Stats: 3,236,421 members, 8,102,047 topics. Date: Wednesday, 12 March 2025 at 05:43 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Uche40's Profile / Uche40's Posts
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (of 5 pages)
![]() |
Namdio: Happy new month. Been crazy busy lately. 1 Like |
![]() |
jasminer: If I'm being honest, I've lost respect for you -- as well as interest in this discussion -- the moment I realized you were trying to insult my intelligence by 1) committing a Strawman Fallacy by reading into my statements to conjure up an absurd conclusion that I believe in spirits, 2) trying to convince me that a day old infant can realistically pose a threat to your safety ( ![]() I'll be extremely busy for the next couple of days, so I won't be having the time or patience to type out long, detailed responses. If I do respond, my ripostes will be much shorter going forward. However, I WILL keep tabs on this thread though, to monitor further discussions, and might make time to revisit this particular post thoroughly in the future, which is why I've quoted it as a reminder. In the meantime, please get a primer on the Philosophy of Religion. Thanks. 4 Likes |
![]() |
jasminer: Sorry dear but you don't get to dictate the rules and policies of our conversation. We're not in a church auditorium where circlejerking and regurgitation of religious platitudes is the norm. We're in an internet chatroom where multiple individuals with various beliefs, worldviews and ideas are free to express their opinions about certain ideologies. For your information, there is something called the Philosophy of Religion (I know you claimed later on in this post that Christianity isn't a religion, but we'll be bursting that erroneous canard very shortly). Philosophy of Religion is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the philosophical study of religion, including arguments over the nature and existence of God, religious language, miracles, prayer, the problem of evil, and the relationship between religion and other value-systems such as science and ethics. It is often regarded as a part of Metaphysics, especially insofar as it is interested in understanding what it is for something to exist, although arguably it also touches on issues commonly dealt with in Epistemology, Ethics, Logic and the Philosophy of Language. It asks such questions as "Are there sound reasons to think that God does (or does not) exist?", "If there is a God, then what is he like?", "What, if anything, would give us good reason to believe that a miracle has occurred?", "What is the relationship between faith and reason?", "Does petitionary prayer make sense?" It does not ask "What is God?", as that would assume the existence of God, and that God has a knowable nature, which is more the territory of theology (which usually considers the existence of God as axiomatic, or self-evident, and merely seeks to justify or support religious claims). https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_philosophy_of_religion.html So your insistence that Christianity CAN and MUST only be discussed in the context of Biblical understanding is disingenuous, or naive at best. The reality here -- which I can parse from your telling reluctance to view your beliefs from an objective and unbiased lens -- is that you afraid of having your beliefs called out to be baseless and unjustified. You can keep claiming otherwise till your face turns blue. You can keep finding solace in the written words of the Holy fictional novel of your choice, but I know deep down, THAT is your biggest fear. jasminer: That's cute. But it would do you a whole lot of good to come to the realization that "religion" and "way of life" are not mutually exclusive and, in fact, can be argued to be largely synonymous. As a religion, Christianity is an acknowledgement of a set of core beliefs and practices embedded in the Holy Bible. As a way of life, it is a relationship between Christians and God the Father, through faith in Jesus Christ the Son, expressed by the power of the Holy Spirit. However, let me start by addressing your claim that Christianity is not a religion. Now, it is a common argument that religion is hard to define properly. Nevertheless, there are some characteristics -- which scholars mostly agree -- are peculiar to a set of practices and/or ideologies that qualify them to be called RELIGIONS. Having established this, please answer "True" or "False" to the following statements: 1) You believe in a supernatural being, or at least, a supernatural realm. 2) Your belief system distinguishes between sacredness and profanity. 3) There are ritual acts focused on sacredness in your belief (Holy Communion, Baptism, The Eucharist etc.). 4) Your belief system has a moral code. 5) Your belief system affirms experiences of spiritual and supernatural "feelings". 6) Your belief system includes prayer as one of its' central activities. 7) Your belief system has a worldview as a whole and the place of the individual therein. ![]() 9) Your belief system encourages "group gatherings" bound together by all of the above. If you answered "True" to, at least, 6 out of the 9 statements listed up there, then my sister, your belief system IS A RELIGION. You can pull up scriptures from morning till night arguing otherwise, but you cannot reasonably deny that at the very least, your belief system has an overwhelming number of religious aspects attached to it. jasminer: Actually, you're dead wrong. You can NOT fully comprehend or understand the mind of God. You can have a PERSONAL knowledge of God, based on your SUBJECTIVE interpretation of scriptures -- which is what you meant here. People interprete scriptures differently, and that's why you have multiple denominations within Christianity, with slight variations of the Christian doctrine across these denominations. That's why you have people arguing over tithes. That's why you have people arguing over the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. It is precisely because you can NOT have a COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE of God's nature, his mind, his plans, his will and his objectives. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. - Isaiah 55:8-9 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" - Romans 11:33-34 Behold, these are but the outskirts of his ways, and how small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who can understand? - Job 26:14 God is described as infinite. Humans are supposedly finite and have limited capacity to fully understand every aspect of his being. Some might argue that the concept of original sin perfectly explains this limitation of man. It is even asserted in the Bible that God keeps certain secrets hidden from mankind, and reveals only what he wishes mankind to know. So, the idea that you can get a complete grasp of God's thought process by merely reading the scriptures is wishful thinking. The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law. - Deuteronomy 29:29 jasminer: Since you just came back from the moon, I'll clue you in: God himself routinely bypasses and/or outrightly contradicts his own commandments numerous times in the Old Testament just to favor his own people and punish the "sinners" and "evil doers". For instance, he commands not to kill, but he orders and orchestrates the killings and destruction of countless individuals and cities in the Old Testament. King David committed many acts of murder in the Old Testament. Samson did the same. They were instruments of God. Today they are considered to be heroes of the Bible. So your criteria is feeble and irrelevant. jasminer: Request granted. I'll quote four. We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully - Romans 12:6-8 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you - John 14:26 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams - Acts 2:17 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins. - Matthew 1:19-21 Christianity asserts that God desires to have a personal relationship with humans, and therefore he can speak to people through multiple means which include through dreams, thoughts, visions, the Holy Spirit, and even through other people. Reading the Bible is just one out of many means and it can be argued that it is often subject to misinterpretation. jasminer: This assumes that God can't speak to people through other means besides the Bible. Thankfully, we've already addressed this faulty assumption. If I'm being honest, I'm getting tired of this roundabout argument where you use bland sophistry and hermeneutics to protect your position. I'll cut to the chase here. I brought this up previously but you swiftly avoided it. Well, I've entertained your game of musical chairs long enough. Your claim that God is the source or arbiter of moral values contains an unsupported assertion: GOD EXISTS. Please provide empirical evidence supporting this assertion. 2 Likes |
![]() |
jasminer: This response is a complete non-sequitur and has nothing to do with the post you replied to. Please sit back and read it again carefully. I've reposted it below. I'm sensing that you have difficulties following logical propositions. Your entire arguments on this thread seem to rely an awful lot on special pleading, begging the question and red herrings. uche40: ================================= jasminer: Thought terminating cliché. jasminer: Maybe. But guess what? By then, he'd be an ADULT, and not a DAY OLD INFANT. |
![]() |
jasminer: This is a Red Herring Fallacy -- and if I might add -- a very careless bait and switch you tried to pull off thinking I wouldn't catch on quick. I guess it was only a matter of time before you decided to take this route of blatant dishonesty. Madam, let me refresh your memory: uche40: jasminer: Following which I asked you to describe the prevailing war scenario which compelled God to wipe out more than half of the living organisms on the planet, and then you went on a ridiculous tangent, talking about the evil sins people committed. How does any of that describe a war scenario? This recent action of yours leads me to question your true motive for discussing here. It's becoming quite clear to me that you're arguing only because you want to win an argument, not because you want to arrive at, or establish any facts. You are clouded by your Christian bias and will make any arguments to justify your position even if it involves wilful distortion of facts or cheating yourself out of a tough position by switching the argument. You haven't answered my question and you know it. 3 Likes |
![]() |
jasminer: 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 3 Likes 1 Share |
![]() |
jasminer: 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 1 Like 1 Share |
![]() |
uche40: jasminer: 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. 1 Like |
![]() |
jasminer: 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. jasminer: 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. 1 Like |
![]() |
[Retracted] |
![]() |
jasminer: Well, Christianity isn't a game. It's a religion. jasminer: God could have said it. How are you going to know? Can you read the mind of God? Can you understand his thought process perfectly enough to understand his plans, will and objectives at a certain point in time? You can't be 100% sure if they were or weren't commanded by God. I always hear Christians say "God knows the best" whenever something disastrous happens to them. Note that God is omniscient and omnipotent, and so no activity or event happens on this earth without his foreknowledge. Let me rephrase your question and throw it back at you: Do you think I'm obligated to believe anything you claim about your experience with God simply because you said it? jasminer: What moral basis are you using to justify and/or presuppose God's righteousness? I can already guess that you'll point to your Bible, the works of Jesus Christ, or something that might even be unrelated to the Bible. However, it is at this juncture that I will gladly jolt your memory to the fact that by assuming God to be origin of morality, you have stripped yourself of ANY independent moral criterion you can use to classify Gods actions. In light of this, if you choose to claim that God is good because it says so in the Bible, or because of Jesus or the present state of the world, then it means you already have a logically prior criterion that you use to assess what is good and what is bad, and this criterion is independent of God's existence. This will be a complete 180 degrees turn around from your initial position that God is the arbiter or source of moral values. In fact you would only end up proving the atheists' argument -- in a hilarious case of irony -- that morality and religion are independent of each other. jasminer: The capacity to understand another person's condition from their own perspective is not unique to religious ideologies. Evolutionary Psychology shows that empathy (which is the father of your conscience) helps to increase pro-social behavior. A united group is a stronger group, and a group can achieve higher levels of success in hunting, protection etc. and by implication, are well suited for breeding healthy offsprings than a bunch of isolated individuals. This is not speculation, but rather insight gained from hard, empirical research. Consider reading the full entry of the link below. I'll just post a small excerpt: The mere sight of suffering, independently of love, would suffice to call up in us vivid recollections and associations. The explanation may lie in the fact that, with all animals, sympathy is directed solely towards the members of the same community, and therefore towards known, and more or less beloved members, but not to all the individuals of the same species. This fact is not more surprising than that the fears of many animals should be directed against special enemies. Species which are not social, such as lions and tigers, no doubt feel sympathy for the suffering of their own young, but not for that of any other animal. With mankind, selfishness, experience, and imitation, probably add, as Mr. Bain has shown, to the power of sympathy; for we are led by the hope of receiving good in return to perform acts of sympathetic kindness to others; and sympathy is much strengthened by habit. In however complex a manner this feeling may have originated, as it is one of high importance to all those animals which aid and defend one another, it will have been increased through natural selection; for those communities, which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members, would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Darwin/Descent/descent4.htm jasminer: I typically dismiss arguments appealing to anecdotes or personal testimonies because I have no empirical means of verying it, and there's always the probability that the subject misremembered the events s/he's accounting for, or is intentionally distorting the facts. As to your claim that God never changes. Sure, he may never change. But you also believe he rules and reigns forever. He still communicates with his faithful servants today. He can use anybody and instruct them to do his bidding. God used Samson to terrorize the Philistines. From the viewpoint of the Philistines, Samson was an unhinged and unstable deviant. We all know how his story ended. You might make the claim that the Philistines were evil and committed numerous sins against God. But in Nigeria and the world at large, aren't we mostly living like godless people today, committing sins as described by the Bible? In light of this, what gives you the right to condemn people who commit seemingly unethical acts and insist that they were commanded by God to punish the evil doers? You're not the only person who claims to have a special relationship with God. What gives you the right to assume that God definitely didn't command them? We can only guess. We can't be certain that they were led by demonic spirits. 1) Search up on the Centennial Olympic Park Bombing of 1996. Eric Robert Rudolph carried out bombing attacks on two abortion clinics and a nightclub. He was inspired by God to bring judgement upon sinners and "baby killers". He wasn't a mass murderer, he was only carrying out God's instructions. 2) Benjamin Matthew Williams and James Tyler Williams murdered a gay couple in 1999. They were said to belong to a family of fundamental Christians. 3) The Army of God is an American Christian Terrorist organization who have instigated many acts of anti-abortion violence. You don't have any right to condemn the aforementioned as misguided or evil because they are just a drop in an ocean of Christians who claim to receive divine instruction from the Lord. You cannot tell for certain that they were not inspired by the Holy Spirit. And you cannot discount their testimonies any more than I can discount yours. jasminer: So? There are many variations of this platitude that are independent of belief in the Christian God. jasminer: ![]() Nevertheless, your claim here accidentally refutes the relevance of the Old Testament since you're suggesting that we couldn't follow those laws in the first place. Makes me wonder why the Old Testament was included in the Bible at all. jasminer: 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". I've ignored the remaining paragraphs because I've already addressed the arguments you make in some of them above. And I also want to be careful not to make this rejoinder too lengthy. 2 Likes 1 Share |
![]() |
Namdio: Pharaoh called me some minutes ago. He says he knows a popular comedy club in Egypt. He needs you to perform as an entertainer. Jonah asked for your number. He said he wants to have a word with you. The Ephesians asked about you. They want to know if you're still serving the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. [I apologize if the sarcasm rubbed you off the wrong way, but hopefully you got the message] 2 Likes |
![]() |
Namdio: I realized that as well. I'm not sure why. Most of the stories are said to be accounts from a book titled: God Made Me Do It: True Stories of the Worst Advice the Lord Has Ever Given His Followers I tried searching for a .pdf format for the book but it seems it's not available online. You can research more on it if you're interested. edit: Ok. I think I was able to find some of the news articles online. Try the links below https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/08/20/20-naked-people-emerge-after-auto-strikes-tree/b36f7f9f-ab19-4c22-b975-79a402c9b438/ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna28005693 https://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/29/children.slain/index.html I couldn't get the last one. |
![]() |
jasminer: I'm sorry but you seem to have gotten your logic backwards. Let me refresh your memory on how this discussion evolved. I could have included links but I don't want to trigger the anti-spam bot, so I'll just give a summary of our correspondence using bullet points. • kingxsamz asked you if genocide, infanticide, incest, slavery and rape were wrong. • You affirmed that these acts were wrong. • I pointed out the fact that some of these acts seemed to be endorsed by God at certain moments in the Bible. • You then re-affirmed that killing people is an offense, except this time you suggested that it wasn't morally wrong if it took place in the context of a war. In light of my previous response about some acts in Bible appearing to resemble genocide and infanticide, this statement implies the hidden assertion that if genocide and infanticide was truly committed by God in the Bible, then it must have happened by him being provoked in an instance of war. I haven't made any positive claims that other scenarios exist where genocide and infanticide are endorsed by the Christian God. You are the one who implicitly restricted genocide and infanticide to war scenarios. That's why I need you to confirm -- for the sake of clarity: Are you positive that ALL instances of genocide and infanticide carried out by God in the Bible only occurred when God was provoked in an instance of war? A "Yes" or "No" will suffice. |
![]() |
jasminer: You've veered off on an absurd tangent my dear. Recall that my question to you was "what possible threat could a day old infant pose to your life?" I haven't seen you demonstrate any such threats yet. When neighboring villages, towns or countries that are at conflict start attacks on each other, infants below 1 year old are most likely to become casualties of war and far from remotely being active participants in it, so your reference to war as an example of infants being a threat to your safety is skewed and misleading. Plus, I already told you that I agree with you on the ethics of killings in war being a messy subject where it's hard to establish which murders are morally permissible or not, so your perambulations here are largely unnecessary. The first paragraph in this dizzying riposte in particular is quite amusing as well. Correct me if I'm wrong but your entire rejoinder seems to be making the argument that innocent children and parents should be spared the misery of being alive to deal with all sorts of pain, suffering and PTSD that results from devastating war incidents -- insisting that there isn't any other option for them. In your first paragraph, you brought up an example of a young boy who was apparently dealing with mental trauma from war-related crimes which led to him exhibiting anti-social behaviors. Curiously, you shot yourself in the foot in that same paragraph when you affirmed that he was eventually rehabilitated. This seems to deflate your argument that "mercy-killing" of these infants is the only option. Meanwhile, since the issue of war seems to interest you so much that you bring it up every five seconds, I'd really like you to explain to me why an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity relies on wars and petty violence to impose his will on mankind: uche40: 1 Like |
![]() |
jasminer: I've read the full chapter in its entirety and the only thing I can infer from this passage you've cited is that up until the creation of Adam -- which I think is the main focus of Genesis 2 -- rain had not yet fallen. The passage seems to be describing the status quo PRIOR to Adam's creation. It says nothing about the atmospheric conditions existing between Adam's creation and the Flood of Genesis. So I think it's a bit of a stretch to extend this phenomenon to the period where Noah built his ark. However, the part (which I emboldened) about mist going up from the earth strangely resembles the Water Cycle phenomenon. The water cycle describes how water evaporates from the surface of the earth, rises into the atmosphere, cools and condenses into rain or snow in clouds, and falls again to the surface as precipitation. The water falling on land collects in rivers and lakes, soil, and porous layers of rock, and much of it flows back into the oceans, where it will once more evaporate. The cycling of water in and out of the atmosphere is a significant aspect of the weather patterns on Earth. https://gpm.nasa.gov/education/water-cycle That's a bit weird, but then again it's just speculation. |
![]() |
jasminer: I see. So you consider to be good, any act that God tells you is good? That's interesting. Given that you are Christian -- at least, in the traditional sense -- you already believe that God exists. And his existence is not just in the writings of the scriptures. He exists and will continue to exist for eternity. So it stands to reason that God keeps issuing commands and instructions to his people. If God insists that you kill your parents tomorrow, you'd have to do it. And don't tell me "God can't ask me to do such a thing" because you have no existing independent moral basis to assess and/or decide what God can or can not command you to do. You really have no right to condemn anybody on anything. If someone you've never met before raped your sister tomorrow, how can you tell for a fact that it wasn't God who commanded that rapist? You have lost ALL rights to make moral judgements. Your morality rests solely on whatever God desires. All things are permitted including sleeping with animals, killing of babies, stealing money from people etc. It all depends on God's plan, his will and his objectives at that point in time. Let me also add that I found it a bit comical how you presented "blind trust" as a virtue or something that seemingly gives you an advantage over the atheists. I know you are one of those Christians who think they're close to God and have a special relationship with him. You talk to him and he responds to you, right? Here are some examples below of individuals who "trusted God blindly". Please note that you have stripped yourself of every moral right to condemn them or claim that they did not receive commandments from God. May 2008 in Wisconsin...God told me if i prayed hard enough she would come back to life... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354849,00.html August 1993 in Texas, 20 naked people emerge from a car that struck a tree http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-961214.html San Antoni, TX...God tells man to ram another vehicle at 100mph http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/428252-god-told-man-to-ram-vehicle-at-100mph March 2004, Texas...God told me to kill my 3 sons... http://articles.cnn.com/2004-03-29/justice/children.slain_1_deanna-laney-insanity-defense-luke-laney?_s=PM:LAW There's many more where that came from but anyhoo, that's by the way. I think we've ignored the elephant in the room for long enough now. It's time we finally addressed it. Your assertion that God is the originator of morals contains an unsupported claim: GOD EXISTS. Please support this claim with objective and empirical evidence. Give it your best shot. Don't be scared. |
![]() |
jasminer: From the content of your posts on this thread, it's clear to me that you consider the Christian God to be the source or arbiter of moral values. Ignoring the fact that morality is easily explained by evolutionary psychology, let us assume you are correct for the sake of argument. Unfortunately, by assuming that anything God orders is good or right, you have unwittingly admitted that God's morality cannot be objective and/or universal. Euthyphro's Dilemma encapsulates this problem perfectly and it has yet to be answered satisfactorily: Is an act right because God says it's so, or does God say it's so because it's right? If it is right just because God says so, then morality is subject to his whim and has no real grounding except "might makes right". In other words, if tomorrow he declares that rape is good, does it actually become moral in any objective sense. On the other hand, if God commands it because it is right, then he is just a "middle man" and does not determine what is moral. 2 Likes |
![]() |
jasminer: Please provide citations supporting this claim. |
![]() |
jasminer: This is a non-answer, but I'll attempt a rejoinder to your argument in this post. Obviously they don't as they're not actively taking part in the activities of the Boko Haram, ISWAP or ISIS terrorist groups. The individuals who pose a direct threat to your safety in this situation you've reconstructed are the actual terrorists themselves, and not the infants. So you haven't really answered my question. Furthermore, I know you may think that killing infants in the instance you presented is totally unavoidable, but I want you to sit back and think carefully. Is it REALLY unavoidable? Is it really possible that you have exhausted ALL available options of ensuring that there isn't any needless collateral damage? Isn't indiscriminate killing somewhat tactless and indicative of lack of empathy? Like I stated earlier: If indiscriminate killing in any conflict or war scenario is to be justified, at least two conditions have to be met. The killings have to prevent calamities worse than it will cause. And, as a means of prevention, it has to be the last resort. Killing random people or infants should not be considered until all alternative means have been tried -- and have failed. Soldiers are obligated to target those who have the capacity to inflict harm. Beings lacking this capacity e.g day old infants, are not military objectives. It could also be argued that based off their non-participance in terrorism crimes, the infants did not consent to their deaths, therefore their death was immoral. Consent is an important factor here because that is what we use to distinguish murder from suicide, sex and rape, theft and (consensual) economic transactions. 2 Likes |
![]() |
jasminer: You have tacitly made the claim that ALL instances of genocide and infanticide ordered by God in the Bible were only carried out during war scenarios. Can you confirm this as positive? I want you to think very carefully before you answer this question. Recall that you already condemned the acts of genocide and infanticide as morally wrong. It is true that the ethics of killing in war is muddy waters. I mostly agree with you there. Nevertheless, why war? What does your God really stand to gain from engaging in pissing contents with nations who defy him or go against his "divine" will? Why is he so bloodlusted and obsessed with wars in the Old Testament? If indiscriminate killing in any conflict or war scenario is to be justified, at least two conditions have to be met. The killings have to prevent calamities worse than it will cause. And, as a means of prevention, it has to be the last resort. Killing random people or infants should not be considered until ANY and ALL alternative means have been tried -- and have failed. As the all-powerful, all-knowing deity of peace and love that your God is, is it so inconceivable for him to design a perfect blend of diplomacy and continuous examination to deal with any and all possible threats? Is war and violence the only means he can devise? Then why is he called all-knowing and all-powerful? Why is he called all-good (omnibenevolent)? Even in the books of the Old Testament, it is proven time after time that your God's constant attacks and subjugation of the enemies of the Israelites are mostly ineffectual. His defeat of these nations only seems to contribute to temporary safety and long-term enmity between these nations and his chosen people since these nations will only view the Israelites' victory as a humiliation to be avenged. 2 Likes |
![]() |
jasminer: Always a pleasure. jasminer: 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. jasminer: Yes, I think this is asserted in the Theory of Evolution. jasminer: It's just a matter of perspective if you ask me. Other species have their own evolved characteristics and to them, those characteristics give them adventage (sic) over us. Did you know that there are more bacteria alive in a single human than there are humans existing on this planet? Look at what the Corona Virus did to us in 2020. What about the Ebola Virus? Malaria? Then we can talk about dogs and cats who appear to be far more sensitive to their environment than any human being can possibly hope to be. The only thing we as humans can pride ourselves in is our evolved intuition and abstract thinking that has allowed us to seemingly dominate the planet as we know it now. jasminer: Yes it is very possible. And as far as I can tell, there exists no reasonable moral argument to suggest the immorality of such a phenomenon, particularly if mutual feelings of love exist between the human and the animal. jasminer: Humans can become victims of assault by animals. If the assault is sexual in nature and the human doesn't give consent, then technically it is rape. 1 Like |
![]() |
jasminer: What possible threat could a day old infant pose to your life? I need common, plausible examples. Thanks. |
![]() |
kingxsamz: jasminer: It's curious that you affirm that genocide, infanticide and slavery are wrong given that the Bible seems to support these acts. Could this be an implicit condemnation of morality in the Bible? |
![]() |
jasminer: I'm sorry jasminer, but you've been thoroughly misled by theist propaganda. Atheism has no relationship with biology. The single unifying idea among atheists is that there exists no evidence for the existence of God or gods. What you have done is commit the Fallacy of Composition by assuming that ALL atheists believe that humans are animals because a select few probably do. Lack of belief in God has no connection to taxonomy, so your question is misguided at best. That being said, I'll still bite. Note that I'm speaking for myself here and not kingxsamz. To give you some context, I believe morality is an individualistic concept and so I don't think bestiality is objectively immoral -- in fact I couldn't care less if you decided to walk out right now and hump your neighbor's goat. Ultimately it comes down to how you perceive it subjectively. I personally feel it's disgusting and bizarre, and could lead to people acquiring awful diseases. The only argument I could make asserting the immorality of bestiality is that animals possibly lack the ability to give consent, so sex with animals can be considered non-consensual, which is the very definition of rape. And we all know rape is wrong because it is an infringement and/or violation on others' free will and right to make their own informed decisions. |
![]() |
House of Cards (2013-2018) "A Congressman works with his equally conniving wife to exact revenge on the people who betrayed him". Watched the first season many years back and I'm just starting to watch the others. Say what you want about Kevin Spacey. Dude is hella entertaining ![]() 1 Like
|
![]() |
3 Likes |
![]() |
MaxInDHouse: Whatever, Roland. 4 Likes |
![]() |
MaxInDHouse: Ok, Roland. 4 Likes |
![]() |
MaxInDHouse: Ok. Are you done now? 2 Likes |
![]() |
MaxInDHouse: We were never arguing about who real Christians were or weren't. I have only pointed out that Christianity is riddled with contradictory beliefs which you yourself haven't refuted. So this post is a non-sequitur. Anything else you want to add, hmm? 4 Likes |
![]() |
MaxInDHouse: Argue with your fellow Christians who claim that God is all-powerful and all-knowing. This argument is worn out and I have no desire to go back and forth on it anymore. So again, thanks for your time. 3 Likes |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (of 5 pages)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2025 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 236 |