thehomer:

Was that light the sun?

thehomer:

The thing is that he could have saved the children even when he doesn't target them directly because he is omnipotent.

and i have shown you exactly Gods balanced arrangement for the survival of kids whose parents are reprobates......i wonder why you didnt ask such questions about the kids who were alive in NINIVEH when an impending destruction was around the corner back then....the simple rule is:: parents survive,there kids survive....Parents become obstinate and choose death,there kids join them....blame the stubborn parents not God who had offered them the way to life.....

thehomer:
Can you please define genocide?

which definition do you want??...Gods or from a dictionary ??

thehomer:
I already did that here. Is the information presented there accurate or not?

and how does the info you provide in your new thread differ from the one we are discussing here....hope you do know who the amalekites were??....

thehomer:
Was it the parents that sent the fire and brimstone? Your "what if" is just special pleading unless you can tell me of a regular city without children.

i thought you were challenging Gods omnipotence by saying that he could have found a way out to rescue the lil kids in sodom and here you are telling me my ""what if"" is special pleading...are you for real??.....

and as regards the brim stone that was hurled on sodom it was as a result of the dis-obedience of parents that that city was razed......

thehomer:
What is God's role based on that definition of genocide? I said that to humour you. Now since you think it is genocide, what is the relevance of that conclusion?

and who says i think its genocide??....i was only asking you why you think Natos move on gadaffi and his cohorts isn"t genocidal like you claimed??

thehomer:
I know enough to know that being born again isn't determined by whether or not a person goes to heaven and that is enough to accuse you of committing that fallacy.

Lol, you obviously don't know. and worse still, you don't know that you don't know . . .and even much worse you don't want to know. Well....your ignorance is your right.

I said I'm not interested in playing around in those passages with you. Open another thread and I'll consider joining you and other Christians there. If Christians actually hold the view I'm presenting, then you need a better justification than merely asserting that I'm ignorant.

I don't necessarily need to. I am only interested in you understanding what you are arguing over. You have the right to choose to remain ignorant of anything you like.

And I've shown you that it is neither clear nor unambiguous because your entire premise rests on a fallacious line of reasoning. Keep in mind that you're also accusing your fellow Christians of following a straw religion.

Is the bolded an attempt at emotional blackmail? You have shown nothing

That person has looked it up in scripture and it is an accepted line of thought in Christianity.

How do you know this for sure? Why this sudden expression of blind faith?

Christians have determined what the Christian worldview is from the Bible already. I'm just showing you what they've already said. You keep accusing your fellow Christians of having "strawman worldviews" without justification. Surely you can do better than that.

And I am showing you the bible. Rejecting firsthand information in favor of secondhand sources shows that you are not really interested in truth.
It is obvious that you were never interested in honest rational discourse from the get go.

Goodbye

mazaje:

You never showed any body any truth any where. . The genesis creation account is there for itself. . .It cleary says that the earth was created before the sun and the stars, spin all you wantbut that is what is written inside the bible. . .And as for the creation account written in genesis chapter two, it was written by some one else and it was actually written before the account in genesis one, the genesis one account is the priestly commentary on genesis two. . .Watch some of rabi Botech's videos on youtube, he is a professor of Jewish religious history and a practicing Jew himself(he is a Rabi), that knows the history much more than you or any Nigerian christian. . .Even he acknoledges that the creation accounts are just allegories. . .

and youre still on your stiff stance......you can believe what ever you like....and can you please tell me who wrote genesis chapter 2??.....

thehomer:

It states your God's preference. Do you think God's preference doesn't matter?

And on what basis are you stating this preference. How did you conclude that it wad God's preference. In any case, what matters is you have failed to solve the priblems if your conclusion. That none of you premises show why killing children is moral.

thehomer:
Those questions are important in determining what is actually important in the Christian worldview. After all according to you Christians, God's desires trump all. If you don't think that God's desires trump all, then please say so.

But not important in countering my argument that killing children has disadvantages which counter altruistic motives.

Mr anony:
Lol, you obviously don't know. and worse still, you don't know that you don't know . . .and even much worse you don't want to know. Well....your ignorance is your right.

Yet for some reason, you're unable to see the fact of what I just said. I'm sorry but you're the one showing your ignorance.

Mr anony:
I don't necessarily need to. I am only interested in you understanding what you are arguing over. You have the right to choose to remain ignorant of anything you like.

Oh I understand it all right but you don't seem to realize that you aren't the ultimate interpreter of the Bible.

Mr anony:
Is the bolded an attempt at emotional blackmail? You have shown nothing

It is a fact of the matter that your fellow Christians do have such a view.

Mr anony:
How do you know this for sure? Why this sudden expression of blind faith?

Blind faith? That write up contains the reasoning and biblical references right there. It looks like you don't know what blind faith is either.

Mr anony:
And I am showing you the bible. Rejecting firsthand information in favor of secondhand sources shows that you are not really interested in truth.
It is obvious that you were never interested in honest rational discourse from the get go.

Goodbye

You're not the final arbiter on the "true meaning" of what is in the Bible. I presented a valid Christian view with evidence backing me up. You on the other hand presented nothing. Not even your own thoughts on the matter. Instead, you tried the following tactics:

An argument from ignorance i.e your claim of ignorance of the destiny of children. (logical fallacy)
An attempt to shift the discussion to one of biblical hermeneutics. (thread derailment)
An attempt to ignore my clear and concise starting argument an premises in order to produce your flawed version. (thread derailment)
An attempt at special pleading i.e your claim that God just had to be good. (logical fallacy)
And other minor attempts at derailing the thread.

It is a satisfactory end to our part of this argument.

ijawkid:
and i have shown you exactly Gods balanced arrangement for the survival of kids whose parents are reprobates......i wonder why you didnt ask such questions about the kids who were alive in NINIVEH when an impending destruction was around the corner back then....the simple rule is:: parents survive,there kids survive....Parents become obstinate and choose death,there kids join them....blame the stubborn parents not God who had offered them the way to life.....

Nah I'd blame a God who could have saved them but didn't. Even NATO troops don't kill those children if they can help it. And they're not even omnipotent or beneficent to all people.

ijawkid:
which definition do you want??...Gods or from a dictionary ??

There is no definition from God.

ijawkid:
and how does the info you provide in your new thread differ from the one we are discussing here....hope you do know who the amalekites were??....

I was referring to the incorrect information like:

thehomer:
Is the Bible a good source of information? I mean it talks about a global flood, plants existing before the sun, talking animals, a person living in a big fish and zombies roaming a city.

ijawkid:
i thought you were challenging Gods omnipotence by saying that he could have found a way out to rescue the lil kids in sodom and here you are telling me my ""what if"" is special pleading...are you for real??.....

I wasn't challenging it, I was saying that if he actually had that ability, then surely he would have been able to save those children. Your "what if" is special pleading unless you know any normal city that doesn't have children.

ijawkid:
and as regards the brim stone that was hurled on sodom it was as a result of the dis-obedience of parents that that city was razed......

I know you think that but God was doing the indiscriminate hurling.

ijawkid:
and who says i think its genocide??....i was only asking you why you think Natos move on gadaffi and his cohorts isn"t genocidal like you claimed??

Okay I'm now saying it is genocide. What is the relevance of that to the conclusion?

Uyi Iredia:
And on what basis are you stating this preference. How did you conclude that it wad God's preference. In any case, what matters is you have failed to solve the priblems if your conclusion. That none of you premises show why killing children is moral.

I'm assuming that God wants what is best for humans at the very least. The conclusions were:

thehomer:
It would be right to kill all children below the age of three years until the human species goes extinct. Following from this, the person who does this is the ultimate altruist.

Uyi Iredia:
But not important in countering my argument that killing children has disadvantages which counter altruistic motives.

On the contrary, it is because Christians believe that God's desires trump all.

thehomer:
An argument from ignorance i.e your claim of ignorance of the destiny of children. (logical fallacy)

False accusation: A claim of ignorance is not the same as an argument from ignorance

An attempt to shift the discussion to one of biblical hermeneutics. (thread derailment)

Actually your original discussion from the onset was one of biblical hermeneutics

An attempt to ignore my clear and concise starting argument an premises in order to produce your flawed version. (thread derailment)

False again: It is not my fault that you started with faulty premises

An attempt at special pleading i.e your claim that God just had to be good. (logical fallacy)

Nonsense: It is not a special pleading where I have adequately justified my reasons

As I said: you were never interested in an honest and rational debate from the onset

Mr anony:
False accusation: A claim of ignorance is not the same as an argument from ignorance

No. Your actual argument was an argument from ignorance because you claimed that because you didn't know the destiny of children, then the conclusion didn't follow. See here for reference.

Mr anony:
Actually your original discussion from the onset was one of biblical hermeneutics

False. My argument was that it is a view actually held by Christians and this was demonstrated by the link I gave to a Christian explaining from the Bible his conclusions about the final destiny of children. From my OP:

thehomer:
The God here is a variant of the Christian God. And you may assume that people go on living in some form after their death.

In fact, this reasoning has been used as a justification of God's command to commit genocide.

Mr anony:
False again: It is not my fault that you started with faulty premises

This merely continues your argument from ignorance. You claim not to know whether or not the premise is faulty and on that basis, tried to dismiss the argument. That is another textbook example of an argument from ignorance. The reference link is above.

Mr anony:
Nonsense: It is not a special pleading where I have adequately justified my reasons

But you never did. Not on this thread or the one meant to show your justification. You instead tried to claim that I didn't have my own justification. You should know that whether or not I have my justification doesn't mean that you've actually shown your own justification.

Mr anony:
As I said: you were never interested in an honest and rational debate from the onset

False. This is just your attempt at mind reading which has failed several times already. In fact, I have kept this discussion honest and rational to the very end but you haven't as you've demonstrated yet again.

thehomer:

Nah I'd blame a God who could have saved them but didn't. Even NATO troops don't kill those children if they can help it. And they're not even omnipotent or beneficent to all people.

And you exempt the silly parents from blame??.....my bro Gods principles and commands were as clear as day...any sane parent would have chosen life for himself and his household.....what I've been trying to help you see is that Gods ways are just and that when he sets standards he does not shift from it....you can keep reading deuteronomy until you absorb that truth...

thehomer:

There is no definition from God.

So says thehomer.....

thehomer:

I was referring to the incorrect information like:




I wasn't challenging it, I was saying that if he actually had that ability, then surely he would have been able to save those children. Your "what if" is special pleading unless you know any normal city that doesn't have children.

Lol...and you're still neglecting Gods standards as to the survival of kids when ever destruction was lurking around....that is your problem...you just keep arguing without considering Gods provisions for survival....

When you talk about talking animals I hope you do know some animals can talk abi??....

thehomer:

I know you think that but God was doing the indiscriminate hurling.

So says thehomer again....I bet when rain fell or falls it does so indiscriminately......my bro you had better go hold the parents of those kids aCcountable and stop pointing fingers at the creator.....

thehomer:

Okay I'm now saying it is genocide. What is the relevance of that to the conclusion?

Now why do Ýou think it is genocide..??....give me your reason(s)

ijawkid:
And you exempt the silly parents from blame??.....my bro Gods principles and commands were as clear as day...any sane parent would have chosen life for himself and his household.....what I've been trying to help you see is that Gods ways are just and that when he sets standards he does not shift from it....you can keep reading deuteronomy until you absorb that truth...

I'm not exempting them. I'm simply saying that if God could save those children, then he should have saved them.

ijawkid:
So says thehomer.....

If you disagree, then can you tell me what God's definition of genocide is?

ijawkid:
Lol...and you're still neglecting Gods standards as to the survival of kids when ever destruction was lurking around....that is your problem...you just keep arguing without considering Gods provisions for survival....

God doesn't seem to have any standards.

ijawkid:
When you talk about talking animals I hope you do know some animals can talk abi??....

Are snakes and donkeys (the animals talking in the Bible) some of those animals?

ijawkid:
So says thehomer again....I bet when rain fell or falls it does so indiscriminately......my bro you had better go hold the parents of those kids aCcountable and stop pointing fingers at the creator.....

How often has fire and brimstone fallen from the sky? Who else chucked the fire and brimstone? God said he was going to destroy the city and what happened, it got destroyed. Unless you think God didn't do it, then you really don't have an argument to make.

ijawkid:
Now why do Ýou think it is genocide..??....give me your reason(s)

That's just it. I'm showing you that this question is irrelevant my response to this question doesn't absolve God of any wrong doing.

If you think this question will help you, please tell me how any answer I give helps your case.