₦airaland Forum

Mr anony: You have asked the same question over and over again and I have not shied away from it but have answered you. I'll answer again for the last time.

You've never answered the question and you've run from it again.

Mr anony: 1 Samuel 15 is an example of Ancient Near East hyperbole signifying extensive destruction but not necessarily absolute destruction and therefore does not literally mean that the Israelites to killed all the people including infants. We know this because we still see that the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 30 attack David and carry away his wives (mind you this happened during Saul's lifetime). If you maintain that 1Samuel 15 is to be taken literally as an utter genocide, then you will have to explain how come a few years later we still have an Amalekite army attacking and enslaving people.

You can say that you are not satisfied with my answer but accusing me of being evasive is inaccurate.

You've not answered the question because I'm not asking whether or not the killing actually happened, I'm asking you whether or not the command itself is actually a moral command. The fact that there were some people still living in that account doesn't mean that the command was a moral command. In fact, you're willing to admit that the command wasn't a moral command but here, rather than addressing the question of the command, you decided to address the claim that the command wasn't fully carried out. This is the evasiveness I've pointed out to you several times already.

So once again, here is the question I asked.

thehomer: But in what language is the command "kill all the men, women, children and infants" an idiomatic expression meaning something else? And what is the actual meaning of the command? Those are the questions you've been shying away from. Please answer them in your next response.

Note that you began by claiming that it was an idiomatic expression. When that attempt failed since you're unable to give the true meaning if it was an idiomatic expression, you decided to say that the command wasn't fully carried out. Please desist from these evasions and address the straightforward question which is this. Was that command given by God a moral command? I didn't ask if the command was carried out, I'm asking you if it was a moral command to give. Don't run from this again.

Mr anony: I am not running from anything. It is you who is running away from justifying an assertion that needs to be justified.

My point too once again is saying X is obviously immoral is not an explanation of why X is immoral. Secondly, the fact that we both agree that X is immoral does not mean that we therefore agree on why X is immoral. God did not do any immoral deeds and I have made that point clear but you are having a hard time understanding it judging by how many times you've asked the exact same question and rejected the exact same answer. This tells me you are either arguing for the sake of argument or abandoning basic logical reasoning to cling tightly to your anti-God bias.

Since we both agree that it is immoral, then you cannot say that God did the moral thing by giving such a command. You're being self contradictory when you say that the command is immoral and that God didn't do anything immoral by issuing that command.

I've not just rejected your answer, I've shown you that you're not answering the question I asked. Merely repeating your non-answer doesn't transform it into an answer.

dr dams: just Curious the kind of Fish it would have been. God works in a Mysterious way cos this beat scientific theories and its definately not a Whale..

It was a very big fish. But seriously do you really believe that crap? Stop and think for a minute. How can someone be swallowed in a fish and live in it? How big do you think Jonah was that he would live in a fish?

You take this as evidence of God working in mysterious ways? Consider this clip.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1pCudKUIRg

Logicboy03: @Uyi Iredia and Anony

To claim that God is not held back by any laws is to show that God is a wild animal that is free to do anything- both logical and illogical.


So God, committing suicide- thereby killing himself and then, giving atheists the standing to say that there is no God will still be a moral and logical thing to do because he is God. God plays by no one's rules.





Philosophy is too much for the sophists

The two of them are deeply confused about the issues at stake here. That is why they wonder whether it is right to kill people for crimes they didn't commit. Despite the fact that from all indications, they think it is wrong to do so.

Uyi Iredia: No. Your statement implies moral laws supersede God person which is contrary to the concept of God wherein moral laws, even in humans, proceed from Her. Not to mention that she isn't human that he can be tried for flouting such laws.

Is God a moral agent?

Uyi Iredia: It begs the question of the reason why it is wrong.

It is a basic assumption that it is wrong. If you disagree, then you're saying it is right to kill people for crimes they didn't commit. Is that what you're saying?

Image123: It is not about what i think or know. It is about why you think what you think. Why do you think it is wrong, is there no reason, is this some form of faith?

It is about what you think because if you already agree with me, then what is the point of this distraction? It would only be useful if you didn't agree with me.

Does this state sponsor pilgrims while having so many malnourished children?

Mr anony: If men are not under the authority of any moral law, then they do not have to obey any moral law.

God too is under the authority of moral laws if he is to be a moral agent and he has clearly flouted them.

Mr anony: Lololol.........My point exactly. Saying X is just wrong doesn't make it so unless you can show why X is wrong.

It is a properly basic premise when it comes to dealing with morality. If you disagree, you're welcome to explain why you disagree.

Mr anony: I wonder exactly what explanation you seek by asking me how figurative speech is figurative. Let's apply this question of yours to another example of figurative speech namely "it will rain cats and dogs tomorrow" please explain to me how this speech is figurative so I have an idea of what you expect my answer to look like.

You can check an English dictionary if you're simply not familiar with the language. See the meaning here.
Secondly, cats and dogs don't fall from the sky as rain. I would have thought that much was obvious.

But in what language is the command "kill all the men, women, children and infants" an idiomatic expression meaning something else? And what is the actual meaning of the command? Those are the questions you've been shying away from. Please answer them in your next response.

Mr anony: Lol, of course I disagree because you are simply wrong. . . .and judging from your arguments so far, I'm sure that should be a sufficient explanation for you

False again. Now you're running away from justifying an assertion that needs to be justified.

My point once again is that killing people for crimes they didn't commit is obviously immoral. You also agree that it is immoral but say it isn't obvious to you. The bottom line here is that we both agree that it is immoral yet God gave such a command. But because you're having a hard time explaining this away, you say this fact isn't obvious to you but you also accept it. This tells me you're either just arguing for the sake of argument or you wish to abandon moral reasoning to support the immoral actions of your God.

Image123: You are saying the same thing in many words, it is wrong because it is wrong. Why is it wrong is the question. If i am killed because someone else killed Kennedy, why is it wrong?

Do you think it is wrong or not? Or are you just arguing for the sake of argument?

Mr anony: I was clearly talking about matter vs non-matter. I don't have to include things that are irrelevant to the point I'm making.

But it isn't actually irrelevant.

Mr anony: Yes I said information isn't created in by the brain but it was in the context of my discourse with logicboy about london taxi drivers learning routes i.e. the information on the map remains the same regardless of whether there are any brains to be used to comprehend it.

This is another point of your confusion. The information represented by the map isn't the map. The taxi drivers create information in their brain just that they don't do it with the map. So, their brains do create information.

Mr anony: A book in a city of illiterates still contains information regardless of the fact that no one in the city can access it. If these illiterates learn how to read, they can then comprehend the information. Their brains did not create the information.

This is all true but it isn't really comparable to the situation with the taxi drivers.

Mr anony: Secondly, when you say that A is a "physical representation" of B it means A represents B therefore A is information about B. So you haven't really said anything.....unless the action word here is "physical" to which I would ask if there are such things as "non-physical representations"? because if there are no such things as non-physical representations, then the "physical" qualifier you have employed here has no relevance and what you really meant by "physical representation" is really "information".

Of course there are non-physical representations. e.g the number 1 can be a non-physical representation of the number of moons the earth has.

Mr anony: What is important here is not whether you consider it trivial or not, what is important is whether it is true and you have admitted that it is true

Whether it is trivial is also important because merely conveying trivial information is pointless. Saying that non-matter affects matter is trivial. Temperature also affects matter. So does sound, gravity and lots of other things.

Image123: And why was/is it wrong again?

Because it is wrong to kill people for crimes they didn't commit. If you disagree, it means that you can be killed because someone else killed President Kennedy.

Mr anony: God was not misrepresented by Samuel. God commanded the Israelites to attack the Amalekites in punishment for their sins. This event was recorded in using the figurative expressions common to the people of the Ancient Near East. It did not literally mean "kill the innocent babies".

Was it God who gave the following command?

‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.

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

Mr anony: A modern example:
I prophesy: thus says X "It will rain cats and dogs tomorrow". If it rains water heavily tomorrow, the prophecy is not void and I didn't misrepresent X. For a person not coversant with modern day English, I'll simply explain to him/her that the expression was figurative and didn't literally mean cats and dogs.

So it is now figurative for God to say "put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys"? Please how is this an idiomatic expression? And what is it supposed to mean if it is an idiomatic expression? Does it mean "don't kill women, children and infants"?

Mr anony: Lololol, of course it is.

If you disagree, you're welcome to say so and why. Just keep at the back of your mind the implications of your disagreement.

alexleo: Pls re-read my post again.

Maybe you should re-read your post.

Mr anony: First of all, my apologies for using the term "exaggeration" instead of "idiomatic expression" blame it on my limited knowledge of the |English language. The point however remains that the command was written in a figurative expression which is commonly found in Ancient Near East writings and would not have been understood by people of that time and place to literally mean "go and kill the infants".

So which is it? Are you saying God didn't actually command the killing of the children? Or are you merely suggesting that it wasn't fully carried out?

Mr anony: Secondly, since it isn't obvious enough to you, I am talking about the command and have been doing so all along.

You're talking about whether or not the command was fully carried out. I'm talking about whether the command itself was moral.

Mr anony: I did not agree that God literally commanded the Isrealites to kill innocent infants.

So was God misquoted by the prophet?

Mr anony: Lololol, ok I see. I now know what passes for a sufficient explanation where you are concerned.

What you see is what is a sufficient explanation when it comes to the concepts of morality and justice.

Mr anony: Ok, let's see what you have.

I wasn't talking about S.I units of measurement, I was talking about the physical phenomena pertaining to matter, space, time and energy these would include heat and luminous intensity which can also be expressed in terms of kg, m and s
temperature for instance is a measure of the kinetic energy(1/2MV²) of molecules in a system. The more they move, the hotter it is. When you come to the root of it what you are really measuring is the square of half the velocity(m/s) of a molecule(kg). You'll find the same applies to luminuosity which can be expressed as watts per second (kgm²/s⁴)

My basic point is that your claim ignores other dimensions of physical reality that are better described using other concepts.

Mr anony: If you noticed, the word I used was "non-matterial". I have also clarified what I mean by the terms I have used. You are asking me a question about my statement that is not in the same sense as my statement.

Well saying information is non-material is trivial and pointless as far as I can see here.

Mr anony: I fail to see what your objection is here in the context of my statement. Please clarify

You said information isn't created by the brain. But it can be created by brains and transmitted to other brains. Secondly, for information to be information, brains are required to understand and interpret it otherwise, what you have is the physical representation.

Mr anony: I am trying to show that non-material things effect matterial things. You have said that this is correct. I wonder what else you were thinking that I was trying to convey.

I thought you were trying to convey non-physical things affecting the physical but if all you wish to say is that the non-material can affect matter, well that is just trivially true.

alexleo: A christian is not a sinner and a sinner is not a christian. Simply means he is a non christian. God saves everyone(atheist. Muslim, bhudist, pagan etc). If you want his salvation and ask of it, He will surely give it to you. Forget about people who claim they are christian by me words of mouth, it is when Jesus comes into your life that you are truly a Christian. To be a christian is to be like Christ.

So Muslims, Buddhists, pagans and atheists aren't sinners?

Image123: Hahahaha, so something is wrong because it is wrong is sufficient, but God is good because He is good is insufficient.

We've seen what God has done and what he did was wrong.

alexleo: We were all sinners before God saved us. The salvation of God is for everyone who wants and ask for it. If you want and ask God to give you this great salvation, He will. May God help you to do this in Jesus name. Amen

In other words, he isn't saving non-Christians.

Mr anony: An example of a modern exaggeration "It rained cats and dogs yesterday" means "it rained heavily yesterday". It is understandable for a person who is not familiar with the phrase to argue saying "it is a lie it only rained water" however after the point has been explained to him, it now becomes an irrational response to continue to insist that the expression must have to be literal.

"It rained cats and dogs" is an idiomatic expression not an exaggeration. Saying you killed 10,000,000 people when you killed 1,000 is an exaggeration and a lie. You're basically making a comparison error.
Secondly, you're once more trying to skip the issue. The problem is with the command and not how well it was carried out.

Mr anony: My point has been made. God did not give an immoral command as you insist, it is contrary to His nature as I have also shown in scripture.

But you agreed that the command was immoral and that it was given by God. The fact that it was given by God means it isn't contrary to his nature so how exactly did you make this mysterious point?

Mr anony: To the second issue: Simply saying X is wrong because X is wrong is an insufficient explanation of why X is wrong.

What sort of explanation are you looking for? Because as far as I can see, I've given sufficient explanation.

Mr anony: I'm afraid you have missed it. Scroll up and read my last reply to logicboy. If you are still confused as to what I'm saying, ask me again.

I saw it but thought you had something stronger to offer. I'll now show you the problems with what you've put up there.

Mr anony: I hear what you are trying to say, however you making some serious mistakes. I'll only address your number 1 because that's where you get it wrong and then it just continues to get worse from there.

As you suggested, I'll start with definitions
matter - anything that has mass (kg) and occupies space (length x width x thickness)

physical - phenomena pertaining to matter, space, time, and energy such that they can be mathematically expressed in terms of mass, distance and time i.e. kilograms(kg), meters(m), seconds(s). For example electric current = electrons having a mass(kg) moving at a particular speed (m/s). radio waves = particles with a mass (kg) vibrating at a particular frequency/speed (m/s) e.t.c.

This isn't really correct. e.g the kelvin pertaining to temperature, candela pertaining to luminosity and others can be considered as relating to physical phenomena.

Mr anony: information - Does not have a mass nor occupy space. It is "something about another" in that information communicates based on associated symbols that mostly have little or nothing to do with the precise material attributes of the carrier and receiver. It cannot be expressed with the physical attributes kg,m,s.

For information to be formed, transmitted or interpreted, it needs physical structures so why do you say it isn't physical? One can accept that it isn't physical such that it would have mass but that doesn't mean it isn't physical.

Mr anony: . . . .

Now that the definitions have been clarified, I will now clarify something else:
Information is NOT created by the brain. The information on the map is the same whether there are brains to understand it or not.

Who says information isn't created by the brain? Actually, information isn't the same whether there are brains or not the physical representation would be the same though.

Mr anony: So once again:

1. Is information non-matter= Yes
2. Is the brain matter = Yes
3. Does information effect brain size = Yes
4. Conclusion: Non-matter causes an effect on matter

So, while what you've said above is correct, I don't think it conveys what you want to convey.

Mr anony: I note your objection but nothing about it changes the point I'm making which is that the immaterial has caused a material change. Feel free to call it "data" or "information", also feel free to describe the process in more detail. The fact still remains.

So to simplify if you like;

"Immaterial data has caused a change in the mass of a material brain" This shows a direct causal link between non-matter and matter.

Please provide a refutation if you may

Based on what you're saying here, the conclusion is that information is physical.

Wikipedia: Information, in its most restricted technical sense, is a sequence of symbols that can be interpreted as a message. Information can be recorded as signs, or transmitted as signals. Information is any kind of event that affects the state of a dynamic system that can interpret the information.

Why do you say that it isn't physical? You're welcome to quote yourself answering this.

Emusan: You're welcome Sir, but I'm not after religion rather after the salvation of your soul. Thank God for that anyway.....

Shalom!

Is your God now saving non-Christians?

And Mr anony runs again.

Image123: You said "So his purpose wasn't for people to be fruitful and multiply? ". It's a fallacy as i never said that but you are making it seem as if i said that. You don't need false assumptions to make an enquiry. Praise is an inclusion in God's purposes of creating humans. i also mentioned living in victrory and holiness. i simply mentioned this to explain to you that these purposes cannot be fulfilled by an 'altruist' killing babies to fulfil God's purpose. You can't be ruitful and multiply by killing babies too, so anyway you go about it, it just does not fulfill God's purpose for humanity.
The point is that God and man are not the same. God owns human life and that has to be taken into the discussion if we are to take in any Bible passage. We can't only accept the passage that shows God ordering the killing of the Amalekites, and not take in the passages that say that God owns all human life.
Psa 24:1 A Psalm. Of David. The earth is the Lord's, with all its wealth; the world and all the people living in it. (BBE)

Did I say you said that in your quote to me here? My point is that it is what the Bible said. Besides, how is that a fallacy? And I recall you saying something along those lines here.
What purposes? Keep in mind the fact that we don't yet agree on what God's purpose actually is so for all you know, killing babies may actually be according to his purposes.
Well, God doesn't own human life so I'm not taking that into consideration for this discussion.

Tywin Lannister: Any man who must say, "I am the king" is no true king. I'll make sure you understand that when I've won your war for you. (Game of Thrones 3:10)

Image123: Psa 19:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.
Psa 19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge.
Psa 19:3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
Psa 19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

you are not in position to tell God what to do. he has done has it has pleased Him. If you want to know or understand Him better, you adjust to His terms. God uses humans, the Bible and all of nature. There are millions more who have heard and accepted, you remain infinitesimal in true perspective.
What part of I AM SATISFIED WITH GOD do you not understand? There is no pointr for me to investigate any other God, you may do well to since you are searching.

Out of doubt, out of dark, to the day's rising
he rode singing in the sun, sword unsheathing.
Hope he rekindled, and in hope ended;
over death, over dread, over doom lifted
out of loss, out of life, unto long glory.

I am in a position to tell God what to do if he actually cares about humans. Why don't you try to know or understand him better so that you can seriously realize the problem that is facing you and your God.
I'm not searching. I'm simply saying that if you're going to try to invite me to your God, then you should be ready to look at other Gods you don't believe in.

Image123: Jesus is alive.

Nope he is dead.

Image123: 2. True love- You do not. God is love.
3. joy-If there is any joy in you, it is at most peripheral. Most unbelievers i know have sorrow in the central. They seek for joy and happiness and hide under drinking and partying, and pursuit of scholarliness to relieve them of their central emptiness and depression.
4. peace- There is no peace for the wicked. Can you do months without doubting your atheism?
5. longsuffering- Do you even know what this means to start with?
6. gentleness- possible if you say so.
7. goodness- Unapproved goodness perhaps.
8. meekness- Obviously not.
9. temperance- i doubt it.

God is not love he is actually hate.
Well I have joy so you're wrong about that while you have no joy with your regular begging of God
I'm not wicked and I'm pretty much at peace. As far as I can tell, your Christianity doesn't
I know what it means and you clearly don't have it.
Oh yes I'm gentle. With God, you cannot be gentle.
You're obviously not meek
Neither do you show any signs of temperance.

Image123: i see.

Good

Image123: What is the freedom of sin that you have?

I'm free from your sin of hubris.

Image123: Yep, i do.
Pro 2:4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
Pro 2:5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
Col 1:10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;
It is very possible to have the knowledge of God. It is only impossible to fully comprehend Him, just like it is impossible to fill the ocean into a bucket.

Based on what you've said, you cannot say whether or not God's purpose is to kill children. After all, his killing children may be in the part of him that you don't comprehend.
'You cannot pass,' he said. The orcs stood still, and a dead silence fell. 'I am servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the shadow! You cannot pass.' (The Fellowship of the Ring)

Image123: Good to note that you do not believe in Brahma or know Brahma. You need Jesus, He says He loves you. i've seen so many brilliant people, and not too brilliant people who believe in Jesus and worship Him. i'm certain that you have too, there is nothing precious to lose in believing in and accepting Jesus.

You need Brahma. He says he is the creator. I've seen many brilliant people and not too brilliant people who believe in Brahma and worship him. Even if you've not seen them, that doesn't mean they're not out there, it just means you've not met the right people. There is nothing precious to lose in believing in and accepting Brahma.

mazaje: It is statements like these that make me wonder if anony is really serious when he says all these things. . .Why is it wrong to kill person A for the crimes of person B?. . .Are you really asking this or is this just your excuse at promoting an illconcived god idea that was not properly thought through by those that concieved of the idea?. . .Its wrong to kill Mr A for the crimes of Mr B because Mr B is innocent and killing innocent people is simply wrong. . .

What he doesn't realize this question exposes is that he is willing to abandon moral reasoning to try to win an argument.

Mr anony: I have not shown any inconsitencies in scripture neither are God's commands immoral. I have explained that the command is written in the language of Ancient Near East exaggeration and therefore it was not literally to kill everyone including infants. We also read in 15:8 that Saul killed everyone except Agag. Yet we see in chapter 30 a colony of fighting Amalekites.

Actually you have shown inconsistencies because what you're calling "Ancient Near East exaggeration" is what would be called a lie if we're to accept the Bible as being a source of accurate information.

Mr anony: You can't have it both ways: If you claim that the verse is literal, then you must explain chapter 30. If you claim that there is an inconsistency, then you cannot sustain your argument because your argument presupposes that that command actually happened. So yes we have established that what you claim is not what happened.

I'm not having anything both ways. God gave an immoral command that couldn't be carried out by his minions.
My argument doesn't presuppose that it happened, in fact, historical evidence doesn't support it but you're once again missing the point. The point is that delivering such a command is immoral whether or not it was carried out. Just as Charles Taylor's commands were immoral whether or not they were carried out.

Mr anony: Erhm....I'm afraid you have given a non-answer. Basically you've only said it is wrong to kill A for the crime of B because it is wrong to kill A for the crime of B. It is wrong because it is wrong is not a valid answer and does not explain anything. There is nothing upon which your morality is based.......unless you want to argue that these moral laws necessarily exist and are contingent on nothing (you will have to prove this by the way)

How is it not a valid answer? One aspect of my morality is based on the wrongness of killing someone for the crimes of another because what would follow from it is that you could be killed because someone else killed John Kennedy. As far as I can see, it is a basic premise of living in a society.

Mr anony: To answer your question: It is wrong because it is contrary to God's character (hear what God says in Jeremiah 7:31 referring to 2Chronicles 28:3)

It isn't contrary to God's character because he did give the command that children be killed for the crimes of their parents. Read the quote in my OP. Saying otherwise means implying that God is at best inconsistent and at worst self contradictory.

Image123: Why do you haveto border on fallacies and false assumptions? Who said that God's purpose was not for people to be fruitful and multiply? How does being fruitful and multiplying agree with your stance of killing babies being God's purpose? It is not pointless because God owns all human life, an 'altruist' does not own human life. God is acclaimed to be sovereign and omnipotent, man is not.

What fallacy did you see me commit? If God's purpose was to be fruitful and multiply, then why did you say the purpose of humans was to praise him? My point is that whatever God's purpose is, you cannot say that it is to be good towards humans. No, God doesn't own human life.

Image123: Wrong, God says to draw close to Him. You do not even know what Brahma has to say. God satisfies me, Brahma does not satisfy you.

Well God should come and tell me himself rather than relying on poor and fallible sources of information like you and the Bible. I don't believe in Brahma either. But if you're going to be believing in Gods, you may as well investigate the other Gods out there.

Image123: Kindly deny and state in front of each of what i listed to start with. Write in front of each, which one does not exist, is not needed, or you are not missing. Tell me which one you have,
1. Jesus,

Is dead if he ever lived.

Image123: 2. True love,
3. joy,
4. peace,
5. longsuffering,
6. gentleness,
7. goodness,
8. meekness,
9. temperance,

I have the qualities you've listed above.

Image123: 10. the Holy Spirit,

I see no reason to believe that there is such an entity.

Image123: 11. freedom from so many sins,

You and I don't share the same idea of what a sin is so you don't have the freedom from sins that I do.

Image123: 12. knowledge of God among others.

Do you have knowledge of God? Can you even have knowledge of an entity that is supposed to be unknowable?

Image123: These are just few to start with and are things the human race needs, wants and even desires, unlike the words that you claim that i am missing which i am certain that you neither have.

If you're just going to throw about things you think others are missing because they don't believe as you do, then I'll throw out other things you're missing because you don't believe as others to.

Mr anony: 1 Samuel 15 is an example of Ancient Near East exaggeration signifying extensive destruction but not necessarily absolute destruction and therefore does not literally mean that the Israelites to killed all the people including infants. We know this because we still see that the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 30 attack David and carry away his wives (mind you this happened during Saul's lifetime). If you maintain that 1Samuel 15 is to be taken literally as an utter genocide, then you will have to explain how come a few years later we still have an Amalekite army attacking and enslaving people.

And it happened when David and his men had come to Ziklag on the third day, the Amalekites had invaded the south and Ziklag, and had struck Ziklag, and burned it with fire. And they had seized the women in it. They did not kill any, either small or great, but carried them away and went on their way. And David and his men came to the city, and behold, it was burned with fire, and their wives and their sons and their daughters had been taken captives. And David and the people with him lifted up their voice and wept, until they had no more power to weep.
1Samuel 30:1-4

This doesn't help your case at all. You're showing an inconsistency in the Bible while ignoring the core problem. The problem isn't whether or not the command was fully carried out, but that it was given in the first place by a God that is supposed to be moral.

Mr anony: We have established that this is not what happened in the story.

No we haven't established this.

Mr anony: It depends largely on the context however in a very general "facevalue" sense; No it is not moral.

So we're in agreement that the command given by God is immoral.

Mr anony: Your turn: Why is it morally wrong to kill children and infants for the crimes of their parents?

I see no point in answering this question since we already agree that the act is immoral whichever way we arrive at this conclusion.
You know what? I'll answer anyway. It is morally wrong because killing people for crimes they didn't commit is wrong.
Back to you. Why do you think it is morally wrong to kill children and infants for the crimes of their parents?

Image123: What i thought? i gave you Bible passages that say so, they are not my thoughts. God formed man to praise Him, to glorify Him, to live in holiness and righteousness. What makes the difference pointless? Who decides what is pointless about the difference between man and God, and what is the base for that difference? God owns and created all human life. Man created no life.

Oh? So his purpose wasn't for people to be fruitful and multiply? Everything is pointless because if we're talking about morality, there is no reason why a murdering God who is claimed to be moral cannot have his actions assessed.

Image123: So you do not know Brahma after all, hmmm. Here is your ration and logic paraphrased.
i work for an institution where i have all that i need, a home, a progressing career, automobile, education for my self and family, a happy family, sponsored holidays and the etc that man craves for.
You come to me and say why don't i work for ABCD instead. i ask who is ABCD, tell me about ABCD and what ABCD has to offer that will make me leave my institution. Do you know anyone at ABCD or do you work for ABCD.
Then you say that it is irrelevant that you know ABCD or know someone who knows ABCD. But i need to come work with ABCD.

You do realize that when you ask me to come close to this God of yours, you're asking me to do what you're unwilling to do with Brahma and you analogy also illustrates this fact clearly. The difference being that you're offering me magical entities.

Image123: That is not just up there, thanks. You are not content with your character like you stated. You feel that emptiness and hopelessness. You need to continually convince yourself that there is no God. You've continued to persuade your brain but something inside you still constantly gets you back on trying to prove without doubt that there is no God. You're missing Jesus, true love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, temperance, the Holy Spirit, freedom from so many sins, knowledge of God among others. You're missing Jesus, true love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, temperance, the Holy Spirit, freedom from so many sins, knowledge of God among others. Most of these things are what humans want and need, but you cannot have them. Only God can give them. You need a paradigm shift.

And here you go again claiming that I'm missing something that you cannot show exists, isn't needed or that I'm not missing at all. So, you on the other hand are missing Acharya, brahmavidya, sandhyavandana, brahmayajna, aupasana, puja, vaisvadeva among others.

Image123: You're missing a million things literally. You're missing Jesus, true love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, temperance, the Holy Spirit, freedom from so many sins, knowledge of God among others.
i already understand why i refuse to draw close to Brama, i'm fully satisfied in God, neither have i nor you known anyone who believes in this Brahma.

Whether or not I know someone who believes in Brahma is irrelevant. I'm not missing the imaginary characters like Jesus and the Holy Spirit and I'm content with my character. You on the other hand are missing millions of things literally. You're missing Acharya, brahmavidya, sandhyavandana, brahmayajna, aupasana, puja, vaisvadeva among others. Why don't you reconsider trying to drawing close to Brahma?

Image123: Already showed you God's purpose, are you a robot? You may want to revise the thread and observe where i told you God's purpose for man with scripture passages and also how i explained to you the difference between man and God.

You showed what you thought was God's purpose but from the Bible, it looks like he had some other purpose. The difference you're talking about is pointless when it comes to killing babies.

Image123: Answered this already when you asked me. God's purpose is not for us to go about killing children. Many children suffer and become somebody later, like our country's president.You are yet to explain how God commanding the killing of the amalakites is not the right thing to do.

How do you know that isn't God's purpose? He's been killing children himself and with others.
You're yet to explain how God commanding that killing is the right thing to do since if it were the right thing to do, then it should be right for people to generally keep doing it.