₦airaland Forum

Image123: Quite an uninformed position to take. Like i think Chesterton said of Christianity, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." You're guilty.

So says the cannibalistic vampire. I for one refuse to eat some guy's flesh and drink his blood. The Christian ideal is less than ideal it has a lot left to be desired.

Reyginus: Trying to bring up the initial problem that almost ruined the argument. The argument home to cheap shots. I like the argument the way it is now so I will let it pass.

Don't blame me for your misdeeds.

Reyginus: Anyhow you like twist it I will not allow you to escape with this one. You can turn the argument upside down and come through the north I will still not let you in.

Below was the point I made and until you respond to it accordingly, I will not pay any attention to any unrelated thing you are saying on its behalf.

'Simply stop this attitude of misunderstanding questions and claiming to be the one wronged. If anyone followed the above absolutely he will see that you are obviously the person deliberately or possibly indeliberately evading.

You automatically left what I presented to something entirely different. I find it hard to accept that you don't understand my point because there is nothing so esoteric in my use of words.

In the former quote, I pointed out to you that your question can only be answered in accordance to what it is asking and nothing more. I've never made any attempt to show that I will answer any question that follows it.

But you went further to jump this primary problem we are trying to neutralize to moral goodness. I don't like this thing you are doing. You are dwarfing the progress of this argument. Is it that you find it difficult to admit that you are wrong, that I answered correctly, then go ahead to ask the principal question, is it a good act? Seriosly, I don't like this thing you are doing'.

The above is simply asking, why should I answer a question of 'reason' with an answer of 'intent'?

You were complaining that you didn't get direct questions. I've given you a direct question and you've started twisting like someone being whipped. I guess I'm whipping you hard right now.

Answer the question any how you like as long as you start with a yes or no. If you don't know whether or not it is moral to command a genocide, please say so.

Reyginus: I wonder why you have to blame God for allowing the repercursion of wrong choices. You will also have to blame Him for allowing an infant to touch a very hot stove. But that's not a right way to address the question you asked.

First, I never said that God doesn't heal children if their parents doesn't love them. My position was that and still is,
God has set the world in such a manner that humans must take responsibity for their actions.

Every action gives birth to an effect.
Your question in a wider sense is asking, why doesn't God take control of the lives of infants. That would be shifting responsibility of the parents to God. In igbo tribe, there is an adage that, I cannot marry a wife for you and still impregnate her also. But it doesn't mean the friend wouldn't help in other possibly way to enrich the life of the new wife. Everyone has got to take responsibility when due.

That's even a good reason to call him a just and benevolent God. He gives children to a couple at the right time willingly and doesn't go against the principles he set for their survuival.

No that isn't my question. My question is whether or not it is right to punish a child for the actions of their parents. You brought up a flawed analogy and I simply demonstrated its flaws. Simply stop running around and directly answer my questions.

Reyginus: I don't think you still remember the story of ishmael. From where you are coming, this is the most inapplicable character to help your cause.

If you've heard of the man Abraham and followed absolutely the promise God had with him I don't think you will use this analogy. It destroyed everything you fought for for in the former argument

I know the story well enough to know that contrary to what you've said, God arbitrarily helps some children so your analogy still failed.

Reyginus: The thing is, your understanding of how freewill and responsibilty work is either flawed or biased.

If God heals a child who suffered neglect in the hands of the parent it is not because it is his responsibilty to do so but because he is so merciful.

Every parent and not God is responsible for whatever happens to their children. So this shift of blame Him is unwarranted and unnecessarily. Why are you finding it hard to blame the parents? No. That could relieve God of the blame.

How about if he doesn't heal the child? It is your claims about free will and responsibility that are flawed. Simply stop straying with your bad analogy and address my question directly.

Reyginus: Lol. Dude once again doesn't understand his question. I read it three times as you commanded but my first impression of it stuck with me through the second and third time.

Let me something, bro. You must know what a person did, why the person did it, his intent for doing, and for who he did it before you use his actions to determine if anybody deserves death.

I can rephrase your question to mean, if Charles Taylor killed a crowd should we kill his children to pay for it? Forgetting that you can kill a crowd to save the human race. If you cannot tell me why he committed genocide, his intent for committing it and the effect on his great-grand children, I am sorry I cannot help you.

Once again, he shifts, stumbles, falls, stands up and tries to run again.

Reyginus: Give me the profile of Charles Taylor and see how I respond to them. By profile you should from my former post what I mean. I know you can be mischievious.

If you want his profile, look it up on [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor_%28Liberian_politician%29]Wikipedia[/url]. Read it to your satisfaction. As far as I'm concerned, it is irrelevant. When you've read it, please come back and answer this question.


[size=20pt]Would it be moral to kill Charles Taylor's 5 month old grand son because Taylor himself commanded genocide?[/size]

Reyginus: No. Like those who used christainity for business purposes when it is not supposed to be so.

As it stands now I am ready for any of your rant and mischief. I was naive in the beginning but now I know better who I am dealing with and how to handle it. If you like shout from now till the next twenty pages that I am running away from the question, I will keep answering your questions with respect to how you ask them

You are running away from direct questions. Blaming me for your own failures does nothing to help you.

Reyginus: I will let this pass.

Please guys, I don't have the time or energy to edit. Bear with me.

Whether you let it pass or stop it, that is your business all I'd like is for you to answer direct questions and not to forget the other parts of this question that you're yet to address.

FOLYKAZE: Lol. I cant help but laugh at this ignorance you are displaying everywhere.

The egyptians invented the dating system in relation with solar system. Is it perfect or not?

Several ancient African cultures birthed discoveries in astronomy. The Dogon in Mali documented Sirius before the european came. Many of these are foundations on which we still rely, and some were so advanced that their mode of discovery still cannot be understood. Egyptians charted the movement of the sun and constellations and the cycles of the moon. They divided the year into 12 parts and developed a yearlong calendar system containing 365 ¼ days. Clocks were made with moving water and sundial-like clocks were used. A structure known as the African Stonehenge in present-day Kenya (constructed around 300 B.C.) was a remarkably accurate calendar. Need I remember you the great pyramid and it relativeness with astronomical references? And you said Africans do not know moon and it tide. You are an embarrassment to Black race.


Where did we get it wrong Mother Africa? Ignorance is killing your children

You really love making stuff up. What did the Dogon of Mali say about the Andromeda galaxy colliding with the Milky Way galaxy? Lots of civilizations charted the sun and cycles. Making stuff up doesn't make you seem intelligent, it makes you desperate and dull.

You're an embarrassment to humanity as a whole. Where did we get it wrong humanity? Ignorance is killing FOLYKAZE.

FOLYKAZE: Thanks for waiting bro.



@ the bold indicate you are a typical white men slave. You have shown us how deep your inferiority mentality is.

Who said other discovery among other people is wrong?

I said Africans didn't discover the laws of gravity. It is simply admitting a fact. If you think Africans did, then please tell me who did it and what the equations they used was.

FOLYKAZE: Is this guy smoking cracky? You said atheist are mocking spiritualism but you dont know what spiritualism is so you got to ask me after you made claim on it.......wtf

You must have injected some methanol into your brain. Spiritualism is vague pablum. If you can pin it down, I'll show you why I mock it.

FOLYKAZE: words of a colonial boy. Smh. Africa have a long way to go with this kind of mentality

Do Yoruba people know Odo Oya before Park came?

Words of an ignoramus. Did the Yoruba people know the origin and destination of the river?

FOLYKAZE: I am not expecting something different from this. Your ancestors, heritage, history, culture, person, People and world was insulted but you cant do anything than lick it since it from white man.

And I don't expect anything different from you since you've chosen the path of ignorance in your quest to be a black supremacist. If facts look to you like insults, maybe the problem is with your own thinking.

FOLYKAZE: Grooving with fela song......kolo mentality. As it is in christiandom so it is in Nairaland atheisticdom

Keep grooving. Just don't die of AIDS thinking it is a conspiracy by those white men. What you're exhibiting is your form of kolo mentality only as a black supremacist.

FOLYKAZE: Are we bacteria? Every complex organism evolved from a bacteria. Why cant we call humans bacteria?

No we're not bacteria. No, they share common ancestry with bacteria. If it would make you happy, go ahead.

FOLYKAZE: Why are there still Apes today?

We shared common ancestor. Who is this common ancestor?

Because apes didn't go extinct. Where exactly is your question going?

FOLYKAZE: Dont take us as fool pls. You cannot speculate something and thing we will eat it. Back your point with fact. Where is the video or article link that the colleague of Dr James renounce his claim?

Here's one article out of many. I didn't say he renounced his claim, I said he isn't a professional psychologist and actual psychologists don't share his opinion.

FOLYKAZE: Folykaze wont fall to the game play on ignoramus. You can quote that to hide your masters.

The project was based on IQ testing and DNA testing. Is there no universal IQ and DNA test again which have to be differentiated among race and ethnic? Guy stop playing on my intelligence.

Actually, there is no universal IQ test, that is what the article shows and that is what psychologists will tell you.

FOLYKAZE: IQ and DNA testing is a universal stuff. You cant bend that.

Actually, IQ tests aren't universal. There are different IQ tests out there.

FOLYKAZE: Also I read what is in the link....there is nothing like public renouncing there.

What public renouncing are you talking about?

FOLYKAZE: Just like christian would ask me to read bible. For mess sake why do we always dance to tune that If you want to hide something for an African, put it in a book?

You accepted this thing and should be able to defend it. Refering me to a book is not making sense.

MR MAN......I ASKED FOR CONTENT NOT LINK.

So you're implicitly accepting that directing you to a book means that I'm hiding something from you? Talk about stereotyping. The content is at the link. I read links you posted so why do you find it difficult to read links I posted? Just read it.

FOLYKAZE: Another lazy no reply. Evolution insulted your ancestors. They were called Ape....they even said your people have low intelligence likely related to that of animal.

The theory of evolution is just a fact. Just as the theory of general relativity is a fact. It doesn't insult anyone. You're the one drawing confused conclusions. All humans are apes. Low intelligence isn't a part of the theory of evolution. If you had read the link, it would have reduced your confusion.

FOLYKAZE: Christian : Accept Jesus

Thehomer : why would I.

Christian : He died for your sin

Thehomer : evidence pls

Christian : read the bible.

Is bible an evidence for a reality? Mr man....if you cant provide any evidence just know that you are nothing different from christians.

And stop refering me to a link.....put the content here and lets reveal it. Giving me link is like christian quoting bible to back their point.

Scientific theories are very different from old myths gathered in a book so your comparison fails.

FOLYKAZE: Meaning we evolved from Ape?

Meaning we are apes.

FOLYKAZE: Ape have two chromosomes more than we do. The two chromosomes is not the issue here but the information embedded in these chromosomes.

It is plain from the info on this chromosomes that we are different.

No, apes have a range of numbers of chromosomes. I hope you know that there are some humans that have more than 46 chromosomes.

FOLYKAZE: Stop kidding me. What have you said that s factual? The link or what?

Everything I've said so far. If you think anything I've said isn't factual, then show me the one that isn't.

FOLYKAZE: Air Conditioning Unit by Frederick M. Jones July 12, 1949 history told us that he has patent in the invention of refrigerator.

Stethoscope Imhotep Ancient Egypt
(circa 2980 B.C.)

Elevator by Alexander Miles October 11, 1867

Lewis Howard Latimer (1843-1928) A pioneer in the development of the electric light bulb

Rotary Electric Motor Frederick M. Jones June 27, 1939

Typewriter Burridge & Marshman April 7, 1885....... These people are Africans and slave descendant. Even if the eurocentric mentality the western world have programmed you.....you can never know.

You've listed a couple of black inventors. Kudos to them for their work. But so far, you've not made your point. How has history now been distorted? The fact that I don't know some inventors doesn't mean history has been distorted. Besides, those inventions were improvement on things that already existed like the elevator, refrigeration etc.

Secondly, why is it the case that these inventors didn't make their inventions in sub-Saharan Africa?

FOLYKAZE: The Dogon of Mali have complex and detailed knowledge of the Sirius star system. Detailed illustrations of the solar system were found in cave around egypt...this painting dating 5000 yrs before the european came.

Yeah. Did the illustration tell you that Saturn had rings?

FOLYKAZE: Steel making among the Haya of Tanzania....Research done by Peter Schmidt and Donald Avery discovered that, ‘ 2,000 years ago Africans living on the western shore of Lake Victoria had produced carbon steel in pre-heated forced-draft furnaces, a method that was technologically more sophisticated that any developed in Europe until the mid-nineteenth century.

And what is your conclusion? Secondly, why is it that it was two people with white sounding names that made this "discovery"? Is it really a discovery according to you?

FOLYKAZE: Ancient Egyptian system of mathematics, probably the most advanced system of mathematics in the world for their time.....Further, the trading nature of Africans required the existence of a numbering system. Evidence of the use of a numbering system in Africa was found on a bone 8000 yrs. old. The Yorubas have a mathematical system which would baffle most mathematicians. This is a system for computation and is very unique because it involves addition, subtraction and multiplication to express one number. It especially relies on subtraction to a very high degree.

This needs some evidence to back it up. The evidence I've seen tells me that those Greeks were pretty good in mathematics and philosophy too.

FOLYKAZE: The western historian wouldn't tell you that African navigate the world to far reaching china and the so called America....In navigation, Africans built many sophisticated vessels for traveling the Nile and Niger river. These vessels were used to carry out trade between the several empires: between the west coast and Lake Chad, between Mali and the Songhay empires, between Jenné and Timbuktu. The Chinese recorded Africans coming to the Court of China with elephants in such vessels in the thirteenth century. There is evidence that African navigational ingenuity brought them to the Americas before Columbus.

Evidence is what you need to support your claims here not just stories told around a camp fire.

FOLYKAZE: There were other African feats in agricultural science, writing systems, and of course, medical science. The Egyptian Imhotep is the first known medical doctor. African plant medicine involved a complex body of knowledge related to the diagnosis of diseases, anesthetics, antiseptics, and vaccination. African doctors were also well-versed in surgical procedures and techniques. The Bantu used the bark of a plant Salix Capensis to treat musculoskeletal pains. This family of plants yielded salicylic acid the active ingredient in aspirin. In Mali, an effective cure for diarrhea used kaolin, the active ingredient in Kaopectate. African doctors also pioneered the use of herbal treatments in the treatment of psychosis. Many of the herbs used contained tranquilizers. African medical practice have always emphasized holism as a philosophy. Western medicine only now attempting to adopt this philosophy.

Why did their development stop? African medical practice also has a huge component of superstition.

FOLYKAZE: More than 1000 inventions were carried on by Africans in the caribbean.....the US law didn't approved this inventions because they weren't recognised as works of human....so they give patent to some and others were covered us in history.

Pick up a book and read. Adams, Van Sertima, Ivan (ed). Blacks in Science: Ancient and Modern......they have distorted your history. You are a colonial boy who have lost your identity and probably forget everything about your ancestry. Don’t get it twisted, most Africans on the continent don’t know much about African history. All they know is the twisted Eurocentric version. School in Africa is still Eurocentered. Our History had been “colonized”, twisted, and re-written. Wake up man.

So far, you've provided some useful information and lots of mere assertions. Calling me names like "colonial boy" and declaring that I've lost my identity still doesn't mean that what you've said is correct. You need to actually show that it is correct with some evidence to back you up. Have you asked yourself why Africans don't know much about African history? Rather than blame the Europeans who actually took the time to study the region, why don't you pick up a pen and gather an expedition to look into these things? You're not a "colonial boy" so what has stopped you for so long?

FOLYKAZE: so Yoruba people do not know odo Oya? This guy with colonial mentality. Chai

Giving a river a name doesn't mean you know its origin or its destination.

macof: Lol they asked the Moon to know that abi?

And with this, you reveal your ignorance of modern science.

Reyginus: Smh. Only if you understand the point from my position.

I understood it well enough to point out to you that it was irrelevant. You've finally agreed with me.

Reyginus: Your attempt to escape will not be tolerated by me. I don't argue like this.

Just address the point I made and I will respond accordingly. No room for escape now.

So far, you're the one who is trying to escape. I asked you a direct question and you've tried to run from it too. Here is the question again.

Is it moral to command a genocide?

Reyginus: I will tell you why this is wrong. God doesn't interfere to help a man who has not committed himself to him.

Before God can heal a person he must first commit himself to God even if momentarily. This is why. If God were to interfere without allowing the person to first commit his freewill to Him, either by prayer or knowing Him personally, then he has violated the right to freewill of the person. He cannot claim to have good and still exhault the evil man.

To receive healing or something good from God or any group of body, you must first align yourself, even if temporarily, with the commandments of God or the rules of the organization.

The question of healing wouldn't work because by showing neglect and lack of love for the child, the parents have already lost any attribute that will make God to show them compassion. You might want to ask, why didn't God look at the innocence of the child and bring the child to normal anatomical appearance. But for that to be done there must have being an intercession made for the child will.

Haven't you considered that the zeal for moral consciousness will also be negated if God heals a child whose parents are not morally upright?

Oh my you're one funny chap. According to Reyginus, God doesn't heal children if their parents don't love them. And you call this a just and benevolent God? Even crocodiles would help baby crocodiles that aren't theirs but your God won't help children unless someone begs him?

Secondly, why did God help Ishmael?

Finally, you've once again missed my point and even the point of your analogy. Your analogy is to show that no one is innocent even 1 month old babies. And I'm telling you that they are innocent. I simply made the additional point that your God is supposedly capable of carrying out the miracle of complete healing. If you're disagreeing that he is capable of such a healing, then simply say so rather than concocting stories that make him even worse than he already is.

Reyginus: Lolol. This guy sef! Magigini?

You're the one who didn't answer the question.

Reyginus: Hmm. The problem with this question is that it doesn't recognize the intent of Charles Taylor, the reason for his actions, and the the effects his actions will have on his great-grand children.

Like your brother in atheism, wiegraf, once said: there is intrincally nothing wrong with murder. Though I did not agree with him to the extent he later employed it, I agree that the reason behind murder determines if it good or bad.

That is where your problem in this question originates from. You have already assumed that murder for being murder alone is evil and that the intent, reason or outcome has nothing to do with it. If this is true then we would have to include self-defence as murder.

But self-defence is not murder because it is self-defence but because the intent for murdering in this case is for the preservation of a threatened life.

In like manner, genocide is not evil because it is taking lives, but because the reason and effect it permeats are.
So asking me if Charles Taylor committed evil or good without telling me his reason and intent is a question whose answer is yet to appear.

What is wrong with you? I didn't ask you whether or not Charles Taylor committed an evil act, once again, this is the question I asked you. It is a simple question just slow down a bit, read it three times and answer it.

[size=18pt]Would it be moral to kill Charles Taylor's 5 month old grand son because Taylor himself commanded genocide?[/size]

Reyginus: I'm trying, bro. But just like some slavetraders you came with a knife and a bible.

Like those who brought you Christianity.

Reyginus: Just be as patient as you are logical.

I'm patient but I don't have all the time in the world. And as usual, you've run from direct questions.

Reyginus: Yeah! You have a point.

I don't think you can arrive at any objective truth by any crooked means. Once you can arrive at it by any means then that means is permissible by such truth.

Of course I have a point. Haven't you heard of someone cheating in a Maths exam and passing. That person arrived at mathematical truths by cheating and cheating is not permissible so just stop failing and address what I've said.

Image123: Humanism is nothing more than a religion that has made mankind itself the measure of all things.

Christianity is nothing more than a cult of human sacrifice and cannibalism.

Image123: Duh, not recognition but permission for your folly.

Your folly is in thinking that your God makes a good judge.

Image123: you're judge then. Enjoy the feel while you may. Better yet, repent

How nice of you to finally recognize it.

macof: go and ask them and stop internet study

I'll ask you since you don't think it is valuable.

macof: wat effects hasnt been known from the beginning of time?

so because a white guy uses big words to explain wat everybody knows it makes him "captain know more about gravity"

e.g the effects on the moon, the tides and light. No, it is because the discoverers had better insight into the phenomenon than others. They actually did know more about gravity.

macof: Creation story, medications and healing, Relationship with man and Nature
just to mention a few

if u are african, go do ur research and stop accepting every Caucasian bullpoo u are fed

Those claims are mocked in other cultures so why should we mock those found in other cultures but not that found in African cultures if they're all incorrect?

Why don't you do your research and stop accepting every African bullpoo you're fed.

macof: the guy quickly checked online...wat happens to personal research? how can u be sure that yoruba people call it Oya when its mere "hear say" afterall You NL atheist like debunking "hear say"

So you don't think an online search is a part of carrying out research? I'm sure enough to be satisfied. If you don't think they call it Oya, then please tell me what they call it.

macof: Are u Nigerian? if u are go to ur village especially if its around the river...u'll hear things that Mango park never discovered

So what? Did those people around my village travel to Guinea to trace the route of the river?

FOLYKAZE: Thehomer....i will have to go. I have weak battery here so when I touch down. Would reply. Cheers

No problem.

FOLYKAZE: where is the condemnation article, video and magazine link? Dont just think I can accept cheap words.

'At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.' - charles Darwin

Tell me the quote from darwin is wrong. Show me he was condemned. Add some video or article link pls.

The quote is an insult on you buddy. I can bring more popular evolutionist quote that insult blacks

Your quote still doesn't make the theory of evolution false. Even if Darwin ate three babies a day and drank the blood of pregnant women, those things won't make his theory wrong. What would make his theory wrong is if the real world didn't work the way he proposed. That is what you should be addressing rather than committing the ad hominem fallacy. You're merely saying that Darwin was a bad man so we shouldn't accept the theory of evolution. But that is a fallacious line of argument.

FOLYKAZE: Do you know this if not what wiki put there? And when they told you about river niger.....they said mungo park discovered it. How logical is this? He came and discovered what people have already known.

Mungo Park made some important discoveries there whether you like it or not. You really seem hung up on Mungo Park. How many Africans bothered to take the time to trace the complete route of the river and write about it?

FOLYKAZE: Spiritualism alone is enough.

Most atheists mock spiritualism whether African or otherwise. Spiritualism isn't enough and it isn't universally known so you still need three examples. What exactly is spiritualism supposed to be?

FOLYKAZE: List great five black scientifical inventions. And I will show you how badly your history have been distorted.

Let me hint you.....black African produces first electric motor. But the name was changed somewhere at a time. Lets see how you answer my quest first.

I don't know these inventions so you're welcome to tell me what they are and provide your evidence for the five of them.

FOLYKAZE: Thanks for following my point. If this battery won crash make him crash abeg.

I do wonder if non of Nigerian know this river before Mungo park came. So this white people are changing historical fact....bending it to suit themselves in every dimension. Just to prove we did nothing than grumbling and hunting..

They told us that River Niger was discovered when practically there is a name for that river in some tribes.

To prove that many people have been mis-informed, their history have been distorted and formally redirected to western world. I challenge any atheist here to tell us what River Niger is called before Mungo Park came. Our ancestors know this river and they called it a name. What is it?

Wikipedia: The Niger is called Jeliba or Joliba "great river" in Manding; Orimiri or Orimili "great water" in Igbo; Egerew n-Igerewen "river of rivers" in Tuareg; Isa Ber "big river" in Songhay; Kwara in Hausa; and Oya in Yoruba. The origin of the name Niger, which originally applied only to the middle reaches of the river, is uncertain. The likeliest possibility is an alteration, by influence of Latin niger "black", of the Tuareg name egerew n-igerewen, which is used along the middle reaches of the river around Timbuktu.

Those oyibo people have helped you by putting it online for the atheists here to tell you. They've used their inventions of software and the Internet to help you but you just keep complaining.

macof: So why is it that NL athiest Mock and dismiss Any theory coming from African Traditions, even when its already universally known (as u said) ??

Can you give three examples of these already known theories from African traditions that are mocked and dismissed?

macof: so Africans before An European scientist came up with "Law of gravity" Africans and the World didnt know that gravity existed

That isn't what I said. Knowing the laws of gravity is different from recognizing some of its effects. Just as knowing the laws of Mendelian inheritance is different from recognizing some of its effects.

Image123: Uncomfortable your big tooth. The answer has been given severally na, God is Judge, you're not. Spare yourself the headache, the last time you absconded, remember?

God is not the judge. He is not qualified to judge. Hey don't blame me for your love of tedium.

Reyginus: Irrelevant.

Glad to know your question was irrelevant as I initially pointed out.

Reyginus: Simply stop this attitude of misunderstanding questions and claiming to be the one wronged. If anyone followed the above absolutely he will see that you are obviously the person deliberately or possibly indeliberately evading.

You automatically left what I presented to something entirely different. I find it hard to accept that you don't understand my point because there is nothing so esoteric in my use of words.

In the former quote, I pointed out to you that your question can only be answered in accordance to what it is asking and nothing more. I've never made any attempt to show that I will answer any question that follows it.

But you went further to jump this primary problem we are trying to neutralize to moral goodness. I don't like this thing you are doing. You are dwarfing the progress of this argument. Is it that you find it difficult to admit that you are wrong, that I answered correctly, then go ahead to ask the principal question, is it a good act? Seriosly, I don't like this thing you are doing.

Your wailing won't get you any sympathy from me. You want a direct question, here's one. Is it moral to command a genocide? Moral goodness is what has always been in question. Whining won't get you off the hook.

Reyginus: I wish you can maintain this style and we would have no problem. I will give you a direct answer.

He has been forced to commit the crime of corruption. Let me give you a very ugly analogy. Imagine a communited fracture was identified by doctors on a new boy two months after the actual incident that caused the fracture. The parents noticed it but for their neglect the fracture has gotten to a state of gangrenous deposition all over the child.

What any intelligent medical practitioner would advise in this case would be to amputate the affected limb before it spreads to other unaffected regions of the baby's anatomy. We cannot blame the good doctor for performing a surgery to remove the leg and handing the infant a prosthesis. Neither do we blame the child for the incident. This way, the sins of the parents have come to hunt the innocent baby who lacked the knowlegde of what to do.

If it is not clear, ask for clarification or point it out yourself.

It is clear but like your zombie case, irrelevant. If the doctor were God, he won't amputate the limb, but totally heal it. He won't make the child suffer for the parents sins or problems when it is within his power to prevent it.

Reyginus: Lol@ don't run away from yhe question. Like I am speaking with a matured Logicboy03. But I must admit, this is better than your former response.

First of all, before I make such a demand, I must have an absolute understanding of the reason why Charles Taylor commanded genocide.

Secondly, I must know the intent behind the reason Charles Taylor offered for commanding genocide.

And above all, I know the effect of Charles Taylor's action on his generation.

Since you didn't tell me and to prevent anything that will make you to see me as 'running away from the question', I will assume I know these three things.

From what I am assuming to knowj
1. Charles Taylor's reason vengeance
2. Charles Taylor's intent was bad, ethnic cleansing
3. Charles Taylor's great-grandchildren have all been assigned a position in the government even before they are born.

Remember that this government is an utterly bad government which only seeks the destruction of life. To accept a position in the government is to join in the destruction of man.

In this case his great-grand children will be punished for the sins of charles taylor, except they denied him and relegated the position after they are born

Wow. You must be a magician. And I notice that you didn't answer the question I asked. Here it is again. This time in bold so please don't miss it.

[size=14pt]Would it be moral to kill Charles Taylor's 5 month old grand son because Taylor himself commanded genocide?[/size]

I didn't ask why Taylor did what he did, neither did I ask whether or not what he did was bad. I asked if carrying out a certain action on his 5 month old grand son because of something he did would be moral.

Secondly, it looks like you've not seen the parallel with your God.

1. God's reason was vengeance
2. God's intent was bad; ethnic cleansing
3. God's children have been assigned places in Heaven even before they were born.

If you can read Taylor's mind, then you can read what's left of God's mind.

Reyginus: lol. Bro, I don't enjoy typing, the worst I can do is typing what will not help the argument gp any further.

Then address the issues that have been raised rather than complaining left and right.

Reyginus: You sound like one who wants to be offered what you want but unwilling to offer others what they want.

You told me at the onset of this argument that your belief doesn't matter but mine, now I am telling you also that I will answer your questions how I want to answer it and you are cpomplaining. Must it always be your way? Are you the atheist zeus or something more?

Something more. All I'm asking you to do is to answer the questions completely using relevant points. So far, you've broken up the initial seven parts, and the very first part, you've broken up into three separate issues and you've been stuck on the first issue for so long because you kept introducing irrelevant analogies and questions.

Reyginus: Interesting. I should go through all of them because you want me to go through all of them. I think if you are a truth seeker, how a person arrives at certain truth shouldn't matter to you but what he presented as the truth.

How the person arrives is very important. If the person arrives by cheating or by merely claiming they arrived at it but actually haven't, then the person has still failed.

macof: so Africans didnt know Law of gravity before Modern science?

Actually, they didn't. They felt the effects of gravity and could carry out some actions with it but forming the theory and demonstrating the mathematical relationships wasn't first done by Africans. You can read up more on it here. The fact that Africans weren't first to the table doesn't mean that whatever non-Africans observed was wrong.

Reyginus: Irrelevant.

So you've finally realized that your question to me was irrelevant. I wonder why you brought it up in the first place. I suspect it was to cause yet another delay.

Reyginus: You still find it hard to understand your question. We may be talking about his moral character in the entire argument but not in a portion of it. I don't know if you understand.

I like to follow arguments as the questions come and I don't try to assume anything that is yet to be asked even though I know that it will come later in the argument. This is the simple thing I want you to understand.

When I answered the question, why God committed genocide, I answered based on the reason presented for committing genocide and nothing more. The question didn't ask anything more. What I was expecting was for you, as the rational person you would want to believe, to simply ask further, do you think this is a good reason for ordering genocide? As simple as that.

I don't why you are finding it difficult to look at from the essence of the question. If you are having an argument with somebody on the subject of chemistry.

Let's say you are trying to discover if Argon is really a noble gas and he asks you what is the atomic number and mass number and of Ar.
You tell him 18. This is exactly what his question is all about and nothing, though the final journey is discovering if it is a noble gas or not.
Then imagine he now goes temperamental, that you didn't tell him if Ar is a rare gas or not, even when his question was still coming to it.

I'm sure you will be surprised yourself at such a behaviour and wonder if he really understands his question. And the truth is, he doesn't.

And this is why I say you're deliberately trying to obfuscate clear issues. If we're talking about his moral character and you know that whether or not the action is moral is also under consideration, why do you complain when I point out that it isn't a moral action? If you agree with me that it isn't a moral action why don't you say so? If you think it was a moral action, then go ahead and explain how it is moral. Simply stop your poor attempts at evading the topic.

Reyginus: Lol. I never assumed that any is innocent, bro. I only made mention of the guilty ones and the corrupted ones. The guilty ones perpetrate the evil directly while the corrupted ones have learnt wrongly.

You point would have been true if I had shot myself in the foot by agreeing that any of the cannibal community is innocent. Please read my post again.

Since no one is innocent, what crime has a one month old male child committed that he deserves to be killed for it? Don't run from this direct question.

Reyginus: Lol. Smart guy! On a serious note, you didn't say anything new to debunk my position.

You only rephrased the statement I made into questions. I mean this with all honesty. The mere fact that I used the analogy of an adult cannibal corrupting the ignorant minors is a cause to say something new. I need a new and better argument for this one. I'm serious.

If that is a serious response, then please tell me would it be moral to e.g kill Charles Taylor's 5 month old grand child because Taylor himself commanded genocide? Don't run from this question too.

Reyginus: You are moving too fast, bro. I told you I will deal with the first quote, from the book of samuel, and first problem, genocide, before I come to any other question. We will get there gradually. Do you understand? Lol.

I'm moving too fast? This was why in one of my responses to you on this thread, I said:

thehomer: I see you've chosen the option of inserting delays any way you can.

You're obviously proving my prescient assessment right.

Reyginus: I'm learning fast, bro. By the way, the above too is.

Another issue you introduced you've declared to be irrelevant after my explanation. I'm not surprised.

Reyginus: I'm sorry for that. I meant to say it was never a part of samuel, the quote I am still dealing with. I don't want to mix things up.

You don't want to mix things up? Are you really finding it that difficult?

Reyginus: I don't even think it is about going through all of them.
What I am after is the explanations I have for them and if it go well with everyone. If we find it hard to agree with the easy one how do we now agree on difficult ones.

You're the one who is supposed to present the explanations and so far, you're doing a piss poor job. Going through them all is important and we would have been a good way along if you took a direct route rather than introducing irrelevant information and asking irrelevant questions.

Mr Troll: he's a poor apologist. Anony wannabe

Yeah. I just wonder if he'll eventually realize this.

Image123: prrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, not again homer.

What? Getting uncomfortable again are you?

Reyginus: My friend we are discussing why God did what he did and possibly if it tells well of a morally good God. Not that I cannot answer the questions but I will not because it is not what we are talking about, though, related.

You know that his morality is also in question so why did you say that asking whether or not genocide was a moral decision to make is illogical? Looks to me like like you're once again trying to obfuscate. And as usual, you're failing at it.