thehomer:

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Does this question make sense?


Genocide is not enough to make one evil? Craze

Logicboy03:


Does this question make sense?


Genocide is not enough to make one evil? Craze

Giving life isn't enough to make someone good, interesting.

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.

thehomer:

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.

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.

thehomer:
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.

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.

Uyi Iredia:

Giving life isn't enough to make someone good, interesting.

Strawman. I will pay you a million to show where I made such an argument directly or indirectly


While you are at it, let me just say that you are one of the most foolish non-christians I ever have met. You leave christianity saying that Yaweh is not good. Only for some months to pass and you then claim that genocides (which include killing of babies) does not make Yaweh evil.


You are dull

Logicboy03:



Strawman. I will pay you a million to show where I made such an argument directly or indirectly

I didn't attribute that statement to you. It was a retort.

Logicboy03: While you are at it, let me just say that you are one of the most foolish non-christians I ever have met.

Good ! Foolishness, like ignorance is bliss. The first step to knowledge is to, as Ludacris sang, act a fool.

Logicboy03: You leave christianity saying that Yaweh is not good.

Actually I said not loving. And tge azonto dance you did then has turned to talking fail, bull and sh*t.

Logicboy03: Only for some months to pass and you then claim that genocides (which include killing of babies) does not make Yaweh evil.

I was thinking along those lines even during the azonto dancing period. This is why during your initial joys, I was bemused because I foresaw, without meaning to flatter myself, your disappointment since, one, atheism is as before illogical IMO and I am reappraising Christianity for a possible return. You can take the 1% chance I've surmised of me being athiest: let's debate like the first time we met_logicboy vs Uyi Iredia

Logicboy03: You are dull

Lol. Sure.

Logicboy03:



Strawman. I will pay you a million to show where I made such an argument directly or indirectly


While you are at it, let me just say that you are one of the most foolish non-christians I ever have met. You leave christianity saying that Yaweh is not good. Only for some months to pass and you then claim that genocides (which include killing of babies) does not make Yaweh evil.


You are dull

^^^

Because he is not sinking with you here right ?

Uyi Iredia:

I didn't attribute that statement to you. It was a retort.



Good ! Foolishness, like ignorance is bliss. The first step to knowledge is to, as Ludacris sang, act a fool.



Actually I said not loving. And tge azonto dance you did then has turned to talking fail, bull and sh*t.



I was thinking along those lines even during the azonto dancing period. This is why during your initial joys, I was bemused because I foresaw, without meaning to flatter myself, your disappointment since, one, atheism is as before illogical IMO and I am reappraising Christianity for a possible return. You can take the 1% chance I've surmised of me being athiest: let's debate like the first time we met_logicboy vs Uyi Iredia



Lol. Sure.

I give up


God is good despite committing horrible acts of evil,,,,,

truthislight:

^^^

Because he is not sinking with you here right ?

Wassap?

Logicboy03:




I give up


God is good despite committing horrible acts of evil,,,,,

I did argue whilst a Christian that if God was incapable of doing evil He couldn't possibly be God. musKeeto also quoted from Isiaiah 45:7 where God said He makes evil. Now you may not like it but you simply accept it since its God and not man. This is why I asked you whether you condemn physical laws for killing people. Lots of people have died from falling under gravity, drowning, diseases, human-made weapons, poisons, heat etc all which are the product of physical laws and yet YOU (yes you !) won't say they are evil, I wonder if you say they are good.

Uyi Iredia:

Telling people to love their neighbour or enemies doesn't explicitly tell them not to kill which is what I meant by my request.

In the context of the discussions and of the thread, telling people to love others means do not kill them. That is the way even the old Israelites understood it in the Old Testament. they didn't go about killing themselves, but their/God's enemies.

Uyi Iredia:

I did argue whilst a Christian that if God was incapable of doing evil He couldn't possibly be God. musKeeto also quoted from Isiaiah 45:7 where God said He makes evil. Now you may not like it but you simply accept it since its God and not man. This is why I asked you whether you condemn physical laws for killing people. Lots of people have died from falling under gravity, drowning, diseases, human-made weapons, poisons, heat etc all which are the product of physical laws and yet YOU (yes you !) won't say they are evil, I wonder if you say they are good.

People dont give Logicboy a lot of credit for the work he does on nairaland. I have to engage with foolishness of the highest level from religious folks/theists and make them see logic instead

Imagine someone in his right senses typing what Uyi Iredia just wrote in bold? How can one blame a non-living thing for murder?


Uyi, you miss the whole point of debate. Christians assume that God is a living being that has a similar image to man but infinitely powerful. If God is a being that can reason, he is capable of doing right and wrong.


How can gravity be accused of murder? Are you foolish?

Kay 17:

The present generation of Amalekites were held accountable for the sins of their fathers, the attack against the Israelites in the desert. My contention is the wrongdoer or doers is absent! Hence the purpose of justice is defeated.

Nope, not only for the sins of their fathers but for their own sins too.
1Sa 15:32 And Samuel said, Bring near to me Agag the king of Amalek. And Agag came to him cheerfully. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death has passed.
1Sa 15:33 And Samuel said, As your sword has bereaved women of children, so shall your mother be bereft among women. And Samuel cut Agag in pieces before Jehovah in Gilgal.
Whatever a man sows is what he reaps. God tells us of His principle of judgement already i have shown.

Eze 18:5 But a man that is righteous and does what is just and right,
Eze 18:10 And if he fathers a violent son, who sheds blood and does to a brother any of these;
Eze 18:13 he has given on interest and has taken increase; shall he also live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; dying he shall die; his blood shall be on him.


ALSO,
Eze 18:14 Now, behold! If he fathers a son who sees all his father's sins which he has done, and sees, and does not do like them;
Eze 18:17 has turned back his hand off the poor, and has not received interest and increase. He has done My judgments, has walked in My statutes. He shall not die for the iniquity of his father. Living he shall live.


This principle is clearly repeated even in the story of israel, God's chosen nation. If you look at the captivity in Babylon for instance, God was to judge them already but righteous kings and generations like that of Josiah kept on evading the judgement. It was when hardened kings who did not listen to God or to His prophets got there, that they were eventually punished. Their cup was full as it were. They were offenders too.

thehomer:

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

Logicboy03:



People dont give Logicboy a lot of credit for the work he does on nairaland. I have to engage with foolishness of the highest level from religious folks/theists and make them see logic instead

Imagine someone in his right senses typing what Uyi Iredia just wrote in bold? How can one blame a non-living thing for murder?


Uyi, you miss the whole point of debate. Christians assume that God is a living being that has a similar image to man but infinitely powerful. If God is a being that can reason, he is capable of doing right and wrong.


How can gravity be accused of murder? Are you foolish?

If you don't admit good or bad to the bare physical world, but accept the physical world as it is_never mind efforts to better our lot in it_then you must agree that, whilst we can admit good or bad to God, we simply must accept it so.

Image123:

In the context of the discussions and of the thread, telling people to love others means do not kill them. That is the way even the old Israelites understood it in the Old Testament. they didn't go about killing themselves, but their/God's enemies.

You equivocate by holding love to mean not to kill which, I repeat, isn't explicitly stated: the Israelites killed themselves like when Moses killed some of the golden calf worshippers on coming down from Mount Sinai.

Uyi Iredia:

If you don't admit good or bad to the bare physical world, but accept the physical world as it is_never mind efforts to better our lot in it_then you must agree that, whilst we can admit good or bad to God, we simply must accept it so.

That just didnt make any sense.


just shut up

@image123

Image123:
Nope, not only for the sins of their fathers but for their own sins too.
1Sa 15:32 And Samuel said, Bring near to me Agag the king of Amalek. And Agag came to him cheerfully. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death has passed.
1Sa 15:33 And Samuel said, As your sword has bereaved women of children, so shall your mother be bereft among women. And Samuel cut Agag in pieces before Jehovah in Gilgal.
Whatever a man sows is what he reaps. God tells us of His principle of judgement already i have shown.

Eze 18:5 But a man that is righteous and does what is just and right,
Eze 18:10 And if he fathers a violent son, who sheds blood and does to a brother any of these;
Eze 18:13 he has given on interest and has taken increase; shall he also live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; dying he shall die; his blood shall be on him.


ALSO,
Eze 18:14 Now, behold! If he fathers a son who sees all his father's sins which he has done, and sees, and does not do like them;
Eze 18:17 has turned back his hand off the poor, and has not received interest and increase. He has done My judgments, has walked in My statutes. He shall not die for the iniquity of his father. Living he shall live.


This principle is clearly repeated even in the story of israel, God's chosen nation. If you look at the captivity in Babylon for instance, God was to judge them already but righteous kings and generations like that of Josiah kept on evading the judgement. It was when hardened kings who did not listen to God or to His prophets got there, that they were eventually punished. Their cup was full as it were. They were offenders too.

But Agag didn't do anything wrong! And Samuel had said the rationale for the extermination of Amalekites was the fact the Amlekites in previous generations had attacked the Israelites in the desert when they were helpless!

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.

thehomer:

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.

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.

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.

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).

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:

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.

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.

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.

thehomer:
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.

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

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 ?

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.

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

We'll see.

thehomer:
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.

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 ?

thehomer:
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.

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

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

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

thehomer:
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?s

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.

thehomer:
I'm not playing anything here.s

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.

thehomer:
I'm simply saying that lying can be morally justified in some cases

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.

thehomer:
but genocide cannot be morally justified but it looks like you think that genocide can be morally justified.

Sure, it can, ergo, genocides/massacres by humans.

thehomer:
It looks to me like you're confused about the issue of morality

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.

thehomer:
or are just trying to win an argument even if it makes you abandon moral reasoning.

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 ?

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.

v

thehomer:

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.



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





And this is your moral reason for justifying a genocide?



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



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



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





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



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.

thehomer:



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 ^ is plain dishonesty and your argument is an attempt to malign Yahweh being that you are an atheist that have plain hatred for the belief in God.

If we are to ask an Israelite that is aware that the Amalekite had attacked them when they were most vulnerable at Rephidim, killing innocent women, killing innocent children men and livesstocks without provocation and had repeated the samething at other occasions, WILL HE CONSIDER THE ACTION OF YAHWEH AS YOU AN ATHEISTS IS DOING ?

Infact, will someone that knows the details of what the Amalekites did to the israelite who is not an atheist or an ignorant atheist or a bias hater of Yahweh conclude biasedly like you are doing one sidedly without balancing things based on what the Amalekites did ?

^^

you be the judge as well as others.

You have been here making one sided statement out of an abnormal mind devoid of sound Judgment without ever considering what the Amalekites ever did to the Israelites, but can ask others to be honest, you, are you honest so far ?

Does not murder beget murder again ?

You that live over 4000years later an atheist devoid of facts comes out to speak from your immoral heart that cannot keep Yahwey's protective moral laws on sex due to lack of self control thinks that such feeble mind can assess YAHWEH ! smh. How can ?

If every thing was ok with your mind, and you have an iota of what impartial Judgement is, will you not have started by justifying what the Amalekites did to the Israelites befor proceeding to query YAHWEH's actions ?

But no, you just proceeded like a Llamma to vomit your hatred for the one that said he will destroy you if you dont live by his standard. How then can you demand honesty from someone else, are qualify to ask for such like you did above ?

truthislight:




This ^ is plain dishonesty and your argument is an attempt to malign Yahweh being that you are an atheist that have plain hatred for God.

If we are to ask an Israelite that is aware that the Amalekite had attacked them when they were most vulnerable at Rephidim, killing innocent women, killing innocent children men and livesstocks without provocation and had repeated the samething at other occasions, WILL HE CONSIDER THE ACTION OF YAHWEH AS YOU AN ATHEISTS IS DOING ?

Infact, will someone that knows the details of what the Amalekites did to the israelite who is not an atheist or an ignorant atheist conclude biasedly like you are doing one sidedly without balancing things based on what the Amalekites did ?

^^

you be the judge as well as others.

You have been here making one sided statement out of an abnormal mind devoid of sound Judgment without ever considering what the Amalekites ever did to the Israelites, but can ask others to be honest, you, are you honest so far ?

Does not murder beget murder again ?

You that live over 4000years later an attest devoid of facts comes out to speak from your immoral heart that cannot keep Yahwey's protective moral laws on sex due to lack of self control thinks that such feeble mind can assess YAHWEH ! smh. How can ?

If every thing was ok with your mind, and you have an iota of what impartial Judgement is, will you not have started by justifying what the Amalekites did to the Israelites befor proceeding to query YAHWEH's actions ?

But no, you just proceeded like a lamma to vomit your hatred for the one that said he will destroy you if you dont live by his standard. How then can you demand honesty from someone else, are qualify to ask for such like you did above ?

Lets say Nigeria is in the old testament times. Now Nigeria is the Sodom and Gommorah......men having child brides, corruption, blood money, armed robbery, oil bunkery............



Should God set Nigeria ablaze, killing men, women, children and livestock, just like he did to sodom and gommorah? Remember that we are talking about a hypothetical Nigeria in the old testament times

thehomer:
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, , Stalin etc were evil people.

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.

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

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.

thehomer:
And this is your moral reason for justifying a genocide?

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

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

I see.

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

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 ?

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

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.

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

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.

thehomer:
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.

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.

thehomer:
This tells me that either you're willing to abandon views you actually hold as an attempt to win

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.

thehomer: or you're not someone I'd like to have such a discussion with.

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.

thehomer: Just as I won't bother discussing the problems of racism with a supremacist who refuses to be open to questioning their preumptions.

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.

thehomer: Based on what you've been saying, you're simply not qualified or not ready to talk about these issues.

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.

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.