₦airaland Forum

Reyginus: No I didn't. I only showed that you have not given a worthy response to that so far.

And let me make this clear to you. If I ask you a question and you try to play around it by turning it towards my direction, not only will I not dignify it with a response, I will also assume that you don't know what you are talking about.

More confusion on your part. It looks like you've not been able to keep up with your own question. You asked

Reyginus: Do you accept that everything in the bible is true?

Do you remember asking me that question? That is the question I pointed out to you as being irrelevant. I answered that question and explained to you why it was irrelevant. But it looks like as usual, you've lost yourself with that question.

Reyginus: I'm here for business. I think you too should grow some balls by facing any question like a man. I'm done with this portion of the argument.
This was my response. Read it again because I can't see how it is a question.

' This is the same thing you said initially. While I presented a statement to show that it is not only about what I and so many others believe to be true you on your part is yet to provide any on why you think otherwise or even better still, break my posts into bits to expose the irrationality of my position on this'.

I know exactly what I said and I gave you the reason for my answer. For me to expose your irrational positions, you need to stick to the topic at hand rather than wondering what I believe.

Reyginus: Lol. Dude has been reading something else because I don't see how the below even translates to a question.
Read it again, but slowly this time

For a second time, reconsidering my previous response, how is it still irrelevant? I will not allow you to dictate both how I answer questions, and also go ahead to tell me the questions you will answer, even without providing a good reason why. I am not here to play the Zombie by pleasing you if you will not do the same'.

You should have followed your question to see the reason why I said it was irrelevant. You did ask the question and I answered with a reason. As I said, you're welcome to open another thread if you're still wondering what I believe.

Reyginus: Lol. Dude is blinded by it already. I don't have time for any of this anymore. Ignored.

Ignore it at your own peril.

Reyginus: Irrelevant.


Irrelevant.

So the issues you introduced and I addressed directly are irrelevant? This is amusing.

Reyginus: This is completely illogical, my friend. It is so obvious, I begin to wonder how you didn't notice it.

The question is rightly what you say it is but what you understand it to mean is completely different from its actual implication. This is why I say it is illogical.

The question here was why God commanded genocide and not whether genocide is a morally good decision by a morally good God. You got it right with the question but the statement that follows it dissociated itself from what it is responding to.

Imagine asking why any person killed another and after being told that he did it because he was angry, you go still ahead to respond that he didn't answer the question because he didn't say if it was right or wrong even when the question never asked for it.

And your confusion reveals itself once more. The post that spawned this thread was questioning who had the better character between the Christian God and the devil. If we weren't talking about moral character, what do you think we were talking about? Have you already forgotten that the reason why this thread was opened was to actually examine whether or not the reason for God's actions were reasonable for a person of good character to commit?

Reyginus: Very good. At least you are beginning to sound like someone in need of a good debate and not to pick up a fight. I will answer you accordingly.

My analogy works perfectly. The problem is that you find it hard to accept that it is possible that every person who experienced genocide is guilty. But they all are in a way or the other.

The issue is one of corruption. A soul that has been corrupted may not directly be involved in the perpetration of evil but by the virtue of its corruption is no longer capable of creating any good.

Look at it in the same manner you will see the child of the cannibals. They are not directly involved in the hunting of fellow men but they have been brought up to believe that there is nothing wrong in eating fellow man. By the virtue of their learning they have already been corrupted and if invaded they are wiped out together with their elders.

God's all-knowing ability, grants him the access to read the minds of men and so the question of differentiating the guilty from the non-guilty is irrelevant.

Your analogy still doesn't work. God can separate the innocent from the guilty. In your scenario, the gas (God) can't separate the innocent from the guilty so your analogy has already failed.

Wow. And this is your best defense for God commanding genocide? That a 1 month old baby who has done nothing wrong was already corrupt and deserved to be killed by your morally good God? So would it be fine for someone to be killed because their great-great-great-great-grand father stole three loaves of bread? So the child of a thief is already corrupt and a thief therefore deserves to be punished with his father?

Again, how about when your God called for all males to be killed but the female virgins were to be distributed among the soldiers and the men of God?

This would be funny if it wasn't so tragic that you actually think that this is a defense for commanding a genocide.

Reyginus: Irrelevant.

I guess irrelevant has become the word I used that you'll now be overusing. You asked why I bother to engage you. I gave you a direct answer and you're complaining.

Reyginus: Irrelevant. We are still on genocide.

It is part of the genocide. Or didn't you read the three Bible verses you're supposed to be responding to? Please take the time to look at what you're supposed to be responding to here. There are three passages there. Read them all.

Reyginus: I'm coming to them.

At this rate, I'm not sure that you'll get to them.

FOLYKAZE: The person will pick human - Eniyan. You can be the Eranko.

Where is the evidence that was Ape?

And I dont get something here again..... Did they said humans are ape or human and ape are different species which evolved from common ancestors?

Well if the person picks human, then that person is also an ape.

The evidence is in the definition of ape. Follow the link. If you can't, I'll post the introduction here. You can read the entire article.

Wikipedia: Apes are Old World anthropoid mammals, more specifically a clade of tailless catarrhine primates, belonging to the biological superfamily Hominoidea. The apes are native to Africa and South-east Asia. Apes are the largest primates and the orangutan, an ape, is the largest living arboreal animal. Hominoids are traditionally forest dwellers, although chimpanzees may range into savanna, and the extinct australopithecines were likely also savanna inhabitants, inferred from their morphology. Humans inhabit almost every terrestrial habitat.

Hominoidea contains two families of living (extant) species:

Hylobatidae consists of four genera and sixteen species of gibbon, including the lar gibbon and the siamang. They are commonly referred to as lesser apes.
Hominidae consists of orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans.[1][2] Alternatively, the hominidae family are collectively described as the great apes.[3][4][5][6] There are two extant species in the orangutan genus (Pongo), two species in the gorilla genus, and a single extant species Homo sapiens in the human genus (Homo). Chimpanzees and bonobos are closely related to each other and they represent the two species in the genus Pan.

Members of the superfamily are called hominoids (not to be confused with the family of "hominids" - great apes, the subfamily of hominines, the tribe of "hominins" aka the human clade, or the subtribe of hominans).

Some or all hominoids are also called "apes". However, the term "ape" is used in several different senses. It has been used as a synonym for "monkey" or for any tailless primate with a humanlike appearance.[7] Thus the Barbary macaque, a kind of monkey, is popularly called the "Barbary ape" to indicate its lack of a tail. Biologists have used the term "ape" to mean a member of the superfamily Hominoidea other than humans,[3] or more recently to mean all members of the superfamily Hominoidea, so that "ape" becomes another word for "hominoid".[6][8] See also Primate: Historical and modern terminology.

Humans are apes and apes share common ancestry.

FOLYKAZE: Do you carefully read my first post on this thread? I translate what Ori is to english there. Go back and read it.

What is this? Are you a sockpuppet? I was talking to macof. Are you macof or am I missing something here?

FOLYKAZE: Dr James Watson said Africans are less intelligent. http://mightyminnow./2007/10/18/black-people-are-less-intelligent-says-dr-james-watson-nobel-prize-winner-and-dna-pioneer/

You can read another from wiki http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

I didn't know that James Watson's opinion was the end of any discussion on race and intelligence. What you're doing is committing the fallacious appeal to authority because James Watson isn't a professional psychologist and actual psychologists don't accept that conclusion. I wonder if you read the Wikipedia article you linked because it also pointed out:

Wikipedia: The concept of intelligence and the degree to which intelligence is measurable is a matter of debate. While there is a general consensus within Western science about how to define intelligence, the concept of intelligence as something that can be unequivocally measured by a single figure is not universally accepted.[39] A recurring criticism is that different societies value and promote different kinds of skills and that the concept of intelligence is therefore culturally variable and cannot be measured by the same criteria in different societies.[39] Consequently, some critics argue that proposed relationships to other variables are necessarily tentative.

You really should have read your own source.

FOLYKAZE: Do you know what content is?

Can you read the article I linked to or do you have a problem with it?

FOLYKAZE: How does these insulted African intelligence?

How does any other scientific theory insult African intelligence? i.e if African intelligence is actually a coherent concept. If you had read the article you posted, you'll have seen the flaws in that question.

FOLYKAZE: I visited the link but it junk. A christian will tell you bible is the evidence of heaven. But you will refute that right? Give me evidence....you accepted something. Cant you say something about what you accept rather than directing me to wiki.

How is it junk? When I'm refuting the Christian's opinion, I use facts. Do you want me to teach you biology on an anonymous public forum? You first need to understand what is being discussed. You asked for evidence of evolution, I sent you a link about evidence for evolution and you're complaining. If you find it confusing, just point at the heading you find confusing. I can but the article does a much better job. Don't forget that you also directed me to a Wikipedia article that you apparently didn't read.

FOLYKAZE: how do you know it look like ape?

Because it was part of the ape lineage.

FOLYKAZE: dont make me start from chromosomes.

Start wherever you want.

FOLYKAZE: Nothing....just going in circle like theist.

So all I've said is factual yet you're complaining? Rather than complaining, why don't you take the time to actually understand the theory you're failing to criticize?

macof: The greatest gift to all living organism...

I still don't know what you mean. Can you expatiate on what you believe?

FOLYKAZE: Your people are lesser intelligent than other race in the globe.

Who is this they? And how was this information obtained?

FOLYKAZE: Put it content here. Lets check through.

Okay. Here's the article.

FOLYKAZE: Is scientific theory not applying universally? Why are evolution works only by the west?

Have you heard about the theory of gravity, theory of relativity and many many others? Lots of theories were formed in the West. It still doesn't make them incorrect.

FOLYKAZE: put it here and lets reveal it.

See the link above.

FOLYKAZE: Who is the common ancestors pls? What does it look like?

It looks like an ape.

FOLYKAZE: Sorry YOU are Ape. Eniyan ni mi. Wtf?

Well if you're a human, then you're also an ape whether you like it or not. Unless you think you're some other type of mammal. You can tell me the type of mammal you are if you don't think you're an ape.

FOLYKAZE: You aint defending anything. Come up with fact

What have I said so far that isn't factual?

FOLYKAZE: Lets use this analogy. You were standing in line and the dude in your back called you an ape. You were called Ape because Evolution said it. Do you know anything about Ape-insult? You were a pretty big guy like 6' 10" and 257 lbs, but he called you ape and started laughing to some guy in back of him.

What would come to your mind and what would your reaction be?

My reaction would be to point out that the person too was an ape since we both belong to the same species. If the person disagrees, then they're welcome to pick the species to which they think they belong.

FOLYKAZE: And you accepted what they told you about intelligence evolution and race?

What did they say about intelligence, evolution and race?

FOLYKAZE: Where is the macro-evolution evidence pls? Dont tell me adaptation crap.

I can send you to read articles on the evidence. Are you willing to read them?

FOLYKAZE: Is there any African thought or philosophy that you can present which support evolution?

Does there have to be some African thought or philosophy before I accept a scientific theory?

FOLYKAZE: You dismissed religion dogma because there is no evidence for God, supernaturals and wholes of inconsistency, illogicality and fable embedded in it. Pls can you provide marco-evolution evidence....show us evidence the whites are evolved in intelligence and you are the one close to your cousin- ape. Where is the missing link? If you cant provide this evidences, why are you hanging on it like a religionist hang on his religion without evidence?

Again, are you willing to educate yourself on the theory of evolution? Actually, all of us on earth today are about as equidistant from our common ancestor. You're merely displaying your ignorance of the theory. Since we're online, I can send you to articles showing the evidence.

FOLYKAZE: Religion insulted your ancestral heritage....christianity painted devil as black, islam said blacks are next to donkey and mormon said blacks are slaves. Evolution said you are Ape and have lesser intelligence than other race in the world. Is this what you want to defend?

Sorry but you've mixed correct information with wrong information. The theory of evolution doesn't say you have less intelligence than other races though you are an ape. Just as every other human on earth are apes. What I'm defending is that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory.

macof: My Ori is wat I believe in

What is an Ori?

macof: Yh but if it was African NL atheist would call it BS

What do you mean by "if it was African"? It is accepted because it is a scientific theory not because it was proposed by a European.

FOLYKAZE: we paid for it. Understood?



stop behaving as if you dont understand what he said. Darwinism is a theory from western scientist.

Also what can you say about African innovations and scientifical discovery?

The theory of evolution is also a scientific theory. The fact that the discoverer was a European doesn't make it less true.

macof: u mis-understood.

I simply meant if an oyinbo scientist hasn't said something, NL atheist won't believe. They won't do the research and give philosophies themselves.
They don't think for themselves as Atheism should be.

Ps. I am pagan not a wanna bee Jew

What do you believe as a pagan?

FOLYKAZE: Stop appearing like lap-puppy.

Someone said he is a pagan and not a christian or jew. And you were still forcing bible and christianity on him. Wtf

Pls.....be matured. He said something and you should address that instead of picking foolish and deceitful slam on his personality

I missed that part of his response. You seem to think that being a pagan is somehow better. Why don't you stop your foolishness and avoid using Western languages too?

Reyginus: But you should have shown me why you think it is irrelevant. It is not enough to say that it is irrelevant because we are talking about the belief of Reyginus and other bible defenders.

You just answered the question. Since we're talking about your beliefs not mine, how is the fact that I don't share your beliefs relevant? You tell me the relevance.

Reyginus: This is the same thing you said initially. While I presented a statement to show that it is not only about what I and so many others believe to be true you on your part is yet to provide any on why you think otherwise or even better still, break my posts into bits to expose the irrationality of my position on this.

Are you asking me why I don't believe the Bible?

Reyginus: For a second time, reconsidering my previous response, how is it still irrelevant? I will not allow you to dictate both how I answer questions, and also go ahead to tell me the questions you will answer, even without providing a good reason why. I am not here to play the Zombie by pleasing you if you will not do the same.

Sorry but this thread has a particular aim. If you're interested in why I don't believe the Bible, you can open a separate thread. You asked for a clear thread addressing this topic. I provided it but you've chosen to obfuscate.

Reyginus: I would also like you to caution this your enemy mentality. That we are on different sides does not mean that anything I say is a trick to tarnish the argument.

I don't know if you've noticed it but you argue like you don't trust the person you are arguing with to do so honestly but still go ahead to engage him. A little pretence can help you.

You didn't even weigh my reason for approaching the argument in that manner. It is like when a so-called sensible person forms an opinion that an argument for a particular thing is flawed and stupid but he still goes ahead with his overt disdain to demand an intelligent response from the flawed argument. It doesn't make any sense.

Don't take this lightly. I am not your enemy, bro.

What is this? Have you suddenly developed thin skin? I've not called you names or insulted you in anyway I'm simply calling things out as I see them and you're showing me that my assessments are correct. So far, you've introduced irrelevant issues into something that is very clear. I don't like pretending and see no reason why I should bother with that on an anonymous forum. All I can guarantee is that I will be polite as long as you're polite.

If you think your particular approach will shed some light on the question by all means go ahead. All I ask is that you keep it relevant.

Reyginus: Smh. Dude has got a very big problem. Anything I say is a delay tactics. But since I don't leave my words empty and expects them to be digested automatically, I will respond to your claim.

This argument was not built from that thread but from the thread where I posed as an atheist. And in that thread the questions didn't come in the form of a verse but the question you are responding to demanded one or two.

And if you had not commenced with an enemy mentality you would seen it as the best way to cage me. It was meant to give you room to make the questions very difficult for me by bringing in different scenarios.

It didn't occur to you that it would be easier if I had treated the subject as just genocide without particular scenarios. Smh4u.

More obfuscation. On the thread where you thought you could pretend to be an atheist, you found yourself defending the Christian God as being good. That thread questions the goodness of the Christian God but you felt that wasn't enough. I then laid out seven actions this God performed and asked you the Christian to defend them by any means you like. So far, you've introduced lots of irrelevant issues.

Reyginus: I am also going to treat the cases one after the other. You can complain as usual.

Case 1.

'NIV 1 Samuel 15:

1 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord.

2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.

3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'.

I will try as much as possible to be direct. The question was on why God punished the Amalekites.

The answer is very obvious in this case. In verse two of chapter fiftheen, God gave the reason for the punishment metted out to them as attacking and destroying his people, the children of Isreal, as they were returning from Egypt where.

I wouldn't assume that you are asking after any other thing so I will leave it at this level until you do so yourself. I'm moving with the questions.

That wasn't the question, the question is why did God command a genocide? Are you seriously saying that God felt that the morally right thing to do when one is attacked is to go out and kill not only the soldiers who did the attacking but wipe out their wives, children, grand-parents, livestock and anything else they could lay their hands on?

Reyginus: What good is this that can only be promoted by the cases of genocide listed above?
Very good. Now you come.

God as the creator of the entire universe is both all mighty and all-knowing. He can see the end from the very first move. He is also most holy.
If he can see the end and as it turns out it turns out to be very dark and full of filt you don't expect the holiest of holies to allow the source of that dark end to perpatrate the act that will create the end.

Look at it with the eyes of the scenario where Zombies has infiltrated a greater portion, if not all, the earth leaving only just a dozen of humans uninfected. Let's call the Zombies the Evil doers.

Imagine there is a chemical agent, say sarin gas, which can be used effectively to wipe out the entire Zombies and enthrone human survival again. To avoid the extinction of the human race and to promote the survival. Let's call it God.

The only way to enable that the good people, the dozens of uninfected men, survive the attack would be by detonating the sarin gas in the infected region.

You cannot say that this is bad because the infected men are already useless to themselves and the environment. It is a case of permitting a great good by wiping out great evil.

Your analogy fails because God can easily distinguish between the guilty and non-guilty parties. He can punish the guilty and spare the non-guilty. Why exactly would a God who can easily identify and single out the actual evil people decide that the best thing for him to do is to kill both the guilty and non-guilty parties? Kill everyone from the 90 year old man who is blind and deaf therefore didn't attack anyone to the 1 month infant who was born after the event? Is this the best your God can do?

Reyginus: My thoughts have no bearing on this issue and your talk about them being settled before anything looks to me like you just want more excuses and evasions. Again, the question is the reason why God did the things he did not whether or not I believe that the Bible is totally true.Lol. I wish you know the implication of saying that your thoughts have no bearing on the issue. Except I misunderstand you.

Please tell me what the implication is.

Reyginus: thehomer I wonder why you will engage somebody if you already think that the only thing he is good at is evasion. Do you mind telling me why? I would like to know.

I've not said you're good at evasion. I've said you keep failing at it. I'm engaging you because I have a lot of free time right now and would like to expose the poor reasons you're giving to yourself and any other interested party who happens to stumble upon this thread.

Did you forget the verses that talked about keeping the young women who hadn't slept with a man but kill all the males no matter their age? What was God's purpose there?

I also hope you've not forgotten the other 6 problematic actions performed by God in my OP.

FOLYKAZE: some people just come from nowhere and spill trash. What is the meaning of this?

What? Are you confused by Western words in the Western language of English?

Pope Xander VII: They claim Yahweh is a supreme being. Yet, he has the emotions of an immature mortal. If Yahweh's ways are "higher" than ours, why does he express Human emotions like Jealousy, Anger? As Spinoza said, man ascribes its physical and emotional qualities to god, A sphere will describe its god as spherical. Why should a so called "god" have its attributes decided upon by mere Men, Perhaps because the "god" was made by Man in the first place.

An accurate exposition. If a child stands before say Governor Fashola and says they don't believe President Jonathan exists, would it make a lot of sense for the child to be tortured for 10 years by the president? These are the sorts of things these Christians haven't really considered before upholding their God in man's image.

noblefada: First of all the bible is not a literal book as we kept saying, pls don't use ur mental knowledge to interpret God's word. As I said earlier Jephthan did not sacrifice his daughter because it was an abomination before God: Deuteronomy 18:9-10 NKJV
"When you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. [10] There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,
Leviticus 18:21 NKJV
And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.
Jer 7:31 KJV* And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.
From the passage in Judges 11, when he made that vow he was expecting a sheep or goat to come out and not his daughter which was evident from his reaction, besides according to the law, he had the right to redeem her back
Leviticus 27:2-4 NKJV
"Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'When a man consecrates by a vow certain persons to the LORD, according to your valuation, [3] if your valuation is of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old, then your valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary. [4] If it is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels;
What he did was to consecrate her to God's service
And for Abraham, we all know God was testing him. Shalom

Jephthah didn't burn his daughter in the fire as a sacrifice to Molech, but to God himself. Here let me help you along with these direct questions.

What was Jephthah's promise to God?

What did God's test of Abraham require him to do?

Reyginus: I'm afraid this argument will be a very difficult and possibly unconvincing one to make because you are already made up on what to accept as the truth. But I will still pretend like I do not know the thoughts you harbour for the subject.

First of all, it is not irrelevant to question the position of an interogator who has already taken a stand on the subject he is trying to inquire.

It is an entirely different thing that he is an covert neutral person. Then we can still speak to him as the interrogator. In the case where he has gone overt on a position, like this one, he ceases to be an interrogator but a defender of a position.

So don't expect me to treat him like a truth seeker. His questions must be in line with what he agrees to be true, in the first place. He cannot overtly hold a stance that the concept in question is not true, that it never happened, and still go ahead to question why it happened.

Still irrelevant in this case. The question isn't about what I believe, but about what you, Reyginus and other defenders of the Bible believe the Bible says.

Reyginus: Now to your questions(I am not even supposed to begin answering them yet but I don't want to be seen as dodging them). I will answer them one after the other to avoid saying so many words later to be possibly demonised in popular fashion. I can only move to the next one when you and me are satisfied with the answer provided for the former.

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

Reyginus: 1. Genocide
First and foremost you must agree, even if for the sake of the argument, that God can do all-things and He has absolute understanding of every thing.

There are so many reasons as to why He commands Genocide but the underlying factor in all is for the promotion of good and eradication of evil. But it would be better if you can provide the verses where these Genocide were commanded yourself.

I already showed you a thread on this question of genocide but since you're looking for anyway to insert delays, I'll post it here again and more.

NIV 1 Samuel 15:

1 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord.

2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.

3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

NIV Numbers 31
7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
. . .
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

NIV Deuteronomy 2
30 But Sihon king of Heshbon refused to let us pass through. For the Lord your God had made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into your hands, as he has now done.

31 The Lord said to me, “See, I have begun to deliver Sihon and his country over to you. Now begin to conquer and possess his land.”

32 When Sihon and all his army came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz, 33 the Lord our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed[c] them—men, women and children. We left no survivors. 35 But the livestock and the plunder from the towns we had captured we carried off for ourselves.

There's more but I think these will do for now.

What good is this that can only be promoted by the cases of genocide listed above?

Reyginus: I would have loved the question of your thoughts on the bible to be settled before anything. I think that would be the problem we must experience very soon. But in your normal fashion, you will conclude it is the only way to dodge the question. Think about it. I don't want to waste my time and energy.

My thoughts have no bearing on this issue and your talk about them being settled before anything looks to me like you just want more excuses and evasions. Again, the question is the reason why God did the things he did not whether or not I believe that the Bible is totally true.

macof: u mis-understood.

I simply meant if an oyinbo scientist hasn't said something, NL atheist won't believe. They won't do the research and give philosophies themselves.
They don't think for themselves as Atheism should be.

Ps. I am pagan not a wanna bee Jew

Last time I checked, the Bible and Jesus weren't invented by Nairaland Christians so why do you believe it?

noblefada: ^^^@op all the question up there with due respect are all due to ur ignorance of scriptures, even many xtians dnt know any better so I will trouble myself, it will take quite a lot to explain those stuff to u and even more difficult if u dnt have the Holy Spirit, but I can assure those question have very valid answer, that's one of the reason I don't like @olaadegun starting a thread he knew little about (talking about is thread on the difference between the God of the OT & NT).

My ignorance of the Bible? Don't make me quiz you on the Bible and Christianity as a whole. Since you have the Holy Spirit, I'd like to know what he's said to about many things. Would you be fine with answering some other questions?

noblefada: But let me take just take one example to show u I know what I'm talking about:
~clears throat~ Jepthah did not kill his daughter! how do we know that? ? Simple, human sacrifices were an abomination to God, so God would not have accepted it and of course no priest would have performed the sacrifice. What actually happened was she remained a virgin all her life in a secluded house on the outskirts of the city, that's why sent to bewail her virginity and not her life. It will also interest u to know that's where the concept of nuns was taking from. Shalom

What Bible passage did you get the following assumptions from?

1. that human sacrifices were an abomination to God. Do you remember that God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son? Or was that a different God?

2. that Jephthah didn't kill his daughter? Jephthah promised God a burnt offering of anything that came out of his house first. His daughter came out first yet you say he didn't roast her unto God? Please present your evidence.

Reyginus: Good move.
I wouldn't like this to end the same way the other one did. So, I before I proceed I have just one question to ask.

Do you accept that everything in the bible is true?

And he begins with an attempt at a distraction.

No I don't accept that everything in the Bible is true but as a Christian you do and that is all that is needed for my questions. Now please answer them and don't run away. Remember that what is being questioned is God's actions based on information from the Bible. If you believe that it is true and that God did the things that I listed, then whether or not I believe they actually happened is irrelevant.

Now please answer the questions.

Reyginus: I think a better suited thread will do. The thread in question is questioning the goodness of God and not his intent for committing genocide. Hope you know they are not on the same pedestal.

There is always an intent but determining whether it is good is another thing. I can get away easily with that thread when If I can answer by saying we bargained for intent and not goodness, but I don't want to. You can only protest that I am neglecting if it is good even when it is clear you never included it in your demands.

So for your own good, and the good of the argument it would well to define it properly from the outset.

His goodness is what I was also questioning here but again remember that you were the one who brought up this intent business not me. Since you wanted a new thread, here it is. You're welcome to address his intentions and goodness in that thread too.

Since Reyginus wanted a new thread, here it is.

My question is as follows.

Why did God commit the following acts.

1. command genocides

2. kill 42 children

3. drown the entire world except Noah and his family

4. recommend slavery

5. test Abraham by asking him to kill his son

6. do nothing while Jepthah killed his daughter

7. harden Pharaoh's heart

While explaining the reason why, you can tell us what his intention was and whether that intention was good or bad keeping in mind the associated claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent towards people.

Reyginus: I fear for people who already have a mindset made-up on what to agree on but still questions it even after agreeing. Read between these lines.

Create a thread. I'm through with this one.

From your recent comments, it looks like you're not yet through. Anyway, I already had a thread going on a related topic here. You're welcome to add your own insights.

Reyginus: Lol. You still miss the point. Try again!

You're welcome to enlighten me by answering the questions I presented to you here. Try not to run or dodge but answer them directly.

Reyginus: Lol. Another miss. I was to end on wednesday but I choose to add one day.

On a serious note, I think being an atheist is easier. The only difficult question I encountered must have been the fine-tuning argument by Manhunter. I would have replied by asctibing it to Natural Selection, but, I reconsidered.

Natural Selection experiences change in the building of simpler blocks of existence to their respective complexities. So it cannot be causeless and if it is not, it cannot be uncaused. There should be a reason why Natural Selection is happening. It cannot be because of Natural Selection. The 'why' or to put it better 'cause' held me back.

Hey whatever floats your boat man. All I saw was someone finding it difficult to maintain a facade after blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Don't worry, I understood your fears I simply made you more aware of them.

Reyginus: Guys, this is my last day as an atheist. Any final question to put me thinking.

Final questions? Really? Have you forgotten the questions I asked that you didn't answer but instead started asking me some irrelevant questions?



What a joke. I guess you've finally seen the questions that scare you.

Reyginus: Lol. What sort of game is this. So, I am supposed to respond to your post accordingly but you will not do same for mine.
Since we are in the spirit of simplifying things, let me simplify things in similar manner.

What was satan's intent when he rebelled against god, his master?

This is why I say you have no idea of what you're doing. You're the one who says intent is all that matters not me. Yet here you come asking me about intent? This means that you want me to do your work for you. You can state what you think satan's intention was and tell me what you think Yahweh's intention was.

Reyginus: What was satan's intent when he sent his angels to flood the earth prior to Noah's flood?

You tell me.

Reyginus: What was his intent when he destroyed through deceit millions of men?

Another mere assertion without evidence. You're welcome to answer this too for yourself.

Reyginus: What was his intent when he lied to the first man and woman?

Did he lie? You tell me.

Reyginus: Now that's justice.

What justice? All you've done is to show that you have no idea of what you're doing here. Again, you introduced intention not me so it is up to you to state the intentions you think matter. As usual, when you're faced with direct questions, you start trying to be evasive but fail and this response clearly demonstrates this fact.

It doesn't matter if you're an atheist they say.

Not sure that Nigeria should be on one of the 13 countries but:

(Reuters) - In 13 countries around the world, all of them Muslim, people who openly espouse atheism or reject the official state religion of Islam face execution under the law, according to a detailed study issued on Tuesday.

And beyond the Islamic nations, even some of the West's apparently most democratic governments at best discriminate against citizens who have no belief in a god and at worst can jail them for offences dubbed blasphemy, it said.

The study, The Freethought Report 2013, was issued by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), a global body uniting atheists, agnostics and other religious skeptics, to mark United Nations' Human Rights Day on Tuesday.

"This report shows that the overwhelming majority of countries fail to respect the rights of atheists and freethinkers although they have signed U.N agreements to treat all citizens equally," said IHEU President Sonja Eggerickx.

The study covered all 192 member states in the world body and involved lawyers and human rights experts looking at statute books, court records and media accounts to establish the global situation.

A first survey of 60 countries last year showed just seven where death, often by public beheading, is the punishment for either blasphemy or apostasy - renouncing belief or switching to another religion which is also protected under U.N. accords.

But this year's more comprehensive study showed six more, bringing the full list to Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

In others, like India in a recent case involving a leading critic of religion, humanists say police are often reluctant or unwilling to investigate murders of atheists carried out by religious fundamentalists.

Across the world, the report said, "there are laws that deny atheists' right to exist, revoke their citizenship, restrict their right to marry, obstruct their access to public education, prevent them working for the state...."

Criticism of religious faith or even academic study of the origins of religions is frequently treated as a crime and can be equated to the capital offence of blasphemy, it asserted.

EU STATES OFFEND

The IHEU, which has member bodies in some 50 countries and supporters in many more where such organizations are banned, said there was systematic or severe discrimination against atheists across the 27-nation European Union.

The situation was severe in Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Malta and Poland where blasphemy laws allow for jail sentences up to three years on charges of offending a religion or believers.

In these and all other EU countries, with the exception of the Netherlands and Belgium which the report classed as "free and equal," there was systemic discrimination across society favoring religions and religious believers.

In the United States, it said, although the situation was "mostly satisfactory" in terms of legal respect for atheists' rights, there were a range of laws and practices "that equate being religious with being American."

In Latin America and the Caribbean, atheists faced systemic discrimination in most countries except Brazil, where the situation was "mostly satisfactory," and Jamaica and Uruguay which the report judged as "free and equal."

Across Africa, atheists faced severe or systemic violations of their rights to freedom of conscience but also grave violations in several countries, including Egypt, Libya and Morocco, and nominally Christian Zimbabwe and Eritrea.

(Reported by Robert Evans; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/10/us-religion-atheists-idUSBRE9B900G20131210

Reyginus: On a serious, I don't fancy this sort of response.
What is the meaning of the above? What is the meaning of using this 'once again' I have done so and so, to neglect what was presented before you.

If you had come up with something like:' you are wrong. And it can hold because...', that would have been a plausible response. Unlike the above. In every debate or discussion I engage in, I never allow any distraction to terminate the subject matter.

At this point, I don't know if to laugh or to scold you for doing the same thing you did in quote one.
It seems the best way to tackle a well articulated defence is to by dismissing it without backing it up.

In my response I showed you why you do not jugde a character by his actions. I showed that a con artist, a deceiver, will be regarded good if he can hide his true character to an innocent majority.

If you say we can tell a moral character in both real life and fiction without telling how, you're not telling us anything.

Imagine if you were to ask me why I think a certain event is evil, let's say murder, and my response is that because people tell why it is evil. I will only succeed in my escapism if you are too dumb to notice my beautiful nonsense.

Perfectly true. I like the way you put it. We follow the plot of the story but we cannot amend it if we seriously want to be speaking of the same story.

Yes. You need each person explained to you before you can know who is good or bad. But not in the sense you understand it. You see, in carrying out their roles in a movie, they are explaining to you if they are bad or good.

Are you high on expired drugs, bro? Lol. How am I afraid to look at macbeth? Are you making a figure of speech?

By the way your link took me to google search page where it was difficult determing which. Help me post the plot here.

Lol. Another list that will lead us nowhere. I should start listing every portion of the bible were the intent of God prevailed, even though you are yet to accept that intent determines the morality of an action. I am not that Jobless.

I am going to do that on the following conditions:
1. You will first have to accept that intent and not action determines what is good or evil.

2. That the whole argument will be summarized on the list of 50 intents of both parties in several events.

3. The list must be base on the bible. You cannot read a symbolic meaning where a point is literally sensible.

If you can accept this, then we can leave the other things and focus.

At this point I need to allow the bible defend itself.

Genesis 6: 11-12 'Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth'.
I will not be surprised if you still ask me to provide the intent.

As narrated by the bible, the one-third of the millions, or is it billionns, of angels who left to hell with the devil stormed earth to mate with the beautiful daughters of the day. Their intent was to destroy man and the works of god by corrupting the human race. And they almost succeeded.



How you manage to wriggle out of what you are meant to address baffles me. Even after telling you that the bible accused him of being the reason behind every of god's evil action you still go ahead to play this game.

And have you even accepted that the intentions defines anything if you are employing its service? t is you agree that the intention defines the act or the actions, which is wrong. But since you are yet to take the intent as the determinant factor you have no justification to employ its service.


Still the same problem. The point is that literary criticism doesn't change a a story.
It is only but an opinion showing disatisfaction at the way a story was composed. It doesn't change the story. That's the point you should get.

For the records, I didn't use the word confuse in the quote you are responding to. Because I know how things work here. One can invent a word and later accuse the other.

I find nothing confusing about your post.

Responding with the impression that what you are after is who has the worst character and not why I say the devil has the worst character. Remember now. The former has been known from the very beginning, the latter is the reason we are still here.

This was not the question. We've dealt with this from the outset.


Lol. Now you want to amend it to suit my taste. This is actually the question though still put wrongly. It is not ' Whichever one you pick, present your reason for picking it', but since i've choosen the devil what reasons do I have to it.

The question was not attached like you are trying to make it sound. It came differently. And since it didn't come at the same time, repeating an already answered question like the former is actually a sign of forgetfulness.



Another smart way to shift to burden of response on a person begging for a response.

This method of argument might work with other people around here but not with me. What you should have done is to show me how actions and not intents matter. I'm waiting.


I don't think you understand that statement enough to answer it. Let me rephrase. Do you agree that everything in the bible is true, not based on faith but as a work of fiction?

Ol' boy! You are asking me to do your work for you. In situations like this what is required of you is to present a plausible counter-argument against intent. I cannot create a comfort zone for you here, bro.

Lol. I am trying to inform you of a typographical error in that quote making it difficult for me to understand but you are busy providing link to your original post. Just correct it and post it here.



Lol. Why should I be afraid when I am trying to be an atheist? I don't understand you.



Did it occur to you in the composition of this text that I was only correcting your illustration of bad and good guys in a movie.

I don't like it when somebody deviates like that. You are of the opinion that you can only know who the good guys are by their actions which I countered by comparing their respective actions. It turned out the same. I then brought in intent which you were supposed to counter but didn't for reasons best known to you.


Lolol. Dude stop pretending you don't understand me. You perfectly do. I am talking about the movie any longer. I am now presenting it as my own work of fiction. No excuses this time.

I'm getting tired of your failed evasions so I'll just simplify things with these basic questions. What was God's intent when he commanded genocides? What was his intent when he drowned almost every living thing in Noah's flood? What was his intent when he killed those 42 children? What was his intent when he tested Abraham by asking him to kill his son? Think carefully about your answers.

Edit