₦airaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / Login / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 1,424,400 members, 2,310,182 topics. Date: Thursday, 03 September 2015 at 10:24 PM

PastorAIO's Posts

Nairaland Forum / PastorAIO's Profile / PastorAIO's Posts

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (of 175 pages)

Religion / Re: Where Did Mohammed’s Stories Come From? by PastorAIO: 1:40pm On Sep 02
Religion / Re: Where Did Mohammed’s Stories Come From? by PastorAIO: 1:33pm On Sep 02

In reality the critical issue is that of the way the Quran came about. The undisputed FACT that there was no single document as a compilation of all the revelations of Mohammed as at his death is a major blow to ANY claim that the Quran we have today was the unadulterated collection of the sayings of Mohammed. 

Besides, who was 'inspired'? Was it Mohammed or those who wrote down his recitations? This is also very KEY because here we are talking about who gave the message (the 'revelations') to the people in the form in which it is today. Because it is ONLY through this current form that anyone in the successive generations can come to get the message. So, did 'inspiration' reside only in Mohammed as he gave his recitations or did it extend to those who eventually penned down - mostly from memory - mohammed's recitations? 

Actually you're wrong as recent events bear out. There was already written quran during the time of Muhammad. But before muslims start jubilating, in fact it is quite possible that the quran PREDATES muhammad.

This is something that I've said quite often. The fact that the Muslims went about destroying every trace of pre-islamic culture and writings to me is an Indictment of Islam. Why all the destruction? What were they Hiding?

Only someone who is hiding something will go to such lengths to destroy evidence. I've always believed, though without evidence, that many parts of Islam already existed in Arabia, but furthermore that many verse of the Quran already existed as oral lore and tradition amongst the Arabs.

Well now, some evidence for this seems to have popped up.


Most of these religions don't just pop up spontaneously like that despite the claims of revelations. They are more often a redactions and recycling of previous religions that were already there. Even christianity which seems so special, it turns out that many unique traits of christianity already existed in judaism amongst groups like the Essenes etc. Even down to the style of the language used. There was even a belief in a messiah figure that was called Jesus BEFORE CHRISTIANITY EVEN BEGAN.

1 Like

Religion / Re: Was Peter The Founder And Bishop Of The Church Of Rome? by PastorAIO: 1:31pm On Aug 28
The Jesus that was deified in 325 AD, belonged to a group called the Essenes...members of that group live out side of the city and rarely talk to other groups, In that same group.there are those called the Nazarenes, these group marry and talk with other groups like the Pharisees and Sadducee...They where the ones who thought the messiah was going to come from one of them. the followers..of Jesus where never called Christians, but Nazarenes...Jesus grew up in Egypt and must have learnt some of their philosophy from there, and when he did come back to Palestine..people where amazed at his eloquence and maybe magic also which he acquired from Egypt..He had a group of people who followed him around and did not like the way the priest was treating the people, he sort for a change of things, and often instructed his followers in parables..a week before the passover, he instigated a riot and some Roman soldiers was killed, Barnabas was arrested, who happened to be his teenage son, so Judas who was his closest friend was sent to negotiate his release..But they wanted Jesus there..for it..so Judas took Jesus to the house of the high priest and was supposed to be under house arrest till Monday after the passover, but pontius pilate got a message from the governor of Judea who told him if he wanted to execute anybody for the death of the Roman soldiers let him kill Jesus...because Jesus also has caused some problem in his territory. so that evening..pontius pilate had Jesus scourged and in the morning he was executed...
it was the followers of Paul that where called Christians, Paul never met Jesus and does not know anything about him, if he existed or not. he was talking about a heavenly Jesus who was killed by demons in the heaven...and the peter that the catholic church claim is peter the apostle is really peter the magician or magnus...up until the council of Nicea there was no such thing as pope, it was much later the idea came about.
Religion / Re: Why So Much Anti-christianity? This Is Unnecessary. by PastorAIO: 6:03pm On Aug 26
and it doesn't speak well of the site and site admin.

imagine, I'm even seeing a babalawo advert just before posting this, seun osewa, when did things get to this level nah?

yes, I agree, all the hostility should be directed against the babalawos instead. and this will make you happy.

Can you now see that you bring this all on yourself when you go around riding roughshod over other people with a warped sense of entitlement and then you start to cry when you are given a taste of your own medicine?

Most of the antichristian rhetoric is a reaction from people who are oppressed everyday by the uncivil behaviour of christians around them. They block roads in the name of camp thereby frustrating and being a nuisance to everyone around them. They presume an attitude of superiority based on sheer ignorance and they wield this attitude in the most over bearing manner.

Even here on nairaland in the days of yore we saw this. Only that the atheist grew in number as many christians openly lost debates here on NL and many were converted to Atheism.

Most christians are a pestilence on Africa and I can only encourage the criticisms they face. If you have an issue with the criticisms remember this:

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
‎1 Peter 3:16

4 Likes 2 Shares

Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 5:54pm On Aug 26
The analogy IS a great one to be used by a religionist who believes in the afterlife. it does not 'demonise' anybody or make anyone a 'hero'.

A 'scientific' baby will never say 'walking is impossible', but a baby that took it as a creed, the way some atheists do regarding spiritual matters, not a 'critical thinking' baby, but a baby that holds it as a philosophical position adamantly without proof (either way), would say that 'walking is impossible'.

I believe its that adamant attitude that is being criticised here. Neither baby has proof but the analogy shows how the future can totally confound our current experiences and so one should allow for the possibility that there is more than what we now know.

In the story the skeptic baby does not say 'relax we don't know for sure'. Why? because in real life the Atheist don't say that neither. That is why it is such an accurate analogy.


That may be true...but that analogy would be a great one to be used by a religionist who believes in the afterlife. Demonise the skeptic baby and make the believing baby a hero. A 'scientific' baby will never say 'walking is impossible'. A 'critical thinking' baby will never say eating with the mouth is ridiculous after being born. All those statements attributed to the skeptic baby are tailored towards ridiculing the baby. Scientists and critical thinking persons are not typically that close-minded. They withhold decisions and verdicts UNTIL good evidence is provided.

That metaphor is HOGWASH in this instance! It's false representation.

Like I said earlier, the reason the believing baby is giving a medal is because we know a mother exists. It was crafted so well so that she takes the victory. Twist it another way and make the believing baby say that there is a dragon out there who will devour them because they keep hearing strange voices of traffic, sound from horror movies watched by the mother and violence in the neighbourhood, and then have the skeptic baby ask the believing child to relax and tell him they dont know for sure and that they should withhold 100% certainty. With that, we will surely give the skeptic baby a medal for that act of holding back judgement.

In other words, that analogy was crafted to give a false premise. Too bad you say it taught you not to be closeminded.
Politics / Re: Ahmed Magaji Tinubu Is Not A Yoruba Name. Tinubu Mean Nothing In Yoruba by PastorAIO: 5:43pm On Aug 26
The beauty of Nairaland is that there are many young folks here who, due to the deplorable state of our education system, do not know the basic fundamentals of our history but due to interactions with better informed folks they will learn. It is shocking to think that anyone believes that Tinubu square with made by IBB. That means they don't know the history of Madame Tinubu. This is heart wrenchingly pathetic.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 12:16pm On Aug 21

You misunderstand me.

I didn't say that it is a fact that God exists.

I said it is a fact that God exists in people's minds / imagination.

That is a HUGE difference.

I was going to butt in and point that out. But you've done so already.

I think perhaps we all need to step back for a few minutes and take a few deep breaths. Otherwise we might find ourselves just gainsaying each other for the sake of it. There is no need to be feeling embattled here.


I think I've explained fairly elaborately in my second comment. Like you pointed out here, it's a metaphor. The same metaphor that would have favoured the skeptic baby if it was a conversation about a dragon that eats baby because of the sound they hear when the mother is in traffic or a noisy environment.
No one knows what happens after death, so this metaphor is useless. Someone might say he has been listening and he is not hearing or perceiving anything about the afterlife like someone predisposed to superstitions will do.
And yes, we could finetune the cliff analogy and make the skeptic guy the winner. It depends on how creative the storyteller is.
The analogy of the two babies is a silly story that does not deserve a worthwhile argument.

What I get out of the metaphor is that the truth may not be evident to us due to our limited perspective. Just like the babies in the womb don't know what happens after birth.
Check out the difference between the two babies. One speculates cautiously on the basis of experiences it's had when it was quiet. The other one is cocksure and dismissive and 'knows' for certain that there is nothing after delivery.
If you weren't so bolshy perhaps you might also have appreciated as a metaphor cautioning against closed-mindedness.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 1:26am On Aug 21

Oh shut up! A baby is not capable of logical thought...YOU are!
By your ridiculous logic, allow me to market you this device. It's the most amazing piece of technology you could ask for; everything you've ever wanted in a smartphone, you'll find in it. It is perfection. In fact, lemme show you all the documentation; manuals and all as well as various photos of what the phone possibly looks like and testimonials of people who have seen the device. Now that you have all of this 'evidence' a percentage of everything you earn every single month is to be paid to me and the manufacturer and then one day in the uncertain future, you will surely get the device. Do we have a deal?

How do you want me to answer you when you've told me to shut up? Or does your device give voice to sealed lips?
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 1:24am On Aug 21
^^^ Is this a response to my REVELATION post?

If yes, then it's a good use of metaphor to make a point. Although in driving it, it makes a straw man argument for rational empiricism. The reason it seems appealing is because of the poetic comparison of various elements.

Let's try this:

Two men stood at the edge of a cliff.

Said one to another "I'm gonna jump using the invisible rope." "What rope?" said the other. "There must be a rope here." the Believer affirms. "Nonsense." said the Skeptic.

"We can't see a rope so whaaaaaat? Does that mean a rope does not exist. Can't you see how far the ground is? There must be a rope...". Bla bla bla...

I'm on the road now. I will compose something substantial later. But in the meantime, it doesn't make alot of sense.

Since you appreciate it as a good use of metaphor why don't you just enjoy it like that. You seem to be missing the point the other way you look at it.

Babies will face delivery one day whether they like it or not. Just as we all will face death one day whether we like it or not. In your counter example nobody has got to jump.
If jumping with an inevitable thing they had to do and one fretted while the other was calm that would be a closer analogy. If the calm guy also suggested a means of perceiving the invisible rope that would help. Like if he said, 'if you squint your eyes lightly you will see the rope' that would be closer. The baby tells the other baby that if he is quiet he can hear their mother's voice.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 4:28pm On Aug 20
In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other:
“Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”
“Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”
The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”
The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”
The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”
The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”
“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”
The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”
The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.”
Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”
To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.”

1 Like

Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 10:13pm On Aug 16
Is it the decision making process that is Reasonable (i.e. guided by reason) ? Or is it the Options itself that reasonable (if that even makes sense)?
You didn't answer this query in my post.


A simple example.
You want to eat something that is healthy. You have plenty of options.
Another example.

That cabbage is healthy is not a reasonable fact. You can't say the option is reasonable. The decision to eat cabbage because it has roughage and you need to ease your bowels could be a reasonable decision, but the cabbage in itself is not reasonable. A fact cannot be reasonable. That is the point I tried to make.
If however, you find yourself farting uncontrollably and you want to curtail that then eating cabbage would not be reasonable at all. The cabbage itself is neutral. It is the decision that is reasonable and the reasonableness of the decision depends on the goal you're trying to achieve.

I'm not attacking you willy-nilly. I myself am a religionist and I came to religion from Atheism. It is the process by which you arrived back at religion that is drawing my interest and I want to investigate.


You have two different job opportunities. The one is better paid, the other is closer to your family.

Again here to make a reasonable decision would depend on what your ultimate objectives are. If your family were experiencing difficulties and you felt that you needed to be closer to home then of course the second option might be more reasonable. If your main issues with your family were financial difficulties then the first option might be more reasonable. Again it is the context that determines which decision is more reasonable.

Now, I actually believe that your decision to believe in God may be reasonable. But in what context? In the context of a desperate psychological need for a Daddy in the sky a belief in God would be Reasonable.

However in a context of needing practical knowledge and methods that would help you achieve your mundane goals in life such belief and reliance on such belief would be utterly unreasonable.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 7:31pm On Aug 16

It is not so simple.

Haha. I didn't think it would be.

Sometimes you have to make decisions and you have to choose from a wide range of REASONABLE choices.
In this case, you have different reasonable options and you are free to make the final decision.

What is it that's reasonable? Is it the Options that you have to choose from that you find are all reasonable?

Or, Is it the decision process that is reasonable?

These are two different things. I can use reason to make a decision, a choice between options. Or, presuming that in a situation it is possible to have conflicting reasonable options, I can arbitrarily choose between a number of reasonable options.

Personally I don't think that having a number of options that are all reasonable is possible. But then I guess that would depend on what you mean by Reason (I feel a unique definition of Reason coming up soon).

Can you give me an example of a situation with a wide range of reasonable choices?
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 5:10pm On Aug 16

No, it does not.

I can choose something freely based on reason.

I would imagine that a Reasonable choice is compelled by reason. being compelled it cannot be free. Unless you have a new definition for free.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 2:47pm On Aug 16

Explain please.

adjective: arbitrary
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"an arbitrary decision"
synonyms: capricious, whimsical, random, chance, erratic, unpredictable, inconsistent, wild, hit-or-miss, haphazard, casual; More
antonyms: rational, reasoned
(of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
"a country under arbitrary government"
synonyms: despotic, tyrannical, tyrannous, peremptory, summary, autocratic, dictatorial, authoritarian, draconian, autarchic, anti-democratic; More
antonyms: democratic, accountable
(of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.

late Middle English (in the sense ‘ dependent on one's will or pleasure, discretionary’): from Latin arbitrarius, from arbiter ‘judge, supreme ruler’, perhaps influenced by French arbitraire .
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 4:43pm On Aug 15


It is not a matter of compulsion by evidence. If there was evidence, we would not need faith because knowledge would replace it.

It is my free willed choice. It is not based on some arbitrary whim.

But a free will choice is arbitrary by definition.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 12:49pm On Aug 15
However, some time later, for one reason or another, without returning to Christianity in the traditional sense, I decided that I prefer to have faith. And I am very aware of the difference between knowledge and faith.

Sir, please may I butt in. When you say you prefer to have faith are you saying that it is not a matter of compulsion by evidence but rather a free willed choice based on some arbitrary whim.
Religion / Re: Morality Demands A Moral Law Giver by PastorAIO: 9:28am On Aug 15
man was created in God’s image.

Many observers might dispute that and say that it would seem that most Theists have created a God in their own image. The god of violent people is often violent. The God of liars is often a liar. The god of morons is often a slowpoke.

Part of that image makes man a moral being. We are moral agents who make moral choices and are able to differentiate between right and wrong. The basis upon which we differentiate between right and wrong is our knowledge of God’s law, and that knowledge comes from two sources, revelation and conscience.

Morality is more often sourced from society. The society you grow up in will determine your moral values often. The revelation is often provided by the society. The society's morality bears down on our conscience and makes us feel guilty if we transgress it.
For instance your morality, you claim, is sourced from the revelation in the bible. As we all know the bible is a book produced by Jewish people. So Jewish morality is what is found therein.

I however agree that we can also source morality from 'within'. This is a morality that has nothing to do with what we've learnt from our society and environment but a moral compass that we find within ourselves. You can access this morality when you silence the mind and cut out all the learnt ideas and values that you picked up from your upbringing or from your reading of books (like the bible), or from your environment. If you silence all these thoughts and perturbations of the mind and bask in a visceral essence then you'll gain access to another ethical guide light.

Ecclesiastes 3:11
He has made everything beautiful in its
time. He has also set eternity in the
human heart; yet no one can fathom
what God has done from beginning to
Thank you for your Time.

Time and Eternity. everything is beautiful in it's right Time. Time is but a span. from here to there. Eternity is all encompassing. Eternity is in the heart. Make that visceral connection and through away the books.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 2:23pm On Aug 12

Can you link me up with the documents? The largest-ever study that seem to provide evidence that 'out of body' and 'near-death' experiences that came out late last year has been concluded by researchers to not be as impressive as thought.

I read it in a book. I'll try to look for something online. Please bear with me.
Religion / Re: What Makes God A God? by PastorAIO: 1:44pm On Aug 12
As I said in the other thread, God is a concept, a notion based on the understanding and imagination of Man. ..hence man made God in his image. .not the other way round

But you can describe the concept.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 1:37pm On Aug 12
Yes temporoparietal activity is well documented to be involved in OBE (out of body experience).


It is not conclusive evidence to accept where he said he went simply because there are unusual activities in his brain. So many factors may be responsible for that.

A few things to consider:

- Is the unusual activity peculiar to him or have we had experiences of people hallucinating making such claims too?
- What led to him having such an experience?
- What do we know of people who have made such claims in the past?

The story of a boy who published a book of his experience in heaven comes to mind. The book “The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven,” by Alex Malarkey was published in 2010. It was a best seller. So many Nigerian Christians still have that book and are still awed by that experience.

Just this January, the boy recounted his story saying it contains a lot of inaccuracies. He said the assuring description of miracles, angels, and life beyond This World in the book are all false.

He said, “I did not die. I did not go to Heaven.”

It proves that claims that cannot be proven by solid evidence are potentially dangerous.

Here is the story in Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/style-blog/wp/2015/01/15/boy-who-came-back-from-heaven-going-back-to-publisher/
Religion / Re: What Makes God A God? by PastorAIO: 1:33pm On Aug 12

I wasn't missing the point. I do not believe in a God,therefor I cannot give it attributes. I was only adding what I felt could be added to the article.

I don't believe in unicorns, but I can give them attributes. I can say they look like horses, but they have a horn coming out of their snouts. This is a description of a unicorns. That doesn't mean that I believe one exists.

when one asks 'what makes god a god' he is asking about those attributes that define a divinity whether or not a divinity actually exists.

1 Like

Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 12:59pm On Aug 12

Very well then. It is Evidence if it is objective, testable, and measurable.

If it can only be seen or felt by one person, then by definition, it is not evidence.

Imagine this:

A man claims to leave his body and rise to another plane where he sees visions of heavenly beings.

During this time he is under MRI scan and indeed it is seen that there is unusual activity in his temporoparietal lobe of his brain as well as the parts of his brain responsible for REM activity and vision.

Would you consider that evidence of the things he saw?
Religion / Re: What Makes God A God? by PastorAIO: 12:56pm On Aug 12
God is nothing but a title given to individuals by low self esteemed individuals. When you are good at a craft in which no one could beat you,perhaps the word "God" could be used. You do hear "Messi,God of football" Shango was labeled a God because he exhibited mind blowing skills/attributes.

We are victims of ancient cave men who passed the ideology of God to their offspring and here we are today still believing in God when it is absolutely clear there is non.

Ain't we all Gods? Yes we are! Most of us are Gods with low esteems who see an Arab dude as a God rather than ourselves.

you're totally missing the point. No one asked: Why do we refer to other people or beings as Gods?

The question is What makes a God a God? i.e define God, what are it's attributes?

Low self esteem people might call Messi a God of football and be wrong if Messi does not fulfil the criteria required to be a god.
Religion / Re: Morality Demands A Moral Law Giver by PastorAIO: 12:52pm On Aug 12
okay, atheists should not complained to God when evil happened because according to Richard dawkin " when evil happened, man is only dancing to the molecules of there DNA"

Somehow I don't see atheists complaining to God for anything. By very definition of Atheist I imagine that they'll try an infinite number of other measures before they resort to complaining to God.

For what I can understand in your comment"we should defined good and evil " as that which supports the well-being” of conscious creatures.
I have absolutely no idea how you can understand that from anything I said. I've said no such thing.

Whereby eliminate the idea of God ? What about moral value? You are not a christian nither are you a muslim or an atheist, what's your belief ?

I neither said eliminate the idea of God. I said that Morality is no evidence for the existence of God. This has no bearing on whether or not I believe in the existence of God.

what about Moral Value? Please explain. What about it?

this world isn't just divided up into christian, muslim, or atheist. I believe a great variety of things.

1 Like

Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 12:32pm On Aug 12

Someone says, "Stop all this hammering about evidence. There's physical evidence and non-physical evidence. Physical evidence is easier to see, while spiritual evidence is a feeling, an inner knowing. You are just being straight-jacketed by insisting on physical evidence."

But feelings are observable. through MRI scans and activity of hormones and neurochemicals in the bloodstream.
Religion / Re: Morality Demands A Moral Law Giver by PastorAIO: 12:27pm On Aug 12
On a naturalistic view moral values are
just the behavioral byproducts of
biological evolution and social conditioning. But if you check the
atheistic view there doesn’t seem to be
anything that makes this morality
objectively binding and true.

Why must morality be objectively binding and true?

If there is no God, then any reason for
regarding the herd morality evolved by
homo sapiens on this planet as
objectively true seems to have been
removed. Take God out of the picture,
and all you seem to be left with is an
ape-like creature on a speck of dust
beset with delusions of moral grandeur.

If that is your problem then you'll have to find a way to get over it, but not by inventing some fictitious god to buttress what is patently obvious to all to be nothing but your own personal bias.
Religion / Re: What Makes God A God? by PastorAIO: 12:24pm On Aug 12

I agree to some extent that God is authority. We can also assume power and dominion is also features of God.

But what authority does a Tree (Iroko) have over Man when we can simplyy pull it down but still people troop to offer prayers and sacrifice to it? What authority does a river have over men? Why this same authority is not awarded to well water?

There are holy wells too.

What authority does a river have? It can have the authority to heal diseases. It can have the authority to confer children. But it must be approached in the right way. same with the Tree.

Authority is the same as dominion.
Religion / Re: What Makes God A God? by PastorAIO: 11:15am On Aug 12
My own take on it though is that God is an Authority. So we have all sorts of Gods and levels of Gods. So a judge that can send you to prison just be commanding it is a God in the legal sphere. Me, I'm a god in the sphere of my work and my expertise.

With authority comes the ability to create. To make a situation so just be willing it. and to destroy.
Religion / Re: What Makes God A God? by PastorAIO: 11:12am On Aug 12
I don ask this question tire o! Abeg helep me to ask them again.

the Gospel of John says 'in the beginning ... the word was a god'. To answer what is meant by that now, na wahala for people. Could it be just a simple case of people running about saying 'god god god' but they really have no idea what they are talking about.
Religion / Re: Morality Demands A Moral Law Giver by PastorAIO: 10:15am On Aug 12
Let me repeat this point:

Morality is instinctive in humans AND Morality can be explained by the Theory of Evolution without recourse to a God. A better explanation than 'God did it'. The problem with GDI (God Did It) is that it fails to explain why morality is so varied in different peoples from culture to culture, from individual to individual. However the evolutionary explanation accounts for the variety of moral systems.
Religion / Re: Morality Demands A Moral Law Giver by PastorAIO: 10:12am On Aug 12
Let me repeat this point:

Morality is instinctive in humans AND Morality can be explained by the Theory of Evolution without recourse to a God.
Religion / Re: Morality Demands A Moral Law Giver by PastorAIO: 9:43am On Aug 12
let me ask you a question here. Is the foundation of morality supernatural or natural ?

What is the distinction between Supernatural and Natural. I believe that those are terms that you are using without any definition or clear idea of what you mean by them.

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (of 175 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: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2015 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 262
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.