thehomer:
What exactly is God's nature? And how do you know it is changeless?

The statement "God is evil" is like the statement "water is wet". Evil is simply God's nature.

Goodness and changelessness are part of what form God's nature. Talking about a being that is evil and whose character changes is to talk of a being other than God.

I've done that several times. His acts according to the Bible like commanding the killing of children and infants and actually killing children and infants in the flood show this fact. The virgin birth does because Mary's permission was never sought before he "implanted his seed" into her.

God is under no obligation to preserve man's life.
God did not command the killing of innocents. The bible does not teach this.
God did not have sex with Mary against her will. You are just hurling mud and hoping it sticks.

I'm simply showing you one of the premises for carrying out any sort of moral reasoning. You on the other hand are claiming not to accept the premise that you already accept. In case you didn't know, premises are assumptions so the fact that I've assumed it isn't in question. The problem you're facing is that you've assumed this premise too so unless you wish to cut this branch you're standing on, I don't see the point you're trying to make.

Yes premises are assumptions but that doesn't preclude them from the need to be explained especially when your "basic premise" is prescriptive (if it was descriptive, I might have given you a pass, but it isn't). Unless your idea of "moral reasoning" is anti-logic, I don't see why I have to accept a premise that prescribes actions without justification

Secondly, I wonder how many times I'll have to repeat before you get it. That we agree that a thing is true doesn't mean that we agree on why it is true.

It looks to me that you are abusing logic by making a circular argument in the name of "moral reasoning" What exactly do you mean by this "moral reasoning" of yours?

And I did not answer this question you're asking here.

Good.

@ Thehomer

Why do you keep allowing anony to lie to you about figurative speech nonsense?. . .Just read the bible and show him how wrong he is. . .The story clearly stated that they killed every thing that was weak(women, infants, babies including weak animals) but kept those they felt were strong for themselves, and for failing to obey Yahweh commandments for total annihilation Yahweh got angry with Saul and regretted making him king. . Read the story and stop listening to anony and his lies. . .Yahweh was even angry that he did not completely annihilate them. . .

1Sa 15:6 Then he said to the Kenites, “Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.
1Sa 15:7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt.
1Sa 15:8[b] He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive,[size=18pt] and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword[/size][/b].
1Sa 15:9[b] But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calvesfn and lambs—everything that was good[/b]. [size=18pt]These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed[/size].
1Sa 15:10 Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel:
1Sa 15:11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.

1Sa 15:15 Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the LORD your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”

1Sa 15:16 “Enough!” Samuel said to Saul. “Let me tell you what the LORD said to me last night.” “Tell me,” Saul replied.

1Sa 15:17 Samuel said, “Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The LORD anointed you king over Israel.

1Sa 15:18 And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘[size=18pt]Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out[/size].’
1Sa 15:19 Why did you not obey the LORD? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the LORD?”

1Sa 15:20 “But I did obey the LORD,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the LORD assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king.

1Sa 15:21 The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the LORD your God at Gilgal.”
1Sa 15:22 But Samuel replied: “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

1Sa 15:23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king.”

thehomer:

I said the woman has the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. I did not say she has the right to kill babies. Your God too doesn't have the right to kill babies just so you know.



That is why I wonder why you and others believe in nonsense. What you're saying is like saying Voldemort owns you. Once you realize that your God is no better than hundreds of other fictional characters, then you'll understand why you believe in nonsense.

Abortion is a killing of babiea, millions BTW. No need to play with words. Does God have right to order killing of children? Why, you think wmen can choose whether or not to kill their babies.
It is nonsense, makes no sense that you do not believe there is a God but you believe that the same God that does not exist is evil.

Mr anony:
Goodness and changelessness are part of what form God's nature. Talking about a being that is evil and whose character changes is to talk of a being other than God.

How can he be good when he gives what you've accepted to be immoral commands? How can he be changeless when he changes his mind?

Mr anony:
God is under no obligation to preserve man's life.

Then you cannot say he loves man. Neither can you say he is a moral agent.

Mr anony:
God did not command the killing of innocents. The bible does not teach this.

False. The Bible does teach this as I've demonstrated repeatedly. He did in Noah's flood and he did it in his command to Samuel. Note that so far, you've not been able to back up your linguistic claim that the command was an idiomatic expression. Until you do this, your claim that God didn't command the killing of children is simply false.

Mr anony:
God did not have sex with Mary against her will. You are just hurling mud and hoping it sticks.

Did Mary invite God to plant "his seed" in her?

Mr anony:
Yes premises are assumptions but that doesn't preclude them from the need to be explained especially when your "basic premise" is prescriptive (if it was descriptive, I might have given you a pass, but it isn't). Unless your idea of "moral reasoning" is anti-logic, I don't see why I have to accept a premise that prescribes actions without justification

You've already accepted the premise. If you wish to deny the premise, simply say so.

Mr anony:
Secondly, I wonder how many times I'll have to repeat before you get it. That we agree that a thing is true doesn't mean that we agree on why it is true.

But since we agree that it is true, then you have to also agree that your God does something immoral by commanding the killing of children and infants.

Mr anony:
It looks to me that you are abusing logic by making a circular argument in the name of "moral reasoning" What exactly do you mean by this "moral reasoning" of yours?

Good.

By moral reasoning, I mean: the process in which an individual tries to determine the difference between what is right and what is wrong in a personal situation by using logic.

What argument have I made that you're referring to as circular? And how have I abused logic here?

Image123:
Abortion is a killing of babiea, millions BTW. No need to play with words. Does God have right to order killing of children? Why, you think wmen can choose whether or not to kill their babies.

You're the one playing with words here. You say abortion is the killing of babies and I disagree with that claim. No God doesn't have the right to order the killing of children. I don't think women can chose whether or not to kill their babies.

Image123:
It is nonsense, makes no sense that you do not believe there is a God but you believe that the same God that does not exist is evil.

I don't believe that Voldemort really exists yet I believe that he is evil. Your God is in the same category as Voldemort.

What is all this fancy talk all about where the universal sovereign is concern ?

Are you the one that sets his standards for him ?

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;" (Exodus 20:4-5).
.....................

^
Is he supposed to owe his creatures any explanation concerning his actions, by the way ?


what Imput did the creatures input befor they were created ? Where then does this 'right' to question Yahweh comes from ?

In my company, i can hire and fire any body that does not abide by my layed down rules and regulations, did they open the company for me ?

Rebels !

That he decides to answer questions and gives explanations and reasons for his actions at all is just because of his higher standards.

Who told you it is democracy ? Rebels !

You cannot even question human dictators, but you think you have the right to question Yahweh right ? Because the universal sovereign tolerates such questions(though he is not obliged to) you take advantage and over do it and deriding him, even when his Judgement was purely based on Justice ? smh.

mazaje: @ Thehomer

Why do you keep allowing anony to lie to you about figurative speech nonsense?. . .Just read the bible and show him how wrong he is. . .The story clearly stated that they killed every thing that was weak(women, infants, babies including weak animals) but kept those they felt were strong for themselves, and for failing to obey Yahweh commandments for total annihilation Yahweh got angry with Saul and regretted making him king. . Read the story and stop listening to anony and his lies. . .Yahweh was even angry that he did not completely annihilate them. . .

1Sa 15:6 Then he said to the Kenites, “Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.
1Sa 15:7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt.
1Sa 15:8[b] He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive,[size=18pt] and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword[/size][/b].
1Sa 15:9[b] But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calvesfn and lambs—everything that was good[/b]. [size=18pt]These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed[/size].
1Sa 15:10 Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel:
1Sa 15:11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.

1Sa 15:15 Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the LORD your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”

1Sa 15:16 “Enough!” Samuel said to Saul. “Let me tell you what the LORD said to me last night.” “Tell me,” Saul replied.

1Sa 15:17 Samuel said, “Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The LORD anointed you king over Israel.

1Sa 15:18 And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘[size=18pt]Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out[/size].’
1Sa 15:19 Why did you not obey the LORD? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the LORD?”

1Sa 15:20 “But I did obey the LORD,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the LORD assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king.

1Sa 15:21 The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the LORD your God at Gilgal.”
1Sa 15:22 But Samuel replied: “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

1Sa 15:23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king.”

Aah my friend mazaje. I'm not letting Mr anony get away. I'm not buying his rubbish claim of figurative speech but because I'm not interested in hermeneutics since anyone can torture the Bible to say anything, I've left it up to him to show that what he claims to be figurative speech is actually figurative speech. If you give him enough time and the rest of that passage, I can guarantee you that he will torture something strange out of the chapter.

thehomer:

Aah my friend mazaje. I'm not letting Mr anony get away. I'm not buying his rubbish claim of figurative speech but because I'm not interested in hermeneutics since anyone can torture the Bible to say anything, I've left it up to him to show that what he claims to be figurative speech is actually figurative speech. If you give him enough time and the rest of that passage, I can guarantee you that he will torture something strange out of the chapter.

LOL! . . .

truthislight: What is all this fancy talk all about where the universal sovereign is concern ?

Are you the one that sets his standards for him ?

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;" (Exodus 20:4-5).
.....................

^
Is he supposed to owe his creatures any explanation concerning his actions, by the way ?


what Imput did the creatures input befor they were created ? Where then does this 'right' to question Yahweh comes from ?

In my company, i can hire and fire any body that does not abide by my layed down rules and regulations, did they open the company for me ?

Rebels !

That he decides to answer question and gives explanations and reasons for his actions at all is just because of his higher standards.

Who told you it is democracy ? Rebels !

You cannot even question human dictators but because the universal sovereign tolerate such questions(though he is not obliged to) you take advantage and over do it when his Judgement was purely based on Justice smh.

What is all this rant all about?. . Is your god good or not?. . .Human dictators are not good. . .A dictatorial boss is not good. . .Here we are talking about a supposedly all good god. . .Or do you now accept that your god is evil?. .

mazaje:

What is all this rant all about?. . Is your god good or not?. . .Human dictators are not good. . .A dictatorial boss is not good. . .Here we are talking about a supposedly all good god. . .Or do you now accept that your god is evil?. .

What ?

Yahweh is PERFECT !

That you are so blind without a sense of Justice, is it my fault ?

That it flew over your head that the Amalekites attacked the Israelites first without provocation killing innocent children and women and men/slaves from Egypt, untrained in war fare, is it my fault ?

Is comprehension your problem ?

Cant you read in your previous post up there that Yahweh had asked an innocent nation(Kenites) to move away from the Amalekites to avert them being destroyed also ?

Were the Amalekites innocent as charged ?

That you have hetrade for Yahweh that you cannot keep his laws is whose fault ? Mind ?

Abeg, shif !

Your sense of Justice is leaking >> basket sense of Justice.

Who cares about what you think and accused Yahweh of ? your kind i suppose !

Smh

thehomer:

You're the one playing with words here. You say abortion is the killing of babies and I disagree with that claim. No God doesn't have the right to order the killing of children. I don't think women can chose whether or not to kill their babies.



I don't believe that Voldemort really exists yet I believe that he is evil. Your God is in the same category as Voldemort.

Oh tell me more, what is abortion. You seem to want to define things to suit yurself. Are aborted babies innocent or guilty?
Your belief makes no sense like has been said. You do nt believe in the existence of something, but you believe things about it. You take the cake brother, i've never seen such.

truthislight:

What ?

Yahweh is PERFECT !

That you are so blind without a sense of Justice, is it my fault ?

That it flew over your head that the Amalekites attacked the Israelites first without provocation killing innocent children and women and men/slaves from Egypt, untrained in war fare, is it my fault ?

Is comprehension your problem ?

Cant you read in your previous post up there that Yahweh had asked an innocent nation(Kenites) to move away from the Amalekites to avert them being destroyed also ?

Were the Amalekites innocent as charged ?

That you have hetrade for Yahweh that you cannot keep his laws is whose fault ? Mind ?

Abeg, shif !

Your sense of Justice is leaking >> basket sense of Justice.

Who cares about what you think and accused Yahweh of ? your kind i suppose !

Smh

Screaming that a Jewish tribal deity is perfect doesn't make him so. . .You guys claim your god isw all god and my point is the god portrayed in the bible is not all good simple, he is evil even as acknowledged by the bible, he confess of his own evil deed and even apologized for it in the book of Isiah. . .

By the way the story about the Amalekites is actually non historical and remains a Jewish mythology. . .

v

mazaje:

Screaming that a Jewish tribal deity is perfect doesn't make him so. . .You guys claim your god isw all god and my point is the god portrayed in the bible is not all good simple, he is evil even as acknowledged by the bible, he confess of his own evil deed and even apologized for it in the book of Isiah. . .

By the way the story about the Amalekites is actually non historical and remains a Jewish mythology. . .

Smh

thehomer:

Is God a moral agent?

Cut to the chase and make your point: I have stated God isn't bound by moral laws the way humans are.

thehomer:
It is a basic assumption that it is wrong. If you disagree, then you're saying it is right to kill people for crimes they didn't commit. Is that what you're saying?

Disagreeing with your response doesn't mean I support killing. What I state is that your assumption begs the question of its reason. Assuming morality can get you any kind of morality however bizarre or genteel: so why is killing wrong ?

thehomer:

The two of them are deeply confused about the issues at stake here. That is why they wonder whether it is right to kill people for crimes they didn't commit. Despite the fact that from all indications, they think it is wrong to do so.

I think you described yourself better than I would especially with your first statement. Your next statement shows YOUR comfort in ignorance given the fact that I have made it clear that I believe genocide is wrong. Your depth on the subject of morality which is of more importance here is lacking to the point I think you deludely foolish as regards it.

Logicboy03: @Uyi Iredia and Anony

To claim that God is not held back by any laws is to show that God is a wild animal that is free to do anything- both logical and illogical.

People, like wild animals, act illogical and logical.

Logicboy03: So God, committing suicide- thereby killing himself and then, giving atheists the standing to say that there is no God will still be a moral and logical thing to do because he is God. God plays by no one's rules.

Sure. We see that much in Nature which isn't a moral agent but magicked morality in humans by u-know-what. So if God made evil aspects of Nature I simply accept it, evil is hardly a basis to deny a things existence, I doubt that I'm talking with reasonable people who know this.

Logicboy03:

Me sef dey laff !

Logicboy03: Philosophy is too much for the sophists

Yeah right. I still recall your sophistry on the issue of how morality evolved in the brain. Your tap-dancing there hardly impressed me. Your confidence in your wisdom as usual was pleasing to your ilk.

Uyi Iredia:

People, like wild animals, act illogical and logical.



Sure. We see that much in Nature which isn't a moral agent but magicked morality in humans by u-know-what. So if God made evil aspects of Nature I simply accept it, evil is hardly a basis to deny a things existence, I doubt that I'm talking with reasonable people who know this.



Me sef dey laff !



Yeah right. I still recall your sophistry on the issue of how morality evolved in the brain. Your tap-dancing there hardly impressed me. Your confidence in your wisdom as usual was pleasing to your ilk.

Guy, do you sometimes realise how silly you sound at times?


What point are you even making here?

Logicboy03:


Guy, do you sometimes realise how silly you sound at times?


What point are you even making here?

Good 'point'.

thehomer:
How can he be good when he gives what you've accepted to be immoral commands? How can he be changeless when he changes his mind?

Then you cannot say he loves man. Neither can you say he is a moral agent.

False. The Bible does teach this as I've demonstrated repeatedly. He did in Noah's flood and he did it in his command to Samuel. Note that so far, you've not been able to back up your linguistic claim that the command was an idiomatic expression. Until you do this, your claim that God didn't command the killing of children is simply false.

Did Mary invite God to plant "his seed" in her?

You've already accepted the premise. If you wish to deny the premise, simply say so.

But since we agree that it is true, then you have to also agree that your God does something immoral by commanding the killing of children and infants.

I refuse to repeat my answers ad infinitum, I refuse to join in your mud slinging match and I refuse to pursue multiple tangents that lead nowhere in particular.

By moral reasoning, I mean: the process in which an individual tries to determine the difference between what is right and what is wrong in a personal situation by using logic.

Good. So the way you go about determining the difference between right and wrong in a situation is by initially assuming the rightness or wrongness of what you set out to determine?
I'm afraid that your idea of moral reasoning is opposed to logic. If you can't see it as clear as it is, then I'm afraid I really can't help you.

mazaje:

You keep repeating this fallacy of higher moral code, how is it a higher moral code when it was set up by men?. . .When a company sets its opening hours by 8 am and tells every body that works in the company to abide by it and obey it(both employer and employee ), does that mean that the company has set a rule that transcends them because they must obey it?. . .It is just something they have set to serve as a guide line and make sure that business is done properly. . .Same with moral laws, men sat down, created and and set all of it to make them live in a less chaotic and peaceful society. . .

Using your analogy: In the case of a company that sets opening time at 8.00am, this law transcends the employees but not necessarily the business owner. However let us for the sake of argument assume that the employer and employees both agree to be bound by that time. The law will then not transcend them, it will also not be binding upon them since such a law, they can easily agree to change it.
Do you hold that the same applies to moral laws? Can people come together and decide to change moral laws? Because if you think they can, then tomorrow someone can decide that it is now right to kill innocent people and he won't be doing anything wrong.

Nope, your anology is quite daft because the answer has already been given, that you don't want to accept is your own business. . .

Question: Why is it wrong to kill somebody for the crimes of another person.

Answer: Because the person is innocent and doesn't deserve to be killed for what he is innocent of. . .

Simple, any thing is is your own convoluted logic that makes no sense at all. . .

No further comments

Mr anony:
Using your analogy: In the case of a company that sets opening time at 8.00am, this law transcends the employees but not necessarily the business owner. However let us for the sake of argument assume that the employer and employees both agree to be bound by that time. The law will then not transcend them, it will also not be binding upon them since such a law, they can easily agree to change it.
Do you hold that the same applies to moral laws? Can people come together and decide to change moral laws? Because if you think they can, then tomorrow someone can decide that it is now right to kill innocent people and he won't be doing anything wrong.

Isn's that how all humans laws are made?. . .laws are made through consensus. . .People come together to formulate what ever law they want to abide by and which ever law they believe will make their society less chaotic and give people a sense of fairness. . .

No body can make stupid laws like deciding to kill innocent people because it isnt fair and will lead to chaos in the society, but laws are changed all the time. . .It used to be a crime to be gay in Denmark at a time, now its not. . .Laws are always changed, all abortions used to be illegal in some parts of the world, now in the same parts abortions are now legal etc. . .laws are debated upon, points are made, fairness is measured, a consensus is reached and then it becomes law. . .That's how humans created all the laws they live by today. . .No god has ever created any law for humans to live by any time and any where, humans created the laws and in they past they used their various gods and religious elites as an enforcing mechanism. . .

Image123:

Oh tell me more, what is abortion. You seem to want to define things to suit yurself. Are aborted babies innocent or guilty?
Your belief makes no sense like has been said. You do nt believe in the existence of something, but you believe things about it. You take the cake brother, i've never seen such.

Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. They are neither innocent nor guilty.

The fact that it makes no sense to you shows your own limitations. Anyone who has read fiction with characters that are evil would understand what I'm talking about.

Uyi Iredia:

Cut to the chase and make your point: I have stated God isn't bound by moral laws the way humans are.

Your statement would make no sense if God is a moral agent that is why you need to first clarify that issue in your mind.

Uyi Iredia:
Disagreeing with your response doesn't mean I support killing. What I state is that your assumption begs the question of its reason. Assuming morality can get you any kind of morality however bizarre or genteel: so why is killing wrong ?

If you support my assumption, then why do you question whether or not the God of the Bible is evil?
What do you mean by the phrase in bold?
Killing isn't necessarily wrong.

Uyi Iredia:

I think you described yourself better than I would especially with your first statement. Your next statement shows YOUR comfort in ignorance given the fact that I have made it clear that I believe genocide is wrong. Your depth on the subject of morality which is of more importance here is lacking to the point I think you deludely foolish as regards it.

Ahh the sweet throes of your pains when you feel uncomfortable with your God. You believe genocide is wrong then what is the point of your question to me? Why don't you address the issue of whether or not this God of the Bible is actually an evil God since you've already accepted that what he did was evil?

Mr anony:
I refuse to repeat my answers ad infinitum, I refuse to join in your mud slinging match and I refuse to pursue multiple tangents that lead nowhere in particular.

I'm not asking you to repeat your answers, I'm asking you to answer the question I asked you and to provide evidence for your claim that God was using a figure of speech. Those tangents lead to evidence of your God's evil nature. That much was very clear.

Mr anony:
Good. So the way you go about determining the difference between right and wrong in a situation is by initially assuming the rightness or wrongness of what you set out to determine?

No, one of the premises in assessing rightness or wrongness is whether or not the person being blamed was actually responsible. You agree with me that this is the case yet you're unwilling to apply this same premise to your God.

Mr anony:
I'm afraid that your idea of moral reasoning is opposed to logic. If you can't see it as clear as it is, then I'm afraid I really can't help you.

You've not shown a logical problem with what I've stated. You're merely implying that you don't accept a premise you actually accept and that is just a sign of your self confusion.

thehomer:

Ahh the sweet throes of your pains when you feel uncomfortable with your God. You believe genocide is wrong then what is the point of your question to me? Why don't you address the issue of whether or not this God of the Bible is actually an evil God since you've already accepted that what he did was evil?

Pains in thehomer's delusions. Another explanation is that, as usual, you show poor comprehension, even poor memory. I have told you elsewhere that God is both good and evil and is free to effect both. The question of relevance to me here I have repeated, despite my sincerest efforts, to your wilful ignorance. I repeat it to you again: why do you call God evil despite its good (ie the good it has done). Your lack of discernement becomes all the more clear give the inanities of your fianl posers.

thehomer:

Your statement would make no sense if God is a moral agent that is why you need to first clarify that issue in your mind.

As as I said. God is not bound by moral laws the way humans are. Your statement is senseless if you fail to note this.

thehomer:
If you support my assumption, then why do you question whether or not the God of the Bible is evil?
What do you mean by the phrase in bold?
Killing isn't necessarily wrong.

I question it when I consider the good the God of the Bible has done, which good you ignore. The phrase in bold is simple: if I can simply assume anything moral I can assume an act, like say, killing a baby, to be moral. I can also assume picking one's nose is immoral. If killing isn't necessarily wrong then Christians are jystified in thinking God's killing right by your statement. But of course, I know killing, like lying isn't wrong, except when you decide it is.

Uyi Iredia:

Pains in thehomer's delusions. Another explanation is that, as usual, you show poor comprehension, even poor memory. I have told you elsewhere that God is both good and evil and is free to effect both. The question of relevance to me here I have repeated, despite my sincerest efforts, to your wilful ignorance. I repeat it to you again: why do you call God evil despite its good (ie the good it has done). Your lack of discernement becomes all the more clear give the inanities of your fianl posers.

And if you'll recall (maybe you won't because of your probable Alzheimer's disease) I told you that we judge whether or not someone is evil based on the heinousness of their actions. And we don't judge whether or not someone is good based on their partiality towards their family, it is generally assessed based on the absence of those heinous actions.

Uyi Iredia:

As as I said. God is not bound by moral laws the way humans are. Your statement is senseless if you fail to note this.

This is a uselessly dull response. If God is a moral agent, then he is bound by moral laws. Your useless assertions don't change this simple fact.

Uyi Iredia:
I question it when I consider the good the God of the Bible has done, which good you ignore.

So according to you, was General Sani Abacha good because he treated his children well and gave them his loot?

Uyi Iredia:
The phrase in bold is simple: if I can simply assume anything moral I can assume an act, like say, killing a baby, to be moral. I can also assume picking one's nose is immoral.

But you cannot simply assume that anything is moral. Or do you actually think that morality works that way?

Uyi Iredia:
If killing isn't necessarily wrong then Christians are jystified in thinking God's killing right by your statement. But of course, I know killing, like lying isn't wrong, except when you decide it is.

Do you really believe that commanding a genocide isn't wrong? Please answer honestly.

thehomer:

How can he be good when he gives what you've accepted to be immoral commands? How can he be changeless when he changes his mind?



Then you cannot say he loves man. Neither can you say he is a moral agent.



False. The Bible does teach this as I've demonstrated repeatedly. He did in Noah's flood and he did it in his command to Samuel. Note that so far, you've not been able to back up your linguistic claim that the command was an idiomatic expression. Until you do this, your claim that God didn't command the killing of children is simply false.



Did Mary invite God to plant "his seed" in her?



You've already accepted the premise. If you wish to deny the premise, simply say so.



But since we agree that it is true, then you have to also agree that your God does something immoral by commanding the killing of children and infants.



By moral reasoning, I mean: the process in which an individual tries to determine the difference between what is right and what is wrong in a personal situation by using logic.

What argument have I made that you're referring to as circular? And how have I abused logic here?

To most xtians, the bible is like a softeare licence where they don't read it but scroll to the end and click..I agree.
that's what I am seein here, they won't want to open their eyes

thehomer:

This is a uselessly dull response. If God is a moral agent, then he is bound by moral laws. Your useless assertions don't change this simple fact.

'Uselessly dull', apparently you are at a loss for words. Bound by which moral laws BTW ? Yours ?

thehomer:
So according to you, was General Sani Abacha good because he treated his children well and gave them his loot?

Diversion.

thehomer:
But you cannot simply assume that anything is moral. Or do you actually think that morality works that way?

I see. Yet you assume killing is wrong. Or can you give a reason why it is wrong without being circular, and so prove me wrong.

thehomer:
Do you really believe that commanding a genocide isn't wrong? Please answer honestly.

I won't unless you answer whether lying is wrong with a yes or no.