Namdio:


Is Buhari fighting a war with every Igbo in existence? Is he living in a place where such is the norm and won't have any repercussions, both politically and socially?

it's like asking if it would be right if you uncle starting killing all his family members because he is afraid they will come and steal back his stolen inheritance.

But to directly answer your question. It would not be right.

Buhari's actions are a result of the constant attacks from men in that region. So he's fed up and wants to end it all. You should not have a problem with that.

kingxsamz:


According to who or what?
If it was okay then, why shouldn't it be okay now?

Every male citizen then was trained for war, so every citizen was a soldier or a soldier in training or will soon be a soldier in training. Unlike now we have military and civilians.

For example, Ukraine tried to use the civilians as means of attacks but had to halt that method once Russia began to kill the attacking and non attacking citizens and claiming it was self defense.

Namdio:


Even the context is different. It's like asking if it was right if the children of Judah killed all the children of another tribe of Israel because of some grievances.

Lol, he's trying to play with my senses. He just doesn't know how many times I've had this same conversation with atheists.

kingxsamz:


According to who or what?
If it was okay then, why shouldn't it be okay now?

Firstly, it was the norm to do so then, hence no one would bat an eyelid.

Second, fallacy of equivalence

Third, in your scenario, no one would trust Buhari again (other nations and even the people), because if he can turn on his own citizens, he can turn on his own allies who have an even weaker connection to him. The nation will wither and die (and this is regardless of time period)

jasminer:


Wrong... Like I stated, war then isn't the same with war of now

Every citizen was trained for war, was a soldier or a soldier in training or will soon be a soldier in training. Unlike now we have military and civilians.

"Everybody was trained for war that time so it was right to kill babies for the actions of adults because everybody can fight". Eh sorry, that logic is not working out. Try something else.

kingxsamz:


"Everybody was trained for war that time so it was right to kill babies for the actions of adults because everybody can fight". Eh sorry, that logic is not working out. Try something else.

Not just because of the actions of the adults but because the children will grow to fight unless they were dead

kingxsamz:


Buhari's actions are a result of the constant attacks from men in that region. So he's fed up and wants to end it all. You should not have a problem with that.

Once again, fallacy of equivalence.

But to address you. The people who the children of Israel attacked weren't part of them.

The people who Buhari will attack are part of the nation of Nigeria.

I hope you can see where you've gone wrong?

Namdio:


Firstly, it was the norm to do so then, hence no one would bat an eyelid.

Second, fallacy of equivalence

Third, in your scenario, no one would trust Buhari again (other nations and even the people), because if he can turn on his own citizens, he can turn on his own allies who have an even weaker connection to him. The nation will wither and die (and this is regardless of time period)

Slavery was a norm, is slavery right?

Also, assume that Nigeria has separated and Igbo land isn't part of Nigeria and try again with your response.

kingxsamz:


"Everybody was trained for war that time so it was right to kill babies for the actions of adults because everybody can fight". Eh sorry, that logic is not working out. Try something else.

I'm sorry, jasminer but he does have a point.

kingxsamz:


Slavery was a norm, is slavery right?

In that time period most did consider it right. We are not in that time period again, so no slavery is not right

kingxsamz:


Also, assume that Nigeria has separated and Igbo land isn't part of Nigeria and try again with your response.

We keep going further and further away from the original argument, from your original argument.

Which was since killing children (depending on the circumstances) is permissible, then raping them should be as well.

Which once again is a fallacy of equivalence

Namdio:


I'm sorry, jasminer but he does have a point.

I guess you're Igbo.
There's an Igbo prover that if a child who isn't old enough goes looking for what killed his father, what killed his father will kill him.

My point is this: A child will grow to seek revenge. Every male had a sword or knife and trained and practiced to kill with it in those days.

So how can you exact revenge on the parents and if the children survive the death of their child,expect the children not to come for revenge?

It's like a hydra, you cut off one head, two grows up. If you're serious, you'll uproot the hydra totally. That's the only way to stop the hydra from growing.

jasminer:


Not just because of the actions of the adults but because the children will grow to fight unless they were dead

Nawa, but the benevolent god was capable of making them forget, embracing them since they were also his children. It shouldn't be too hard for an omnipotent god to stop that from happening now. Chai. Those poor babies.

kingxsamz:

Nawa, but the benevolent god was capable of making them forget, embracing them since they were also his children. It shouldn't be too hard for an omnipotent god to stop that from happening now. Chai. Those poor babies.

We're back to God doesn't interfer in the decisions of man

Namdio:


Once again, fallacy of equivalence.

But to address you. The people who the children of Israel attacked weren't part of them.

The people who Buhari will attack are part of the nation of Nigeria.

I hope you can see where you've gone wrong?

I said you should assume that Igbo land isn't part of Nigeria. Or do you want me to use Cameroon as an example?

jasminer:


I guess you're Igbo.
There's an Igbo prover that if a child who isn't old enough goes looking for what killed his father, what killed his father will kill him.

My point is this: A child will grow to seek revenge. Every male had a sword or knife and trained and practiced to kill with it in those days.

So how can you exact revenge on the parents and if the children survive the death of their child,expect the children not to come for revenge?

It's like a hydra, you cut off one head, two grows up. If you're serious, you'll uproot the hydra totally. That's the only way to stop the hydra from growing.

Okay, now I'm seeing your point, thanks for the clarification.

kingxsamz:

Nawa, but the benevolent god was capable of making them forget, embracing them since they were also his children. It shouldn't be too hard for an omnipotent god to stop that from happening now. Chai. Those poor babies.

You have come to an age old argument. If God is so good, why does evil happen?

The benevolence of God is seen because evil can happen. He doesn't control his people but wants them to exercise their freedoms. So if you want to do evil, you can, but you can't escape from the consequences of your evil.

Edit: You have gone off topic once more, and have now moved to the benevolence of God, which wasn't what we were discussing.

jasminer:


We're back to God doesn't interfer in the decisions of man

You've deflected but no wahala. He hardened Pharaoh's heart, he confused many people building a tower because they planned to live as one. He literally drowned everyone because he was pissed. He killed a man for pulling out during sex. Omo, I can go on and on.

Namdio:


In that time period most did consider it right. We are not in that time period again, so no slavery is not right

We keep going further and further away from the original argument, from your original argument.

Which was since killing children (depending on the circumstances) is permissible, then raping them should be as well.

Which once again is a fallacy of equivalence

Why is it not right?
If you agree it was right, why are you now against it? If pedophilia should be considered okay tomorrow, does that make it right?

Namdio:


You have come to an age old argument. If God is so good, why does evil happen?

The benevolence of God is seen because evil can happen. He doesn't control his people but wants them to exercise their freedoms. So if you want to do evil, you can, but you can't escape from the consequences of your evil.

Edit: You have gone off topic once more, and have now moved to the benevolence of God, which wasn't what we were discussing.

Lol, except he's the one who's responsible for the death of children. Being blind to evil is one thing, commanding men to slaughter children is another thing.

kingxsamz:


You've deflected but no wahala. He hardened Pharaoh's heart, he confused many people building a tower because they planned to live as one. He literally drowned everyone because he was pissed. He killed a man for pulling out during sex. Omo, I can go on and on.

Pharoah's heart had to be hardened so that his karma will catch up with him.

Those building the tower were building it as a means to escape God's judgement, next time they rebel.
Stopping the building would even dissuade them from planning to sin so the diverse languages turned out to be a blessing.

kingxsamz:


Lol, except he's the one who's responsible for the death of children. Being blind to evil is one thing, commanding men to slaughter children is another thing.

Who commanded the Amalekites to slaughter the men, women and children of the Israelites in the first place? That's the genesis of this whole story...

jasminer:


Pharoah's heart had to be hardened so that his karma will catch up with him.

Those building the tower were building it as a means to escape God's judgement, next time they rebel.
Stopping the building would even dissuade them from planning to sin so the diverse languages turned out to be a blessing.

-

jasminer:


We're back to God doesn't interfer in the decisions of man

Well, your words not mine.

kingxsamz:

-

Well, your words not mine.

Wether he interferes or not, your karma will catch up with you in anyway possible.

Your karma is God's word, God is His word and His word is Him. You should know this.

jasminer:


Who commanded the Amalekites to slaughter the men, women and children of the Israelites in the first place? That's the genesis of this whole story...

So it's an eye for an eye thing right?
What tribe are you from?

kingxsamz:

So it's an eye for an eye thing right?
What tribe are you from?

Yes, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth under the Mosaic law

Whatever a man or woman sows, he reaps.

Guess my tribe

kingxsamz:


Why is it not right?
If you agree it was right, why are you now against it? If pedophilia should be considered okay tomorrow, does that make it right?

First of, emphasis on the was.

I never said I believed it was right, you're trying to paint me as someone who is for slavery. I am not.

I can't answer your question, I don't know enough. But you can look up on why slave trade was abolished to know.

Second, I don't know. For me it won't, but perhaps to the people who made it okay it would?

Also this is a fallacy of popularity

jasminer:


Wether he interferes or not, your karma will catch up with you in anyway possible.

Your karma is God's word, God is His word and His word is Him. You should know this.

Well, except he actually interfered which you claimed he doesn't. So are you being confused or you just haven't studied the Bible well enough?

kingxsamz:


Well, except he actually interfered which you claimed he doesn't. So are you being confused or you just haven't studied the Bible well enough?

He fulfilled His word by hardening Pharoah's mind.

kingxsamz:


He killed a man for pulling out during sex. Omo, I can go on and on.

For this, you have to understand the man's intention. He did it because he didn't want to have children on his brother's behalf, not because they had mutually agreed to not have children and were using it as a method to prevent contraception.

https://biblehub.com/genesis/38-9.htm

He did it out of spite and made Tamar suffer unjustly, so he was killed.

kingxsamz:


Well, except he actually interfered which you claimed he doesn't. So are you being confused or you just haven't studied the Bible well enough?

Let me give you a revision of the Laws of God

1. He doesn't interfer in your actions
2. What you sow, you'll reap
3. His word doesn't break no matter what and if the first stated law conflicts with the second law, the second law will trump.
That is to say: if God not interfering will make you avoid reaping what you have sown, God will interfer.

Namdio:


First of, emphasis on the was.

I never said I believed it was right, you're trying to paint me as someone who is for slavery. I am not.

I can't answer your question, I don't know enough. But you can look up on why slave trade was abolished to know.

Second, I don't know. For me it won't, but perhaps to the people who made it okay it would?

Also this is a fallacy of popularity

Then why did you bring up the "it was a norm" talk when I brought up the Buhari case if you didn't consider it right?

omonnakoda:
Just you

No wahala.