Since Reyginus wanted a new thread, here it is.

My question is as follows.

Why did God commit the following acts.

1. command genocides

2. kill 42 children

3. drown the entire world except Noah and his family

4. recommend slavery

5. test Abraham by asking him to kill his son

6. do nothing while Jepthah killed his daughter

7. harden Pharaoh's heart

While explaining the reason why, you can tell us what his intention was and whether that intention was good or bad keeping in mind the associated claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent towards people.

thehomer: Since Reyginus wanted a new thread, here it is.

My question is as follows.

Why did God commit the following acts.

1. command genocides

2. kill 42 children

3. drown the entire world except Noah and his family

4. recommend slavery

5. test Abraham by asking him to kill his son

6. do nothing while Jepthah killed his daughter

7. harden Pharaoh's heart

While explaining the reason why, you can tell us what his intention was and whether that intention was good or bad keeping in mind the associated claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent towards people.

Good move.
I wouldn't like this to end the same way the other one did. So, I before I proceed I have just one question to ask.

Do you accept that everything in the bible is true?

^^^@op all the question up there with due respect are all due to ur ignorance of scriptures, even many xtians dnt know any better so I will trouble myself, it will take quite a lot to explain those stuff to u and even more difficult if u dnt have the Holy Spirit, but I can assure those question have very valid answer, that's one of the reason I don't like @olaadegun starting a thread he knew little about (talking about is thread on the difference between the God of the OT & NT).
But let me take just take one example to show u I know what I'm talking about:
~clears throat~ Jepthah did not kill his daughter! how do we know that? ? Simple, human sacrifices were an abomination to God, so God would not have accepted it and of course no priest would have performed the sacrifice. What actually happened was she remained a virgin all her life in a secluded house on the outskirts of the city, that's why sent to bewail her virginity and not her life. It will also interest u to know that's where the concept of nuns was taking from. Shalom

double post

*glimpse*

Hmm

noblefada: ^^^@op all the question up there with due respect are all due to ur ignorance of scriptures, even many xtians dnt know any better so I will trouble myself, it will take quite a lot to explain those stuff to u and even more difficult if u dnt have the Holy Spirit, but I can assure those question have very valid answer, that's one of the reason I don't like @olaadegun starting a thread he knew little about (talking about is thread on the difference between the God of the OT & NT).
But let me take just take one example to show u I know what I'm talking about:
~clears throat~ Jepthah did not kill his daughter! how do we know that? ? Simple, human sacrifices were an abomination to God, so God would not have accepted it and of course no priest would have performed the sacrifice. What actually happened was she remained a virgin all her life in a secluded house on the outskirts of the city, that's why sent to bewail her virginity and not her life. It will also interest u to know that's where the concept of nuns was taking from. Shalom

Judges 11 vs 30 - 31

30: And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands,
31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.

Judges 11 vs 36

36 “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites.

Judges 11 vs 39

39 After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.

.






................................................
Dude, Jephtah killed his daughter plain and simple.

Reyginus: Good move.
I wouldn't like this to end the same way the other one did. So, I before I proceed I have just one question to ask.

Do you accept that everything in the bible is true?

And he begins with an attempt at a distraction.

No I don't accept that everything in the Bible is true but as a Christian you do and that is all that is needed for my questions. Now please answer them and don't run away. Remember that what is being questioned is God's actions based on information from the Bible. If you believe that it is true and that God did the things that I listed, then whether or not I believe they actually happened is irrelevant.

Now please answer the questions.

noblefada: ^^^@op all the question up there with due respect are all due to ur ignorance of scriptures, even many xtians dnt know any better so I will trouble myself, it will take quite a lot to explain those stuff to u and even more difficult if u dnt have the Holy Spirit, but I can assure those question have very valid answer, that's one of the reason I don't like @olaadegun starting a thread he knew little about (talking about is thread on the difference between the God of the OT & NT).

My ignorance of the Bible? Don't make me quiz you on the Bible and Christianity as a whole. Since you have the Holy Spirit, I'd like to know what he's said to about many things. Would you be fine with answering some other questions?

noblefada:
But let me take just take one example to show u I know what I'm talking about:
~clears throat~ Jepthah did not kill his daughter! how do we know that? ? Simple, human sacrifices were an abomination to God, so God would not have accepted it and of course no priest would have performed the sacrifice. What actually happened was she remained a virgin all her life in a secluded house on the outskirts of the city, that's why sent to bewail her virginity and not her life. It will also interest u to know that's where the concept of nuns was taking from. Shalom

What Bible passage did you get the following assumptions from?

1. that human sacrifices were an abomination to God. Do you remember that God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son? Or was that a different God?

2. that Jephthah didn't kill his daughter? Jephthah promised God a burnt offering of anything that came out of his house first. His daughter came out first yet you say he didn't roast her unto God? Please present your evidence.

Manhunter™:
Judges 11 vs 30 - 31

Judges 11 vs 36

Judges 11 vs 39
.






................................................
Dude, Jephtah killed his daughter plain and simple.

why are you taking that religitard serious?

First of all the bible is not a literal book as we kept saying, pls don't use ur mental knowledge to interpret God's word. As I said earlier Jephthan did not sacrifice his daughter because it was an abomination before God: Deuteronomy 18:9-10 NKJV
"When you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. [10] There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,
Leviticus 18:21 NKJV
And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.
Jer 7:31 KJV* And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.
From the passage in Judges 11, when he made that vow he was expecting a sheep or goat to come out and not his daughter which was evident from his reaction, besides according to the law, he had the right to redeem her back
Leviticus 27:2-4 NKJV
"Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'When a man consecrates by a vow certain persons to the LORD, according to your valuation, [3] if your valuation is of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old, then your valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary. [4] If it is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels;
What he did was to consecrate her to God's service
And for Abraham, we all know God was testing him. Shalom

noblefada: First of all the bible is not a literal book as we kept saying, pls don't use ur mental knowledge to interpret God's word. As I said earlier Jephthan did not sacrifice his daughter because it was an abomination before God: Deuteronomy 18:9-10 NKJV
"When you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. [10] There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,
Leviticus 18:21 NKJV
And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.
Jer 7:31 KJV* And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.
From the passage in Judges 11, when he made that vow he was expecting a sheep or goat to come out and not his daughter which was evident from his reaction, besides according to the law, he had the right to redeem her back
Leviticus 27:2-4 NKJV
"Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'When a man consecrates by a vow certain persons to the LORD, according to your valuation, [3] if your valuation is of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old, then your valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary. [4] If it is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels;
What he did was to consecrate her to God's service
And for Abraham, we all know God was testing him. Shalom

Trash. Jephthah promised God a burnt offering of anything that came out of his house first. His daughter came out first and was roasted as burnt offering. Why are you dodging that? Abi na another God?

thehomer:

And he begins with an attempt at a distraction.

No I don't accept that everything in the Bible is true but as a Christian you do and that is all that is needed for my questions. Now please answer them and don't run away. Remember that what is being questioned is God's actions based on information from the Bible. If you believe that it is true and that God did the things that I listed, then whether or not I believe they actually happened is irrelevant.

Now please answer the questions.

I'm afraid this argument will be a very difficult and possibly unconvincing one to make because you are already made up on what to accept as the truth. But I will still pretend like I do not know the thoughts you harbour for the subject.

First of all, it is not irrelevant to question the position of an interogator who has already taken a stand on the subject he is trying to inquire.

It is an entirely different thing that he is an covert neutral person. Then we can still speak to him as the interrogator. In the case where he has gone overt on a position, like this one, he ceases to be an interrogator but a defender of a position.

So don't expect me to treat him like a truth seeker. His questions must be in line with what he agrees to be true, in the first place. He cannot overtly hold a stance that the concept in question is not true, that it never happened, and still go ahead to question why it happened.

Now to your questions(I am not even supposed to begin answering them yet but I don't want to be seen as dodging them). I will answer them one after the other to avoid saying so many words later to be possibly demonised in popular fashion. I can only move to the next one when you and me are satisfied with the answer provided for the former.

1. Genocide
First and foremost you must agree, even if for the sake of the argument, that God can do all-things and He has absolute understanding of every thing.

There are so many reasons as to why He commands Genocide but the underlying factor in all is for the promotion of good and eradication of evil. But it would be better if you can provide the verses where these Genocide were commanded yourself.

I would have loved the question of your thoughts on the bible to be settled before anything. I think that would be the problem we must experience very soon. But in your normal fashion, you will conclude it is the only way to dodge the question. Think about it. I don't want to waste my time and energy.

Reyginus: I'm afraid this argument will be a very difficult and possibly unconvincing one to make because you are already made up on what to accept as the truth. But I will still pretend like I do not know the thoughts you harbour for the subject.

First of all, it is not irrelevant to question the position of an interogator who has already taken a stand on the subject he is trying to inquire.

It is an entirely different thing that he is an covert neutral person. Then we can still speak to him as the interrogator. In the case where he has gone overt on a position, like this one, he ceases to be an interrogator but a defender of a position.

So don't expect me to treat him like a truth seeker. His questions must be in line with what he agrees to be true, in the first place. He cannot overtly hold a stance that the concept in question is not true, that it never happened, and still go ahead to question why it happened.

Still irrelevant in this case. The question isn't about what I believe, but about what you, Reyginus and other defenders of the Bible believe the Bible says.

Reyginus:
Now to your questions(I am not even supposed to begin answering them yet but I don't want to be seen as dodging them). I will answer them one after the other to avoid saying so many words later to be possibly demonised in popular fashion. I can only move to the next one when you and me are satisfied with the answer provided for the former.

I see you've chosen the option of inserting delays any way you can.

Reyginus:
1. Genocide
First and foremost you must agree, even if for the sake of the argument, that God can do all-things and He has absolute understanding of every thing.

There are so many reasons as to why He commands Genocide but the underlying factor in all is for the promotion of good and eradication of evil. But it would be better if you can provide the verses where these Genocide were commanded yourself.

I already showed you a thread on this question of genocide but since you're looking for anyway to insert delays, I'll post it here again and more.

NIV 1 Samuel 15:

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

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

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

NIV Numbers 31
7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
. . .
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

NIV Deuteronomy 2
30 But Sihon king of Heshbon refused to let us pass through. For the Lord your God had made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into your hands, as he has now done.

31 The Lord said to me, “See, I have begun to deliver Sihon and his country over to you. Now begin to conquer and possess his land.”

32 When Sihon and all his army came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz, 33 the Lord our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed[c] them—men, women and children. We left no survivors. 35 But the livestock and the plunder from the towns we had captured we carried off for ourselves.

There's more but I think these will do for now.

What good is this that can only be promoted by the cases of genocide listed above?

Reyginus:
I would have loved the question of your thoughts on the bible to be settled before anything. I think that would be the problem we must experience very soon. But in your normal fashion, you will conclude it is the only way to dodge the question. Think about it. I don't want to waste my time and energy.

My thoughts have no bearing on this issue and your talk about them being settled before anything looks to me like you just want more excuses and evasions. Again, the question is the reason why God did the things he did not whether or not I believe that the Bible is totally true.

noblefada: First of all the bible is not a literal book as we kept saying, pls don't use ur mental knowledge to interpret God's word. As I said earlier Jephthan did not sacrifice his daughter because it was an abomination before God: Deuteronomy 18:9-10 NKJV
"When you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. [10] There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,
Leviticus 18:21 NKJV
And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.
Jer 7:31 KJV* And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.
From the passage in Judges 11, when he made that vow he was expecting a sheep or goat to come out and not his daughter which was evident from his reaction, besides according to the law, he had the right to redeem her back
Leviticus 27:2-4 NKJV
"Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'When a man consecrates by a vow certain persons to the LORD, according to your valuation, [3] if your valuation is of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old, then your valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary. [4] If it is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels;
What he did was to consecrate her to God's service
And for Abraham, we all know God was testing him. Shalom

Jephthah didn't burn his daughter in the fire as a sacrifice to Molech, but to God himself. Here let me help you along with these direct questions.

What was Jephthah's promise to God?

What did God's test of Abraham require him to do?

thehomer: Since Reyginus wanted a new thread, here it is.

My question is as follows.

Why did God commit the following acts.

1. command genocides

2. kill 42 children

3. drown the entire world except Noah and his family

4. recommend slavery

5. test Abraham by asking him to kill his son

6. do nothing while Jepthah killed his daughter

7. harden Pharaoh's heart

While explaining the reason why, you can tell us what his intention was and whether that intention was good or bad keeping in mind the associated claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent towards people.

They claim Yahweh is a supreme being. Yet, he has the emotions of an immature mortal. If Yahweh's ways are "higher" than ours, why does he express Human emotions like Jealousy, Anger? As Spinoza said, man ascribes its physical and emotional qualities to god, A sphere will describe its god as spherical. Why should a so called "god" have its attributes decided upon by mere Men, Perhaps because the "god" was made by Man in the first place.

Pope Xander VII:

They claim Yahweh is a supreme being. Yet, he has the emotions of an immature mortal. If Yahweh's ways are "higher" than ours, why does he express Human emotions like Jealousy, Anger? As Spinoza said, man ascribes its physical and emotional qualities to god, A sphere will describe its god as spherical. Why should a so called "god" have its attributes decided upon by mere Men, Perhaps because the "god" was made by Man in the first place.

An accurate exposition. If a child stands before say Governor Fashola and says they don't believe President Jonathan exists, would it make a lot of sense for the child to be tortured for 10 years by the president? These are the sorts of things these Christians haven't really considered before upholding their God in man's image.

*peep*

the bible God sounds to me like an invincible human. a creator that has all the floors of his creation.

thehomer:

Still irrelevant in this case. The question isn't about what I believe, but about what you, Reyginus and other defenders of the Bible believe the Bible says.

But you should have shown me why you think it is irrelevant. It is not enough to say that it is irrelevant because we are talking about the belief of Reyginus and other bible defenders.

This is the same thing you said initially. While I presented a statement to show that it is not only about what I and so many others believe to be true you on your part is yet to provide any on why you think otherwise or even better still, break my posts into bits to expose the irrationality of my position on this.

For a second time, reconsidering my previous response, how is it still irrelevant? I will not allow you to dictate both how I answer questions, and also go ahead to tell me the questions you will answer, even without providing a good reason why. I am not here to play the Zombie by pleasing you if you will not do the same.

thehomer:


I see you've chosen the option of inserting delays any way you can.

I would also like you to caution this your enemy mentality. That we are on different sides does not mean that anything I say is a trick to tarnish the argument.

I don't know if you've noticed it but you argue like you don't trust the person you are arguing with to do so honestly but still go ahead to engage him. A little pretence can help you.

You didn't even weigh my reason for approaching the argument in that manner. It is like when a so-called sensible person forms an opinion that an argument for a particular thing is flawed and stupid but he still goes ahead with his overt disdain to demand an intelligent response from the flawed argument. It doesn't make any sense.

Don't take this lightly. I am not your enemy, bro.

thehomer:



I already showed you a thread on this question of genocide but since you're looking for anyway to insert delays, I'll post it here again and more.

Smh. Dude has got a very big problem. Anything I say is a delay tactics. But since I don't leave my words empty and expects them to be digested automatically, I will respond to your claim.

This argument was not built from that thread but from the thread where I posed as an atheist. And in that thread the questions didn't come in the form of a verse but the question you are responding to demanded one or two.

And if you had not commenced with an enemy mentality you would seen it as the best way to cage me. It was meant to give you room to make the questions very difficult for me by bringing in different scenarios.

It didn't occur to you that it would be easier if I had treated the subject as just genocide without particular scenarios. Smh4u.

thehomer:
There's more but I think these will do for now.

I am also going to treat the cases one after the other. You can complain as usual.

Case 1.

[/quote]'NIV 1 Samuel 15:

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

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

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

I will try as much as possible to be direct. The question was on why God punished the Amalekites.

The answer is very obvious in this case. In verse two of chapter fiftheen, God gave the reason for the punishment metted out to them as attacking and destroying his people, the children of Isreal, as they were returning from Egypt where.

I wouldn't assume that you are asking after any other thing so I will leave it at this level until you do so yourself. I'm moving with the questions.

thehomer:


What good is this that can only be promoted by the cases of genocide listed above?

Very good. Now you come.

God as the creator of the entire universe is both all mighty and all-knowing. He can see the end from the very first move. He is also most holy.
If he can see the end and as it turns out it turns out to be very dark and full of filt you don't expect the holiest of holies to allow the source of that dark end to perpatrate the act that will create the end.

Look at it with the eyes of the scenario where Zombies has infiltrated a greater portion, if not all, the earth leaving only just a dozen of humans uninfected. Let's call the Zombies the Evil doers.

Imagine there is a chemical agent, say sarin gas, which can be used effectively to wipe out the entire Zombies and enthrone human survival again. To avoid the extinction of the human race and to promote the survival. Let's call it God.

The only way to enable that the good people, the dozens of uninfected men, survive the attack would be by detonating the sarin gas in the infected region.

You cannot say that this is bad because the infected men are already useless to themselves and the environment. It is a case of permitting a great good by wiping out great evil.

thehomer:
My thoughts have no bearing on this issue and your talk about them being settled before anything looks to me like you just want more excuses and evasions. Again, the question is the reason why God did the things he did not whether or not I believe that the Bible is totally true.

Lol. I wish you know the implication of saying that your thoughts have no bearing on the issue. Except I misunderstand you.

thehomer I wonder why you will engage somebody if you already think that the only thing he is good at is evasion. Do you mind telling me why? I would like to know.

^^^

Do you realise that Yahweh also included sheep, cattle, women and children in the list of people to be killed?

Rey, would you like your whole family killed and all your property destroyed for a crime you commited? Would call that justice?

Reyginus: But you should have shown me why you think it is irrelevant. It is not enough to say that it is irrelevant because we are talking about the belief of Reyginus and other bible defenders.

You just answered the question. Since we're talking about your beliefs not mine, how is the fact that I don't share your beliefs relevant? You tell me the relevance.

Reyginus:
This is the same thing you said initially. While I presented a statement to show that it is not only about what I and so many others believe to be true you on your part is yet to provide any on why you think otherwise or even better still, break my posts into bits to expose the irrationality of my position on this.

Are you asking me why I don't believe the Bible?

Reyginus:
For a second time, reconsidering my previous response, how is it still irrelevant? I will not allow you to dictate both how I answer questions, and also go ahead to tell me the questions you will answer, even without providing a good reason why. I am not here to play the Zombie by pleasing you if you will not do the same.

Sorry but this thread has a particular aim. If you're interested in why I don't believe the Bible, you can open a separate thread. You asked for a clear thread addressing this topic. I provided it but you've chosen to obfuscate.

Reyginus:
I would also like you to caution this your enemy mentality. That we are on different sides does not mean that anything I say is a trick to tarnish the argument.

I don't know if you've noticed it but you argue like you don't trust the person you are arguing with to do so honestly but still go ahead to engage him. A little pretence can help you.

You didn't even weigh my reason for approaching the argument in that manner. It is like when a so-called sensible person forms an opinion that an argument for a particular thing is flawed and stupid but he still goes ahead with his overt disdain to demand an intelligent response from the flawed argument. It doesn't make any sense.

Don't take this lightly. I am not your enemy, bro.

What is this? Have you suddenly developed thin skin? I've not called you names or insulted you in anyway I'm simply calling things out as I see them and you're showing me that my assessments are correct. So far, you've introduced irrelevant issues into something that is very clear. I don't like pretending and see no reason why I should bother with that on an anonymous forum. All I can guarantee is that I will be polite as long as you're polite.

If you think your particular approach will shed some light on the question by all means go ahead. All I ask is that you keep it relevant.

Reyginus:
Smh. Dude has got a very big problem. Anything I say is a delay tactics. But since I don't leave my words empty and expects them to be digested automatically, I will respond to your claim.

This argument was not built from that thread but from the thread where I posed as an atheist. And in that thread the questions didn't come in the form of a verse but the question you are responding to demanded one or two.

And if you had not commenced with an enemy mentality you would seen it as the best way to cage me. It was meant to give you room to make the questions very difficult for me by bringing in different scenarios.

It didn't occur to you that it would be easier if I had treated the subject as just genocide without particular scenarios. Smh4u.

More obfuscation. On the thread where you thought you could pretend to be an atheist, you found yourself defending the Christian God as being good. That thread questions the goodness of the Christian God but you felt that wasn't enough. I then laid out seven actions this God performed and asked you the Christian to defend them by any means you like. So far, you've introduced lots of irrelevant issues.

Reyginus:
I am also going to treat the cases one after the other. You can complain as usual.

Case 1.

'NIV 1 Samuel 15:

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

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

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

I will try as much as possible to be direct. The question was on why God punished the Amalekites.

The answer is very obvious in this case. In verse two of chapter fiftheen, God gave the reason for the punishment metted out to them as attacking and destroying his people, the children of Isreal, as they were returning from Egypt where.

I wouldn't assume that you are asking after any other thing so I will leave it at this level until you do so yourself. I'm moving with the questions.

That wasn't the question, the question is why did God command a genocide? Are you seriously saying that God felt that the morally right thing to do when one is attacked is to go out and kill not only the soldiers who did the attacking but wipe out their wives, children, grand-parents, livestock and anything else they could lay their hands on?

Reyginus:
What good is this that can only be promoted by the cases of genocide listed above?
Very good. Now you come.

God as the creator of the entire universe is both all mighty and all-knowing. He can see the end from the very first move. He is also most holy.
If he can see the end and as it turns out it turns out to be very dark and full of filt you don't expect the holiest of holies to allow the source of that dark end to perpatrate the act that will create the end.

Look at it with the eyes of the scenario where Zombies has infiltrated a greater portion, if not all, the earth leaving only just a dozen of humans uninfected. Let's call the Zombies the Evil doers.

Imagine there is a chemical agent, say sarin gas, which can be used effectively to wipe out the entire Zombies and enthrone human survival again. To avoid the extinction of the human race and to promote the survival. Let's call it God.

The only way to enable that the good people, the dozens of uninfected men, survive the attack would be by detonating the sarin gas in the infected region.

You cannot say that this is bad because the infected men are already useless to themselves and the environment. It is a case of permitting a great good by wiping out great evil.

Your analogy fails because God can easily distinguish between the guilty and non-guilty parties. He can punish the guilty and spare the non-guilty. Why exactly would a God who can easily identify and single out the actual evil people decide that the best thing for him to do is to kill both the guilty and non-guilty parties? Kill everyone from the 90 year old man who is blind and deaf therefore didn't attack anyone to the 1 month infant who was born after the event? Is this the best your God can do?

Reyginus:
My thoughts have no bearing on this issue and your talk about them being settled before anything looks to me like you just want more excuses and evasions. Again, the question is the reason why God did the things he did not whether or not I believe that the Bible is totally true.Lol. I wish you know the implication of saying that your thoughts have no bearing on the issue. Except I misunderstand you.

Please tell me what the implication is.

Reyginus:
thehomer I wonder why you will engage somebody if you already think that the only thing he is good at is evasion. Do you mind telling me why? I would like to know.

I've not said you're good at evasion. I've said you keep failing at it. I'm engaging you because I have a lot of free time right now and would like to expose the poor reasons you're giving to yourself and any other interested party who happens to stumble upon this thread.

Did you forget the verses that talked about keeping the young women who hadn't slept with a man but kill all the males no matter their age? What was God's purpose there?

I also hope you've not forgotten the other 6 problematic actions performed by God in my OP.

Reyginus:
I am also going to treat the cases one after the other. You can complain as usual.

Case 1.

'NIV 1 Samuel 15:

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

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

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

I will try as much as possible to be direct. The question was on why God punished the Amalekites.

The answer is very obvious in this case. In verse two of chapter fiftheen, God gave the reason for the punishment metted out to them as attacking and destroying his people, the children of Isreal, as they were returning from Egypt where.

I wouldn't assume that you are asking after any other thing so I will leave it at this level until you do so yourself. I'm moving with the questions.






What good is this that can only be promoted by the cases of genocide listed above?
Very good. Now you come.

God as the creator of the entire universe is both all mighty and all-knowing. He can see the end from the very first move. He is also most holy.
If he can see the end and as it turns out it turns out to be very dark and full of filt you don't expect the holiest of holies to allow the source of that dark end to perpatrate the act that will create the end.

Look at it with the eyes of the scenario where Zombies has infiltrated a greater portion, if not all, the earth leaving only just a dozen of humans uninfected. Let's call the Zombies the Evil doers.

Imagine there is a chemical agent, say sarin gas, which can be used effectively to wipe out the entire Zombies and enthrone human survival again. To avoid the extinction of the human race and to promote the survival. Let's call it God.

The only way to enable that the good people, the dozens of uninfected men, survive the attack would be by detonating the sarin gas in the infected region.

You cannot say that this is bad because the infected men are already useless to themselves and the environment. It is a case of permitting a great good by wiping out great evil.

would u say bokoharam is doing wrong for killing unbelievers(as far as they are concerned) in the name of God? if what u wrote above is true, what justification do u have to condemn this islamic sect? if God can give such order in the bible verse quoted above and you think he is right for doing it, why do u think he is not the same person that ordered the islamic sect to bomb people?

Mr Troll: ^^^

Do you realise that Yahweh also included sheep, cattle, women and children in the list of people to be killed?

Mr Troll:
Rey, would you like your whole family killed and all your property destroyed for a crime you commited? Would call that justice?

That will depend on my understanding of what is absolutely right.

If I have absolute understanding of what the truth is then I would have a reason to misjudgde it but where I have no absolute knowledge of good then I have no reason to justify my anger.

My display of any emotion does not automatically make any action against me wrong or right.

thehomer:

You just answered the question. Since we're talking about your beliefs not mine, how is the fact that I don't share your beliefs relevant? You tell me the relevance.

No I didn't. I only showed that you have not given a worthy response to that so far.

And let me make this clear to you. If I ask you a question and you try to play around it by turning it towards my direction, not only will I not dignify it with a response, I will also assume that you don't know what you are talking about.

I'm here for business. I think you too should grow some balls by facing any question like a man. I'm done with this portion of the argument.

thehomer:


Are you asking me why I don't believe the Bible?

This was my response. Read it again because I can't see how it is a question.

' This is the same thing you said initially. While I presented a statement to show that it is not only about what I and so many others believe to be true you on your part is yet to provide any on why you think otherwise or even better still, break my posts into bits to expose the irrationality of my position on this'.

thehomer:


Sorry but this thread has a particular aim. If you're interested in why I don't believe the Bible, you can open a separate thread. You asked for a clear thread addressing this topic. I provided it but you've chosen to obfuscate.

Lol. Dude has been reading something else because I don't see how the below even translates to a question.
Read it again, but slowly this time

For a second time, reconsidering my previous response, how is it still irrelevant? I will not allow you to dictate both how I answer questions, and also go ahead to tell me the questions you will answer, even without providing a good reason why. I am not here to play the Zombie by pleasing you if you will not do the same'.

thehomer:


What is this? Have you suddenly developed thin skin? I've not called you names or insulted you in anyway I'm simply calling things out as I see them and you're showing me that my assessments are correct. So far, you've introduced irrelevant issues into something that is very clear. I don't like pretending and see no reason why I should bother with that on an anonymous forum. All I can guarantee is that I will be polite as long as you're polite.

Lol. Dude is blinded by it already. I don't have time for any of this anymore. Ignored.

thehomer:

If you think your particular approach will shed some light on the question by all means go ahead. All I ask is that you keep it relevant.

Irrelevant.

thehomer:

More obfuscation. On the thread where you thought you could pretend to be an atheist, you found yourself defending the Christian God as being good. That thread questions the goodness of the Christian God but you felt that wasn't enough. I then laid out seven actions this God performed and asked you the Christian to defend them by any means you like. So far, you've introduced lots of irrelevant issues.

Irrelevant.

thehomer:

That wasn't the question, the question is why did God command a genocide? Are you seriously saying that God felt that the morally right thing to do when one is attacked is to go out and kill not only the soldiers who did the attacking but wipe out their wives, children, grand-parents, livestock and anything else they could lay their hands on?

This is completely illogical, my friend. It is so obvious, I begin to wonder how you didn't notice it.

The question is rightly what you say it is but what you understand it to mean is completely different from its actual implication. This is why I say it is illogical.

The question here was why God commanded genocide and not whether genocide is a morally good decision by a morally good God. You got it right with the question but the statement that follows it dissociated itself from what it is responding to.

Imagine asking why any person killed another and after being told that he did it because he was angry, you go still ahead to respond that he didn't answer the question because he didn't say if it was right or wrong even when the question never asked for it.

thehomer:

Your analogy fails because God can easily distinguish between the guilty and non-guilty parties. He can punish the guilty and spare the non-guilty. Why exactly would a God who can easily identify and single out the actual evil people decide that the best thing for him to do is to kill both the guilty and non-guilty parties? Kill everyone from the 90 year old man who is blind and deaf therefore didn't attack anyone to the 1 month infant who was born after the event? Is this the best your God can do?

Very good. At least you are beginning to sound like someone in need of a good debate and not to pick up a fight. I will answer you accordingly.

My analogy works perfectly. The problem is that you find it hard to accept that it is possible that every person who experienced genocide is guilty. But they all are in a way or the other.

The issue is one of corruption. A soul that has been corrupted may not directly be involved in the perpetration of evil but by the virtue of its corruption is no longer capable of creating any good.

Look at it in the same manner you will see the child of the cannibals. They are not directly involved in the hunting of fellow men but they have been brought up to believe that there is nothing wrong in eating fellow man. By the virtue of their learning they have already been corrupted and if invaded they are wiped out together with their elders.

God's all-knowing ability, grants him the access to read the minds of men and so the question of differentiating the guilty from the non-guilty is irrelevant.

thehomer:



Please tell me what the implication is.



I've not said you're good at evasion. I've said you keep failing at it. I'm engaging you because I have a lot of free time right now and would like to expose the poor reasons you're giving to yourself and any other interested party who happens to stumble upon this thread.

Irrelevant.

thehomer:

Did you forget the verses that talked about keeping the young women who hadn't slept with a man but kill all the males no matter their age? What was God's purpose there?

Irrelevant. We are still on genocide.

thehomer:

I also hope you've not forgotten the other 6 problematic actions performed by God in my OP.

I'm coming to them.

frank3.16:


would u say bokoharam is doing wrong for killing unbelievers(as far as they are concerned) in the name of God? if what u wrote above is true, what justification do u have to condemn this islamic sect? if God can give such order in the bible verse quoted above and you think he is right for doing it, why do u think he is not the same person that ordered the islamic sect to bomb people?

My friend we are discussing why God did what he did and possibly if it tells well of a morally good God. Not that I cannot answer the questions but I will not because it is not what we are talking about, though, related.

Reyginus: No I didn't. I only showed that you have not given a worthy response to that so far.

And let me make this clear to you. If I ask you a question and you try to play around it by turning it towards my direction, not only will I not dignify it with a response, I will also assume that you don't know what you are talking about.

More confusion on your part. It looks like you've not been able to keep up with your own question. You asked

Reyginus:
Do you accept that everything in the bible is true?

Do you remember asking me that question? That is the question I pointed out to you as being irrelevant. I answered that question and explained to you why it was irrelevant. But it looks like as usual, you've lost yourself with that question.

Reyginus:
I'm here for business. I think you too should grow some balls by facing any question like a man. I'm done with this portion of the argument.
This was my response. Read it again because I can't see how it is a question.

' This is the same thing you said initially. While I presented a statement to show that it is not only about what I and so many others believe to be true you on your part is yet to provide any on why you think otherwise or even better still, break my posts into bits to expose the irrationality of my position on this'.

I know exactly what I said and I gave you the reason for my answer. For me to expose your irrational positions, you need to stick to the topic at hand rather than wondering what I believe.

Reyginus:
Lol. Dude has been reading something else because I don't see how the below even translates to a question.
Read it again, but slowly this time

For a second time, reconsidering my previous response, how is it still irrelevant? I will not allow you to dictate both how I answer questions, and also go ahead to tell me the questions you will answer, even without providing a good reason why. I am not here to play the Zombie by pleasing you if you will not do the same'.

You should have followed your question to see the reason why I said it was irrelevant. You did ask the question and I answered with a reason. As I said, you're welcome to open another thread if you're still wondering what I believe.

Reyginus:
Lol. Dude is blinded by it already. I don't have time for any of this anymore. Ignored.

Ignore it at your own peril.

Reyginus:
Irrelevant.


Irrelevant.

So the issues you introduced and I addressed directly are irrelevant? This is amusing.

Reyginus:
This is completely illogical, my friend. It is so obvious, I begin to wonder how you didn't notice it.

The question is rightly what you say it is but what you understand it to mean is completely different from its actual implication. This is why I say it is illogical.

The question here was why God commanded genocide and not whether genocide is a morally good decision by a morally good God. You got it right with the question but the statement that follows it dissociated itself from what it is responding to.

Imagine asking why any person killed another and after being told that he did it because he was angry, you go still ahead to respond that he didn't answer the question because he didn't say if it was right or wrong even when the question never asked for it.

And your confusion reveals itself once more. The post that spawned this thread was questioning who had the better character between the Christian God and the devil. If we weren't talking about moral character, what do you think we were talking about? Have you already forgotten that the reason why this thread was opened was to actually examine whether or not the reason for God's actions were reasonable for a person of good character to commit?

Reyginus:
Very good. At least you are beginning to sound like someone in need of a good debate and not to pick up a fight. I will answer you accordingly.

My analogy works perfectly. The problem is that you find it hard to accept that it is possible that every person who experienced genocide is guilty. But they all are in a way or the other.

The issue is one of corruption. A soul that has been corrupted may not directly be involved in the perpetration of evil but by the virtue of its corruption is no longer capable of creating any good.

Look at it in the same manner you will see the child of the cannibals. They are not directly involved in the hunting of fellow men but they have been brought up to believe that there is nothing wrong in eating fellow man. By the virtue of their learning they have already been corrupted and if invaded they are wiped out together with their elders.

God's all-knowing ability, grants him the access to read the minds of men and so the question of differentiating the guilty from the non-guilty is irrelevant.

Your analogy still doesn't work. God can separate the innocent from the guilty. In your scenario, the gas (God) can't separate the innocent from the guilty so your analogy has already failed.

Wow. And this is your best defense for God commanding genocide? That a 1 month old baby who has done nothing wrong was already corrupt and deserved to be killed by your morally good God? So would it be fine for someone to be killed because their great-great-great-great-grand father stole three loaves of bread? So the child of a thief is already corrupt and a thief therefore deserves to be punished with his father?

Again, how about when your God called for all males to be killed but the female virgins were to be distributed among the soldiers and the men of God?

This would be funny if it wasn't so tragic that you actually think that this is a defense for commanding a genocide.

Reyginus:
Irrelevant.

I guess irrelevant has become the word I used that you'll now be overusing. You asked why I bother to engage you. I gave you a direct answer and you're complaining.

Reyginus:
Irrelevant. We are still on genocide.

It is part of the genocide. Or didn't you read the three Bible verses you're supposed to be responding to? Please take the time to look at what you're supposed to be responding to here. There are three passages there. Read them all.

Reyginus:
I'm coming to them.

At this rate, I'm not sure that you'll get to them.

Reyginus: My friend we are discussing why God did what he did and possibly if it tells well of a morally good God. Not that I cannot answer the questions but I will not because it is not what we are talking about, though, related.

You know that his morality is also in question so why did you say that asking whether or not genocide was a moral decision to make is illogical? Looks to me like like you're once again trying to obfuscate. And as usual, you're failing at it.

prrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, not again homer.

Prediction: this thread will end up like the other one.

Summary: though some items in that list are compromised to suit your atheistic world view, generally, yes. God has, and will kill people.

Why? Well, because the wages of sin is death. Jesus is our solution, but if we reject him and continue in sin, we shall die.

In those days, God carried out judgement differently and at his own timing. In these days, he has set a period of wrath and judgement. We're his witnesses. Preaching to the world to
Repent! For the kingdom of God is at hand

God is not just loving and rosy, he's also The Eternal Judge. Live with it.

Think. Change.

Reyginus:
That will depend on my understanding of what is absolutely right.

If I have absolute understanding of what the truth is then I would have a reason to misjudgde it but where I have no absolute knowledge of good then I have no reason to justify my anger.

My display of any emotion does not automatically make any action against me wrong or right.

Are you saying you have no idea what is good and just? Misjudge it? Guy, you're a poor apologist. Wtf?

Mr Troll:

Are you saying you have no idea what is good and just? Misjudge it? Guy, you're a poor apologist. Wtf?

You sound like logicboy.

Abeg me sef I no understand wetin oga rey dey tok. Make him comot come explain am abeg.