do it?

naijadeyhia:
So when you were a Christian how was your life? Violent? A murderer? A psychopath? Did you hear a voice in your head that said "I AM GOD GO AND KILL EVERYONE"?

Did the holy spirit in you stop being HOLY and turn you into a sadistic killer?

Did you hate your family? Oh wait your father is eve a pastor. As a Christian who is a Pastor did your father do any of the above i just listed out? Did he show you by example how God is maniacal and a killer? Afterall he has been in the faith longer than you have? Did he attempt to offer you as a burnt offering when you were a baby?

If your answer is NO to all these then that means you lied about being a Christian because you never were. You only said WHEN YOU WERE A CHRISTIAN to score cheap points.

TRUE CHRISTIANS can tell the difference and smell Charlatans miles away. So you can answer me now.

Of course Christians usually don't do these things any longer... But at Sunday school they use these stories of wanton murder and destruction to show god as a good god. We have Christians on this forum who say if God tells them to kill children they would do so. I don't know why you people are avoiding the question.
When God was killing children in the bible, was it right or wrong??
Also answer this, if God tells you to kill children would u do so?? Yes or no please. Don't dodge

felixomor:
Shekau existed after Jesus came,
So u make no sense.

Jesus who is god killed children in the old testament, was the killing in the old testament right or wrong

felixomor:
Keep quiet.
U r not justified to do such anymore,
Because God has sent Jesus to perfect all that.

Dont be daft by reading the story half way.

Jesus perfected all that?? But what about the one that has happened. Was it right?? If u can say it was right, you're not better than shekau

felixomor:
Oho.
The same Twitter brain that approved abortion?

You see the hypocrite foolishness?

See idiocy... A fetus or zygote is not a human being... Not legally, not scientifically. If you wanna start a thread on abortion, by all means.. But let's discuss the genocidal acts of your god here...
Do you know your god murdered thousands of Israelites because David made the mistake of counting the Israelites... In fact god made David count them but he couldn't resist slaughtering people up and down

Wilgrea7:
that's the Canaan story... I've said something similar to what the man in the video said... he was able to point to a book that gave more information about the story..
although many websites tried justifying the killings, this man was smart enough to point to an external source that had more information for him to draw his conclusion.... his explanations make sense to a great extent

as for me... I've not read the book he made reference to... and i wasn't still there...

so i guess i still don't have enough information to draw conclusions

U think the killing of the Canaanites was justified??

felixomor:
Just hold it.
because u didnt know what obtained then.

Besides, the laws of those days were a picture of what the hearts of men were then.
Dont blindly try to analyze it with your facebook and twitter brain of nowadays.

When we went to primary school, flogging was ideal punishment.
Today, many are against it.

So use wisdom when talking.

Stop being stup.id.... My twitter brain can tell me that the killing of babies is wrong but your god doesn't know that... Didn't your god say thou shall not kill but he himself is the chief assassin.
And u are comparing flogging with the killing of babies. It doesn't matter when it happened, it is wrong. Moreso that your god sanctioned and even commanded the killings. Sometimes, he did the killings himself. Tell me what kind of God are u serving

dalaman:
Forget this people. He is here talking about child sacrifice when the same God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son unto him. The same God that sacrificed his own son unto himself to allegedly give humans a path way to salvation is the ones these deluded ones are saying had the right to kill the children of others for child sacrifice. Nonsense.

Boss... U don't even know bible. God accepted a girl as a burnt offering in the bible. U heard me right, BURNT offering... When I was a Christian I used to think the Islamic god was a jerk but now I know better... There are jerks and then there are sick bastardss

felixomor:
The principles that existed then stated that sins of parents were transferred to offsprings.


Its obvious u dont know that.

Of course I know that... Was it not God's principle?? What kind of sick god makes a kind of principle where toddlers and babies are brutally murdered... Even humans know that it's only the person who is guilty that should be punished but your god is just so slow... Or maybe he likes babies dying

felixomor:
Quiet, dont be in a hurry.

Now, if u make a robot to follow your instructions and then it starts to follow other instructions, what will u do to the robot?

Asides that, do you know many of the people that were killed by God in the OT were using their kids as human rituals to baal?

Are u aware?
Is that how God designed man to function?
Besides, u just said sentencing a murder criminal is not murder.
So what is your problem?

Stop comparing human beings to robots. Robots don't feel either physical or emotional pain. They don't have families who love them. Or does your god see u as a robot?? Answer this please.

And, so because some of those countries use their kids kids for ritual, it's okay if God kills those kids?? Just like KingEbukasblog, you're basically saying two wrongs make a right. BTW, even your god accepted a Human as burnt offering, so...

Again, children killed by the Israelites are not murder criminals. Or the two and three year olds that were killed as directed by god were guilty of some grievous offenses??

I feel like am arguing with Osama bin laden

felixomor:
If a criminal is sentenced to death, is it "murder"?

No... It's not. U know why?? Because murder is unjustifiable, inexcusable killing of a human being... The only crimes punishable with murder in Nigeria are murder, armed robbery with wounding, e.t.c. No one has the right to kill any one on top land.
If your moral compass tells u that the wanton killing of people including children is right, then I can't convince u otherwise. Shekau believes the same thing too

KingEbukasBlog:
That has to be the stupidest analysis I've seen

"yeah right... " is followed by something totally irrelevant to what you want to disprove .

You must be a comedian of some sort .

And I remember Craig saying that God also used other Nations to judge Israel . Israelites too were oppressed and slaughtered by their enemies anytime God permitted their enemies to deal with them whenever they become sinful like the pagan nations .

So Israel faced the exact fate as the pagan nations . There was no partiality. That's what the Book of Judges is filled with - Israel facing God's judgement anytime they become sinful and behaved like the pagan nations and God delivering them anytime they choose to come back to Him by raising judges .

Only a fanatic like you will use one genocidal act of God to justify another. What kind of person would see god murdering his supposedly chosen people as a good thing. The murder of the Israelites was as bad and unconscionable as the murder of the other nations. Unless you want to argue that two wrongs now make a right.
And, there was impartiality. The fact that God only chose the Israelites as his people among abundant options is impartial in itself. The fact that they were even stubborn people either questions the omniscience of God or his judgment. Why choose a stubborn nation?? He could well have chosen a nation he wouldn't have to kill, it would still have been impartiality but would be palatable.
And the killing of the Canaanites in particular was just so ugly of God. God in his claimed omnipotence could have given them an unoccupied land and blessed it for them. But no it had to be the land which had been settled upon for many years by different group of people... God didn't even send them out, he took the uglier option of killing them all, adults, children even animals. If one day a land owned by your family for centuries is grabbed by some other family destroying your house and killing your people, would u be able to say that's IMC l impartiality?

hopefulLandlord:
bbfever's reason for being on the hardmirror thread switched from

1. Because I was banned


when that was shown to be pure horseshit by notjonbellion owing to the fact that he had unrestricted access to that account (bbfever) which he could've just gone ahead to login and continue, he quickly changed it to.....


2. I wanted to rest

abeg this thread don make me dey laugh like slowpoke here

The story is so implausible.... It's so obvious he's making it up as he goes

KingEbukasBlog:
Infinite regress is illogical , You can define the properties of the First Cause using logic - changeless , spaceless ,immaterial , omnipotent , timeless

Anything this is timeless is unchanging .

And its called the FIRST cause for a reason bro . Plus abstract objects don't stand in causal relations like numbers .

And for the universe being created an evil genius , I don't argue for the moral nature of the creator logically since the creator does not transcends human morality .

Christian's Trinity causing the universe to exist is plausible like I said because the creator is three consubstantial hypostases not a pantheon of gods with different substances like the polydeists posit .

And for logical reasons there is one supreme being - if there are more than one like such with different substances then its possible that conflict could ensue .

And again for logical reasons God is immutable (changeless ) and this agrees with his perfection .

It's pure assumption to say the creator of the universe is the first cause. There is no reason why he can't be created by uncreated creator who BTW is not who u call god... So it's an assumption to equate the creator of the universe with the supreme being.
Why does the first cause have to be omnipotent. Is there any logical barrier between being the first cause and being limited??
Christianity's Trinity causing the universe isn't more plausible than the other creation stories of other religions and mythologies... In fact, the Muslim idea of a single supreme being with undivided, unshared authority is a lot more plausible than Christianity's concept of three persons coming together to form god... Because that would mean the three different personalities were the uncaused causes.
Actually, it's not illogical that there is more than one supreme being. The idea of conflict is in itself adverse to the concept of supremacy. Many supreme beings who don't consciously have to agree but carry out the same actions because by their nature they are too perfect to have conflicting intentions or ideas. Again, if for logical reasons there is only one supreme being, then also for logical reasons, the supreme being wouldnt need three personalities

KingEbukasBlog:
Here is why the universe began to exist




It is very less likely for a universe with multiple creators to exist :

All what u listed don't prove that the universe began to exist. They only suggest that idea. They are all theories. Just like evolution, the anatomical and chemical similarities between man and other primates suggest a common ancestor but it's not conclusive proof of evolution.
And as regards the concept of multiple creators, u are making the assumption that these super-intelligent aliens would act like humans and disagree about whether and how to create. But that is not necessarily so, they unknown aliens so they have no defined properties. In fact, they could have the exact same interrelationships that obtains with the Trinity. So the problem of disagreement is no problem.
Also, the reference to aliens is just hypothetical. Why can't the universe be created by an evil genius. A single extremely intelligent being intelligent enough to make the world. Or it could be created by a being who doesn't consider itself supreme and believes it has a creator who is responsible for his intelligence. The point being that a monotheistic supreme being has as much proof as any other being we can imagine to possess the requisite intelligence to create the world

notjonbellion:
began to exist by itself
Bro I think it's just best to say I don't know

I was just quoting him... Of course I don't know. But if he claims there is evidence that the universe began to exist? Then he should name it

KingEbukasBlog:
The evidence in Theism is a universe that began to exist . All evidence points towards a universe that began to exist

The Cosmological Argument

1. If the universe has a beginning , then it has a cause .

2. The universe has a beginning

3. Therefore , the universe has a cause .

This is just common sense .

While Atheism says

The universe has a beginning but it was not caused . This means that

1. The universe came from Nothing . And nothing according to quantum mechanics is a sea of energy and that is something

2. The universe created itself - This has been proven to be a logical absurdity

3. No evidence whatsoever points to an eternal universe

Atheists are now making a case for the third point , the onus is on them to prove it . But still it does not mean that God does not exist .It only postulates an impersonal God - one which the universe and God co-exist as a timeless cause-effect situation

Read here for more details : https://www.nairaland.com/3541406/mark-zuckerberg-never-atheist-first/1#52312590

A whole lot of crap. But I will emphasize these
"All evidence points towards a universe that began to exist."
Which evidence in fact?? Name the evidence.
And assuming it was created, does that mean it was created by a monotheistic god and not a group of super- intelligent aliens??

niyihawking:
lol...
maybe you are right
but don't forget that KingEbukasBlog has proofs for any thing theism.

Proofs?? Maybe personal delusion is now synonymous with proof

KingEbukasBlog:
Claims made without evidence should be dismissed without evidence . Its simple logic .

Wall Street made a claim without any evidence and it should equally dismissed without evidence .

Imagine Wall Street should call me a deist without evidence , anyone can dismiss their claims without even stating that I'm a Christian because they had no evidence .

No single evidence even points to Mark Zuckerberg as an atheist .

Summary : The onus is on the claimant making the claim .

Wait.... Theism has no evidence so should be dismissed right?

Wow... Crazy thread.... But this 4everGod guy seems to have a notorious reputation on this forum... Don't want to make any conclusions but he's not even helping matters... How can u be quoting and replying yourself on a thread

mrmrmister:
Crazy people all over this thread
26 pages and counting...

Seun must specially appreciate religious section at the end of this year

Anas09:
Craze dey worry you?

I don't like entering into conversations with uncouth market women.... They disgust me so swerve