Uyi Iredia:

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.

Because that is how we judge people's characters. If you disagree, can you name 5 evil people? And I will show you that based on what you're saying here, you would consider them to be good people. What we then end up with is you saying that there are actually no evil people since those evil people were good to at least one other person.

Uyi Iredia:
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 ?

That's just it. We will say it is a bad person that is now doing something good not that the rapist murderer is now a good person.

Logicboy03:



The Isrealites had no army?





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?

The slaves from Egypt on their way to the promise land were attacked at Rephidim by the Amalekites. Simples !

That they later had an army is not under debate.

Besides, the issue here is that, unprovoked the Amalekites struck the Israelites first. simple.

Every other thing is secondary.

truthislight:

The slaves from Egypt on their way to the promise land were attacked at Rephidim by the Amalekites. Simples !

That they later had an army is not under debate.

Besides, the issue here is that, unprovoked the Amalekites struck the Israelites first. simple.

Every other thing is secondary.

FALSE

Logicboy03:

FALSE

Na you get your mouth !

You can say whatever you like, it does not change the facts.

Can you prove that the slave from Egypt struck the Amalekites first ? No.

Keep feeding whatever you are feeding, e consine you.

Na fly way no gree hear something na him dey follow dead body for coffin enter grave.

thehomer:

Because that is how we judge people's characters. If you disagree, can you name 5 evil people? And I will show you that based on what you're saying here, you would consider them to be good people. What we then end up with is you saying that there are actually no evil people since those evil people were good to at least one other person.

Begging the question. So you say God is evil, despite his good because you can, or as you say, because that is how we you judge people's character. What is the basis for this judgement of the things God did ? You'll note that this just rehashes my former posers. Umm, do you judge yourself that way (as evil for doing evil things). By your logic, of course, a very good person who does something bad is bad. 5 evil people, sure: thehomer, Alfa Seltzer, Evil Brain, Satan and Westley Allen. Now why do I have a sneaky feeling you'll pick the first one down ?

thehomer:
That's just it. We will say it is a bad person that is now doing something good not that the rapist murderer is now a good person.

Well r@pi$t murderers can change, moreso since they weren't born rapist murderers, of course this is debatable. I think you naively polarize God's morality and deem it evil, despite clear distinctions like whether God is a human that can be charged to court. Could you summarize why your case that God is evil is the more reasonable stance ? Ladies first. I'll answer next.

thehomer:

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.

Like it or not, i am only trying to help you.God is not on trial. i have not, neither do i intend to say " 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." You are imagining things. It is neither according to the Bible or me. You are yet to show the basis for your unguarded statements. You can't just say that i am the base, or the Bible is the base. You will do well to SHOW how.

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.

You can always ask questions instead of making idle assumptions. What is good, and what is your base for your definition of good?

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

i did not understand how your OP relates to anything, neither did i know what i am expected to do with it.

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.

i'll say again "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."
You were telling us that it is wrong to inherit things whether good or evil, and that your generation knows it is wrong. i have simply shown you how normal and real it remains to inherit. Do you have a next of kin? i need an answer please.

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.

If an executioner kills a murderer under judgement, would it be right for anyone on the street to do the same to the murderer? a yes or no would help.

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.

Actually, you are the one confusing God's judgement with human depravity. i am simply showing how you cannot ALWAYS tie down every action as good/evil. An action may be cheating, or it may be studying for an exam, or simply learning. It is the same action, but having different perspectives based on the TIME that the action is carried out. You do not have to be narrow minded as to box it under being subjective. i have said that children do suffer or enjoy from the actions of their parents. That is reality, that is the way the world works. What you need to do is not feel cheated, but work in a way that the rules favour you. Know the time that you are in, and work with it. Like in a soccer game, there is a time to score in the left goal post. If you score in the same goal post 50mins after the match begins, it will not be counted the same way. You can begin to argue about subjectivity or objectivity or play by the rules to win. You can score a goal after the whistle has been blown, and it would be illegitimate.i have said that God judged those folks by killing their children and it is not wrong, because it is God. Would the same God kill in the same way today? NO. This is clearly stated in His Word. this is what i have said,get your acts together.

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

He is a being, but not a human being. You can only know as far as you know, i guess it is not far enough.God is not bound like a human being is, much like a police man/judge is not bound like every other citizen. The judge has authority to do things that others cannot do. others cannot take the law into their hands.This is supposed to be like basic knowledge, how do you manage not to get it?

@ Image123: Where is it stated that God won't kill today ?

Uyi Iredia: @ Image123: Where is it stated that God won't kill today ?

In the passages that tell us to love our neighbours and our enemies. What i mean in line with the thread thought, is that God would not send His children(like He did the Israelites) to go kill anybody.

Uyi Iredia:

Begging the question. So you say God is evil, despite his good because you can, or as you say, because that is how we you judge people's character. What is the basis for this judgement of the things God did ? You'll note that this just rehashes my former posers. Umm, do you judge yourself that way (as evil for doing evil things). By your logic, of course, a very good person who does something bad is bad. 5 evil people, sure: thehomer, Alfa Seltzer, Evil Brain, Satan and Westley Allen. Now why do I have a sneaky feeling you'll pick the first one down ?

The basis is what God did according to the Bible. If I did what God did then yes I would judge myself that way. According to your own ideas here, are these people actually evil if they do something good?

Uyi Iredia:
Well r@pi$t murderers can change, moreso since they weren't born rapist murderers, of course this is debatable. I think you naively polarize God's morality and deem it evil, despite clear distinctions like whether God is a human that can be charged to court. Could you summarize why your case that God is evil is the more reasonable stance ? Ladies first. I'll answer next.

The court doesn't determine what is moral. Or do you wish to make that argument?
I already summarized it in my OP. It is simply the fact that this God of yours commanded a genocide. He specifically ordered that his minions go out and deliberately kill children. People who order others to commit heinous crimes like deliberately killing children are evil people. If you agree they're evil people, then I really don't see what argument you're trying to make.

Image123:
Like it or not, i am only trying to help you.God is not on trial. i have not, neither do i intend to say " 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." You are imagining things. It is neither according to the Bible or me. You are yet to show the basis for your unguarded statements. You can't just say that i am the base, or the Bible is the base. You will do well to SHOW how.

I've already shown you what you and the Bible are saying. You both agree that God killing all those people won't make a difference yet he did it anyway. That is just God being an uncaring killer.

Image123:
You can always ask questions instead of making idle assumptions. What is good, and what is your base for your definition of good?

What is good and what is your own basis for your idea of good?

Image123:
i did not understand how your OP relates to anything, neither did i know what i am expected to do with it.

It shows that according to your God and the ideas you're presenting here, someone who kills children is an altruist.

Image123:
i'll say again "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."
You were telling us that it is wrong to inherit things whether good or evil, and that your generation knows it is wrong. i have simply shown you how normal and real it remains to inherit. Do you have a next of kin? i need an answer please.

I didn't say it was wrong to inherit things, I said it is wrong to deliberately punish children for their parents crimes. e.g it is wrong to kill a 6 month old child because their father killed someone else.

Image123:
If an executioner kills a murderer under judgement, would it be right for anyone on the street to do the same to the murderer? a yes or no would help.

No but this is irrelevant. Let me make it even simpler. I said if God is killing children for what their parents did, why is it wrong for humans to kill children for what their parents did?

Image123:
Actually, you are the one confusing God's judgement with human depravity. i am simply showing how you cannot ALWAYS tie down every action as good/evil. An action may be cheating, or it may be studying for an exam, or simply learning. It is the same action, but having different perspectives based on the TIME that the action is carried out. You do not have to be narrow minded as to box it under being subjective. i have said that children do suffer or enjoy from the actions of their parents. That is reality, that is the way the world works. What you need to do is not feel cheated, but work in a way that the rules favour you. Know the time that you are in, and work with it. Like in a soccer game, there is a time to score in the left goal post. If you score in the same goal post 50mins after the match begins, it will not be counted the same way. You can begin to argue about subjectivity or objectivity or play by the rules to win. You can score a goal after the whistle has been blown, and it would be illegitimate.i have said that God judged those folks by killing their children and it is not wrong, because it is God. Would the same God kill in the same way today? NO. This is clearly stated in His Word. this is what i have said,get your acts together.

I'm sorry but all you're showing here is that you have no idea of what the discussion on morality is. You're basically saying that it is right to kill a group of children if God says so.

Image123:
He is a being, but not a human being. You can only know as far as you know, i guess it is not far enough.God is not bound like a human being is, much like a police man/judge is not bound like every other citizen. The judge has authority to do things that others cannot do. others cannot take the law into their hands.This is supposed to be like basic knowledge, how do you manage not to get it?

What I'm wondering is how you manage not to understand what the idea of morality entails. You say God is a person who is moral but isn't bound by the idea of morality. This is just self contradictory because for him to be moral, it means that he is bound by the ideas of morality.

truthislight:

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.



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.

However Saul's genocide had no moral connection to the preservation of the Messiah. If Saul had decided not to destroy the Amalekites, neither the Messiah nor his ancestors would have been in danger.

And what does this genocide say about Christian morality?

you are ignoring your limitation to the drawing of certain conclusions even with hindsight.

Kay 17:

However Saul's genocide had no moral connection to the preservation of the Messiah. If Saul had decided not to destroy the Amalekites, neither the Messiah nor his ancestors would have been in danger.

And what does this genocide say about Christian morality?

^^^

your conclusion at best is a function of ignorance even at this point in time.

Just to mention an instance :

Haman that lived in the kingdom of king Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces: )" (Esther 1:1).

He was an Amalekites, and almost succeeded in terminating the nation of Israel that was in captivity in that kingdom, but for a last minute intervention that help the Israelites to survive and Haman killed an amalekite would have attained their live long Goal, > destroying the nation of Israel.

You guys have a lot to catch up on

Kay 17:


And what does this genocide say about Christian morality?

Do you really think that christians are fools that cant really read inbetween the lines ?

Stop the delusion, justice is justice, there has been no time that Yahweh said that he will not pay people according to their deeds.

You are trying to patronise the simpleton.

truthislight: you are ignoring your limitation to the drawing of certain conclusions even with hindsight.



^^^

your conclusion at best is a function of ignorance even at this point in time.

Just to mention an instance :

Haman that lived in the kingdom of king Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces: )" (Esther 1:1).

He was an Amalekites, and almost succeeded in terminating the nation of Israel that was in captivity in that kingdom, but for a last minute intervention that help the Israelites to survive and Haman killed an amalekite would have attained their live long Goal, > destroying the nation of Israel.

You guys have a lot to catch up on

In your words, you mean "immoral" acts can be justified with self preservation and justice?

thehomer:

I've already shown you what you and the Bible are saying. You both agree that God killing all those people won't make a difference yet he did it anyway. That is just God being an uncaring killer.

i do not agree, neither does the Bible, nor was it implied that God's flood made no difference. Making a difference is not the same as wiping away evil. At least you know that it made a difference in census
Do you think that criminals should not be punished because they would not change? please answer, you have been avoiding my questions. i'm trying to help you think. Like if you met a serial r.apist or murderer for instance, and he told you he is not going to change, or you somehow know that he is not going to change. Is it better to leave him unpunished, since it would not 'make a difference'?

What is good and what is your own basis for your idea of good?

Hehehehehe, you threw back my question to me. God is good. The Bible is my base.
Psa 25:8 Good and upright is the LORD: therefore will he teach sinners in the way.
Psa 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.
So, what is yours? BTW, good acts are relative, one man's poison may be another's food.

It shows that according to your God and the ideas you're presenting here, someone who kills children is an altruist.

Nope, God's plans for giving babies is not to have them killed. Someone who killS children is not fulfilling the purpose of God. God has put man(all humans) on earth to have dominion and to glorify Him. Babies are supposed to grow into godly men and women, showing forth the praises of God and fulfilling purpose. Like Jesus and Paul said, "I have finished my course". There is work to be done. It's like plucking off a fruit before it ripens so that you avoid disease and damage for the fruit. The purpose why it was planted is then defeated. It is meant to ripen and then be very useful.

I didn't say it was wrong to inherit things, I said it is wrong to deliberately punish children for their parents crimes. e.g it is wrong to kill a 6 month old child because their father killed someone else.

you implied that it is wrong to inherit things. Again you avoided my question, do you have a next of kin? Perhaps you saw what i was getting at. i said it is God's nature and character, and even nature's character, to reward children with what their parents have done, whether they did well or not. God rewarded Abraham's children for instance, for deeds Abraham did. Same goes for David, and others. These are popular and easy examples that i gave. But we know that there is a clause which i showed you in Ezekiel. If a good person's children are bad, the chain of reward is cut, and vice versa. This helps us to logically conclude that Amalek's children did not change or repent. If they did, God would have spared them. A poor man passes on poverty to his children, so also does a rich man pass on wealth to his children. If you think that is unfair, well i wonder your basis for that. But the poor man and rich man's children can still manage one way or the other to influence and change things. All through scriptures, Amalek is in bad light, busy warring with and seeking to destroy Israel. they didn't change. If you know the story well, of King Saul's encounter with them. They had a evil king Agag. He had a descendant Haman who tried to exterminate the Jews in the book of Esther.
Jdg 3:13 And he gathered unto him the children of Ammon and Amalek, and went and smote Israel, and possessed the city of palm trees.
Num 14:45 Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah.
Jdg 6:3 And so it was, when Israel had sown, that the Midianites came up, and the Amalekites, and the children of the east, even they came up against them;
Jdg 7:12 And the Midianites and the Amalekites and all the children of the east lay along in the valley like grasshoppers for multitude; and their camels were without number, as the sand by the sea side for multitude.
Jdg 10:12 The Zidonians also, and the Amalekites, and the Maonites, did oppress you; and ye cried to me, and I delivered you out of their hand.
1Sa 30:1 And it came to pass, when David and his men were come to Ziklag on the third day, that the Amalekites had invaded the south, and Ziklag, and smitten Ziklag, and burned it with fire;
1Sa 30:4 Then David and the people that were with him lifted up their voice and wept, until they had no more power to weep.

These are different instances and generations where the Amalekites were a continually pain in the neck for Israel. God was unhappy with other nations too, even with Israel, but if they repented, He always forgave them. So, they inherited a debt of punishment from previous generations, and they themselves were wicked, Agag their king being chief. They were not the innocent folk you portrayed them as. They had long being under watch before their punishment came.

No but this is irrelevant. Let me make it even simpler. I said if God is killing children for what their parents did, why is it wrong for humans to kill children for what their parents did?

See, you said NO. You realise the difference between a judge/executioner and other humans in serving judgment. But you refused to see the difference between God(the Judge of the whole earth) and every other person.
Like i've explained to you, God did not just kill them for what their ancestors did, but for what they themselves did. And with the foreknowlegde and omniscience that they were due for judgement and hopeless.

I'm sorry but all you're showing here is that you have no idea of what the discussion on morality is. You're basically saying that it is right to kill a group of children if God says so.

i have also emphatically told you that God would not say so?

What I'm wondering is how you manage not to understand what the idea of morality entails. You say God is a person who is moral but isn't bound by the idea of morality. This is just self contradictory because for him to be moral, it means that he is bound by the ideas of morality.

i have explained to you that He is not bound in the sense that He is Judge. just like the Judge is not bound in punishing an offender, as other citizens may be bound.

Kay 17:

In your words, you mean "immoral" acts can be justified with self preservation and justice?

What do you mean by "immoral" ?

What with self "preservation" ?

Who was preserving who ?

Where ?

Image123:

i do not agree, neither does the Bible, nor was it implied that God's flood made no difference. Making a difference is not the same as wiping away evil. At least you know that it made a difference in census

Actually, it is implied that God's flood made no difference with respect to evil. You're clearly being facetious here because we've been talking about making a difference with respect to evil. Pointing out that God killed a lot of people isn't a point in God's favour you know. Yet you laugh.

Image123:
Do you think that criminals should not be punished because they would not change? please answer, you have been avoiding my questions. i'm trying to help you think. Like if you met a serial r.apist or murderer for instance, and he told you he is not going to change, or you somehow know that he is not going to change. Is it better to leave him unpunished, since it would not 'make a difference'?

I never said criminals shouldn't be jailed. Which of your questions have I been avoiding? You should first help yourself think before trying to help me. Where have I said that e.g sending someone to jail makes no difference? Your assertions here are merely based on your strawmen.

Image123:
Hehehehehe, you threw back my question to me. God is good. The Bible is my base.
Psa 25:8 Good and upright is the LORD: therefore will he teach sinners in the way.
Psa 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.
So, what is yours? BTW, good acts are relative, one man's poison may be another's food.

I know I did. This God that commands that children be killed for their parents crimes is good and just? Then you're subscribing to a perverted sense of justice but are refusing to see it.

Mine is based on moral reasoning. You've just admitted that morality is relative and cemented it with that aphorism. Based on that, God is in no position to judge since as you've pointed out, one man's poison may be another man's food.

Image123:
Nope, God's plans for giving babies is not to have them killed. Someone who killS children is not fulfilling the purpose of God. God has put man(all humans) on earth to have dominion and to glorify Him. Babies are supposed to grow into godly men and women, showing forth the praises of God and fulfilling purpose. Like Jesus and Paul said, "I have finished my course". There is work to be done. It's like plucking off a fruit before it ripens so that you avoid disease and damage for the fruit. The purpose why it was planted is then defeated. It is meant to ripen and then be very useful.

How do you know that is God's plan? After all, he has had babies killed in the past and that was fulfilling his purpose. Who are you to now declare what his real purpose is? Are you God?

Image123:
you implied that it is wrong to inherit things. Again you avoided my question, do you have a next of kin? Perhaps you saw what i was getting at. i said it is God's nature and character, and even nature's character, to reward children with what their parents have done, whether they did well or not. God rewarded Abraham's children for instance, for deeds Abraham did. Same goes for David, and others. These are popular and easy examples that i gave. But we know that there is a clause which i showed you in Ezekiel. If a good person's children are bad, the chain of reward is cut, and vice versa. This helps us to logically conclude that Amalek's children did not change or repent. If they did, God would have spared them. A poor man passes on poverty to his children, so also does a rich man pass on wealth to his children. If you think that is unfair, well i wonder your basis for that. But the poor man and rich man's children can still manage one way or the other to influence and change things. All through scriptures, Amalek is in bad light, busy warring with and seeking to destroy Israel. they didn't change. If you know the story well, of King Saul's encounter with them. They had a evil king Agag. He had a descendant Haman who tried to exterminate the Jews in the book of Esther.
Jdg 3:13 And he gathered unto him the children of Ammon and Amalek, and went and smote Israel, and possessed the city of palm trees.
Num 14:45 Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah.
Jdg 6:3 And so it was, when Israel had sown, that the Midianites came up, and the Amalekites, and the children of the east, even they came up against them;
Jdg 7:12 And the Midianites and the Amalekites and all the children of the east lay along in the valley like grasshoppers for multitude; and their camels were without number, as the sand by the sea side for multitude.
Jdg 10:12 The Zidonians also, and the Amalekites, and the Maonites, did oppress you; and ye cried to me, and I delivered you out of their hand.
1Sa 30:1 And it came to pass, when David and his men were come to Ziklag on the third day, that the Amalekites had invaded the south, and Ziklag, and smitten Ziklag, and burned it with fire;
1Sa 30:4 Then David and the people that were with him lifted up their voice and wept, until they had no more power to weep.

These are different instances and generations where the Amalekites were a continually pain in the neck for Israel. God was unhappy with other nations too, even with Israel, but if they repented, He always forgave them. So, they inherited a debt of punishment from previous generations, and they themselves were wicked, Agag their king being chief. They were not the innocent folk you portrayed them as. They had long being under watch before their punishment came.

Frankly it looks like you're not even reading what I'm writing while you ask irrelevant questions. Where did I imply that it was wrong to inherit objects? Which question did I avoid? Does having a next of kin mean that this next of kin can be killed if I commit a crime? It looks like you're the one who is merely confused about what is at stake here.

Let me state it clearly. Inheriting objects is different from punishing one person for the crimes of their parents. Or to rephrase, inheriting a shoe is different from a 6 month old baby being killed because their father killed another person. Hopefully, you can see the difference between these two events.

Image123:
See, you said NO. You realise the difference between a judge/executioner and other humans in serving judgment. But you refused to see the difference between God(the Judge of the whole earth) and every other person.
Like i've explained to you, God did not just kill them for what their ancestors did, but for what they themselves did. And with the foreknowlegde and omniscience that they were due for judgement and hopeless.

I said no because your question was irrelevant to what is being discussed. What has a 6 month old baby done that it deserves to be killed? That is the question you're supposed to answer. Claiming that God decided that with his foreknowledge and omniscience means we can also question whether or not God actually wanted the other numerous genocides to occur. Otherwise you're merely making a fallacious argument from ignorance. If you do not know why God ordered that these children be killed, then you cannot say that he gave that order for a good reason.

Image123:
i have also emphatically told you that God would not say so?

How do you know he won't say so? He has said so in the past. Or has God changed?

Image123:
i have explained to you that He is not bound in the sense that He is Judge. just like the Judge is not bound in punishing an offender, as other citizens may be bound.

For a judge to be just, he is bound by the concept of justice. For a person to be moral, he is bound by the concept of morality. Judges are in fact bound to be just. That is why we can say that a certain judge's actions are unjust or immoral.

thehomer:

Actually, it is implied that God's flood made no difference with respect to evil. You're clearly being facetious here because we've been talking about making a difference with respect to evil. Pointing out that God killed a lot of people isn't a point in God's favour you know. Yet you laugh.

The flood was not sent to wipe out evil, if you cannot take in that simple fact, good luck to you. You cannot force a primary purpose on another's action and then claim that the person failed. What you need to do is find out the purpose instead of baseless assumptions.

I never said criminals shouldn't be jailed. Which of your questions have I been avoiding? You should first help yourself think before trying to help me. Where have I said that e.g sending someone to jail makes no difference? Your assertions here are merely based on your strawmen.

You said that it was pointless of God to punish the people with the flood seeing that they would not change. i simply threw it across to you as putting you in similar shoes/circumstances. You believe criminals should be punished, but you have a problem with God punishing criminals. Where is the consistency?

I know I did. This God that commands that children be killed for their parents crimes is good and just? Then you're subscribing to a perverted sense of justice but are refusing to see it.

Mine is based on moral reasoning. You've just admitted that morality is relative and cemented it with that aphorism. Based on that, God is in no position to judge since as you've pointed out, one man's poison may be another man's food.

i'm not just saying that God is good as an attribute. Understand me perfectly, i am saying that God is what good is, God is the definition of good. i also have not said that good is relative, but that good acts are. What is good to do for this person A may not be good to do for person B. Whatever God does is good. What is moral reasoning, and who is in charge of its standard?

How do you know that is God's plan? After all, he has had babies killed in the past and that was fulfilling his purpose. Who are you to now declare what his real purpose is? Are you God?

God's purpose for creating man is expressly revealed in the Bible. It is that man should have dominion, and that we should glorify Him. If you need scriptures that say that, i will show.

Frankly it looks like you're not even reading what I'm writing while you ask irrelevant questions. Where did I imply that it was wrong to inherit objects? Which question did I avoid? Does having a next of kin mean that this next of kin can be killed if I commit a crime? It looks like you're the one who is merely confused about what is at stake here.

Let me state it clearly. Inheriting objects is different from punishing one person for the crimes of their parents. Or to rephrase, inheriting a shoe is different from a 6 month old baby being killed because their father killed another person. Hopefully, you can see the difference between these two events.

Well, you said that you had issues with one being rewarded for what the ancestors had done. Actually, that is the whole idea of an inheritance or next of kin. That all your fortunes, savings, pension and wealth be passed on to a particular person or group in case you died. Humans want that, and nature does that. You inherit what they call hereditary traits, you inherit nationality, wealth or poverty, a name, hiv etc. This is very much consistent with how God deals with humans. He rewards the children of the righteous with favour and blessing, like in the case of Abraham and David. He rewards the children of the unrighteous with punishment like in the case of Amalek and sinful Israelites before captivity. But He has a caveat which i have shown you. If the children/next generation change their ways, God changes what He planned to give them. i have shown you how Amalek consistently offended Israel and Israelites for different generations, INCLUDING the generation that received the punishment. The actions of others in the society and the leadership will definitely affect the rest in the society, that is reality anywhere and time. If you think the corruption and frivolity of current leadership has no effect or should have no effect on the masses, its high time you moved to Mars.

I said no because your question was irrelevant to what is being discussed. What has a 6 month old baby done that it deserves to be killed? That is the question you're supposed to answer. Claiming that God decided that with his foreknowledge and omniscience means we can also question whether or not God actually wanted the other numerous genocides to occur. Otherwise you're merely making a fallacious argument from ignorance. If you do not know why God ordered that these children be killed, then you cannot say that he gave that order for a good reason.

Is it okay for the old ones to be killed, i mean the old amalekites, older than 6month or whatever pity age you come up with?

How do you know he won't say so? He has said so in the past. Or has God changed?

Because His Word says so.
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;
God who spake by the prophets like Moses and Samuel has in these time spoken by His Son Jesus. His Son Jesus has told us to 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.
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

For a judge to be just, he is bound by the concept of justice. For a person to be moral, he is bound by the concept of morality. Judges are in fact bound to be just. That is why we can say that a certain judge's actions are unjust or immoral.

Your argument borders on God having no right to judge. It centred on yourself having equal right to do as He has done. that is why i had to remind you that there are things that a judge can do that others cannot do. The Judge is empowered to punish in a way that others cannot. God is just in every punishment He has given.

truthislight:

What do you mean by "immoral" ?

What with self "preservation" ?

Who was preserving who ?

Where ?

Morality in God's subjective view, is the 10 commandments. Hence immoral is whatever goes against the commandments. Genocides fall under "thou shall not kill".

Image123:
The flood was not sent to wipe out evil, if you cannot take in that simple fact, good luck to you. You cannot force a primary purpose on another's action and then claim that the person failed. What you need to do is find out the purpose instead of baseless assumptions.



You said that it was pointless of God to punish the people with the flood seeing that they would not change. i simply threw it across to you as putting you in similar shoes/circumstances. You believe criminals should be punished, but you have a problem with God punishing criminals. Where is the consistency?




i'm not just saying that God is good as an attribute. Understand me perfectly, i am saying that God is what good is, God is the definition of good. i also have not said that good is relative, but that good acts are. What is good to do for this person A may not be good to do for person B. Whatever God does is good. What is moral reasoning, and who is in charge of its standard?




God's purpose for creating man is expressly revealed in the Bible. It is that man should have dominion, and that we should glorify Him. If you need scriptures that say that, i will show.




Well, you said that you had issues with one being rewarded for what the ancestors had done. Actually, that is the whole idea of an inheritance or next of kin. That all your fortunes, savings, pension and wealth be passed on to a particular person or group in case you died. Humans want that, and nature does that. You inherit what they call hereditary traits, you inherit nationality, wealth or poverty, a name, hiv etc. This is very much consistent with how God deals with humans. He rewards the children of the righteous with favour and blessing, like in the case of Abraham and David. He rewards the children of the unrighteous with punishment like in the case of Amalek and sinful Israelites before captivity. But He has a caveat which i have shown you. If the children/next generation change their ways, God changes what He planned to give them. i have shown you how Amalek consistently offended Israel and Israelites for different generations, INCLUDING the generation that received the punishment. The actions of others in the society and the leadership will definitely affect the rest in the society, that is reality anywhere and time. If you think the corruption and frivolity of current leadership has no effect or should have no effect on the masses, its high time you moved to Mars.




Is it okay for the old ones to be killed, i mean the old amalekites, older than 6month or whatever pity age you come up with?




Because His Word says so.
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;
God who spake by the prophets like Moses and Samuel has in these time spoken by His Son Jesus. His Son Jesus has told us to 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.
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.







Your argument borders on God having no right to judge. It centred on yourself having equal right to do as He has done. that is why i had to remind you that there are things that a judge can do that others cannot do. The Judge is empowered to punish in a way that others cannot. God is just in every punishment He has given.

Very frail argument.

My attention was caught by your absurd concept of justice. Ordinarily wrongdoing deserves punishment, and the purpose of punishment is nominally to purify the wrongdoer, exemplified by the acceptance of guilt. Neither can there be a genuine punishment without both the presence of wrongdoing and guilt.

In the Flood story, God willingly separated Noah from the rest of the world, on the account of his righteousness and innocence. There is no better explanation for Noah's salvation, God seeing himself as a moral judge, capable of adjudicating and dish out punishment.

Also if Justice is centred round a wrongdoer, wouldn't the purpose be defeated without the wrongdoer? Of what benefit is it, to pass on the guilt to an innocent, thereby triggering a vicious cycle of justice

Image and his twisted and sick logic truly believe that unbelievers and their kids deserve to die, he calls it judgement and justice meted on them by god. . .I hope that muslim jihadist kill image or his kids some day so that he will also test allah's justice for his unbelief. . .Allah is the only true judge and image must test his justice for being an unbeliever. . .I hope the jihadist kill your kids someday, then we will want you to come here and defend some kind of wired and sick form of justice that only you and your sick mentality understands. . .You are a sick human being. . .

Kay 17:

Morality in God's subjective view, is the 10 commandments. Hence immoral is whatever goes against the commandments. Genocides fall under "thou shall not kill".

Sorry mate.

I dont think that ^ is worth the effort.

thehomer:

The basis is what God did according to the Bible. If I did what God did then yes I would judge myself that way. According to your own ideas here, are these people actually evil if they do something good?

You keep on begging the question. Your statement as evil of something God did in the Bible is what begs my question of your judgement of God as evil. By my ideas, we can still say they at least, have done good despite being qualified as evil persons by people who at one time or another did evil.

thehomer:
The court doesn't determine what is moral. Or do you wish to make that argument?
I already summarized it in my OP. It is simply the fact that this God of yours commanded a genocide. He specifically ordered that his minions go out and deliberately kill children. People who order others to commit heinous crimes like deliberately killing children are evil people. If you agree they're evil people, then I really don't see what argument you're trying to make.

The weak point of this argument is that you depend on one's empathy to compel them to agree with your point. All I ask is why you think your judgement of God as evil makes sense. Now you assert that people who order genocides are evil, can you present a reason for this or is this presumed.

double post

mazaje: Image and his twisted and sick logic truly believe that unbelievers and their kids deserve to die, he calls it judgement and justice meted on them by god. . .I hope that muslim jihadist kill image or his kids some day so that he will also test allah's justice for his unbelief. . .Allah is the only true judge and image must test his justice for being an unbeliever. . .I hope the jihadist kill your kids someday, then we will want you to come here and defend some kind of wired and sick form of justice that only you and your sick mentality understands. . .You are a sick human being. . .

mazaje hope it is well? You do not sound like yourself, just saying. You didn't manage to skip my frequently stating that God wants all humans to live in love. Hypocrites usually gnash their teeth in anger when they read my type.

Image123:
The flood was not sent to wipe out evil, if you cannot take in that simple fact, good luck to you. You cannot force a primary purpose on another's action and then claim that the person failed. What you need to do is find out the purpose instead of baseless assumptions.

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

Image123:
You said that it was pointless of God to punish the people with the flood seeing that they would not change. i simply threw it across to you as putting you in similar shoes/circumstances. You believe criminals should be punished, but you have a problem with God punishing criminals. Where is the consistency?

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?

Image123:
i'm not just saying that God is good as an attribute. Understand me perfectly, i am saying that God is what good is, God is the definition of good. i also have not said that good is relative, but that good acts are. What is good to do for this person A may not be good to do for person B. Whatever God does is good. What is moral reasoning, and who is in charge of its standard?

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.

Image123:
God's purpose for creating man is expressly revealed in the Bible. It is that man should have dominion, and that we should glorify Him. If you need scriptures that say that, i will show.

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.

Image123:
Well, you said that you had issues with one being rewarded for what the ancestors had done. Actually, that is the whole idea of an inheritance or next of kin. That all your fortunes, savings, pension and wealth be passed on to a particular person or group in case you died. Humans want that, and nature does that. You inherit what they call hereditary traits, you inherit nationality, wealth or poverty, a name, hiv etc. This is very much consistent with how God deals with humans. He rewards the children of the righteous with favour and blessing, like in the case of Abraham and David. He rewards the children of the unrighteous with punishment like in the case of Amalek and sinful Israelites before captivity. But He has a caveat which i have shown you. If the children/next generation change their ways, God changes what He planned to give them. i have shown you how Amalek consistently offended Israel and Israelites for different generations, INCLUDING the generation that received the punishment. The actions of others in the society and the leadership will definitely affect the rest in the society, that is reality anywhere and time. If you think the corruption and frivolity of current leadership has no effect or should have no effect on the masses, its high time you moved to Mars.

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?

Image123:
Is it okay for the old ones to be killed, i mean the old amalekites, older than 6month or whatever pity age you come up with?

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.

Image123:
Because His Word says so.
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;
God who spake by the prophets like Moses and Samuel has in these time spoken by His Son Jesus. His Son Jesus has told us to 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.
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

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

Image123:
Your argument borders on God having no right to judge. It centred on yourself having equal right to do as He has done. that is why i had to remind you that there are things that a judge can do that others cannot do. The Judge is empowered to punish in a way that others cannot. God is just in every punishment He has given.

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.

Kay 17:

Very frail argument.

My attention was caught by your absurd concept of justice. Ordinarily wrongdoing deserves punishment, and the purpose of punishment is nominally to purify the wrongdoer, exemplified by the acceptance of guilt. Neither can there be a genuine punishment without both the presence of wrongdoing and guilt.

In the Flood story, God willingly separated Noah from the rest of the world, on the account of his righteousness and innocence. There is no better explanation for Noah's salvation, God seeing himself as a moral judge, capable of adjudicating and dish out punishment.

Also if Justice is centred round a wrongdoer, wouldn't the purpose be defeated without the wrongdoer? Of what benefit is it, to pass on the guilt to an innocent, thereby triggering a vicious cycle of justice

i have read your pos twice and had to wonder if it truly is directed to me.Are you aware that it was Amalek that was been punished, and not a bunch of innocents(whatever that means)?

Uyi Iredia:

You keep on begging the question. Your statement as evil of something God did in the Bible is what begs my question of your judgement of God as evil. By my ideas, we can still say they at least, have done good despite being qualified as evil persons by people who at one time or another did evil.

Notice that you did not answer the direct question I asked. Do you agree that what I pointed out as being evil is evil? I'm not asking whether these people are considered to have done some good things but whether or not the acts I highlighted are evil.

Uyi Iredia:
The weak point of this argument is that you depend on one's empathy to compel them to agree with your point. All I ask is why you think your judgement of God as evil makes sense. Now you assert that people who order genocides are evil, can you present a reason for this or is this presumed.

It is presumed that commanding genocides is evil. Do you think commanding genocides is evil? Please answer with a yes or no.

Image123:
i have read your pos twice and had to wonder if it truly is directed to me.Are you aware that it was Amalek that was been punished, and not a bunch of innocents(whatever that means)?

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.

thehomer:

Notice that you did not answer the direct question I asked. Do you agree that what I pointed out as being evil is evil? I'm not asking whether these people are considered to have done some good things but whether or not the acts I highlighted are evil.

I didn't because it wrongly presumes my logic thus far which questions why God is called evil for evil stuff in spite the good He's done. A question you continually fail at evading.

thehomer: It is presumed that commanding genocides is evil. Do you think commanding genocides is evil? Please answer with a yes or no.

Yes. Now is lying evil ? Kindly answer with a yes or no.

Image123:
In the passages that tell us to love our neighbours and our enemies. What i mean in line with the thread thought, is that God would not send His children(like He did the Israelites) to go kill anybody.

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

Uyi Iredia:

I didn't because it wrongly presumes my logic thus far which questions why God is called evil for evil stuff in spite the good He's done. A question you continually fail at evading.

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.

Uyi Iredia:
Yes. Now is lying evil ? Kindly answer with a yes or no.

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