NIV 1 Samuel 15:

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

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

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

Can the God who gave such a command be good in any sense of the word?

If a good God is giving such a command, then what would an evil command from the devil look like?

God is good, all the Time; all the time God is good.

Debunk that if you can, you Illuminati Puppet.


Jesus is Lord.
Pastor MarcAnthony

EatmyShorts: God is good, all the Time; all the time God is good.

Debunk that if you can, you Illuminati Puppet.


Jesus is Lord.
Pastor MarcAnthony

I guess in the above cited case, good is bad and bad is good.
This is god's logic.
Ok. I get it.

This is a job for @Obadiah; to break down the symbolism(not literalness) of the passage.

okeyxyz: This is a job for @Obadiah; to break down the symbolism(not literalness) of the passage.

This oga sef !


You make me laugh very hard. You are proving to be an inexhaustible source of mocking material for atheists and agnostics here on Nl.

So, now, a direct command to go plunder, murder, ra.pe and pillage other human beings , is symbolism that needs interpretation?
Na wa for Yahweh's impeccable logic.

plaetton:

This oga sef !


You make me laugh very hard. You are proving to be an inexhaustible source of mocking material for atheists and agnostics here on Nl.

So, now, a direct command to go plunder, murder, ra.pe and pillage other human beings , is symbolism that needs interpretation?
Na wa for Yahweh's impeccable logic.

Precisely!!

And being the "inexhaustible source of mocking material for atheists and agnostics" is supposed to make me ashamed?? . Obviously, you care for the things of the world and how you might please them. That's what makes you man and me a God.

thehomer:

Can the God who gave such a command be good in any sense of the word?

If a good God is giving such a command, then what would an evil command from the devil look like?

Beautiful.

The verses you quoted were from 1Samuel 15:3. I'll come back to answer them but before we continue, I'd like to ask you

1. Does absolute truth exist? i.e. Is there such a thing as an absolute and objective truth about things not subject to personal bias and if yes is it possible for us to know that some things are absolutely true?

2. Do you subscribe to moral realism? i.e. do you subscribe to the school of thought that one can be morally right or wrong objectively in much the same way one can be objectively right or wrong mathematically and logically?

3. If you believe that there is objective good, can you define it for us?

After you have defined what is good, then we can proceed to judging the goodness of God's actions in 1Samuel 15.

I'm as always very happy to carry this conversation to it's logical conclusion.

Mr anony:
Beautiful.

The verses you quoted were from 1Samuel 15:3. I'll come back to answer them but before we continue, I'd like to ask you

1. Does absolute truth exist? i.e. Is there such a thing as an absolute and objective truth about things not subject to personal bias and if yes is it possible for us to know that some things are absolutely true?

2. Do you subscribe to moral realism? i.e. do you subscribe to the school of thought that one can be morally right or wrong objectively in much the same way one can be objectively right or wrong mathematically and logically?

3. If you believe that there is objective good, can you define it for us?

After you have defined what is good, then we can proceed to judging the goodness of God's actions in 1Samuel 15.

I'm as always very happy to carry this conversation to it's logical conclusion.

Answering question with questions. Please show The homer some respect. He answered your questions on your thread head-on. He did not try to deviate or fire back questions to obfuscate. He deserves more even if he doesnt ask for it.




https://www.nairaland.com/1289140/death-inviting-deepsight-thehomer-ihedinobi/1#15722214

thehomer: Finally something worthwhile to engage with. I've had to toy with OLAADEGBU during your absence. I'll be moving on from him then.



This third point is probably going to be where the meat of the problem with your post will lie.



Let's examine these premises and see if the conclusion follows.

Premise 1 is acceptable.

I guess that for premise 2, you mean for an action to be good or bad rather than a thing since I don't think things like tools are inherently good or bad.

Premise 3 is faulty because existence is a property that an object may or may not have so what object are you referring to that would be better or not if it existed? Do you mean a person?

From your conclusion, it looks like you mean for people. And I agree that there is nothing wrong with the state of death. I also agree that killing a person isn't intrinsically wrong. One can kill someone else in self-defense or in defense of a loved one.

I wonder if this is the argument you actually wanted to make.

Logicboy03:
Answering question with questions. Please show The homer some respect. He answered your questions on your thread head-on. He did not try to deviate or fire back questions to obfuscate. He deserves more even if he doesnt ask for it.
https://www.nairaland.com/1289140/death-inviting-deepsight-thehomer-ihedinobi/1#15722214

I am showing him a lot of respect here by not trying to read his mind. If he claims that an action is not good. Then it is only fair that he says why. It will be wrong of me to assume that I know what he means by good and hence run the risk of arguing a strawman.

thehomer:

Can the God who gave such a command be good in any sense of the word?

If a good God is giving such a command, then what would an evil command from the devil look like?

this god is infact the devil.

Mr anony:
I am showing him a lot of respect here by not trying to read his mind. If he claims that an action is not good. Then it is only fair that he says why. It will be wrong of me to assume that I know what he means by good and hence run the risk of arguing a strawman.

The op totally destroys your claim in bold (and in total). Why? Because The homer said "good in any sense of the word"- this means that according to any sensible definition of "good"

thehomer:

Can the God who gave such a command be good in any sense of the word?

If a good God is giving such a command, then what would an evil command from the devil look like?

Mr anony:
Beautiful.

The verses you quoted were from 1Samuel 15:3. I'll come back to answer them but before we continue, I'd like to ask you

1. Does absolute truth exist? i.e. Is there such a thing as an absolute and objective truth about things not subject to personal bias and if yes is it possible for us to know that some things are absolutely true?

2. Do you subscribe to moral realism? i.e. do you subscribe to the school of thought that one can be morally right or wrong objectively in much the same way one can be objectively right or wrong mathematically and logically?

3. If you believe that there is objective good, can you define it for us?

After you have defined what is good, then we can proceed to judging the goodness of God's actions in 1Samuel 15.

I'm as always very happy to carry this conversation to it's logical conclusion.

By stating God is Good, all the above questions except 3 is answered in the positive. I'm sure thehomer is aware of that assumption. However I believe you ought to define Good, cos its well known to be your declaration/statement. So you have a better opportunity of educating us all.

Logicboy03:
The op totally destroys your claim in bold (and in total). Why? Because The homer said "good in any sense of the word"- this means that according to any sensible definition of "good"

Lol, and how exactly do you determine which definitions of good are sensible and which ones aren't?

Kay 17:

By stating God is Good, all the above questions except 3 is answered in the positive. I'm sure thehomer is aware of that assumption. However I believe you ought to define Good, cos its well known to be your declaration/statement. So you have a better opportunity of educating us all.

The question we are contesting is "Is God Good?" Thehomer raised this question. I will be better placed answer him if he can explain to us what he means by good.

Mr anony:
Lol, and how exactly do you determine which definitions of good are sensible and which ones aren't?

You have a dictionary and online encyclopedias of philosophy dont you?


Abeg, commot, yo have nothing to say...keep obfuscating

Mr anony:
The question we are contesting is "Is God Good?" Thehomer raised this question. I will be better placed answer him if he can explain to us what he means by good.

True, however we intuitively regard the bold in the OP as shocking and bad, inspite of the lack of definition. As I'm typing this, I'm in shock and I'm convinced destruction of infants is alarming.

So the ball is in your court to swiftly break apart thehomer's post and expose the flaws and re-convince us observers otherwise.

Although it is thehomer's duty to define good, but we the observers already have gone further. It is preferable you ground your answers with your own definitions which will sufficiently enlighten us.

Once again, you begin by ignoring the direct questions posed to just chuck out yours. I think that at the very least you could try to answer my own questions.

Mr anony:
Beautiful.

The verses you quoted were from 1Samuel 15:3. I'll come back to answer them but before we continue, I'd like to ask you

1. Does absolute truth exist? i.e. Is there such a thing as an absolute and objective truth about things not subject to personal bias and if yes is it possible for us to know that some things are absolutely true?

Yes. Do you believe absolute truth exists?

Mr anony:
2. Do you subscribe to moral realism? i.e. do you subscribe to the school of thought that one can be morally right or wrong objectively in much the same way one can be objectively right or wrong mathematically and logically?

Yes one can be morally right or wrong objectively but it isn't in the same way that one can be objectively right or wrong mathematically.

And what idea of morality do you subscribe to? Do you subscribe to the idea of divine command theory i.e whatever is commanded by God is good?

Mr anony:
3. If you believe that there is objective good, can you define it for us?

After you have defined what is good, then we can proceed to judging the goodness of God's actions in 1Samuel 15.

I'm as always very happy to carry this conversation to it's logical conclusion.

Something being objectively good means that it is good regardless of what any person thinks and of course that has to at the very least, relate to the well being of conscious creatures.

Now can you tell me what you mean by objective goodness?

okeyxyz: This is a job for @Obadiah; to break down the symbolism(not literalness) of the passage.

The passage looks pretty literal to me.

Logicboy03:









Answering question with questions. Please show The homer some respect. He answered your questions on your thread head-on. He did not try to deviate or fire back questions to obfuscate. He deserves more even if he doesnt ask for it.




https://www.nairaland.com/1289140/death-inviting-deepsight-thehomer-ihedinobi/1#15722214

Yes. And that habit of his gets worse when he notices he is getting cornered.

This matter is simple actually: God is good to his own only, and non else.

Yes, It might be shocking, outrageous, wicked, etc.., But it still doesn't change the fact\truth that he is god and that the way to escape destruction is through him only. Thus the God office. What's the point of god if there are other means to salvation??

^^^
You can regard the above as symbolic or literal, The same principle still applies. God is not there to be liked(which is how christian apologists and new-age religions are trying to paint him today, thus all the efforts to homosexualize christianity and bring it's god up to date ), He is there to be obeyed. Simple!!!

Kay 17:

True, however we intuitively regard the bold in the OP as shocking and bad, inspite of the lack of definition. As I'm typing this, I'm in shock and I'm convinced destruction of infants is alarming.

So the ball is in your court to swiftly break apart thehomer's post and expose the flaws and re-convince us observers otherwise.

Although it is thehomer's duty to define good, but we the observers already have gone further. It is preferable you ground your answers with your own definitions which will sufficiently enlighten us.

My definition of good is unnecessary here. thehomer's is what counts. Mere intuition justifies nothing

Mr anony:
My definition of good is unnecessary here. thehomer's is what counts. Mere intuition justifies nothing

Wrong. Your definition of good is very necessary unless you agree with my own idea of good. This will at the very least keep confusion to the minimum.

okeyxyz: This matter is simple actually: God is good to his own only, and non else.

In other words, your God is selfish? Is that a good character to have?

okeyxyz:
Yes, It might be shocking, outrageous, wicked, etc.., But it still doesn't change the fact\truth that he is god and that the way to escape destruction is through him only. Thus the God office. What's the point of god if there are other means to salvation??

This is an assumption that might makes right which I'm sure you'll reject.

okeyxyz:
^^^
You can regard the above as symbolic or literal, The same principle still applies. God is not there to be liked(which is how christian apologists and new-age religions are trying to paint him today, thus all the efforts to homosexualize christianity and bring it's god up to date ), He is there to be obeyed. Simple!!!

How do you want it to be regarded?

If God isn't there to be liked, then in what sense is he good? Or would you like an evil God simply because it is God?

thehomer: Once again, you begin by ignoring the direct questions posed to just chuck out yours. I think that at the very least you could try to answer my own questions.

Asking for clarification is not the same as ignoring.

Yes. Do you believe absolute truth exists?

Yes. we are agreed

Yes one can be morally right or wrong objectively but it isn't in the same way that one can be objectively right or wrong mathematically.

Please explain. Note that Mathematics only has absolutely true answers.

And what idea of morality do you subscribe to? Do you subscribe to the idea of divine command theory i.e whatever is commanded by God is good?

My answer to the bold will result in me begging the question. It will be wrong for me to assume the conclusion that is precisely what we are here to contest.
Also my idea of morality is irrelevant at this point, only an objective morality is what counts here.

Something being objectively good means that it is good regardless of what any person thinks and of course that has to at the very least, relate to the well being of conscious creatures.

Of course you are right here but since you think objective good depends on well-being, it only follows that there must be an objective well-being. Could you please tell me what that is? Objectively please.

Now can you tell me what you mean by objective goodness?

Same as you: Something being objectively good means that it is good regardless of what any person thinks

Mr anony:
Asking for clarification is not the same as ignoring.


Yes. we are agreed

Okay.

Mr anony:
Please explain. Note that Mathematics only has absolutely true answers.


My answer to the bold will result in me begging the question. It will be wrong for me to assume the conclusion that is precisely what we are here to contest.
Also my idea of morality is irrelevant at this point, only an objective morality is what counts here.

Please answer my own question first. Just humour me by begging the question and presenting your answer. I'm asking for what your idea of objective morality is.

Mr anony:
Of course you are right here but since you think objective good depends on well-being, it only follows that there must be an objective well-being. Could you please tell me what that is? Objectively please.

Same as you: Something being objectively good means that it is good regardless of what any person thinks

Well being isn't something absolute but something assessed based on the effects on conscious creatures. It is basically an objective fact of subjective experiences of conscious creatures.

Now what do you think goodness depends on? And how do you know this?

Once again, I notice that after your initial questions have been clarified, you're yet to answer the initial questions in the OP. Please try to do that in your next response.

thehomer:

Okay.



Please answer my own question first. Just humour me by begging the question and presenting your answer. I'm asking for what your idea of objective morality is.

Interesting. Now you are asking me to commit a logical fallacy? Are you really serious about this discussion at all?

Well being isn't something absolute but something assessed based on the effects on conscious creatures. It is basically an objective fact of subjective experiences of conscious creatures.

If there is no objective well-being, then there is no objective good since an objective good cannot depend on a subjective well-being.
You have failed to tell us what you mean by good and therefore I can disregard your rant against God as nothing but your subjective bias.

Now what do you think goodness depends on? And how do you know this?

That's your burden. Don't shift it to me

Once again, I notice that after your initial questions have been clarified, you're yet to answer the initial questions in the OP. Please try to do that in your next response.

You have not clarified anything. We still don't know what you mean by good.

Mr anony:
If there is no objective well-being, then there is no objective good since an objective good cannot depend on a subjective well-being.
You have failed to tell us what you mean by good and therefore I can disregard your rant against God as nothing but your subjective bias.

NICE!!!!
[size=13pt]+1000[/size]

Mr anony:
Interesting. Now you are asking me to commit a logical fallacy? Are you really serious about this discussion at all?

Clearly, you're not being serious because your answer won't be fallacious if it were valid. Or do you think I've committed a fallacy by answering the question?

Mr anony:
If there is no objective well-being, then there is no objective good since an objective good cannot depend on a subjective well-being.
You have failed to tell us what you mean by good and therefore I can disregard your rant against God as nothing but your subjective bias.

Wrong. Certain states are objectively better than others.
Wrong you cannot disregard my responses unless you have some idea of what it is to be good in any sense of the word.

Mr anony:
That's your burden. Don't shift it to me

Wrong again. The burden of proof shifts from time to time in a discussion. I've met mine, you're supposed to present your own point and be ready to defend it but for some reason, you're skittish.

Mr anony:
You have not clarified anything. We still don't know what you mean by good.

I've shown you that it is related to well-being while you have simply tried to avoid answering any single question. Even the questions in the OP.

In fact, you're welcome to answer those questions using your own idea of what it means to be good. Just be ready to defend it when asked. That much has been clarified. So please answer the questions in the OP.

thehomer:
Clearly, you're not being serious because your answer won't be fallacious if it were valid. Or do you think I've committed a fallacy by answering the question?

It is common knowledge between the two of us that I base morality on a creator. The reason you opened this thread was to contest that very assumption. Why then should I assume it when it is precisely what we are contesting.

Wrong. Certain states are objectively better than others.

By what objective standard?

Wrong you cannot disregard my responses unless you have some idea of what it is to be good in any sense of the word.

I can disregard a response that hasn't made any sense. if you can say "God is objectively bad because I think He is bad." I can as well say "thehomer is bad because I think he is bad". All we've done is give voice to our opinions without giving any valid reasons.

Wrong again. The burden of proof shifts from time to time in a discussion. I've met mine, you're supposed to present your own point and be ready to defend it but for some reason, you're skittish.

Urhm no you haven't met yours. Remind me what is "good" again?

I've shown you that it is related to well-being while you have simply tried to avoid answering any single question. Even the questions in the OP.

You may as well have said it is related to how people like their tea in the morning. As long as you haven't defined an objective well-being, you have essentially said nothing.

In fact, you're welcome to answer those questions using your own idea of what it means to be good. Just be ready to defend it when asked. That much has been clarified. So please answer the questions in the OP.

As soon as you establish an objective good, I will be happy to weigh 1Sam 15:3 against it.

There is no point defending God for anything. If you as an unbeliever want to know anything about condemnation, there you have it. The same way He killed every first born of Egypt--
Exodus 12:12

King James Version (KJV)

12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.

In that similar way every unbeliever that refuses God now would be condemned but admonition is that it won't be your flesh or your body alone, Your soul shall be condemned.

All God is asking is for you to believe and you shall be saved, if you don't you shall see him as the Spirit of death. You have all the volition to make a choice.

shdemidemi: There is no point defending God for anything. If you as an unbeliever want to know anything about condemnation, there you have it. The same way He killed every first born of Egypt--
Exodus 12:12

King James Version (KJV)

12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.

In that similar way every unbeliever that refuses God now would be condemned but admonition is that it won't be your flesh or your body alone, Your soul shall be condemned.

All God is asking is for you to believe and you shall be saved, if you don't you shall see him as the Spirit of death. You have all the volition to make a choice.

And if the first born is a 2 year old child or a baby?

Do you people think before you type?

Logicboy03:


And if the first born is a 2 year old child or a baby?

Do you people think before you type?

A two year old baby has not reached the age of accountability but that does not make the child God's elect. The child is a sinner as far as God is concerned but a child's soul will not suffer perilous time like the man who consciously refuse the gospel