Logicboy03:

So when mindless matter does it, it goes scott-free: God does it and because it is a supposed non-contigent Mind it is scorned ? Interesting !

@ Enigma,

Please we need to get in touch. It's urgent and very important. I sent you a PM, don't know if it delivered. If not, kindly email me at (my I.D here)@yahoo.co.uk

Thanks

Uyi Iredia:

Your first reply begs the question. Unworthy presumes an evil that needs explanation in the question (of contadiction) I asked. To your poser: No, I don't but that itself even begs the question I'm asking.

You've started running round in circles again. Is someone who commands the killing of children for the crimes of their parents evil or not?

Uyi Iredia:
You are skilled at turning questions back at opponents whilst being woefully lazy at answering. In any case being good stems ONLY from conscious mind, what is deemed good is a matter of one's arbitration. That said, why do you ignore God's good, you didn't deny them_sensibly_so I wonder whether you factor it in b4 concluding God is evil.

Once again, you come with your childish snide remarks making me wonder whether you're fit for serious conversation. If that is how you'll continue on this thread, I'll just leave you rather than sinking to your level.
My answer there won't be as helpful as yours if you actually know what you're talking about. Note that I'm inviting you to apply whatever notion of good you wish to use in defending this God because he obviously doesn't fit mine.
What you're saying means that goodness is subjective and based on one's judgement. If that is your position, that is fine. But based on that position and your own judgement, do you think that someone who orders the killing of children is good?
You're wondering why I focus on God's evil rather than what you consider to be the good he's done? Well that is how I judge character. I judge it based on the worst that someone has done.

Logicboy03:



The Homer has really suffered. Arguing with 3 dummies that hate to reason and use logic.

Just even look at your reply. Nonsensical.

"Evil people are unworthy of worship"
^^^^
The above quote is what you have a problem with. How foolish. How can you even argue against a very simple fact? You must have your brain on temporary suspension or something

You see what I have to endure just to show them the ridiculousness of their ideas.

Image123:
Hopefully, you understand that the statement "God wanted to kill all animals and people because "the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time" IS DIFFERENT FROM "God wanted to kill all animals and people because He wanted to wipe out evil". To help you two steps forward, it was a measure of punishment/judgement. You can also compare it to an amputation of a degenerating sore part of the body.

This is the sort of empty response I've come to expect from people defending this God. You're saying God didn't want to wipe out evil, he just wanted to kill a lot of people knowing that it won't make a difference.

Image123:
i didn't just say that God is good, the Bible says so. That is what is right before our eyes, which you ironically failed to see. As to God killing children for the crimes of their parents, it has a multifaceted defence. God is their Owner and has all the right, moral and legal, to do what He deems fit with them. God in His omniscience can choose to kill someone as young and innocent, hence saving him from an eternity in hell, than have such person grow up to inflict pain to many and glorify evil worse than his progenitors. Take some measure to educate yourself on God's character using this passage below please.
Eze 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
Eze 18:3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Eze 18:14 Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like,
Eze 18:17 That hath taken off his hand from the poor, that hath not received usury nor increase, hath executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live.
Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Eze 18:21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
Eze 18:22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Also, if you would study God, you would consider that He blesses/rewards the child for the father's goodness. Is this right in your eyes? Should a son be honoured or rewarded for his father's goodness?

And you agree with the Bible so you also say he is good because you've read it in the Bible. Based on your response here, you should see this thread I created on killing children in order to save them from hell. Since we're asserting ownership, then I declare that Zeus owns everyone and everything.

No the son should be honoured for what he does not for what his father did so your God is still wrong on that. Even we mere humans have figured that out.

Image123:
Nope. He owns me and my suit. He owns the whole world.

If I do it it is wrong if God does it, it is right. Therefore if God commands you to kill 10 children, it is the right thing to do.

Image123:
No, i did not say that there are no objectively right or wrong actions. i said that some actions may be considered right at a time, and may be considered wrong at other times.i gave you the illustrations to inform.remind you that some questions may not best be answered with just yes or no. Some actions are not good all the time or wrong all the time. Perspective, time, and context have to be taken note of. God is not a man like you.

Saying that something was morally right before but morally wrong now means morality is subjective. Saying that if God does something and it is right but if someone does it, it is wrong, means that such an action is not objectively moral or immoral. You need to get these ideas clear in your mind. Sure you say God is not a man but according to you believers, he is a person and people are bound by morality.

thehomer:

You've started running round in circles again. Is someone who commands the killing of children for the crimes of their parents evil or not?

Read properly. I said no then stated that your question is what I implied initially.

thehomer:
Once again, you come with your childish snide remarks making me wonder whether you're fit for serious conversation. If that is how you'll continue on this thread, I'll just leave you rather than sinking to your level.
My answer there won't be as helpful as yours if you actually know what you're talking about. Note that I'm inviting you to apply whatever notion of good you wish to use in defending this God because he obviously doesn't fit mine.
What you're saying means that goodness is subjective and based on one's judgement. If that is your position, that is fine. But based on that position and your own judgement, do you think that someone who orders the killing of children is good?
You're wondering why I focus on God's evil rather than what you consider to be the good he's done? Well that is how I judge character. I judge it based on the worst that someone has done.

To the question: No. Given your criteria, why would you castigate those who judge God as good for the best he has done ? They are applying their subjectivity as much as you and as such all WE are left with is arbitrary opinions on the morality or not of God.

I will but in here.

thehomer:
This is the sort of empty response I've come to expect from people defending this God. You're saying God didn't want to wipe out evil, he just wanted to kill a lot of people knowing that it won't make a difference.

I think yours is an ill-thought stance on the question of morality. I must go pre-suppositional here. My definition: Good or evil is a (conceptual) stance on a given physical event. Can you define good or evil ? The rule being you musn't resort to circularity.

thehomer:
And you agree with the Bible so you also say he is good because you've read it in the Bible. Based on your response here, you should see this thread I created on killing children in order to save them from hell. Since we're asserting ownership, then I declare that Zeus owns everyone and everything.

Okay. Be aZeustic if you please.

thehomer:
No the son should be honoured for what he does not for what his father did so your God is still wrong on that. Even we mere humans have figured that out.

This damages the moral basis of inheritance because it gives a property as honor to a child based on what the parent did.

thehomer:
If I do it it is wrong if God does it, it is right. Therefore if God commands you to kill 10 children, it is the right thing to do.

It depends on the person. Some people feel it right and do it, in modern times and ostensibly in ancient times, some people won't as seen in the modern times and in the ancient times. Either way, your ilk are sure to talk and why not, you have a derived source of morality.

thehomer:
Saying that something was morally right before but morally wrong now means morality is subjective.

True. Morality here presumably being the things held to be good or bad.

thehomer:
Saying that if God does something and it is right but if someone does it, it is wrong, means that such an action is not objectively moral or immoral.

Agreed.

thehomer:
You need to get these ideas clear in your mind. Sure you say God is not a man but according to you believers, he is a person and people are bound by morality.

Even person implies God is a mortal or subject to morality or physical laws. Your statement here makes as much sense as you believing that evolution and the Big Bang are bound by morality: I state that since you unsahamedly hold that morality in humans is the result of the evolutionary process. To better get the bolded, do you think a lone man in the total absence of people or a society is bound by morality ?

thehomer:

This is the sort of empty response I've come to expect from people defending this God. You're saying God didn't want to wipe out evil, he just wanted to kill a lot of people knowing that it won't make a difference.

i would not exactly call what i am doing "defending God". Defended from what? i'm trying to help you understand. Now, i didn't say God didn't want to wipe out evil, he just wanted to kill a lot of people knowing that it won't make a difference. You said that.
in your prior deduction, you had deduced sanely that
" According to the Bible in Genesis 6, God wanted to kill all animals and people because "the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time". You managed to deduce that. Now you come up to tell me that i am saying. Where have i said? i am getting you to think, but you seem so lazy, you run off to your vomit asap. You have been unable to show us your base or foundation for uttering crass statements that God didn't know that His actions would not wipe out evil. You first tried making the Bible your base, now me? Mba, not your lucky day.

And you agree with the Bible so you also say he is good because you've read it in the Bible.

Rubbish, you say He is bad/evil because you grew up with Him, right? you can use the Bible as proof, but i can't? Your lack of a moral base is indeed not helping you.

Based on your response here, you should see this thread I created on killing children in order to save them from hell. Since we're asserting ownership, then I declare that Zeus owns everyone and everything.

Just saw your thread, couldn't really make head or tail of the first page, sorry.

No the son should be honoured for what he does not for what his father did so your God is still wrong on that. Even we mere humans have figured that out.

Well, that's reality staring you in the face, so deal with it. It's all over nature. Children get to inherit something from the parents, whether good or evil, in form of genotype, heredity, behavioural traits, strengths and weakness, and some physical property, parent's name. People get help because of their father's name, or what the father/mother had done for the benefactor in time past. It happens all the time. Humans are not islands, others actions affect them one way or the other. if you think that is unfair or evil, mars is available and uninhabited.

If I do it it is wrong if God does it, it is right. Therefore if God commands you to kill 10 children, it is the right thing to do.

Don't outrun yourself. Are you God? i have severally explained context to you. If an executioner takes life, it is not murder. If i take life, it is murder. And even life has context as taking the life of an insect is different from that of a human. Even taking the life of a chicken, it would depend on if i own it or not before it can be considered right or wrong. So, there are many factors and context to be considered. It's not just a bigoted and narrow thinking of just the action of 'taking a life'.

Saying that something was morally right before but morally wrong now means morality is subjective. Saying that if God does something and it is right but if someone does it, it is wrong, means that such an action is not objectively moral or immoral. You need to get these ideas clear in your mind.

no no no. Read again, i gave you the illustrations to inform.remind you that some questions may not best be answered with just yes or no. Some actions are not good all the time or wrong all the time. Perspective, time, and context have to be taken note of.
If i have an exam in one hours time, jotting and reading from my note is okay before and after the exam. The same action of jotting and reading from my note is not okay during the exam. If you name that subjective morality, well. I've also given you the judge/executioner and the common man scenario to help you see why you cannot only base right or wrong on just action but you need to consider context and time. i once told you how in some street, motor bikes are not allowed between 8pm and 7am for instance. The action of riding through that particular street could be okay or could be a crime/offence, depending on time. Expanding the context might even produce why it would be okay for a policeman at all times, and yet an offence for the common man. These are instances of fellow humans even, not to mention God your Creator.

Sure you say God is not a man but according to you believers, he is a person and people are bound by morality.

You bound Him? God is not a human being like you, do i still have to say that yet again?

@ Enigma,

I got your email and sent you a reply already. Please we need to get in touch on the phone between today and tomorrow, unfailingly. It's very urgent please. Thank you!

Hi Goshen

I just called you a few moments ago. I will try again later.

Takia

Uyi Iredia:

Read properly. I said no then stated that your question is what I implied initially.

What question is being begged?

Uyi Iredia:
To the question: No. Given your criteria, why would you castigate those who judge God as good for the best he has done ? They are applying their subjectivity as much as you and as such all WE are left with is arbitrary opinions on the morality or not of God.

In case you've not been following this thread, those supporting this God are saying that what he did is good. Since you've said that what he did is evil, what exactly is your point here? Claiming that the "best" he's done means he is good makes no more sense than saying that the murderer who kills 20 children while ensuring that his own children have three square meals a day is actually a good person. Would you say that such a murderer is a good person?

Image123:
i would not exactly call what i am doing "defending God". Defended from what? i'm trying to help you understand. Now, i didn't say God didn't want to wipe out evil, he just wanted to kill a lot of people knowing that it won't make a difference. You said that.
in your prior deduction, you had deduced sanely that
" According to the Bible in Genesis 6, God wanted to kill all animals and people because "the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time". You managed to deduce that. Now you come up to tell me that i am saying. Where have i said? i am getting you to think, but you seem so lazy, you run off to your vomit asap. You have been unable to show us your base or foundation for uttering crass statements that God didn't know that His actions would not wipe out evil. You first tried making the Bible your base, now me? Mba, not your lucky day.

What you're doing is defending God whether you like it or not. Well what exactly are you saying? According to the Bible, and you if you accept it, what you're saying is that God just wanted to kill a lot of people despite the fact that it won't do anything about evil. i.e he wanted to kill people for the sake of killing them. If you're saying something else, I've not seen it on this thread.

Image123:
Rubbish, you say He is bad/evil because you grew up with Him, right? you can use the Bible as proof, but i can't? Your lack of a moral base is indeed not helping you.

Rubbish. Would you say that someone who commands 10 soldiers to go out and kill 100 children is good? Have you considered that the Bible doesn't actually know what good is? After all, you'll say that killing people for changing their religion today is bad but if it were done on God's command, it is good.

Image123:
Just saw your thread, couldn't really make head or tail of the first page, sorry.

What did you find confusing in my first post there? Or are you just unable to deal with well laid out arguments?

Image123:
Well, that's reality staring you in the face, so deal with it. It's all over nature. Children get to inherit something from the parents, whether good or evil, in form of genotype, heredity, behavioural traits, strengths and weakness, and some physical property, parent's name. People get help because of their father's name, or what the father/mother had done for the benefactor in time past. It happens all the time. Humans are not islands, others actions affect them one way or the other. if you think that is unfair or evil, mars is available and uninhabited.

Is evil inherited genetically? Is that what makes it right to kill the 6 month old child of a killer because their father killed someone? You really must be joking.

Image123:
Don't outrun yourself. Are you God? i have severally explained context to you. If an executioner takes life, it is not murder. If i take life, it is murder. And even life has context as taking the life of an insect is different from that of a human. Even taking the life of a chicken, it would depend on if i own it or not before it can be considered right or wrong. So, there are many factors and context to be considered. It's not just a bigoted and narrow thinking of just the action of 'taking a life'.

Stop confusing yourself. If God killing children because their parents did something wrong is good, then there should be nothing wrong for humans to do the same. Saying otherwise means you have no idea of morality.

Image123:
no no no. Read again, i gave you the illustrations to inform.remind you that some questions may not best be answered with just yes or no. Some actions are not good all the time or wrong all the time. Perspective, time, and context have to be taken note of.
If i have an exam in one hours time, jotting and reading from my note is okay before and after the exam. The same action of jotting and reading from my note is not okay during the exam. If you name that subjective morality, well. I've also given you the judge/executioner and the common man scenario to help you see why you cannot only base right or wrong on just action but you need to consider context and time. i once told you how in some street, motor bikes are not allowed between 8pm and 7am for instance. The action of riding through that particular street could be okay or could be a crime/offence, depending on time. Expanding the context might even produce why it would be okay for a policeman at all times, and yet an offence for the common man. These are instances of fellow humans even, not to mention God your Creator.

You simply don't have any idea of what you're talking about. You're confusing cheating with studying for an exam. What you're trying to say is that morality is subjective. Once again, understand what I'm saying and what you're saying. I'm saying killing children for the crimes of their parents is wrong. You're saying it is sometimes okay to kill children for the crimes of their parents.

Image123:
You bound Him? God is not a human being like you, do i still have to say that yet again?

Is he a person or not because as far as I know, all people are bound by morality.

thehomer:

What question is being begged?

Why is God said to be evil despite his good ? So far you've not questioned the good things I ascribed to him.

thehomer:
In case you've not been following this thread, those supporting this God are saying that what he did is good. Since you've said that what he did is evil, what exactly is your point here? Claiming that the "best" he's done means he is good makes no more sense than saying that the murderer who kills 20 children while ensuring that his own children have three square meals a day is actually a good person. Would you say that such a murderer is a good person?

I see. So why shouldn't the muderer be called a good person ? If he happens to be a very kind father and husband and very polite otherwise to other people, is murder sufficient to write him off as evil ? Claiming that God is bad for his murders makes no more sense than a good wife who ends up killing her little children is bad.

Is it all killing of humans that is bad ?

Is it not the justification that determines it ?

If humans can determined that ^,
Who is the final abiter where the giver of life is concern ?

Did not the Amalikite commit all that befell them against the Israelite ?

Is justice no longer balanced again ?

#This train has failed breaks!!!

*Childs play*

truthislight: Is it all killing of humans that is bad ?

Is it not the justification that determines it ?

If humans can determined that ^,
Who is the final abiter where the giver of life is concern ?

Did not the Amalikite commit all that befell them against the Israelite ?

Is justice no longer balanced again ?

#This train has failed breaks!!!

*Childs play*

Quote the sins the Amalakites comitted to deserve annihilation. As if the isrealites were any better. Read your bible. Please.

Logicboy03:


Quote the sins the Amalakites comitted to deserve annihilation. As if the isrealites were any better. Read your bible. Please.

Smh.

Logicboy03:


Quote the sins the Amalakites comitted to deserve annihilation. As if the isrealites were any better. Read your bible. Please.

So you dont know that Amalekite attached the sons Israel without provocatn at Rephidim without provocation in the wilderness ?

When the sons of Israel were coming out of Egypt ? Smh.

That they attacked the Isralite when they had no army as a nation yet ?


Smh.

See :

"Then Amalek came and fought with Israel in Rephidim. And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand. So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed. But Moses’ hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun. And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword. And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven." (Exodus 17:8-14).

"Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD." (1 Samuel 15:1).

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way,(ambushed Israel) when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and asss." (1 Samuel 15:2-3).

"Then said Samuel, Bring ye hither to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is past.
And Samuel said, As your sword had made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal." (1 Samuel 15:32-33).


Simple justice payed back in the same coined.

^^^

Yet what is the enduring Christian moral from the story? Retaliation or crude justice?

truthislight:

So you dont know that Amalekite attached the sons Israel without provocatn at Rephidim without provocation in the wilderness ?

When the sons of Israel were coming out of Egypt ? Smh.

That they attacked the Isralite when they had no army as a nation yet ?


Smh.

See :

"Then Amalek came and fought with Israel in Rephidim. And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand. So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed. But Moses’ hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun. And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword. And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven." (Exodus 17:8-14).

"Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD." (1 Samuel 15:1).

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way,(ambushed Israel) when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and asss." (1 Samuel 15:2-3).

"Then said Samuel, Bring ye hither to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is past.
And Samuel said, As your sword had made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal." (1 Samuel 15:32-33).


Simple justice payed back in the same coined.

Was that all they did that warranted the killing of innocent Amalekites,including babies ? What would Jesus had done huh?

truthislight:

So you dont know that Amalekite attached the sons Israel without provocatn at Rephidim without provocation in the wilderness ?

When the sons of Israel were coming out of Egypt ? Smh.

That they attacked the Isralite when they had no army as a nation yet ?


Smh.

See :

"Then Amalek came and fought with Israel in Rephidim. And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand. So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed. But Moses’ hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun. And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword. And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven." (Exodus 17:8-14).

"Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD." (1 Samuel 15:1).

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way,(ambushed Israel) when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and asss." (1 Samuel 15:2-3).

"Then said Samuel, Bring ye hither to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is past.
And Samuel said, As your sword had made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal." (1 Samuel 15:32-33).


Simple justice payed back in the same coined.

See selective bible reading. What were the isrealites doing in Amalekite lands?

===========================================================
The whole Israelite community set out from the Desert of Sin, traveling from place to place as the Lord commanded. They camped at Rephidim, but there was no water for the people to drink. 2 So they quarreled with Moses and said, “Give us water to drink.”

Moses replied, “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you put the Lord to the test?”
(Exodus 17;1)


"Then Amalek came and fought with Israel in Rephidim. And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand (Exodus 17;
===========================================================


From an unbiased point of view, the Isrealites were sent to Rephidim by God for no other reason than to kill the Amalekites. Tell me, who wouldnt attack hungry looking people with an army that just appeared in your land? What were the isrealites doing in Rephidim in the first place?

Judges 1:19

"So the Lord was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron"

Was The Lord physically with them? And yet he couldn't conquer an army with a chariot of iron? Bible is so revealing! . God created them and now he is fighting them. Lol

Uyi Iredia:

Why is God said to be evil despite his good ? So far you've not questioned the good things I ascribed to him.

That is because we judge people's characters based on the evil they do. He is said to be evil because of the heinous evil he has commanded otherwise according to you, all mass murderers should be considered as being good because they did some good acts to some people. Are you willing to defend such a claim?

Uyi Iredia:
I see. So why shouldn't the muderer be called a good person ? If he happens to be a very kind father and husband and very polite otherwise to other people, is murder sufficient to write him off as evil ? Claiming that God is bad for his murders makes no more sense than a good wife who ends up killing her little children is bad.

Here it looks like you're just arguing for the sake of argument. A murderer goes out and kills 20 children but because he provides his children with three square meals you're seriously willing to defend his character as being a good person?

Kay 17: ^^^

Yet what is the enduring Christian moral from the story? Retaliation or crude justice?

Dont miss the purpose of the reason why Yahweh was with the Israelites at the first place, it was to produce the messiah that will reconcile man back to God.

See the promise Yahweh made to Abraham:

"by means of your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because you have obeyed my voice." (Genesis 22:18).
........................

That ^ was the reason that Yahweh remained with the Israelite as to extract the seed that will bring blessing to all of mankind.

That is the reason that the other nations hated the Israelites since their God(satan) does not want the messiah to be produced.

The standard that man hence will relate with Yahweh after the reconciliation was to be given by this messiah, after Yahweh had abandoned mankind generally in the garden of eden after the fall.

But befor the coming of the messaiah, repeated effort were made to destroy the means of producing the messaiah > the 'nation of Israel', all Yahweh did was to ensure the survival of the Nation of Israel untill the messaiah was extracted and he hands off.

Kay 17: ^^^

Yet what is the enduring
Christian moral from the story? Retaliation or crude justice?

There will have been no "christian moral" if Yahweh had not ensured that the messaiah was extracted from the nation of Israel as promised to Abraham.

It was to ensure that mankind have what you call 'enduring christian morals' those actions were taken.

It is this Messaiah that exterblished christianity and gave the higher standard that you so talked about.

And the massaiah said that all he taught was given to him by Yahweh.

Satan had reasons to attempt the destruction of the messaiah, since the messaiah is to eventually destroy him:

"And the LORD God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, you are cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon your belly will you walk, and dust will you eat all the days of your life: And I will put enmity between your seed and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise you on the head, and you will bruise him in the heel. (Genesis 3:14-15).
......................

That ^ meant an eventual destruction to satan in the future and as such, he made effort to destroy the 'seed' > 'the messaiah' and prevent him from coming.

The whole story of the OT all centered around the coming of the messaiah and from which lineage.

Judas2013:

Was that all they did that warranted the killing of innocent Amalekites,including babies ? What would Jesus had done huh?

Read up on the post above and upgrade.

What was done to them was exactly what they did to the Israelites.

Logicboy03:



See selective bible reading. What were the isrealites doing in Amalekite lands?

===========================================================
The whole Israelite community set out from the Desert of Sin, traveling from place to place as the Lord commanded. They camped at Rephidim, but there was no water for the people to drink. 2 So they quarreled with Moses and said, “Give us water to drink.”

Moses replied, “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you put the Lord to the test?”
(Exodus 17;1)


"Then Amalek came and fought with Israel in Rephidim. And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand (Exodus 17;
===========================================================


From an unbiased point of view, the Isrealites were sent to Rephidim by God for no other reason than to kill the Amalekites. Tell me, who wouldnt attack hungry looking people with an army that just appeared in your land? What were the isrealites doing in Rephidim in the first place?

^^^

The Israelites where slaves in Egypt and from Egypt and had no "army" at Rephidim.

They where even thirsty and combining when the Amalekites attacked them.

After the attack moses ask Joshua to go and fight them.

Judas2013: Judges 1:19

"So the Lord was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron"

Was The Lord physically with them? And yet he couldn't conquer an army with a chariot of iron? Bible is so revealing! . God created them and now he is fighting them. Lol

Moses did not enter the promise land.

When the Alekites attacked the Israelites at Rephidim moses was their leader.

Then they had no army when the Amalekites attacked them.

You are pointing out something after Joshua have taken over.

Stay on the topic

thehomer:

That is because we judge people's characters based on the evil they do. He is said to be evil because of the heinous evil he has commanded otherwise according to you, all mass murderers should be considered as being good because they did some good acts to some people. Are you willing to defend such a claim?

Not some good acts, since, within the Christian worldview, all good we experience in life is as a result of God's creation, your claim is flawed, not to mention I haven't made a claim as regards ALL mass murderers. Your answer once again begs the question my question was 'Why is God said to be evil despite His good ?'
Yes, he commanded evil and he is judged for it, the question is why is he judged for this evil despite his good.

thehomer:
Here it looks like you're just arguing for the sake of argument. A murderer goes out and kills 20 children but because he provides his children with three square meals you're seriously willing to defend his character as being a good person?

I am arguing to see if you can defend your stance of dismissing God as evil, and unworthy of worship. Now if this murderer, is a very good and kind person who happens to have killed 20 kids, why will you say he is evil ? If a very bad person, a daredevil robber, rapist and killer, repents and does good, why will one say such a person is good ?

thehomer:

That is because we judge people's characters based on the evil they do. He is said to be evil because of the heinous evil he has commanded otherwise according to you, all mass murderers should be considered as being good because they did some good acts to some people. Are you willing to defend such a claim?

Not some good acts, since, within the Christian worldview, all good we experience in life is as a result of God's creation, your claim is flawed, not to mention I haven't made a claim as regards ALL mass murderers. Your answer once again begs the question my question was 'Why is God said to be evil despite His good ?'
Yes, he commanded evil and he is judged for it, the question is why is he judged for this evil despite his good.

thehomer:
Here it looks like you're just arguing for the sake of argument. A murderer goes out and kills 20 children but because he provides his children with three square meals you're seriously willing to defend his character as being a good person?

I am arguing to see if you can defend your stance of dismissing God as evil, and unworthy of worship. Now if this murderer, is a very good and kind person who happens to have killed 20 kids, why will you say he is evil ? If a very bad person, a daredevil robber, rapist and killer, repents and does good, why will one say such a person is good ?

truthislight:

Moses did not enter the promise land.

When the Alekites attacked the Israelites at Rephidim moses was their leader.

Then they had no army when the Amalekites attacked them.

You are pointing out something after Joshua have taken over.

Stay on the topic

The verse did not say they had no army. If you read from verse one,they had already killed thousands of troops.

v

Judas2013:

The verse did not say they had no army. If you read from verse one,they had already killed thousands of troops.

Stay on 'topic'.

Better still read the OP.

Lol at your ID.

'Judas' 2013#.

truthislight:

^^^

The Israelites where slaves in Egypt and from Egypt and had no "army" at Rephidim.

They where even thirsty and combining when the Amalekites attacked them.

After the attack moses ask Joshua to go and fight them.

The Isrealites had no army?

9 And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand.

10 So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill.

11 And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.

12 But Moses hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.

13 And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.

Kindly explain how men with swords that annihilated a city of people are not an army?




Furthermore, why did Yaweh send the isrelaites to Amalekite lands?