uche40:


And God permitted the conception of war since nothing on this earth happens without his foreknowledge. He even takes the liberty to support a particular side in these wars.



This assumes that an omnipotent and omniscient deity who advocates peace, love, mercy and forgiveness, does not have the capacity to prevent conflict and fighting among neighboring countries. He also cannot think up other means to avert conflict and ensure peace and harmony between these countries, while still ensuring that his plan for man is fulfilled. You have not answered my question.

Please consider the implications of certain arguments before you make them.

In the meantime, I will take your refusal to provide an answer to my initial question about the day old infant as an admission that there exists no instance where a day old infant can actually pose a direct threat to your life.

Mathew 18 vs 18, Whatever you allow on earth will be allowed in heaven. Man started war, man reaped war. If God were to act on everything that doesn't please Him, would you as an atheist still be alive? Would there be any other religion apart from Christianity?

God has reserved one day when He will speak wether you asked Him to speak or not, that's called the day of judgement, until that day comes, you'll have to pray and fast for Him to speak to you or wait for your karma for whatever evil you commit.

In the bible days, a old child of an enemy you killed poses a future threat to you and your children.

uche40:


I want to assume you weren't referring to me in this post but just in case you were, could you direct me to any statement I have made that has led you to draw this wild and preposterous conclusion?

cc: kingxsamz

She just says anything that comes to mind.
Even accused me of supporting genocide only for her to divert when I asked her to show me proof.

uche40:




Thanks for the affirmative response.

Now, I want you to elaborate on the prevailing war scenario that provoked God into perpetrating the mass extinction flooding event that led to the death of practically all living things in the world apart from the residents of Noah's Ark. One could argue that the word "genocide" doesn't even begin to come close to describing such a destructive act of gargantuan magnitudes.

To put things in their proper context, I've reposted my question above.

Genesis chapter 6 vs 5 - 8

5. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

For the Bible to say that the wickedness of man was great, then it means that people did abominable things then.
A world where everyone was constantly thinking of evil things and carrying them out? Constantly trying to outdo each other's wickedness of the previous day?
If God didn't wipe out that world, do you think we'll even be talking about morality?

Such a world deserved to be wiped out by God.

uche40:

jasminer:
God is not partial, God is a father and creator to all humanity

Well, he seemed to favor the Israelites over all other tribes and nations in the Bible, bringing down empires for the benefit of his "chosen people".

Not to mention that he also hated Esau from birth.

uche40:


I want to assume you weren't referring to me in this post but just in case you were, could you direct me to any statement I have made that has led you to draw this wild and preposterous conclusion?
cc: kingxsamz

uche40:


Always a pleasure.

I'd like to point out here that there's a difference between Gnostic Atheism and Agnostic Atheism. The position you describe here is held by Gnostic Atheists who posit that God or gods certainly do NOT exist. Agnostic Atheists on the other hand are not certain if God exists or not. They just don't believe because they've not come across any evidence for God. For the avoidance of doubt, I happen to fall into the latter camp.

You said here that one group are certain, the other group isn't certain

kingxsamz:


Or you brought it up because you're clueless on what to say regarding the questions I asked, so you thought you could escape with some distraction.
Obviously not working.

Nothing to say, that's why you're wasting precious time on this topic

kingxsamz:


You may call the police. Why call the police on them, can't you just forgive them? After all, it was probably necessary for them to do what they did.
Anyways, talk is cheap. Dem go kill your pikin and you go dey talk forgiveness. And you're the same person claiming that you'd murder infants because of what they might do in the future. But you're okay with killers being free after they've killed. You and contradictions are 5&6.

I'll repeat myself not for your benefit but for the benefit of readers because you're obviously twisting my answers.

I said and I repeat:
As a military personnel in a warfront, I won't spare even a day old child who I perceive as a present or future threat.
As a civilian, I won't kill any human even if an angel from heaven tells me to do so.

Now telling me that someone killed my family, that's totally civilian. It'll hurt but I will forgive.
If I couldn't defend my child while it was still alive, I won't revenge when the child is dead.

You can't make such a decision without the Holy Ghost so don't try to comprehend it.
If you have proof that I said otherwise, kindly post it

kingxsamz:


And what question is that?

This question

jasminer:


Answer this question with a yes or no otherwise you're worse than the extremists and fanatics yourself

You're the military chief of a country has been constantly attacked brutally by terrorists camping in a certain location. The terrorists kill anything alive that they see.

These terrorists formed the entire country. When it's time to attack, all the males old enough to fire a weapon come out for the attack. The women fetch water for them, cook etc if possible.

Will you strike back at the enemy if there's no way to avoid infant casualties?

If yes, why?
If no, why?

Note: Every man in that small country is part of the army and every man's wife is an assistant to the army especially during war.

Please teach us what a good person should do in this case, I "trust" your good judgement

Shame me by answering this question with a yes or no and why.

kingxsamz:

It's your inability to understand that atheism has no business with science, evolution and beastiality that I'm pointing out. And you never seem to get the point.

No connection with science? So what do atheists rely on for proof or reson for their disbelief in anything spiritual?

kingxsamz:


Not to mention that he also hated Esau from birth.

After He hated Esau, did He kill Esau? Even after Esau foolishly sold his birthright didn't God still bless Esau with more wealth than Jacob according to the blessings of Isaac?

jasminer:


Catch me red handed, prove me wrong

You’re the one with the Bible, go and read it

suicidesheep:


You’re the one with the Bible, go and read it

Aka no proof

jasminer:


I'll repeat myself not for your benefit but for the benefit of readers because you're obviously twisting my answers.

I said and I repeat:
As a military personnel in a warfront, I won't spare even a day old child who I perceive as a present or future threat.
As a civilian, I won't kill any human even if an angel from heaven tells me to do so.

Now telling me that someone killed my family, that's totally civilian. It'll hurt but I will forgive.
If I couldn't defend my child while it was still alive, I won't revenge when the child is dead.

You can't make such a decision without the Holy Ghost so don't try to comprehend it.
If you have proof that I said otherwise, kindly post it

So certain morals are limited to civilians and military personnels?
So it's okay for a military personnel to kill children but not okay as a civilian?

jasminer:


This question



Shame me by answering this question with a yes or no and why.

Yes of course, I'll strike back at the enemy.
And I would command my men to keep the children alive. If they die, then it wasn't deliberate because I never ordered them to kill any child. They're trained soldiers who are good at aiming targets so no one is going to see an infant and shoot them in the head.
If the terrorists use those infants as shield, my men will back off and restrategize, attack them when they won't expect. The women will be spared as long as they're not carrying a weapon aiming to shoot. The women will be put into prison if it's ascertained that they weren't acting against their will. If they were, then they'd get the help they need. They won't be married off like some people's god would do.
If you want to call me a hypocrite, it won't work because like I said, I don't have laid down religious rules I'm supposed to follow neither did I go In search of children and babies to kill like your god did.


After all is said and done, you'll answer whether rape will become morally objective if your god permits it.

jasminer:


No connection with science? So what do atheists rely on for proof or reson for their disbelief in anything spiritual?

Do you need proof to not believe in big foot?
Isn't it the duty of the believers of big foot to provide evidence?

jasminer:


After He hated Esau, did He kill Esau? Even after Esau foolishly sold his birthright didn't God still bless Esau with more wealth than Jacob according to the blessings of Isaac?

Did he hate him or not because na you talk say ihn no dey partial?

kingxsamz:


Yes of course, I'll strike back at the enemy.
And I would command my men to keep the children alive. If they die, then it wasn't deliberate because I never ordered them to kill any child. They're trained soldiers who are good at aiming targets so no one is going to see an infant and shoot them in the head.
If the terrorists use those infants as shield, my men will back off and restrategize, attack them when they won't expect. The women will be spared as long as they're not carrying a weapon aiming to shoot. The women will be put into prison if it's ascertained that they weren't acting against their will. If they were, then they'd get the help they need. They won't be married off like some people's god would do.
If you want to call me a hypocrite, it won't work because like I said, I don't have laid down religious rules I'm supposed to follow neither did I go In search of children and babies to kill like your god did.


After all is said and done, you'll answer whether rape will become morally objective if your god permits it.

Read my question again, striking at all means children must be killed.

kingxsamz:


Do you need proof to not believe in big foot?
Isn't it the duty of the believers of big foot to provide evidence?

But most answers given by atheists for this disbelief of spirituality stems from science

kingxsamz:


Did he hate him or not because na you talk say ihn no dey partial?

God hated Esau but God didn't give Jacob any preferential treatment either.

Disliking or hating someone is different from being partial to that person.

If you have proof of God's partiality to Esau, please provide it.

jasminer:


Read my question again, striking at all means children must be killed.

It's not making any sense. I will not deliberately kill infants. I already told you measures that'll be put in place to prevent that. Unless you want to deny that those measures are not possible. I'm not going to bomb a place if there are innocent lives there.
So no, I'll back out and restrategize. My answer is no.
Now answer the question Uche40 asked you.

jasminer:


But most answers given by atheists for this disbelief of spirituality stems from science

That's what I keep telling you but because you want to argue you're not comprehending.
What "most" atheists say in ragards to science have nothing to do with atheism. Someone who is very dull, unintelligent and highly uneducated can be an atheist. Someone who doesn't know the logic behind night and day could be an atheist. It simply means lack of belief in a god. That some atheists use science to debate does not mean atheism relies on science. It's simply the unbelief in a god. Same way the unbelief in big foot does not rely on science.

jasminer:


God hated Esau but God didn't give Jacob any preferential treatment either.

Disliking or hating someone is different from being partial to that person.

If you have proof of God's partiality to Esau, please provide it.

It's not about giving preferential treatment.
For a god that is expected to love everyone regardless of their flaws, him hating on someone from birth is partiality. Simple.

jasminer:


I'll repeat myself not for your benefit but for the benefit of readers because you're obviously twisting my answers.

I said and I repeat:
As a military personnel in a warfront, I won't spare even a day old child who I perceive as a present or future threat.
As a civilian, I won't kill any human even if an angel from heaven tells me to do so.

Now telling me that someone killed my family, that's totally civilian. It'll hurt but I will forgive.
If I couldn't defend my child while it was still alive, I won't revenge when the child is dead.

You can't make such a decision without the Holy Ghost so don't try to comprehend it.
If you have proof that I said otherwise, kindly post it

You say you can’t make such decision without the Holy Ghost. lol it’s called logical thinking.

kingxsamz:


It's not making any sense. I will not deliberately kill infants. I already told you measures that'll be put in place to prevent that. Unless you want to deny that those measures are not possible. I'm not going to bomb a place if there are innocent lives there.
So no, I'll back out and restrategize. My answer is no.
Now answer the question Uche40 asked you.

You'll leave a threat to your country because you don't want to harm their kids until you find a way to spare the children of the attackers thereby allowing more of your citizens to die in attacks from the terrorists. Lol.

You'll have to step down as a military commander and let someone else do the dirty job that keeps you safe because you can't face your own people who have been attacked and who lost their own innocent children as well.

kingxsamz:


That's what I keep telling you but because you want to argue you're not comprehending.
What "most" atheists say in ragards to science have nothing to do with atheism. Someone who is very dull, unintelligent and highly uneducated can be an atheist. Someone who doesn't know the logic behind night and day could be an atheist. It simply means lack of belief in a god. That some atheists use science to debate does not mean atheism relies on science. It's simply the unbelief in a god. Same way the unbelief in big foot does not rely on science.

Ok

kingxsamz:


It's not about giving preferential treatment.
For a god that is expected to love everyone regardless of their flaws, him hating on someone from birth is partiality. Simple.

So God doesn't have the right to like or dislike someone?
Do you like everyone you've met ? Don't you have things you hate?

He hated who Esau and Esau's descendants were going to be later in life. But until Esau became what God hated, God's blessings was on Esau according to the words of Isaac.
Even when the Israelites were coming out from Egypt, God told them that he has given mount seir to Esau and Esau's descendants and they were not to step one foot in Esau's inheritance.

If you insist God was partial, provide proof where God displayed partiality.

suicidesheep:

You say you can’t make such decision without the Holy Ghost. lol it’s called logical thinking.

Lol, surprised you agree on this one

jasminer:


You'll leave a threat to your country because you don't want to harm their kids until you find a way to spare the children of the attackers thereby allowing more of your citizens to die in attacks from the terrorists. Lol.

You'll have to step down as a military commander and let someone else do the dirty job that keeps you safe because you can't face your own people who have been attacked and who lost their own innocent children as well.

I will make more provisions to ensure my citizens are safe from any more attacks. I will improve security while planning my strategy to eliminate the enemies. After all, if you kill them, more will still come. You think the US don't have people constantly trying to bomb them? Would it be fair for them to nuke the whole of Afghanistan just because of some terrorist groups? Is that what you would do?
Even with the many war crimes US soldiers have committed, has terrorism stopped? So. Would nuking those countries be the solution?

Improve security and tactics. Everything does not have to end with bombing a whole nation.
If every of my effort fails, yes I'll step down. I won't even find my self in that position in the first place.
Your question is not as tricky as you think it is.
Now answer mine.

jasminer:


So God doesn't have the right to like or dislike someone?
Do you like everyone you've met ? Don't you have things you hate?

He hated who Esau and Esau's descendants were going to be later in life. But until Esau became what God hated, God's blessings was on Esau according to the words of Isaac.
Even when the Israelites were coming out from Egypt, God told them that he has given mount seir to Esau and Esau's descendants and they were not to step one foot in Esau's inheritance.

If you insist God was partial, provide proof where God displayed partiality.

Even the case of Isreal dismisses your "God is not partial talk".

kingxsamz:

I will make more provisions to ensure my citizens are safe from any more attacks. I will improve security while planning my strategy to eliminate the enemies. After all, if you kill them, more will still come. You think the US don't have people constantly trying to bomb them? Would it be fair for them to nuke the whole of Afghanistan just because of some terrorist groups? Is that what you would do?
Even with the many war crimes US soldiers have committed, has terrorism stopped? So. Would nuking those countries be the solution?

Improve security and tactics. Everything does not have to end with bombing a whole nation.
If every of my effort fails, yes I'll step down. I won't even find my self in that position in the first place.
Your question is not as tricky as you think it is.
Now answer mine.

If your provisions fail to prevent further attacks nkor?
So no child has died in US targeted operations before?

Which question have I not answered?

kingxsamz:

Even the case of Isreal dismisses your "God is not partial talk".

Prove it

jasminer:

You said here that one group are certain, the other group isn't certain

And...?

I stated that I'm not certain if God exists or not, and that I withhold belief in God due to lack of evidence. How does that translate to me "believing that there could be spiritual activities" or whatever? If I don't believe God exists due to lack of evidence, is it far-fetched to realize that I also wouldn't believe in spiritual activities for the exact same reason?

cc: kingxsamz