₦airaland Forum

winner01:
The fact that you cant grasp the concept of God's unending love and mercy only shows how human you are.

You Note: Human opinions, models and theories are created for humans by humans. You cant fit your Creator into your created models. That is exactly what makes God GOD and man MAN.

How do you know God loves you and how do you know what he wants?

KingEbukasBlog:
Hehe . There is one fine question I asked thehomer on morality .

And thehomer's response was on that thread. He said

thehomer:
I don't know. Was he an evil man to you?



Jesus the other God. I couldn't have run from you. The ways the discussion could have ended are that I may not have seen your response or you were demonstrating a level of reasoning too poor for me to tolerate in that discussion. You're welcome to resurrect that thread and I'll assess whether or not it would be useful for me to respond.

That was the question you couldn't answer. Are you ready to answer it? If you are, please answer.

Brigance:
I belong on the 'opposite' side science.

I am a law student in one of the federal universities.

But recently, I've flirted with physics enough to imagine how one would actually live in a world he knows next to nothing about.

Imagine an Apple falls on my head in the garden and the next thing I say is 'Thank Zeus, for plucking me the apple.'

I would love to learn physics and I'd love if you'd help me.

I bought a physics textbook already and I'm not foolish to think i wont have problems studying it.

Here i am. infact, here we are(I am certain quite a number of people here are in my shoes.)

I'd post problems as often i encounter them in the textbook.

cc Jonnydon22, tempaakguy, sirwere, thehomer, plaetton, Joseph1013, esukekereode.

You may be better off auditing classes or sitting down with physics students at your university.

Alternatively, you can teach yourself on khanacademy.org

Joagbaje:
That's why I asked , did Jesus go to such places to heal? He healed those who came to him. Why didn't he raise all he dead in the grave yard ?

I don't know, maybe it was all lies.

Joagbaje:
The point is Ministers are not called that way, the were primarily called to preach and lead people to God. Miracles are only signs yo draw people to the existence ,reality and power of God . And the faith of the people are also required to receive a miracle most of the time . So the principle is If you believe in the man of God you will come.

Why can't God directly reveal himself to each person rather than going through another intermediary knowing that all these intermediaries are also flawed? Why does he need faith to work? Paracetamol and penicillin don't need faith to work. Is your God weaker than both of them?

Joagbaje:
That's not the point . Maybe I'm not getting you.

What don't you get?

Amberon:
TB Joshua has no vehicles of his own, he mostly uses the church buses and has no convoy. TB Joshua heals people who go to his church asking for miracles and he does so every Sunday up till 2:am in the morning. Benite|| can confirm this so say what you know.

He owns the church. Sure he heals people yet hospitals around his church haven't run out of patients, orphanages still have disabled children.

Amberon:
You want famous people yh? did you know he healed the veteran actor Enebeli Enebuwa of parapalysis so many years ago? the video is there for your viewing pleasure. He healed a Malawian minister (don't know her name but Google is your friend). everybody knows African leaders are too rich and cannot be bribed. He delivered a famous SA international opera singer named Kimmy Skota. Didn't he also deliver Jim Iyke? and you said he was acting? He also healed westerhof and the video is there too along with many others.

I don't want famous people, I just want people who have actually been professionally diagnosed of medical ailments. Didn't Enebeli die of a stroke? There are still hospitals and orphanages in Lagos with actually ill people. Talking about deliverance from imaginary illnesses isn't impressive.

Amberon:
you are not a smart person and henceforth I desist from further responding.

You are actually an unintelligent person. You should stop exposing your stupidity.

Amberon11:
they are far from being intellectual. How did the sick people locate Jesus in the bible. Didn't the lame man's friends take him (the lame man) to see Jesus?

didn't sick and blind people follow Jesus crying out to them for help as he walked past crowds?

Oh and won't you also rebuke him asking why he didn't go to all the hospitals even if he did go to some?

Do you also prophet TB Joshua during the early days of his ministry used to go hospitals healing people? do you know that he spent his Saturdays visiting orphanage children and widows and giving them money and gifts? (The late MKO Abiola's adviser confirmed this).

Didn't you also read on NL some months back when a pastor healed a mad man (who many knew was mad and had been roaming the streets for years) in broad daylight?

Some NL users even confirmed that the knew the mad man and his family.

So my question is what do you people want with Christianity?

I don't know how they located him but how many hospitals do you know about in Judea?

TB Joshua is just fraudster. Now he has multiple cars and convoys, he still cannot go around healing them two or three days a week?

Giving me a story about an anonymous person healed isn't good enough.

Amberon11:
Are you ok?

Do you go about entertaining people you see on the streets? don't you only entertain them when they come to your house?

Did you not see his Mexican crude and the hundreds of people that were healed? was that his church?

Did Jesus go about schools and orphanages healing people? Didn't he only heal those who came to him?

why can't you make intellectual points?

My points are intellectual. Why don't pastors heal children in orphanages? So you expect deaf, dumb and blind children to troop from church to church when pastors ride around in convoys but don't know the way to orphanage?

Joagbaje:
But how

Luke 8:43
As they went a woman who wanted to be healed came up behind and touched him, for she had been slowly bleeding for twelve years, and could find no cure though she had spent everything she had on doctors. But the instant she touched the edge of his robe, the bleeding stopped.

Where did she find the doctors?

What sort of medicine was there back then?

DeepSight:
I have had a look at the thread and there is not too much there to invite the necessary commentary. I think it's better I make my few and humble comments here.

There is only one thing I would like to take from the comments of Ubenidictus, and that is the statement that natural law is written in the hearts of men. However I take this statement with a bit of caution (not because I doubt it) but because I know that you hysterical lot may heckle at it and pick puerile flaws with it. So no matter.

What is more cardinal for me to say - (and Plaetton please note this as per your posts on laws changing according to cultural values) - is that only Positive Laws change according to cultural values. Natural Law never changes - It remains what it is - adamantine and permanent just as they proceed from the natural and ineluctable nature of the Creating Mind itself - which creating mind (or Expanding mind is what we call God) - The same ultimate element that Plaetton refers to simply as energy whilst denying its consciousness - Natural Law is what it is through all times and ages.

In this, please leave the Abrahamic God aside - it is fraught with too many contradictions. I am speaking logic and basic human principle here. And what I am speaking has been enunciated thoroughly by great minds in philosophy throughout the ages. I will try to post some historical commentary in this regard later.

This is actually a professional area of learning - just as medicine, architecture, or any of the physical, biological or chemical sciences. It is not mere talk. It is criminal jurisprudence - a cardinal course for any lawyer to take whilst at university. With Criminal Jurisprudence, one has to understand the philosophy of the law - that is to say - the cardinal and primary underpinning notions that form the law.

And in this regard I have said to you that there is natural law and positive law.

Natural Law: - I relate to Mala in Se.

The definition:

:Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

Natural law is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature and universally cognizable through human reason. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The law of nature, being determined by nature, is universal.[1]

In Western culture, the philosophical conception of natural law first appears among ancient Greek thinkers.[2] Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct. Common law is not based on inherent rights, but is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally recognized by virtue of already having judicial recognition or articulation.[3] Natural law is often contrasted with the human-made laws (positive law) of a given political community, society, or state.[4] In legal theory, the interpretation of a human-made law requires some reference to natural law. On this understanding of natural law, natural law can be invoked to criticize judicial decisions about what the law says, but not to criticize the best interpretation of the law itself. Some jurists and scholars use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale),[5] while others distinguish between natural law and natural right.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Positive Law: - I relate Positive Law to Mala Prohibita.

:Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited) is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute,[1] as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.[2]

Conduct that is so clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it is illegal under English common law is usually regarded as malum in se. An offense that is malum prohibitum may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum

Positive laws (Latin: ius positum) are human-made laws that oblige or specify an action. It also describes the establishment of specific rights for an individual or group. Etymologically, the name derives from the verb to posit.

The concept of positive law is distinct from "natural law", which comprises inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature or reason."[1] Positive law is also described as the law that applies at a certain time (present or past) and at a certain place, consisting of statutory law, and case law as far as it is binding. More specifically, positive law may be characterized as "law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society."[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law

Gentlemen, you should read thoroughly the fundamental underpinnings of these concepts. And please calmly come to understand exactly how they apply directly to the conversation on moral objectivity and moral subjectivity.

What is inherent is inherent in the human nature. That is what is referred to as natural. Therefrom proceeds that which is natural law and thus that which is objective and universal and timeless. That is what I argue for. However that which human dictates prescribe as per different cultures and different circumstances as societal regulations are that which proceed as Positive Law. These are not objective and these vary. These have little or nothing to do with morals. These will only form societal norms such as not parking your car in the wrong place. These have nothing to do with timeless and Universal morals which I argue for. Positive Laws have little or no bearing on morals.

It is this fundamental and perhaps tricky distinction that appears to have confused our conversation on this issue so much. What you gentlemen are referring to as cultural values that vary and evolve over time from place to place and from time to time - are not morals at all. They are simply norms and regulations of the ilk of Positive Laws - something like acquiring a Passport or Visa before travelling to a foreign country or having a work permit, or voting with an accreditation etc would all fall in that rank.

In concluding for now, please note at the very least that these are not things that Deep Sight has propounded. These are age long thoughts and conclusions by historical persons devoted to the subject which have formed our general thinking of today.

Only a mad person would conclude that anything that he personally thinks is right is therefore right. This is the madness that you gentlemen are displaying when you engage in this f.oolish talk about morality being subjective.

Relativity is a different subject altogether as it relates to the circumstance more than the person.

I'm not sure of how many people you think other than those who talk about some God think that whatever they personally think is right is therefore right. Especially when they know that they sometimes change their minds.

The fact that they are age old thoughts and conclusions doesn't mean they're right or not inconsistent. It is very rare to actually find an action that isn't right on some point of view. This is why the basis on which that point of view is based has to be assessed. e.g The idea that killing people is wrong can actually depend on several points such as who is doing the killing, why is the person being killed and many other variables.

plaetton:
End time things.

Abi o.

booqee:
I keep wondering why did God even create the tree of life in the garden of Eden in the first place if He didn't want man to sin..

Some say its intentional... if it is, why was He so displeased to the extent of placing a curse on them...

He created us as man.. not as gods or heavenly creatures.. so of course he was easy and prone to falling for temptation.. so I assumed He knew from the start while creating him, that man would fall by eating the forbidden fruit...

so why bother creating it and then cursing man when it is believed He knew he would fall.. (that's the part that makes it look unfair) .. its similar to setting a concealed trap right in front of us..


I'm confused honestly ..

contributions are welcome

God works in mysterious ways. Maybe all he wants is to torture people for all eternity or that story is just that. A story.

Joshthefirst:
someone who believes that right and wrong are only concepts of our various subjective views.

No I'm not. Is your God a moral subjectivist?

Joshthefirst:
are you a moral subjectivist?

What is a moral subjectivist?

Joshthefirst:
homer, looks like I lost track of this.


Of course you did.


What about the Nazis and their rule? Killing and imprisoning news was not considered evil or unreasonable by them.

What about them? You should have answered the preceding questions. Why don't you answer them so I can get a sense of what point you're trying to make.

DeepSight:
Obviously you have a PHD in existential issues. That's why.

I still don't understand what you mean.

DeepSight:
Ah, Dr. Homer, Something has infected you. Its either a woman or alcohol.

Why not both? By the way, why do you refer to me as Dr.?

nnamdiosu:
you're very correct sir. but thank GOD you said people not GOD. whether you regard him or not, God is still God and whether you agree or not....it doesn't remove one strand of Glory from his glorious glorification.

despite what you've said about him....he still loves you.and has a wonderful destiny for you. pls let the pain go. God bless you

As long as you think God is a person or ever was a person, then he is guilty as charged.

DeepSight:
You seem to have changed. You write rather long posts these days. I seem to remember you as a one liner man.

The length of my posts depend on what I'm responding to.

KingEbukasBlog:
No , the atheists accused God of atrocities - genocide etc . It didn't make any sense , so the thread was created to clear your misconception . Your faulty thinking made you have the mistaken belief that a supreme authority who made the laws for man to follow , should obey these laws . The point is , the laws were made for man and not for God to follow .

Just like the manuals are made for devices and not for the manufacturer/user to follow .

A God who orders the genocide of humans is not worthy of being followed by humans. Saying otherwise means that some genocide should be accepable to humans. I hope you never find yourself on the wrong side of Shiva in destroyer form.

KingEbukasBlog:
No , I have never been outwitted in argument . You have a dogmatic way of arguing - always obdurate about your opinion and every theist who tries to oppose it is wrong . So I didn't invite you - the thought did come across my mind though .

Maybe the problem is that you don't know when you've lost an argument and it looks to you as dogmaticism when you're the one wrong. You need to learn how to engage with people who disagree with you though your palpable fear of me is understandable.

KingEbukasBlog:
God is an embodiment of moral good , so whatever he does is right . He is not subject to the laws he made for man .

With this, you commit a clear logical fallacy known as the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29]fallacy of reification[/url]. The moral good is an abstract idea and you're treating it as though it were an actual person with a body no less.

If this demonstration of your error is an example of me being dogmatic, then you need to take the problem up with the English language and the ideas of logical argumentation.

KingEbukasBlog:
I've always maintained that God is an embodiment of moral good and is not subject to his own laws . If we study the bible closely , it appears that God "disobeys" His own laws . The argument has been God makes laws for us, but seems to disobey those laws Himself. If this is true, so it is argued, God demands more of us than He does of Himself. Let’s explore this argument to test its validity.

Basic Elements of Law


1. Authority.

Law, by its very nature, requires a few basic elements. First, there must be an established authority to make the law. In the case of federal law, the United States consists of branches of duly elected representatives of the people who pass and enforce laws. When it comes to natural law, there are no written ordinances, but the authority that established the principles that govern nature (i.e. God) put them in place by virtue of the fact that He created nature and so has the right to order it as He pleases (cf. Jer. 33:25). Divine Law that is given by revelation is higher than any human law. It is not set by man although many laws of man derive their authority from divine law—and thus from God Himself. Just as God made the elements of the natural world with the laws that govern them, God made man as a spiritual being and He alone holds the ultimate authority to regulate his behavior (Ps. 119:105).

2. Rules.

A second element common to all law is some type of rules or regulations. All laws mandate certain things that must operate a certain way. A system without rules is said to be lawless. Any system that is governed by law operates within set rules and guidelines. It could be a speed limit. The law mandates “70 miles per hour” as the maximum speed at which a vehicle can travel on a certain road. It could be behavior. It is a crime to steal. Law BooksThe nature of the rules depends upon the nature of the thing regulated. In some cases the authority that enforces the rule is understood to stand outside of the rule. The highway patrolman who exceeds 70 miles per hour is not guilty if he does this to catch a driver who is speeding. The policeman that confiscates stolen property is not a thief. Part of their authority exempts them from some measure of accountability to the very laws they must enforce.

3. Jurisdiction.

A third element of all law is jurisdiction. For law to have meaning there must be some realm over which a given law has dominion. The ancient laws of the Hittite empire may be curious relics of antiquity but they no longer hold any power because there is no longer a Hittite empire. The realm and the region over which these laws once held power no longer exists. In regional governments the issue of jurisdiction is paramount. The authority of one state cannot enforce its laws on the citizens of another because it does not have jurisdiction. By the same token, if I violate a practice that is considered criminal in another jurisdiction, but is permitted within the county, state, or country where I live I am not guilty. A good example of this is the burka worn by Muslim women. A woman in the United States is not a criminal if she refuses to wear a burka even though it is required by law in countries such as Saudi Arabia.

4. Subjects.

Finally, in a very similar way, all law must involve subjects—that is, those who are under obligation to that law. We as Nigerians are obligated to obey the laws of our nation because we are properly subjects of the government which holds authority over us, and thus subject to its laws.


God’s Relationship to His Own Laws

1. Laws of Nature.

As we all know God is the authority who established these laws. There are set rules that define these laws. Laws of gravity demand that a rock falls to the ground—it doesn’t float up into the sky. Is God within the jurisdiction of natural law? A key difference between the picture of the God of the Bible and the concepts of pagan false religions is what is called transcendence. Greek GodsThe God of the Bible exists outside of the natural realm that He created. In other words, while Zeus, or Anubis, or Odin were themselves subject to certain laws of nature, the God of the Bible stands outside of the jurisdiction of natural laws. He is the “unmoved Mover.” He is the First Cause of all things! That means He can make an ax-head float (2 Kings 6:5-6). He can make time stand still (Josh. 10:12-13). He can make the shadow of the sundial go backwards (2 Kings 20:10-11). He is not under the jurisdiction of natural law, but very atom within this present universe, together with every soul made in His image is. They are subjects of the natural laws that God established over His creation. Because God transcends the natural universe, He is not a subject of His own creation, and is therefore not subject to the laws that govern it.

2. Moral or Religious Law.

What about moral or religious laws? There is an interesting example that concerns the Sabbath commandment. The rules required that no ordinary work was to be done on the seventh day (Exod. 20:10). This was a law that was not given until the Law of Moses was revealed (Neh. 9:14). It was a law that was not restated under the Law of Christ (Col. 2:16). That means that those who worked on the seventh day before the Law of Moses, as well as those who now live under Christ, and even those who were not a part of the Mosaic covenant during the time of the Israelite commonwealth were outside of its jurisdiction and were not, therefore, subject to its regulation. What about God? This law was drawn from what was said about God’s creation (Exod. 20:11). The present universe was made in six days, but Scripture tells us that after this was done, God “rested on the seventh day from all the work which He had done” (Gen. 2:2). Even before this was given as a law to the Israelites, God is said to have “blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it” (Gen. 2:3). The Hebrew writer, in one sense speaks of God’s works being “finished from the foundation of the world” (Heb. 4:3-4), but Jesus, when criticized for healing on the Sabbath said, “My Father has been working until now, and I have being working” (John 5:16-17). Did God violate His own Sabbath law? No. He stood outside of its jurisdiction and like those before and after the Law of Moses, He was not subject to its regulation.


3. Genocide.

This may seem reasonable when we are talking about things like the Sabbath law, but what is most frequently criticized is God’s treatment of His creation. That is, He commands us not to murder, but then He has commanded the extermination of the Canaanites, and Amalekites. Or, He commands us not to harm one another but He promises to punish the wicked throughout all eternity. Is He breaking His own laws in these examples? What are the basic elements of law in these examples? God is, once again, the established authority and He has set the rules that govern appropriate behavior. Yet, has God defined all taking of life as wrong? No! It is true that man is not to avenge himself (Rom. 12:19), and God condemns murder (Exod. 20:13), but He grants to the civil authority the right to punish even to the point of death those guilty of certain laws (Rom. 13:4). Is the executioner a murderer? No. Like the policeman who speeds to catch someone speeding, the executioner in his authority to carry out punishment is (to a measure) exempt from accountability to the law he is enforcing (cf. Num. 35:27). God on some specific occasions commanded Israel (in essence) to act as His executioner (Deut. 7:1-5; 25:17-19; 1 Sam. 15:1-5). The Canaanites and Amalekites were among some of the most wicked people that history has every known (Deut. 9:4; Ps. 106:34-37). God bore with their wickedness for a time in order to give them time to repent (cf. Gen. 15:16). When the time came, He used Israel as the vehicle by which He ended their ability to do any more wickedness. Did He violate His own law? No. First, because He was never under the jurisdiction of this law, nor a subject to obey it, but also because the people whom He used to carry out His punishment were not violating any divine law themselves. They were carrying out lawful punishment—in this case in the form of warfare.

4. Eternal Punishment.

What about eternal punishment? The issue of jurisdiction is applicable to this question as well. God is not under the jurisdiction of the laws He has set for His creation. When Judgment Day comes the nature of the present jurisdiction will be changed. What rules will govern the age to come? The jurisdiction of the realm of the saved will not be the same as the jurisdiction of the realm of the condemned. For example, to some measure, in that age the present laws of nature will be changed. In the jurisdiction of the saved there will be no more death, nor sorrow, nor pain because for them “the former things have passed away” (Rev. 21:4). On the other hand, some of these things will exist for the lost—“the smoke of their torment rises forever and ever” (Rev. 14:11). Is it cruel for God to punish the wicked eternally? Let’s consider this from another angle. If I create something—a piece of pottery, a bird house, a painting, or a machine—what rights do I have over that thing I have created? Am I cruel to the pottery if I reshape it into another vessel? (cf. Jer. 18:5-6). Have I sinned against the bird house if I decide to use it for something else? If the machine turns out to be dangerous, am I a monster if I make certain it is kept away from ever causing any harm to anyone ever again? No.

In our creation it is God that formed the molecules and synaptic responses that form our physical bodies (Ps. 139:13-16). We are His creation—He can do with us as He pleases. God asked Judah, “can I not do to you as this potter?” (Jer. 18:6). Above all other creatures in this universe, He has blessed us by placing within us a spirit that is said to be in His image (Gen. 1:26-27)—we are from this point onward eternal creatures (Eccl. 3:11). That is a blessing! But it is a blessing that demands responsibility. The nature and demands of God are such that all creatures that bear His likeness must conform to His law. For those who fail in this (which is to say all who are morally accountable in age and ability) He has made provision for this failure by the atonement of Christ. What is God to do with those of His creation whom He has made eternal who remain in rebellion to His authority and refuse His regulation? Since He is not a subject of His own law, and therefore not under the jurisdiction of His own authority we cannot even compare any action He takes to punish wrong with committing wrong—remember the executioner is not a murderer. Confiscation is not theft. Those who reject the gospel of Christ establish themselves as a type of eternally dangerous machine that must be forever put where it can never harm the subjects of God’s kingdom ever again—that is essentially what hell is. Is this cruel on God’s part? No, it is His right as Creator and the transcendent authority over His creation.

Reference : http://focusmagazine.org/does-god-violate-his-own-laws.php

cc : winner01 , Joshthefirst , bxcode , MrPresident1, gatiano , unphilaz , Muafrika2, mykohayz Richirich713, MrsPhyno, sukkot, OLAADEGBU , vooks, UyiIredia , Scholar8200, Jeromejnr , plaetton, DeepSight , malvisguy212 Kay17 , PastorAIO , Rawblings , Ayomikun37

Check this guy out. You decided to start a party and chose not to invite me, why? Tired of getting your ass whooped?

Look this article is all fun and games but also just bullshit.

Saying God isn't subject to his own laws is just a waste of time. God using his laws permits all things so saying he isn't bound by his laws is pointless since all is permissible using his laws.

My own question would be, what is your God's character? Is he good or evil? Please give your real answer to this question. Then we can move on based on your response.

AgentOfAllah:
It is absurd that anyone should mistake moral subjectivity for moral apathy. Then again, absurdity is the forte of the religiously inclined

Those accusing me of moral subjectivity are merely confused. That is why they've not been able to present evidence for their claims.

Joshthefirst:
Your way of thinking has not been examined as you still think you can hold him to moral standards. I don't need to explain, as I enjoy the futile back and forth we've been having for some time now.

You have tried explaining your aberrant thought processes and failed at defending your immoral God. You're talking about moral standards as if your immoral monster God is moral.

Joshthefirst:
If you think you can hold yhwh to moral standards or put him on trial then you certainly have to examine your way of thinking.

My way of thinking has been examined and I can hold him to moral standards.

DeepSight:
Oh no complaint, good Dr; save that it stands in contradiction to your previous arguments on moral subjectivity. And no, I do not have the energy to go seeking out the links and quotes. Do that yourself. You surely recall the thread of Mr. Troll on moral subjectivity and the ensuing thread where all of these issues were thrashed out.

I honestly don't know the particular thread you're referring to. And I've still not seen the contradiction. Please show it to me. You claim to have the evidence before you. Why don't you show me the evidence you're accusing me with?

KingEbukasBlog:
Wait ... you didn't notice I requited your own style of responding to my questions

I noticed that you were being stupidly buffoonish. Those questions had clear and straightforward answers yet you couldn't answer them. I simply showed you your ignorance and the fact that I actually understand your world view better than you it seems.

DeepSight:
I really don't know why Dr. Homer inveigled that question into the question of necessary evils. Perhaps on account of his opposition of the propitiatory sacrificial death of the lamb which carries away the sins of men. If that is the case, I wholly support him on that score. The murder of Jesus of Nazareth by a jealous and sadistic mob and establishment could never form an atonement for the sins of men before God. If anything, it heaps on, and increases the sins of men. Be ye not deceived for God is not mocked: whatever a man sows, the same shall he reap. If Jesus' death was destined as a sacrifice for sins, his words on the cross (and also at Gethsemane) would be illogical. Father forgive them for they know not what they do. Eli Eli. . . why hast thou forsaken me? If it be possible, let this cross pass over my head.

Having said all that, yes, Jesus' death was necessary to the extent that he was always going to die anyhow. The manner and timing, and the import given to the event, is what is at issue.



It is very evil.
By the way, I hope you know that I verily agree with Messrs Homer & Co on the lamentable evil nature of Yahweh of the Old Testament. Do not subscribe to imported religion blindly my brother - to such an extent that you attempt to justify the patently barbaric.

It sounds to me as though you would have justified the atlantic slave trade as well, seeing as the white man came bearing a gun in one hand and the bible in the other.

What? DeepSight agrees with me on two points? The Singularity is truly near.

KingEbukasBlog:
I asked you : "What is evil and what makes what you see as evil evil" . You said :



I gave you this piece and asked you if Mao was evil or good - this excellently relates to your definition



For someone who has been calling me a poor thinker after responding to so many of your puerile questions . I expected at least an answer to prove you had brains that process your thoughts before you type them .

And you ended up posting this



And all you did was throw the question back at me But somehow just somehow The King is the poor thinker

Gerrahia mehn . I thought you've something mysteriously good off ya sleeves . You are just like the rest .

PastorAIO ... that's how I leave the atheist in a quagmire

Why shouldn't I throw the question back at you? Don't you have an answer? His intentions may have been good and the effects bad. I can't form a conclusion about his character from those pieces of information.

You need to take a chill pill and learn how to think and answer questions. Was I able to answer the question I posed to you? You see, your ignorant babbling doesn't help you in any way.

KingEbukasBlog:
I dont know . Was Jesus death necessary ?

According to Christianity, yes it was.

KingEbukasBlog:
I dont know . Is the execution of someone who is not guilty of a felony something evil?

According to Christianity, it usually is.

Having such ignorance of your own religious beliefs is sorry state to be in.

DeepSight:
Stop playing the fisherman where you have the fish already.
You know very well that the reasonable man principle is assessed objectively and never subjectively.

It's not bad to be a poor thinker such as you are, however its sad to be an incorrigible liar.

If that is assessed objectively, then what is your complaint again?