thehomer:

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.

he's a poor apologist. Anony wannabe

Image123: prrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, not again homer.

What? Getting uncomfortable again are you?

Mr Troll: he's a poor apologist. Anony wannabe

Yeah. I just wonder if he'll eventually realize this.

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.

Sir Reyginus,
Why don't you just say that you do not know , and stop all this dodgy dodgy thing?

thehomer:

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



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.



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.



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.



Ignore it at your own peril.



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

Irrelevant.

thehomer:

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?

You still find it hard to understand your question. We may be talking about his moral character in the entire argument but not in a portion of it. I don't know if you understand.

I like to follow arguments as the questions come and I don't try to assume anything that is yet to be asked even though I know that it will come later in the argument. This is the simple thing I want you to understand.

When I answered the question, why God committed genocide, I answered based on the reason presented for committing genocide and nothing more. The question didn't ask anything more. What I was expecting was for you, as the rational person you would want to believe, to simply ask further, do you think this is a good reason for ordering genocide? As simple as that.

I don't why you are finding it difficult to look at from the essence of the question. If you are having an argument with somebody on the subject of chemistry.

Let's say you are trying to discover if Argon is really a noble gas and he asks you what is the atomic number and mass number and of Ar.
You tell him 18. This is exactly what his question is all about and nothing, though the final journey is discovering if it is a noble gas or not.
Then imagine he now goes temperamental, that you didn't tell him if Ar is a rare gas or not, even when his question was still coming to it.

I'm sure you will be surprised yourself at such a behaviour and wonder if he really understands his question. And the truth is, he doesn't.

thehomer:

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.

Lol. I never assumed that any is innocent, bro. I only made mention of the guilty ones and the corrupted ones. The guilty ones perpetrate the evil directly while the corrupted ones have learnt wrongly.

You point would have been true if I had shot myself in the foot by agreeing that any of the cannibal community is innocent. Please read my post again.

thehomer:



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?

Lol. Smart guy! On a serious note, you didn't say anything new to debunk my position.

You only rephrased the statement I made into questions. I mean this with all honesty. The mere fact that I used the analogy of an adult cannibal corrupting the ignorant minors is a cause to say something new. I need a new and better argument for this one. I'm serious.

thehomer:


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?

You are moving too fast, bro. I told you I will deal with the first quote, from the book of samuel, and first problem, genocide, before I come to any other question. We will get there gradually. Do you understand? Lol.

thehomer:

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



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.

I'm learning fast, bro. By the way, the above too is.

thehomer:
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.

I'm sorry for that. I meant to say it was never a part of samuel, the quote I am still dealing with. I don't want to mix things up.

thehomer:

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

I don't even think it is about going through all of them.
What I am after is the explanations I have for them and if it go well with everyone. If we find it hard to agree with the easy one how do we now agree on difficult ones.

Mr Troll:

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

Lol. You ask a question and answered it yourself and then blame me for your poor work. Lol. These 'logical' people sef!
Do you want me to answer the question or not?

plaetton:

Sir Reyginus,
Why don't you just say that you do not know , and stop all this dodgy dodgy thing?

Why should I lie to myself, bro?

Reyginus: Irrelevant.

So you've finally realized that your question to me was irrelevant. I wonder why you brought it up in the first place. I suspect it was to cause yet another delay.

Reyginus:
You still find it hard to understand your question. We may be talking about his moral character in the entire argument but not in a portion of it. I don't know if you understand.

I like to follow arguments as the questions come and I don't try to assume anything that is yet to be asked even though I know that it will come later in the argument. This is the simple thing I want you to understand.

When I answered the question, why God committed genocide, I answered based on the reason presented for committing genocide and nothing more. The question didn't ask anything more. What I was expecting was for you, as the rational person you would want to believe, to simply ask further, do you think this is a good reason for ordering genocide? As simple as that.

I don't why you are finding it difficult to look at from the essence of the question. If you are having an argument with somebody on the subject of chemistry.

Let's say you are trying to discover if Argon is really a noble gas and he asks you what is the atomic number and mass number and of Ar.
You tell him 18. This is exactly what his question is all about and nothing, though the final journey is discovering if it is a noble gas or not.
Then imagine he now goes temperamental, that you didn't tell him if Ar is a rare gas or not, even when his question was still coming to it.

I'm sure you will be surprised yourself at such a behaviour and wonder if he really understands his question. And the truth is, he doesn't.

And this is why I say you're deliberately trying to obfuscate clear issues. If we're talking about his moral character and you know that whether or not the action is moral is also under consideration, why do you complain when I point out that it isn't a moral action? If you agree with me that it isn't a moral action why don't you say so? If you think it was a moral action, then go ahead and explain how it is moral. Simply stop your poor attempts at evading the topic.

Reyginus:
Lol. I never assumed that any is innocent, bro. I only made mention of the guilty ones and the corrupted ones. The guilty ones perpetrate the evil directly while the corrupted ones have learnt wrongly.

You point would have been true if I had shot myself in the foot by agreeing that any of the cannibal community is innocent. Please read my post again.

Since no one is innocent, what crime has a one month old male child committed that he deserves to be killed for it? Don't run from this direct question.

Reyginus:
Lol. Smart guy! On a serious note, you didn't say anything new to debunk my position.

You only rephrased the statement I made into questions. I mean this with all honesty. The mere fact that I used the analogy of an adult cannibal corrupting the ignorant minors is a cause to say something new. I need a new and better argument for this one. I'm serious.

If that is a serious response, then please tell me would it be moral to e.g kill Charles Taylor's 5 month old grand child because Taylor himself commanded genocide? Don't run from this question too.

Reyginus:
You are moving too fast, bro. I told you I will deal with the first quote, from the book of samuel, and first problem, genocide, before I come to any other question. We will get there gradually. Do you understand? Lol.

I'm moving too fast? This was why in one of my responses to you on this thread, I said:

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

You're obviously proving my prescient assessment right.

Reyginus:
I'm learning fast, bro. By the way, the above too is.

Another issue you introduced you've declared to be irrelevant after my explanation. I'm not surprised.

Reyginus:
I'm sorry for that. I meant to say it was never a part of samuel, the quote I am still dealing with. I don't want to mix things up.

You don't want to mix things up? Are you really finding it that difficult?

Reyginus:
I don't even think it is about going through all of them.
What I am after is the explanations I have for them and if it go well with everyone. If we find it hard to agree with the easy one how do we now agree on difficult ones.

You're the one who is supposed to present the explanations and so far, you're doing a piss poor job. Going through them all is important and we would have been a good way along if you took a direct route rather than introducing irrelevant information and asking irrelevant questions.

thehomer:

What? Getting uncomfortable again are you?

Uncomfortable your big tooth. The answer has been given severally na, God is Judge, you're not. Spare yourself the headache, the last time you absconded, remember?

thehomer:

So you've finally realized that your question to me was irrelevant. I wonder why you brought it up in the first place. I suspect it was to cause yet another delay.

Irrelevant.

thehomer:

And this is why I say you're deliberately trying to obfuscate clear issues. If we're talking about his moral character and you know that whether or not the action is moral is also under consideration, why do you complain when I point out that it isn't a moral action? If you agree with me that it isn't a moral action why don't you say so? If you think it was a moral action, then go ahead and explain how it is moral. Simply stop your poor attempts at evading the topic.

Simply stop this attitude of misunderstanding questions and claiming to be the one wronged. If anyone followed the above absolutely he will see that you are obviously the person deliberately or possibly indeliberately evading.

You automatically left what I presented to something entirely different. I find it hard to accept that you don't understand my point because there is nothing so esoteric in my use of words.

In the former quote, I pointed out to you that your question can only be answered in accordance to what it is asking and nothing more. I've never made any attempt to show that I will answer any question that follows it.

But you went further to jump this primary problem we are trying to neutralize to moral goodness. I don't like this thing you are doing. You are dwarfing the progress of this argument. Is it that you find it difficult to admit that you are wrong, that I answered correctly, then go ahead to ask the principal question, is it a good act? Seriosly, I don't like this thing you are doing.

thehomer:



Since no one is innocent, what crime has a one month old male child committed that he deserves to be killed for it? Don't run from this direct question.

I wish you can maintain this style and we would have no problem. I will give you a direct answer.

He has been forced to commit the crime of corruption. Let me give you a very ugly analogy. Imagine a communited fracture was identified by doctors on a new boy two months after the actual incident that caused the fracture. The parents noticed it but for their neglect the fracture has gotten to a state of gangrenous deposition all over the child.

What any intelligent medical practitioner would advise in this case would be to amputate the affected limb before it spreads to other unaffected regions of the baby's anatomy. We cannot blame the good doctor for performing a surgery to remove the leg and handing the infant a prosthesis. Neither do we blame the child for the incident. This way, the sins of the parents have come to hunt the innocent baby who lacked the knowlegde of what to do.

If it is not clear, ask for clarification or point it out yourself.

thehomer:

If that is a serious response, then please tell me would it be moral to e.g kill Charles Taylor's 5 month old grand child because Taylor himself commanded genocide? Don't run from this question too.

Lol@ don't run away from yhe question. Like I am speaking with a matured Logicboy03. But I must admit, this is better than your former response.

First of all, before I make such a demand, I must have an absolute understanding of the reason why Charles Taylor commanded genocide.

Secondly, I must know the intent behind the reason Charles Taylor offered for commanding genocide.

And above all, I know the effect of Charles Taylor's action on his generation.

Since you didn't tell me and to prevent anything that will make you to see me as 'running away from the question', I will assume I know these three things.

From what I am assuming to knowj
1. Charles Taylor's reason vengeance
2. Charles Taylor's intent was bad, ethnic cleansing
3. Charles Taylor's great-grandchildren have all been assigned a position in the government even before they are born.

Remember that this government is an utterly bad government which only seeks the destruction of life. To accept a position in the government is to join in the destruction of man.

In this case his great-grand children will be punished for the sins of charles taylor, except they denied him and relegated the position after they are born

thehomer:

I'm moving too fast? This was why in one of my responses to you on this thread, I said:

You're obviously proving my prescient assessment right.

Another issue you introduced you've declared to be irrelevant after my explanation. I'm not surprised.

lol. Bro, I don't enjoy typing, the worst I can do is typing what will not help the argument gp any further.

thehomer:

You don't want to mix things up? Are you really finding it that difficult?

You sound like one who wants to be offered what you want but unwilling to offer others what they want.

You told me at the onset of this argument that your belief doesn't matter but mine, now I am telling you also that I will answer your questions how I want to answer it and you are cpomplaining. Must it always be your way? Are you the atheist zeus or something more?

thehomer:


You're the one who is supposed to present the explanations and so far, you're doing a piss poor job. Going through them all is important and we would have been a good way along if you took a direct route rather than introducing irrelevant information and asking irrelevant questions.

Interesting. I should go through all of them because you want me to go through all of them. I think if you are a truth seeker, how a person arrives at certain truth shouldn't matter to you but what he presented as the truth.

i love Rey for a thing, he's quite good at dodging and 'mazing' things up (should i say intelligently??), when he knows he's gon get a TKO...

Reyginus: Irrelevant.

Glad to know your question was irrelevant as I initially pointed out.

Reyginus:
Simply stop this attitude of misunderstanding questions and claiming to be the one wronged. If anyone followed the above absolutely he will see that you are obviously the person deliberately or possibly indeliberately evading.

You automatically left what I presented to something entirely different. I find it hard to accept that you don't understand my point because there is nothing so esoteric in my use of words.

In the former quote, I pointed out to you that your question can only be answered in accordance to what it is asking and nothing more. I've never made any attempt to show that I will answer any question that follows it.

But you went further to jump this primary problem we are trying to neutralize to moral goodness. I don't like this thing you are doing. You are dwarfing the progress of this argument. Is it that you find it difficult to admit that you are wrong, that I answered correctly, then go ahead to ask the principal question, is it a good act? Seriosly, I don't like this thing you are doing.

Your wailing won't get you any sympathy from me. You want a direct question, here's one. Is it moral to command a genocide? Moral goodness is what has always been in question. Whining won't get you off the hook.

Reyginus:
I wish you can maintain this style and we would have no problem. I will give you a direct answer.

He has been forced to commit the crime of corruption. Let me give you a very ugly analogy. Imagine a communited fracture was identified by doctors on a new boy two months after the actual incident that caused the fracture. The parents noticed it but for their neglect the fracture has gotten to a state of gangrenous deposition all over the child.

What any intelligent medical practitioner would advise in this case would be to amputate the affected limb before it spreads to other unaffected regions of the baby's anatomy. We cannot blame the good doctor for performing a surgery to remove the leg and handing the infant a prosthesis. Neither do we blame the child for the incident. This way, the sins of the parents have come to hunt the innocent baby who lacked the knowlegde of what to do.

If it is not clear, ask for clarification or point it out yourself.

It is clear but like your zombie case, irrelevant. If the doctor were God, he won't amputate the limb, but totally heal it. He won't make the child suffer for the parents sins or problems when it is within his power to prevent it.

Reyginus:
Lol@ don't run away from yhe question. Like I am speaking with a matured Logicboy03. But I must admit, this is better than your former response.

First of all, before I make such a demand, I must have an absolute understanding of the reason why Charles Taylor commanded genocide.

Secondly, I must know the intent behind the reason Charles Taylor offered for commanding genocide.

And above all, I know the effect of Charles Taylor's action on his generation.

Since you didn't tell me and to prevent anything that will make you to see me as 'running away from the question', I will assume I know these three things.

From what I am assuming to knowj
1. Charles Taylor's reason vengeance
2. Charles Taylor's intent was bad, ethnic cleansing
3. Charles Taylor's great-grandchildren have all been assigned a position in the government even before they are born.

Remember that this government is an utterly bad government which only seeks the destruction of life. To accept a position in the government is to join in the destruction of man.

In this case his great-grand children will be punished for the sins of charles taylor, except they denied him and relegated the position after they are born

Wow. You must be a magician. And I notice that you didn't answer the question I asked. Here it is again. This time in bold so please don't miss it.

[size=14pt]Would it be moral to kill Charles Taylor's 5 month old grand son because Taylor himself commanded genocide?[/size]

I didn't ask why Taylor did what he did, neither did I ask whether or not what he did was bad. I asked if carrying out a certain action on his 5 month old grand son because of something he did would be moral.

Secondly, it looks like you've not seen the parallel with your God.

1. God's reason was vengeance
2. God's intent was bad; ethnic cleansing
3. God's children have been assigned places in Heaven even before they were born.

If you can read Taylor's mind, then you can read what's left of God's mind.

Reyginus:
lol. Bro, I don't enjoy typing, the worst I can do is typing what will not help the argument gp any further.

Then address the issues that have been raised rather than complaining left and right.

Reyginus:
You sound like one who wants to be offered what you want but unwilling to offer others what they want.

You told me at the onset of this argument that your belief doesn't matter but mine, now I am telling you also that I will answer your questions how I want to answer it and you are cpomplaining. Must it always be your way? Are you the atheist zeus or something more?

Something more. All I'm asking you to do is to answer the questions completely using relevant points. So far, you've broken up the initial seven parts, and the very first part, you've broken up into three separate issues and you've been stuck on the first issue for so long because you kept introducing irrelevant analogies and questions.

Reyginus:
Interesting. I should go through all of them because you want me to go through all of them. I think if you are a truth seeker, how a person arrives at certain truth shouldn't matter to you but what he presented as the truth.

How the person arrives is very important. If the person arrives by cheating or by merely claiming they arrived at it but actually haven't, then the person has still failed.

Image123:

Uncomfortable your big tooth. The answer has been given severally na, God is Judge, you're not. Spare yourself the headache, the last time you absconded, remember?

God is not the judge. He is not qualified to judge. Hey don't blame me for your love of tedium.

thehomer:

God is not the judge. He is not qualified to judge. Hey don't blame me for your love of tedium.

you're judge then. Enjoy the feel while you may. Better yet, repent

Image123:

you're judge then. Enjoy the feel while you may. Better yet, repent

How nice of you to finally recognize it.

noblefada: 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.

[size=20pt]! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

CHECKMATE, REDEMPTION BY CHRIST'S SACRIFICE.[/size]

thehomer:

How nice of you to finally recognize it.

Duh, not recognition but permission for your folly.

Humanism is nothing more than a religion that has made mankind itself the measure of all things.

thehomer:

Glad to know your question was irrelevant as I initially pointed out.

Smh. Only if you understand the point from my position.

thehomer:

Your wailing won't get you any sympathy from me. You want a direct question, here's one. Is it moral to command a genocide? Moral goodness is what has always been in question. Whining won't get you off the hook.

Your attempt to escape will not be tolerated by me. I don't argue like this.

Just address the point I made and I will respond accordingly. No room for escape now.

thehomer:

It is clear but like your zombie case, irrelevant. If the doctor were God, he won't amputate the limb, but totally heal it. He won't make the child suffer for the parents sins or problems when it is within his power to prevent it.

I will tell you why this is wrong. God doesn't interfere to help a man who has not committed himself to him.

Before God can heal a person he must first commit himself to God even if momentarily. This is why. If God were to interfere without allowing the person to first commit his freewill to Him, either by prayer or knowing Him personally, then he has violated the right to freewill of the person. He cannot claim to have good and still exhault the evil man.

To receive healing or something good from God or any group of body, you must first align yourself, even if temporarily, with the commandments of God or the rules of the organization.

The question of healing wouldn't work because by showing neglect and lack of love for the child, the parents have already lost any attribute that will make God to show them compassion. You might want to ask, why didn't God look at the innocence of the child and bring the child to normal anatomical appearance. But for that to be done there must have being an intercession made for the child will.

Haven't you considered that the zeal for moral consciousness will also be negated if God heals a child whose parents are not morally upright?

thehomer:


Wow. You must be a magician. And I notice that you didn't answer the question I asked. Here it is again. This time in bold so please don't miss it.

Lolol. This guy sef! Magigini?

thehomer:

[size=14pt]Would it be moral to kill Charles Taylor's 5 month old grand son because Taylor himself commanded genocide?[/size]

I didn't ask why Taylor did what he did, neither did I ask whether or not what he did was bad. I asked if carrying out a certain action on his 5 month old grand son because of something he did would be moral.


Secondly, it looks like you've not seen the parallel with your God.

1. God's reason was vengeance
2. God's intent was bad; ethnic cleansing
3. God's children have been assigned places in Heaven even before they were born.

If you can read Taylor's mind, then you can read what's left of God's mind.

Hmm. The problem with this question is that it doesn't recognize the intent of Charles Taylor, the reason for his actions, and the the effects his actions will have on his great-grand children.

Like your brother in atheism, wiegraf, once said: there is intrincally nothing wrong with murder. Though I did not agree with him to the extent he later employed it, I agree that the reason behind murder determines if it good or bad.

That is where your problem in this question originates from. You have already assumed that murder for being murder alone is evil and that the intent, reason or outcome has nothing to do with it. If this is true then we would have to include self-defence as murder.

But self-defence is not murder because it is self-defence but because the intent for murdering in this case is for the preservation of a threatened life.

In like manner, genocide is not evil because it is taking lives, but because the reason and effect it permeats are.
So asking me if Charles Taylor committed evil or good without telling me his reason and intent is a question whose answer is yet to appear.

thehomer:

Then address the issues that have been raised rather than complaining left and right.

I'm trying, bro. But just like some slavetraders you came with a knife and a bible.

thehomer:

Something more. All I'm asking you to do is to answer the questions completely using relevant points. So far, you've broken up the initial seven parts, and the very first part, you've broken up into three separate issues and you've been stuck on the first issue for so long because you kept introducing irrelevant analogies and questions.

Just be as patient as you are logical.

thehomer:

How the person arrives is very important. If the person arrives by cheating or by merely claiming they arrived at it but actually haven't, then the person has still failed.

Yeah! You have a point.

I don't think you can arrive at any objective truth by any crooked means. Once you can arrive at it by any means then that means is permissible by such truth.

Image123:

Duh, not recognition but permission for your folly.

Your folly is in thinking that your God makes a good judge.

Image123: Humanism is nothing more than a religion that has made mankind itself the measure of all things.

Christianity is nothing more than a cult of human sacrifice and cannibalism.

Reyginus: Smh. Only if you understand the point from my position.

I understood it well enough to point out to you that it was irrelevant. You've finally agreed with me.

Reyginus:
Your attempt to escape will not be tolerated by me. I don't argue like this.

Just address the point I made and I will respond accordingly. No room for escape now.

So far, you're the one who is trying to escape. I asked you a direct question and you've tried to run from it too. Here is the question again.

Is it moral to command a genocide?

Reyginus:
I will tell you why this is wrong. God doesn't interfere to help a man who has not committed himself to him.

Before God can heal a person he must first commit himself to God even if momentarily. This is why. If God were to interfere without allowing the person to first commit his freewill to Him, either by prayer or knowing Him personally, then he has violated the right to freewill of the person. He cannot claim to have good and still exhault the evil man.

To receive healing or something good from God or any group of body, you must first align yourself, even if temporarily, with the commandments of God or the rules of the organization.

The question of healing wouldn't work because by showing neglect and lack of love for the child, the parents have already lost any attribute that will make God to show them compassion. You might want to ask, why didn't God look at the innocence of the child and bring the child to normal anatomical appearance. But for that to be done there must have being an intercession made for the child will.

Haven't you considered that the zeal for moral consciousness will also be negated if God heals a child whose parents are not morally upright?

Oh my you're one funny chap. According to Reyginus, God doesn't heal children if their parents don't love them. And you call this a just and benevolent God? Even crocodiles would help baby crocodiles that aren't theirs but your God won't help children unless someone begs him?

Secondly, why did God help Ishmael?

Finally, you've once again missed my point and even the point of your analogy. Your analogy is to show that no one is innocent even 1 month old babies. And I'm telling you that they are innocent. I simply made the additional point that your God is supposedly capable of carrying out the miracle of complete healing. If you're disagreeing that he is capable of such a healing, then simply say so rather than concocting stories that make him even worse than he already is.

Reyginus:
Lolol. This guy sef! Magigini?

You're the one who didn't answer the question.

Reyginus:
Hmm. The problem with this question is that it doesn't recognize the intent of Charles Taylor, the reason for his actions, and the the effects his actions will have on his great-grand children.

Like your brother in atheism, wiegraf, once said: there is intrincally nothing wrong with murder. Though I did not agree with him to the extent he later employed it, I agree that the reason behind murder determines if it good or bad.

That is where your problem in this question originates from. You have already assumed that murder for being murder alone is evil and that the intent, reason or outcome has nothing to do with it. If this is true then we would have to include self-defence as murder.

But self-defence is not murder because it is self-defence but because the intent for murdering in this case is for the preservation of a threatened life.

In like manner, genocide is not evil because it is taking lives, but because the reason and effect it permeats are.
So asking me if Charles Taylor committed evil or good without telling me his reason and intent is a question whose answer is yet to appear.

What is wrong with you? I didn't ask you whether or not Charles Taylor committed an evil act, once again, this is the question I asked you. It is a simple question just slow down a bit, read it three times and answer it.

[size=18pt]Would it be moral to kill Charles Taylor's 5 month old grand son because Taylor himself commanded genocide?[/size]

Reyginus:
I'm trying, bro. But just like some slavetraders you came with a knife and a bible.

Like those who brought you Christianity.

Reyginus:
Just be as patient as you are logical.

I'm patient but I don't have all the time in the world. And as usual, you've run from direct questions.

Reyginus:
Yeah! You have a point.

I don't think you can arrive at any objective truth by any crooked means. Once you can arrive at it by any means then that means is permissible by such truth.

Of course I have a point. Haven't you heard of someone cheating in a Maths exam and passing. That person arrived at mathematical truths by cheating and cheating is not permissible so just stop failing and address what I've said.

thehomer:

I understood it well enough to point out to you that it was irrelevant. You've finally agreed with me.

Trying to bring up the initial problem that almost ruined the argument. The argument home to cheap shots. I like the argument the way it is now so I will let it pass.

thehomer:

So far, you're the one who is trying to escape. I asked you a direct question and you've tried to run from it too. Here is the question again.

Is it moral to command a genocide?

Anyhow you like twist it I will not allow you to escape with this one. You can turn the argument upside down and come through the north I will still not let you in.

Below was the point I made and until you respond to it accordingly, I will not pay any attention to any unrelated thing you are saying on its behalf.

'Simply stop this attitude of misunderstanding questions and claiming to be the one wronged. If anyone followed the above absolutely he will see that you are obviously the person deliberately or possibly indeliberately evading.

You automatically left what I presented to something entirely different. I find it hard to accept that you don't understand my point because there is nothing so esoteric in my use of words.

In the former quote, I pointed out to you that your question can only be answered in accordance to what it is asking and nothing more. I've never made any attempt to show that I will answer any question that follows it.

But you went further to jump this primary problem we are trying to neutralize to moral goodness. I don't like this thing you are doing. You are dwarfing the progress of this argument. Is it that you find it difficult to admit that you are wrong, that I answered correctly, then go ahead to ask the principal question, is it a good act? Seriosly, I don't like this thing you are doing'.

The above is simply asking, why should I answer a question of 'reason' with an answer of 'intent'?

thehomer:

Oh my you're one funny chap. According to Reyginus, God doesn't heal children if their parents don't love them. And you call this a just and benevolent God? Even crocodiles would help baby crocodiles that aren't theirs but your God won't help children unless someone begs him?

I wonder why you have to blame God for allowing the repercursion of wrong choices. You will also have to blame Him for allowing an infant to touch a very hot stove. But that's not a right way to address the question you asked.

First, I never said that God doesn't heal children if their parents doesn't love them. My position was that and still is,
God has set the world in such a manner that humans must take responsibity for their actions.

Every action gives birth to an effect.
Your question in a wider sense is asking, why doesn't God take control of the lives of infants. That would be shifting responsibility of the parents to God. In igbo tribe, there is an adage that, I cannot marry a wife for you and still impregnate her also. But it doesn't mean the friend wouldn't help in other possibly way to enrich the life of the new wife. Everyone has got to take responsibility when due.

That's even a good reason to call him a just and benevolent God. He gives children to a couple at the right time willingly and doesn't go against the principles he set for their survuival.

thehomer:

Secondly, why did God help Ishmael?

I don't think you still remember the story of ishmael. From where you are coming, this is the most inapplicable character to help your cause.

If you've heard of the man Abraham and followed absolutely the promise God had with him I don't think you will use this analogy. It destroyed everything you fought for for in the former argument

thehomer:

Finally, you've once again missed my point and even the point of your analogy. Your analogy is to show that no one is innocent even 1 month old babies. And I'm telling you that they are innocent. I simply made the additional point that your God is supposedly capable of carrying out the miracle of complete healing. If you're disagreeing that he is capable of such a healing, then simply say so rather than concocting stories that make him even worse than he already is.

The thing is, your understanding of how freewill and responsibilty work is either flawed or biased.

If God heals a child who suffered neglect in the hands of the parent it is not because it is his responsibilty to do so but because he is so merciful.

Every parent and not God is responsible for whatever happens to their children. So this shift of blame Him is unwarranted and unnecessarily. Why are you finding it hard to blame the parents? No. That could relieve God of the blame.

thehomer:
What is wrong with you? I didn't ask you whether or not Charles Taylor committed an evil act, once again, this is the question I asked you. It is a simple question just slow down a bit, read it three times and answer it.

Lol. Dude once again doesn't understand his question. I read it three times as you commanded but my first impression of it stuck with me through the second and third time.

Let me something, bro. You must know what a person did, why the person did it, his intent for doing, and for who he did it before you use his actions to determine if anybody deserves death.

I can rephrase your question to mean, if Charles Taylor killed a crowd should we kill his children to pay for it? Forgetting that you can kill a crowd to save the human race. If you cannot tell me why he committed genocide, his intent for committing it and the effect on his great-grand children, I am sorry I cannot help you.

thehomer:


[size=18pt]Would it be moral to kill Charles Taylor's 5 month old grand son because Taylor himself commanded genocide?[/size]

Give me the profile of Charles Taylor and see how I respond to them. By profile you should from my former post what I mean. I know you can be mischievious.

thehomer:

Like those who brought you Christianity.



I'm patient but I don't have all the time in the world. And as usual, you've run from direct questions.

No. Like those who used christainity for business purposes when it is not supposed to be so.

As it stands now I am ready for any of your rant and mischief. I was naive in the beginning but now I know better who I am dealing with and how to handle it. If you like shout from now till the next twenty pages that I am running away from the question, I will keep answering your questions with respect to how you ask them

thehomer:


Of course I have a point. Haven't you heard of someone cheating in a Maths exam and passing. That person arrived at mathematical truths by cheating and cheating is not permissible so just stop failing and address what I've said.

I will let this pass.

Please guys, I don't have the time or energy to edit. Bear with me.

Mcheew! *unfollows thread*

thehomer:

Christianity is nothing more than a cult of human sacrifice and cannibalism.

Quite an uninformed position to take. Like i think Chesterton said of Christianity, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." You're guilty.

Reyginus: Trying to bring up the initial problem that almost ruined the argument. The argument home to cheap shots. I like the argument the way it is now so I will let it pass.

Don't blame me for your misdeeds.

Reyginus:
Anyhow you like twist it I will not allow you to escape with this one. You can turn the argument upside down and come through the north I will still not let you in.

Below was the point I made and until you respond to it accordingly, I will not pay any attention to any unrelated thing you are saying on its behalf.

'Simply stop this attitude of misunderstanding questions and claiming to be the one wronged. If anyone followed the above absolutely he will see that you are obviously the person deliberately or possibly indeliberately evading.

You automatically left what I presented to something entirely different. I find it hard to accept that you don't understand my point because there is nothing so esoteric in my use of words.

In the former quote, I pointed out to you that your question can only be answered in accordance to what it is asking and nothing more. I've never made any attempt to show that I will answer any question that follows it.

But you went further to jump this primary problem we are trying to neutralize to moral goodness. I don't like this thing you are doing. You are dwarfing the progress of this argument. Is it that you find it difficult to admit that you are wrong, that I answered correctly, then go ahead to ask the principal question, is it a good act? Seriosly, I don't like this thing you are doing'.

The above is simply asking, why should I answer a question of 'reason' with an answer of 'intent'?

You were complaining that you didn't get direct questions. I've given you a direct question and you've started twisting like someone being whipped. I guess I'm whipping you hard right now.

Answer the question any how you like as long as you start with a yes or no. If you don't know whether or not it is moral to command a genocide, please say so.

Reyginus:
I wonder why you have to blame God for allowing the repercursion of wrong choices. You will also have to blame Him for allowing an infant to touch a very hot stove. But that's not a right way to address the question you asked.

First, I never said that God doesn't heal children if their parents doesn't love them. My position was that and still is,
God has set the world in such a manner that humans must take responsibity for their actions.

Every action gives birth to an effect.
Your question in a wider sense is asking, why doesn't God take control of the lives of infants. That would be shifting responsibility of the parents to God. In igbo tribe, there is an adage that, I cannot marry a wife for you and still impregnate her also. But it doesn't mean the friend wouldn't help in other possibly way to enrich the life of the new wife. Everyone has got to take responsibility when due.

That's even a good reason to call him a just and benevolent God. He gives children to a couple at the right time willingly and doesn't go against the principles he set for their survuival.

No that isn't my question. My question is whether or not it is right to punish a child for the actions of their parents. You brought up a flawed analogy and I simply demonstrated its flaws. Simply stop running around and directly answer my questions.

Reyginus:
I don't think you still remember the story of ishmael. From where you are coming, this is the most inapplicable character to help your cause.

If you've heard of the man Abraham and followed absolutely the promise God had with him I don't think you will use this analogy. It destroyed everything you fought for for in the former argument

I know the story well enough to know that contrary to what you've said, God arbitrarily helps some children so your analogy still failed.

Reyginus:
The thing is, your understanding of how freewill and responsibilty work is either flawed or biased.

If God heals a child who suffered neglect in the hands of the parent it is not because it is his responsibilty to do so but because he is so merciful.

Every parent and not God is responsible for whatever happens to their children. So this shift of blame Him is unwarranted and unnecessarily. Why are you finding it hard to blame the parents? No. That could relieve God of the blame.

How about if he doesn't heal the child? It is your claims about free will and responsibility that are flawed. Simply stop straying with your bad analogy and address my question directly.

Reyginus:
Lol. Dude once again doesn't understand his question. I read it three times as you commanded but my first impression of it stuck with me through the second and third time.

Let me something, bro. You must know what a person did, why the person did it, his intent for doing, and for who he did it before you use his actions to determine if anybody deserves death.

I can rephrase your question to mean, if Charles Taylor killed a crowd should we kill his children to pay for it? Forgetting that you can kill a crowd to save the human race. If you cannot tell me why he committed genocide, his intent for committing it and the effect on his great-grand children, I am sorry I cannot help you.

Once again, he shifts, stumbles, falls, stands up and tries to run again.

Reyginus:
Give me the profile of Charles Taylor and see how I respond to them. By profile you should from my former post what I mean. I know you can be mischievious.

If you want his profile, look it up on [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor_%28Liberian_politician%29]Wikipedia[/url]. Read it to your satisfaction. As far as I'm concerned, it is irrelevant. When you've read it, please come back and answer this question.


[size=20pt]Would it be moral to kill Charles Taylor's 5 month old grand son because Taylor himself commanded genocide?[/size]

Reyginus:
No. Like those who used christainity for business purposes when it is not supposed to be so.

As it stands now I am ready for any of your rant and mischief. I was naive in the beginning but now I know better who I am dealing with and how to handle it. If you like shout from now till the next twenty pages that I am running away from the question, I will keep answering your questions with respect to how you ask them

You are running away from direct questions. Blaming me for your own failures does nothing to help you.

Reyginus:
I will let this pass.

Please guys, I don't have the time or energy to edit. Bear with me.

Whether you let it pass or stop it, that is your business all I'd like is for you to answer direct questions and not to forget the other parts of this question that you're yet to address.

Image123:

Quite an uninformed position to take. Like i think Chesterton said of Christianity, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." You're guilty.

So says the cannibalistic vampire. I for one refuse to eat some guy's flesh and drink his blood. The Christian ideal is less than ideal it has a lot left to be desired.

thehomer:

So says the cannibalistic vampire. I for one refuse to eat some guy's flesh and drink his blood. The Christian ideal is less than ideal it has a lot left to be desired.

As is your custom, you've made a baseless statement. Your morality is baseless.

Image123:

As is your custom, you've made a baseless statement. Your morality is baseless.

Your morality is based on evil.

thehomer:

Don't blame me for your misdeeds.
You were complaining that you didn't get direct questions. I've given you a direct question and you've started twisting like someone being whipped. I guess I'm whipping you hard right now.

If you like twist the argument to any angle you want it I will still not indulge in your distraction. So far you've failed to show me how a question of reason is asking of the intent.

Or how they are speaking of the same thing. Until you are ready to tell me how, you have no right to declare yourself a victor. Even at that, I still see it and the question of whipping as childish.

thehomer:



Answer the question any how you like as long as you start with a yes or no. If you don't know whether or not it is moral to command a genocide, please say so.

Lol. See the hypocrisy all over the place. Initially I was ruthlessly not permitted to answer the question anyhow I like, but now that the answer expected has been shown to be irrational I am called upon to answer it anyhow I like, beginning with a yes or no.

I wish I was on the opposite side of this argument, that our sides are switched so that I can show you how to argue. If it happens that the positions are switched and I find myself at this point of the argument. What I will do is to honorably accept that my expectations do not tally with the question and go ahead to let the right moment come.

thehomer:


No that isn't my question. My question is whether or not it is right to punish a child for the actions of their parents. You brought up a flawed analogy and I simply demonstrated its flaws. Simply stop running around and directly answer my questions.

Na so! You also failed to see that a punishment in this case is better understood as the effect of any wrong action.

Every action must produce an effect. It is inevitable. You do not expect a maize cereal when you plant a yam tuber. So don't blame God when a person reaps the seed of evil.

thehomer:


I know the story well enough to know that contrary to what you've said, God arbitrarily helps some children so your analogy still failed.

Lololol. What a very poor response.

If I happen to be your lecturer and you produce such answer in response to the above question, not only will I award you an F9, I will also substract a unit from your CGPA.

thehomer:


How about if he doesn't heal the child? It is your claims about free will and responsibility that are flawed. Simply stop straying with your bad analogy and address my question directly.

Lol. Promising words but none was given meaning.

My statement is flawed not because of anything but because it is flawed. Interesting! I must be very dumb to accept any statement like that. My analogy strays not because of anything but because it strays. Lol. The god of logic in your camp is so dead, I think he must be in the cemetry.

thehomer:


Once again, he shifts, stumbles, falls, stands up and tries to run again.

Lol. If I shift, stumble, stands up, fails, and tries to run again you should capture me, stagnate me, hold me and correct me, clear me with your boot.

There is no better way of doing this rather than convincing the words. Like the quote before this, I shift because I shift, I stumble because I stumble, I stand up because I stand up, I fail because I fail, I tries to run again because I try to run again.

How lower can logic descend? What has happened to its wing? Has a son of God or a super-primate dismantled the very means that makes it super-natural?

thehomer:


If you want his profile, look it up on [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor_%28Liberian_politician%29]Wikipedia[/url]. Read it to your satisfaction. As far as I'm concerned, it is irrelevant. When you've read it, please come back and answer this question.

I warned you but you didn't listen.

After reading it I am still not able to point out his intent for committing genocide. Please I need help, bro. I'm serious. I also tried to see how his acts were to affect his great-grand-children. I need help here too. I'm serious.

thehomer:

[size=20pt]Would it be moral to kill Charles Taylor's 5 month old grand son because Taylor himself commanded genocide?[/size]

C'mon! Dude, what's the repetition for? We are still questioning the conditions of the question. Once we are agreed on these conditions then you can repeat the question once more.

thehomer:

You are running away from direct questions. Blaming me for your own failures does nothing to help you.

Fail! fail! fail! Old trick! Maybe this is the thread's official mantra.Try something new. I'm tired of eating beef.

thehomer:

Whether you let it pass or stop it, that is your business all I'd like is for you to answer direct questions and not to forget the other parts of this question that you're yet to address.

Lololol. No room for unnecessary tangents too. Okay. You are whipping me very hard, reduce the number of cords.

Reyginus: If you like twist the argument to any angle you want it I will still not indulge in your distraction. So far you've failed to show me how a question of reason is asking of the intent.

Or how they are speaking of the same thing. Until you are ready to tell me how, you have no right to declare yourself a victor. Even at that, I still see it and the question of whipping as childish.

From irrelevance to irrelevance. I asked you a direct question and once more, you run. Here's the question again.

[size=14pt]Is it moral to command a genocide?[/size]

Try not to run from it again.

Reyginus:
Lol. See the hypocrisy all over the place. Initially I was ruthlessly not permitted to answer the question anyhow I like, but now that the answer expected has been shown to be irrational I am called upon to answer it anyhow I like, beginning with a yes or no.

I wish I was on the opposite side of this argument, that our sides are switched so that I can show you how to argue. If it happens that the positions are switched and I find myself at this point of the argument. What I will do is to honorably accept that my expectations do not tally with the question and go ahead to let the right moment come.

Stop crying and wishing that you didn't find yourself in this argument. You begged for this thread and I obliged you and opened it up. Now you're begging to run away? Stick to the matter at hand.

Reyginus:
Na so! You also failed to see that a punishment in this case is better understood as the effect of any wrong action.

Every action must produce an effect. It is inevitable. You do not expect a maize cereal when you plant a yam tuber. So don't blame God when a person reaps the seed of evil.

Yet another pointless analogy. Another attempt to run from a direct question. Here's the question again.

[size=14pt]Is it right to punish a child for the actions of its parents?[/size]

The question is simple and straightforward so I don't understand why you've gotten confused again.

Reyginus:
Lololol. What a very poor response.

If I happen to be your lecturer and you produce such answer in response to the above question, not only will I award you an F9, I will also substract a unit from your CGPA.

Aww. Now you're wishing you were my lecturer so you can produce more bad analogies? If you were my lecturer, you'd be fired for gross incompetence and general ignorance after your second lecture.

Reyginus:
Lol. Promising words but none was given meaning.

My statement is flawed not because of anything but because it is flawed. Interesting! I must be very dumb to accept any statement like that. My analogy strays not because of anything but because it strays. Lol. The god of logic in your camp is so dead, I think he must be in the cemetry.

Hey you said it nor me. I told you the problem with your analogy here but as expected, you've forgotten all about it. Soon you'll declare it yourself to be irrelevant. Dead like your Jesus?

Reyginus:
Lol. If I shift, stumble, stands up, fails, and tries to run again you should capture me, stagnate me, hold me and correct me, clear me with your boot.

There is no better way of doing this rather than convincing the words. Like the quote before this, I shift because I shift, I stumble because I stumble, I stand up because I stand up, I fail because I fail, I tries to run again because I try to run again.

How lower can logic descend? What has happened to its wing? Has a son of God or a super-primate dismantled the very means that makes it super-natural?

I've corrected you with my whip and my boot but you're quite recalcitrant.

Reyginus:
I warned you but you didn't listen.

After reading it I am still not able to point out his intent for committing genocide. Please I need help, bro. I'm serious. I also tried to see how his acts were to affect his great-grand-children. I need help here too. I'm serious.

If you were serious, then you would have found the answer you were looking for. As I said, if you don't know, say you don't know. Just bear in mind the implication of whatever your answer is.

Reyginus:
C'mon! Dude, what's the repetition for? We are still questioning the conditions of the question. Once we are agreed on these conditions then you can repeat the question once more.

The repetition is to emphasize that so far, you've not answered that direct question. Instead, you've introduced irrelevant side issues that you're having problems with and you wish to drag me in with you. I'm not interested in your irrelevant issues. If you are, address them yourself and use whatever you discover to answer the simple question I put to you. Here's the question again.

[size=24pt]Would it be moral to kill Charles Taylor's 5 month old grand son because Taylor himself commanded genocide?[/size]

Reyginus:
Fail! fail! fail! Old trick! Maybe this is the thread's official mantra.Try something new. I'm tired of eating beef.

You begged me for questions, I supplied them and you're crying about them. Just dry your tears and try answering them.

Reyginus:
Lololol. No room for unnecessary tangents too. Okay. You are whipping me very hard, reduce the number of cords.

I'll keep whipping you until you address the questions I've asked and you avoid your attempts at evasions. Don't forget the other parts of my OP that you've not addressed. And the other verses I cited with respect to genocide that have you trembling.

thehomer:

From irrelevance to irrelevance. I asked you a direct question and once more, you run. Here's the question again.

[size=14pt]Is it moral to command a genocide?[/size]

Try not to run from it again.

Lol. Let me join you in this game. Here is the question again.

Is 'why did God command genocide?' and 'what is God's intent for commanding genocide?' the same thing?

thehomer:

Stop crying and wishing that you didn't find yourself in this argument. You begged for this thread and I obliged you and opened it up. Now you're begging to run away? Stick to the matter at hand.

Lolol. As usual, we are back to 'running from the argument'. But I won't dumb too low as you would like me to.

thehomer:

Yet another pointless analogy. Another attempt to run from a direct question. Here's the question again.

[size=14pt]Is it right to punish a child for the actions of its parents?[/size]

The question is simple and straightforward so I don't understand why you've gotten confused again.

Lol. Please do the honorable thing and reply accordingly.
I know your aim now is to engage me in childish exchange of words to help you escape from the pit you've seen from afar. If not, be a man and stop acting like logicboy.

thehomer:

Aww. Now you're wishing you were my lecturer so you can produce more bad analogies? If you were my lecturer, you'd be fired for gross incompetence and general ignorance after your second lecture.

Repetition.

thehomer:

Hey you said it nor me. I told you the problem with your analogy here but as expected, you've forgotten all about it. Soon you'll declare it yourself to be irrelevant. Dead like your Jesus?

Irrelevant.

thehomer:

I've corrected you with my whip and my boot but you're quite recalcitrant.

Irrelevant.

thehomer:


If you were serious, then you would have found the answer you were looking for. As I said, if you don't know, say you don't know. Just bear in mind the implication of whatever your answer is.

Irrelevant.

thehomer:

The repetition is to emphasize that so far, you've not answered that direct question. Instead, you've introduced irrelevant side issues that you're having problems with and you wish to drag me in with you. I'm not interested in your irrelevant issues. If you are, address them yourself and use whatever you discover to answer the simple question I put to you. Here's the question again.

[size=24pt]Would it be moral to kill Charles Taylor's 5 month old grand son because Taylor himself commanded genocide?[/size]

Irrelevant to the discussion.

thehomer:

You begged me for questions, I supplied them and you're crying about them. Just dry your tears and try answering them.

Still acting like logicboy. Irrelevant.

thehomer:


I'll keep whipping you until you address the questions I've asked and you avoid your attempts at evasions. Don't forget the other parts of my OP that you've not addressed. And the other verses I cited with respect to genocide that have you trembling.

Lol.

Do you really know what it means to be a truth seeker?