₦airaland Forum

Hmm. It begins. Let's hope that this one too isn't doing something somewhere.

shejane: thank God u said human, nd av u judge ursef 2day? I guess no, nd wil judging him change him? No, ar u helping ursef as a christian by judging him? So wots d point, my Lord is a God dat can fight 4 himsef he dot need u 2 fight 4 him, live a life worth living as a christian nd belv me u wil nt bother ursef wt tins lyk dis bt commit dem 2 God. Thank u

The point of judging him is to show him and you that some of us won't be fooled. Sure you say you won't judge him but you'll happily judge some lady for wearing clothes that you think are inappropriate.

Uyi Iredia: Yours is the fallacy of secundum quid where you ignore the special case here: that God isn't man, he created man. More importantly, why say a person (God or man) is evil for heinious acts ? Heinous acts are done by natural forces and apparently few say such forces are evil, they are simply accepted. Apparently, this logic is why God is worshipped despite OT evils.




I'm more interested in ascertaining the depth of your thought on morality. It isn superficial so far. For example my previous question was to get you to ask why anyone is called evil for a heinous crime and so ascertain whether this was simply assumed true or there was some moral absolute behind it: you answer speaks little.



It is. Do you wish to counter it or will sentiment becloud your reasoning ?



I see.



What you've described is in part what hardball is. Since you've quipped about winning some times here, I ask, do YOU want to win, if not, what's your purpose for this thread ?




Minor lies lead to the major ones. You make lying a habit and major lies will come easy. The same goes for murder which is what genocide is a sub-set of.




The basis is none but this: my ability to arbitrate that it is evil. Any other basis would simply be circular and redefine what is evil.




Frustration . . . the emotion with affinity to irrationality. The views I hold are nothing but that and can be retermed as choices. You or the larger society don't have to agree with them. My reasoning thus far since you played decietfully by not keeping to conditions in my question on whether lying was wrong, after I gave a simple answer to yours (Yes). The men you call evil have more balls than you, they did what they deemed good and what many thought evil, got others to do such good and maintained it in the face of judgement by people who were (and probably knew they were_save the hypocrites) no better than them. Nuremberg trial thingz.



So you wish to use my actual views to turn the argument around whilst holding lies to be okay depending. You ask me ues/no questions and want me to swallow your absurdity of lies being okay depending. All the while ignoring cogent questions, as usual.




True. Moreso if you knew where my thoughts go on issues such as murder, torture and rape. As the theist you accuse sentiments becloud your thinking.



Is the equal-rights activist also open, liking or tolerant of supremacism of suprematists ? I think not. Both you and the supremacist should wallow in your puerile sentiments, one much in kind like the other but hardly discerned.



Qualification or readiness is a state of mind which is arbitrated for. Whilst you must comfort yourself as lesser minds do feel free to not respond. But ask this simple questions:

* What is good or evil ? I deem both but choice
* Why is someone deemed evil for very heinous despite one's good or vice-versa ? I deem it choice.
* Where does good and evil come from ? I understand it to be constructs of a sufficiently intelligent mind.

If you have better answers, pray tell.

I'll just save this here for posterity.

Uyi Iredia: We'll see.



We do base things on the heinousness. To be sure, summarize how bad a thing is to justify terming of evil. That said, your statement fails to take into cognizance the simple difference: it's God not man. We agree genocide is evil. You have said already God's evil outweighs the good and that this holds since the heinousness of a crime is what categorizes someone as evil. Now why is that ?

This God is supposed to be a person isn't he? So merely saying that it is God is pointless unless you wish to commit the special pleading fallacy implying that God is some special person that morality doesn't apply to.
I've told you that I'm saying that because that is how we talk about evil people. That is why we say Charles Taylor, Hitler, Stalin etc were evil people.

Uyi Iredia: No, you ask if it has been justified and I responded affirmatively.

You should have read my questions before you rushed to try to win the argument at all costs. I asked:

thehomer: Under what conditions is genocide acceptable? Please give me 3 ways that e.g the genocide against Jews could be seen as moral or acceptable.

Uyi Iredia: Much quicker, cost-efficient and less-risky. Quarantines and treatment would increase risk of spread, cost money and time.

And this is your moral reason for justifying a genocide?

Uyi Iredia: Keep your moral suasion and fallacious reasoning to yourself. If a partaker of the genocide leaves a potential victim alive, his moment of kindness could backfire given revenge. That my friend is the thinking of a killer.

And this tells me that you're not ready for moral reasoning.

Uyi Iredia: Please ! You are: not answering yes/no to whether lying is good and saying 'it depends' and for a curious reason deem not the same of genocide is lying. Hence, my dark side and the hardball I now play.

You're not playing hardball, you're abandoning moral reasoning to try to win an argument. Lying is very different from genocide.

Uyi Iredia: I see. So why should this apply to lies and not genocides ? Your thinking sounds ill-thought since seemingly harmless lies can lead to great disaster and lying for good is observer-dependent: some see lying in Jesus' name good for business, while you would justify liars who do so to protect loved ones from death.

There are minor lies and major lies but genocide, by its non-discrimination, places it in a different category. That is why I said:

thehomer: That depends on the lie. You're welcome to better clarify your question.

Uyi Iredia: Sure, it can, ergo, genocides/massacres by humans.

This is a very sad response. So on what basis can you say that the Rwandan genocide was something wrong?

Uyi Iredia: Not confused. What's more confusing (or rather problematic) for me is wedding the concept of God with space. Or having to deal with your pettiness repeatedly.

I see, then answer the following questions and let's see how CONSISTENT your moral thinking is. Where do you think moral reasoning comes from ? What makes one moral reasoning better than the other ? Do you think morals are merely opinions or that there are certain morals all humans must subscribe to ?

This line of questioning is irrelevant and frankly based on your responses with respect to genocide, I don't see any reason to continue this discussion with you. Apparently, you're having some difficulty with carrying out moral philosophy or you merely want to try to win an argument by abandoning views you actually hold. You accept that commanding genocide is evil yet you're trying to justify it with some pointless convoluted lines of reasoning.

This tells me that either you're willing to abandon views you actually hold as an attempt to win or you're not someone I'd like to have such a discussion with. Just as I won't bother discussing the problems of racism with a supremacist who refuses to be open to questioning their preumptions. Based on what you've been saying, you're simply not qualified or not ready to talk about these issues.

Uyi Iredia: But, the question remains on why God is called evil for an evil action despite the good. You claim that God's evil outweighs His good. Reason demands this be substatiated, you are yet to.

I have done this but for some reason, you do not understand anything I've said. I said:

thehomer: If you agree that the acts are evil, then whether or not the acts are evil is pretty much settled for this discussion. I would call myself evil if I had commanded genocides too. And I told you that we do not assess characters that way otherwise no one would be considered as good or evil.

What I'm saying to repeat myself is that we do not tabulate the evil actions a person has committed and compare that to other things the person has done, we say someone is evil based on how heinousness of the act they committed. Thus, God belongs in the evil category because he has commanded a genocide. i.e he belongs in the same category as anyone else who has commanded a genocide. Removing God from that category means that one cannot refer to any other person as being evil. Please take the time to read through this and understand it before responding.

Uyi Iredia: I am okay with the rough sketch presented.

1) It can and has been justified, Nazi Germany supported genocide that way either by omission or commission.

I'm not asking you if Nazi Germany justified or supported it, I'm asking you if that was the moral thing to do. From your response, you seem to think that it was.

Uyi Iredia: 2) True. Then let's constrain it to a disease wherein they are located. Genocide could, in fact, help, moreso since all
humans are at risk.

Why would genocide be the justified option rather than placing the affected population in a quarantine and treating the affected members?

Uyi Iredia: 3) The child may want revenge for the death of his parents. To eliminate the RISK of such the child should be killed.

Wow. This is very amazing. So you seriously support killing the child of a person to eliminate the risk that the child would want revenge? Is this the sort of moral reasoning you perform?

Uyi Iredia: Remember, you played sasquatch and I said I will, and am, playing hardball: take your moral suasion to pit. If you are dishonest to claim lying is good given certain contexts, I deem it good measure to state the same of murder of any scope. I must note though it is much clear you aren't balancing the good God has done inspite inspite evil actions; it is clear you can justify a bad thing lying (which is opposed to honesty) given certain contexts and because of a gut disgust to violence involved you wish to deprive murder, in particular genocide, of that reasoning; it is clear you are haven't asked hard moral questions like why is murder (which deprives someone's right to life) wrong ?

I'm not playing anything here. I'm simply saying that lying can be morally justified in some cases but genocide cannot be morally justified but it looks like you think that genocide can be morally justified. It looks to me like you're confused about the issue of morality or are just trying to win an argument even if it makes you abandon moral reasoning.

crowntoro: so wat is meaning of abortion? Enlighten me pls

Okay, I will.

Abortion: The act of inducing the cessation of pregnancy.

Murder: An act of deliberate killing of another being, especially a human.

Take the time to get yourself informed on the issues.

themaskedman: You know this is a very stupid comment. Imo State may not be owned by Catholics but still Catholics have they right to fight against what goes against their belief. Catholics have been fighting against abortion and anti pro life policies in the USA a country more religiously diverse than Imo State and nobody has told them America doesn‘t belong to them alone. The Catholic doctors have given their reasons why not give your own in support and move on.
Btw do you know that if voting were to be done on religious line strictly, Catholics will always carry the day in Imo State?

This is an extremely stupid response. They have that right but that doesn't mean they can impose their totally religious views on everyone they can affect. What is their reason? And just how valid is this reason of theirs? You're welcome to state it and defend it. Merely saying "my church says it is wrong" or "the law is anti-God" means that they're not ready to seriously defend their views.

So what? It tells you that the voting people are smarter than Catholic dogma dictates. In fact, despite the stance of the Catholic church on contraception, most Catholic women actually use contraception. So, try to use your brain when trying to present an argument.

[quote author=Mr. Aladin]and imo isn't own by Rochas[/quote]That is why the law presented by the state house was signed by him. That is an indication of what the citizens of Imo state want. And what they want is also something better than the alternative.

Uyi Iredia: So what if I agree ? The conclusion God is evil doesn't follow, all the moreso since you for example won't call yourself evil and you've done evil things. That said, your point here is a non-sequitur: if your reply to my question (which I've honored) is that God's bad outweighs his good we must compare both, I've demanded a list of both for comparison which you should do.

If you agree that the acts are evil, then whether or not the acts are evil is pretty much settled for this discussion. I would call myself evil if I had commanded genocides too. And I told you that we do not assess characters that way otherwise no one would be considered as good or evil.

Uyi Iredia: If the Jews explicitly threaten life on earth. A number of scenarios can be built around this, Hitler used economic repression and their alleged betrayal during WW1 for instance (1). They could harbor an extremely virulent disease (2), or actually want to destroy a people (3).

Go ahead and build these scenarios.

1) Are you serious? You're telling me that genocide can be justified based on an alleged betrayal? Or alleged economic repression?
2) Biology doesn't allow for this disease scenario. Either the disease is genetic affecting them alone, or it is contagious to humans in general. Either way, genocide won't help.
3) Then you charge those that are guilty rather than killing everyone based on who their grand parents were. i.e you don't kill a 6 month old Jewish child because their gran-father did something wrong.

Why don't you pause and take a look at what you're doing. You're trying to justify genocide. This looks to me like a desire to win at all costs when the discussion is on morality.

Image123: there is no need to assume here thomer, you do not know. you have pitifully failed to show or establish any reason for your baseless assumption. It is stating the obvious to tell you it is a strawman fallacy that you threw up. i'd rather avoid the fallacy banding seeing it's your nature. Here is what God stated about the flood. NOWHERE did He state that He was sending a flood to wipe away evil.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

NO PLACE did He state that He would destroy evil, you are imagining things and being true to your fallacious nature. i already told you the purpose of the flood, seemed you selectively read me and skipped it. Again, it was to punish/judge the people by destroying them.

Wow. You're really unable to see the problems with what you've just said. You're saying God commanded the flood that killed everyone - men, women, children, infants - except a family of 8 people not to stop evil, not to make the world better but because some of those men and women did something wrong. He did this knowing that his killing these people won't improve the society and won't protect those who haven't committed any crimes. In other words, he killed everyone knowing that there wouldn't be a positive outcome.

Image123: There goes another strawman. nobody mentioned making the society safer except you.

How is it a strawman? I'm telling you why we actually take the time to lock people in jail. You asked me a question and I answered. If jailing offenders doesn't make the society safer, then what would be the point of jailing those offenders?

Image123: So goodness is like redness and fiveness? Interesting. Are these also moral concepts in your world? God is whatgood is, there is nothing good outside God. That is the fact that you may need a lifetime to wrap your head around.
Jam 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Yes. They're all abstractions. You'll notice that like "goodness" neither "redness" nor "fiveness" can be a person so saying God is goodness means he too is an abstraction. Frankly having this conversation with you is getting difficult because you seem unable to handle abstract concepts.

Image123: You were talking about a murderer being an altruist, remember? That does not fulfill God's purpose of creating man/babies. Simples. Dominion is not used here in the sense of oppression or force but in the sense of mastery of the earth and every other created thing. Glorifying God includes living a holy life of victory, this a baby cannot do.

You said God's purpose was dominion. Well killing babies doesn't mean man won't be able to dominate or master the earth so you need to pick another reason.

Image123: Being able to give one's child one's shoes is just a minimal part of what inheriting implies. Inheriting also deals with heredity of health and ill health, character traits, and of a life. Your willingness to have a next of kin shows off that you approve of others being rewarded for what you have done incase you die. God does it for all and sundry. You can get your parents good looks or bad looks, thir propensity for certain height and weight or blood or disease. If you live healthy, your child reaps from it, and vice versa. Also if you work hard or lazily, your child reaps from it. If you live a good life and name, your child reaps from it and vice versa. That is how God has permitted nature and reality to be. If you think that is unfair, sorry i do not. Because even at the end of the day, we still get to make ourselves to an extent. A poor man's kid can still become rich and so on and so forth.

Based on what you're saying here, is it right for the Nigerian government to kill Abacha's son because his father ordered some people to be killed?

Image123: Yep,they committed the crimes as i have shown you from 1Samuel, Ezekiel and other passages.
1Sa 15:32 Then said Samuel, Bring you here to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. Agag came to him cheerfully. Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is past.
1Sa 15:33 Samuel said, As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women. Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before Yahweh in Gilgal.
On a sidenote, i want to ask, do you think they should have killed the old and left the 6month olds? 6 month olds somehow get to survive on their own? Or you think they should have adopted them, or what? Give me your goody options. Can you tell me what anyone baby has done wrong to be born in a place like Nigeria(or wherever else you think unpleasant) when he could be born in America(or wherever else you think okay)? Why does anyone has to be born into a poor home or debt or disease stricken home? Are they going to be immune from the evil and suffering their parents are undergoing? Should 'bad' people and folks who cannot take care of children be barren? Are there some set of people who you feel have to right to give birth? i'm almost certain you will skip these questions ALSO.

How could a 6 month old child have committed any crime? What on earth are you saying? Or are you deliberately trying to misunderstand what I've said?
Before I answer your questions, I'll need some clarification. Are you asking me what should have happened assuming that there was a good God? Or are you asking me to answer based on the absence of a God?

Image123: God has never ordered genocide, not to talk of ordering it again, duh. Genocide is murder and genocide is a crime.
The quotes show us that one, God spoke through His prophets like Moses and Samuel. Of course you agree to that, else we should be arguing Moses or Samuel killing Amalekites instead of God. At our own time, God has spoken through Jesus.
Heb 1:1 God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
His Son has said among other things, love everyone, including enemies. To pray for them, to be pitiful, to be courteous, to honour all men. He has told us that we are all one in Him and that there is no Jew or Gentile discrimination again, that He has broken the middle wall of partition, and died for us when we were enemies. He does not want anyone to perish but has offered humanity a new agreement/covenant.
The bolded are all things found in the Bible, which you have read and know that Jesus has said either directly or through His disciples. Based on this, it is ascertained what God has told us about such actions. The whole of Matthew 5 always make a good read anyday.
Mat 5:44 But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you,
Mat 5:45 that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.

Then you don't understand what the English meaning of genocide is. This is the definition I'm using please tell me whether you agree with that definition or not. If you don't, please present your own definition.

Wiktionary: Acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or a significant portion of, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

Based on the definition I've given above and the English Language, God did command a genocide so what you've said above is factually incorrect.

Image123: i've simply shown you that what a judge does cannot be done by every other person. People cannot just take laws into their hands or work jungle justice. You cannot assault, harm or kill a convict simply because a judge can. You cannot go and kill people simply because God can. How you refuse to see this plain view point is amazing (thank God for the Bible that gave me prior tips)

What a doctors, architects, lawyers, footballers do cannot be done by every other person so saying that doesn't mean that what they do cannot actually be judged. Again, what you're saying here amounts to might makes right. i.e God can do whatever he wants not because he is just or moral but because he is powerful. I'm sorry but that doesn't fly as a moral argument.

Uyi Iredia: How does God's evil outweigh His good: give a short list for comparison ? You are having issues comprehending a well-explained fallacy. Saying God is evil because of, as you say he does evil actions obviously begs the question of why his actions are deemed evil: what you've stated is as circular as saying God is evil because He is evil.

This is the sort of pointless response that exposes your dishonesty. You agree that the actions are evil so my saying they're evil isn't in dispute. I'm saying God is evil because he commits acts that you and I consider as being evil. Unless you honestly wish to say that commanding genocides isn't an evil act, then you're merely being dishonest.

Uyi Iredia: Given your continued dishonesty here I will adjust my earlier reply on genocides to be: it depends_seriously. In a situation genocide is fully understandable, in another it is uncalled for. Now if you want to play sasquatch with lying, I'll play hardball on genocides.

Under what conditions is genocide acceptable? Please give me 3 ways that e.g the genocide against Jews could be seen as moral or acceptable.

[quote author=I-B.]For whichever reason, abortion is not an option.
Killing "nations"(babies) and calling it abortion for flimsy excuses. [/quote]So no abortion even if the person pregnant is a 12 year old child raped by her step-father?

Saraben: Abortion is simply murder no 2 ways abt it

Abortion is not murder.

I'm with Okorocha on this one. He is making this law in the best interests of the people of his state. Imo state isn't owned by Catholics.

Uyi Iredia: Simple. Why is God said to be evil for His actions despite all the good He has done ? Telling me He is evil for genocides only begs the aspect of my question on God being evil for His actions (genocides being one), ensure your reply doesn't question-beg or isn't circular.

Because the evil he has done is particularly egregious and outweighs what you're referring to as the good he has done. You don't seem to understand what begging the question is because you're misusing it here. Saying God is evil because he's done evil things isn't question begging. Neither is it question begging when I'm applying to God the same sorts of reasoning I would use with any other person who gave the same command he did despite the person feeding his own children three meals a day.

Uyi Iredia: This is a dishonesty typical of you. You demanded a yes-no answer and I honored it. I return a question in like manner, knowing full well that you could resort to the above response, and you actually fail at evading: answer the question with a yes or no or expect me to disavow my earlier answer to your question in this discourse.

I demanded a yes or no because my question was very clear. Yours isn't clear because one can say that lying in a certain situation is immoral while in another situation, it isn't immoral. I can present you with such situations and have you answer your own question too. You should have thought through that before posing the empty question. That is the same answer I would give if you replaced lying with killing.

Uyi Iredia: I didn't because it wrongly presumes my logic thus far which questions why God is called evil for evil stuff in spite the good He's done. A question you continually fail at evading.

You're welcome to show me this question you're accusing me of evading. Please take the time to ensure that the question is relevant.

Uyi Iredia: Yes. Now is lying evil ? Kindly answer with a yes or no.

That depends on the lie. You're welcome to better clarify your question.

seangy4konji: Did u go to school at all?do u know what abuse means?

Is this the best response you could come up with after going to school?

Aren't there universities of agriculture in Nigeria? Or is this an implicit admission that the universities don't work?

This is amazing. Because she had the guts to challenge some self proclaimed man of God, she now has to be trashed and insulted? Those hurling these insults should realize that abusing her doesn't negate the accusations. Neither does it justify this Abiodun's serial adultery.

Rather than insulting someone who has opened our eyes to the hypocrisy of this particular pastor, why not ask the pastor to explain these accusations against him?

Uyi Iredia: You keep on begging the question. Your statement as evil of something God did in the Bible is what begs my question of your judgement of God as evil. By my ideas, we can still say they at least, have done good despite being qualified as evil persons by people who at one time or another did evil.

Notice that you did not answer the direct question I asked. Do you agree that what I pointed out as being evil is evil? I'm not asking whether these people are considered to have done some good things but whether or not the acts I highlighted are evil.

Uyi Iredia: The weak point of this argument is that you depend on one's empathy to compel them to agree with your point. All I ask is why you think your judgement of God as evil makes sense. Now you assert that people who order genocides are evil, can you present a reason for this or is this presumed.

It is presumed that commanding genocides is evil. Do you think commanding genocides is evil? Please answer with a yes or no.

Image123: The flood was not sent to wipe out evil, if you cannot take in that simple fact, good luck to you. You cannot force a primary purpose on another's action and then claim that the person failed. What you need to do is find out the purpose instead of baseless assumptions.

Okay assume I don't know what the purpose of the flood was. Can you tell me what the purpose of the flood was?

Image123: You said that it was pointless of God to punish the people with the flood seeing that they would not change. i simply threw it across to you as putting you in similar shoes/circumstances. You believe criminals should be punished, but you have a problem with God punishing criminals. Where is the consistency?

God wasn't just punishing criminals, he was also punishing the 2 year old child who had nothing to do with the crime. Notice too that locking criminals in jails is to make the society safer. God killing everyone wasn't to make society safer. So what was his reason?

Image123: i'm not just saying that God is good as an attribute. Understand me perfectly, i am saying that God is what good is, God is the definition of good. i also have not said that good is relative, but that good acts are. What is good to do for this person A may not be good to do for person B. Whatever God does is good. What is moral reasoning, and who is in charge of its standard?

Saying that God is goodness means that God isn't an actual entity that exists but is an abstract concept like numbers. i.e it is no better than saying God is what "Redness" is or God is what "Fiveness" is.

Image123: God's purpose for creating man is expressly revealed in the Bible. It is that man should have dominion, and that we should glorify Him. If you need scriptures that say that, i will show.

Well the purpose you've stated here has nothing to do with morality so you may want to pick another purpose. After all, Charles Taylor using child soldiers doesn't stop man from having dominion.

Image123: Well, you said that you had issues with one being rewarded for what the ancestors had done. Actually, that is the whole idea of an inheritance or next of kin. That all your fortunes, savings, pension and wealth be passed on to a particular person or group in case you died. Humans want that, and nature does that. You inherit what they call hereditary traits, you inherit nationality, wealth or poverty, a name, hiv etc. This is very much consistent with how God deals with humans. He rewards the children of the righteous with favour and blessing, like in the case of Abraham and David. He rewards the children of the unrighteous with punishment like in the case of Amalek and sinful Israelites before captivity. But He has a caveat which i have shown you. If the children/next generation change their ways, God changes what He planned to give them. i have shown you how Amalek consistently offended Israel and Israelites for different generations, INCLUDING the generation that received the punishment. The actions of others in the society and the leadership will definitely affect the rest in the society, that is reality anywhere and time. If you think the corruption and frivolity of current leadership has no effect or should have no effect on the masses, its high time you moved to Mars.

Once again, you've ignored something clear and direct. How does being able to give one's child one's shoes mean that you can kill their 6 month old baby if they kill someone else?

Image123: Is it okay for the old ones to be killed, i mean the old amalekites, older than 6month or whatever pity age you come up with?

Did they commit the crimes? Once again, you've decided to run from the direct question. Call it pity age or whatever you like but simply answer the question. So can you tell me what the 6 month old child has done that it deserves to be killed? I'm using 6 month old to make the reasoning easier for you to respond to.

Image123: Because His Word says so.
Heb 1:1 God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
God who spake by the prophets like Moses and Samuel has in these time spoken by His Son Jesus. His Son Jesus has told us to love everyone, including enemies. To pray for them, to be pitiful, to be courteous, to honour all men. He has told us that we are all one in Him and that there is no Jew or Gentile discrimination again, that He has broken the middle wall of partition, and died for us when we were enemies. He does not want anyone to perish but has offered humanity a new agreement/covenant.
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

The quotes don't say that God will never again order genocide.

Image123: Your argument borders on God having no right to judge. It centred on yourself having equal right to do as He has done. that is why i had to remind you that there are things that a judge can do that others cannot do. The Judge is empowered to punish in a way that others cannot. God is just in every punishment He has given.

What you're saying amounts to might makes right. You seem to be saying that since the judge can do what others cannot do, therefore what he does is right. Well, guess what? I disagree with that notion. The fact that Abacha could order someone to be killed while others couldn't doesn't mean his order is right.

If God is a person then I have a right to judge him whether or not he is more powerful than I am.

Image123: hehehehe, of course. We'll sit next to each other all through this convention by grace.

Hmm. If that is what you want. Just don't complain when people cast disapproving glances at you.

If attack is a sign of divine favour, is no attack a sign of no divine favour? If they're both signs of divine favour, how can one recognize an absence of divine favour?

shejane: Who ar we 2 judge? We ar only but humans, pastors nd revs sins shd b 4 God nd us. As a christian u claim 2b all u need 2 do is to pray 4 dem nd commit dem 2 God 4 judgement nt us. Nd if we search oursef we ar worst dan dem. Dis heavenly race is an individual race nd u nd ur pastor or anybody jus u. Live ritely nd pray 4 sinners 2 repent include ur pastors pls. Jesus is Lord

I am a human with a brain that is why I will judge.

Linoversace: In pastor's words:

Don't fight over anything,never fight for yourself..depend on God!

Even Ibori can say the same thing in response to his accusers. Still doesn't mean he didn't commit the crimes he was charged for.

DrummaBoy: Yes, please. It was stated in the introduction @ the OP

Oh. I missed it in my joy to partake of this potentially wonderful e-convention. I really hope the hosts will be able to communicate effectively and respond to questions without insults.

This is not a response. He can begin his response by either admitting that he did the things he was accused of and claiming to have discussed it with God and changed or he can deny the accusations and dare his accusers to post the evidence of their accusations.

What is the reason for this rally? Is it merely because this Morsi is a Muslim? Or is it because he was pushing Sharia? Or are they now in support of democracy? Or is there some other reason?

Are non-Christians invited?

I for one have a lot of respect for Ese because she decided to speak up against the hypocrisy of this particular serial adulterer who cloaks himself in God, Jesus and Bible. She has done what women rarely do and what people rarely do against powerful and wealthy preachers. That's a two for one shot.

fisayo: Lol ... all the emotion spilled just by a single blog that's not even been verified by anyone with evidence. I just hope my friends will not crucify me and call me names just because of an article on a free platform. I'm not saying the pastor is innocent but I don't have enough information to nail him either (not like it's my business sef)

It looks like the man is a serial adulterer at least according to this writer. By the way, what sort of information are you looking for? A sex tape? Or the man confessing today in his church?

An interesting resource to be used when needed.
Bookmarked the site.