MacDaddy01:

Epic fail. Christian (catholic) for 22 years. 2 years anglican. 3 years in a baptist school. 1 year working with an islamic leader


I know a lot about islam and christianity.



Unlike you, who knows nothing of humanity and atheism. Tell me how humanism is closely related to satanism? Liar

LOL typical of you to pull out your C.V. By the way I thought atheism was simply disbelief in deity, are there other things to know?

Perhaps there are rules of atheism or a code of conduct or an atheist creed/initiation rituals or is there now a school of atheism where one goes to study to become a professor of atheism?

You amuse me.

A nice thread for you,Mr Anony;

https://www.nairaland.com/1022069/atheists-humanists-no-morals-mr

Mr_Anony: LOL typical of you to pull out your C.V. By the way I thought atheism was simply disbelief in deity, are there other things to know?

Perhaps there are rules of atheism or a code of conduct or an atheist creed/initiation rituals or is there now a school of atheism where one goes to study to become a professor of atheism?

You amuse me.

Yes it is a simple disbelief in God. But humanism? Not so simple for you as you keep failing on its premise


The point is that you can never accuse me of knowing nothing about christianity or islam but can accuse you of being ignorant about humanism

This below from a different Gray piece is also relevant to this thread, I think.

Science and humanism are at odds more often than they are at one. For a devoted Darwinist like Pinker to maintain that the world is being pacified by the spread of a particular world view is deeply ironic. There is nothing in Darwinism to suggest that ideas and beliefs can transform human life. To be sure, there have been attempts to formulate an idea of progress in terms of competing memes—vaguely defined concepts or units of meaning that are held to be in some ways akin to genes—although nothing like a scientific theory has been developed. Even if there were such things as memes and they did somehow compete with one another, there is nothing to say that benign memes would be the winners. Quite to the contrary, if history is any guide. Racist ideas are extremely resilient and highly contagious, as is shown by the re-emergence of xenophobic ethnic nationalism and antisemitism in post-communist Europe. So are utopian ideas, which have resurfaced in neoconservative thinking about regime change. The recurrent appearance of these memes suggests that outside of some fairly narrowly defined areas of scientific investigation, progress is at best fitful and elusive. Science may be the cumulative elimination of error, but the human fondness for toxic ideas is remarkably constant.

Enigma:



@ Mr Anony

Per John Gray on "memes":


In The God Delusion, Dawkins attempts to explain the appeal of religion in terms of the theory of memes, vaguely defined conceptual units that compete with one another in a parody of natural selection.


Unfortunately, the theory of memes is science only in the sense that Intelligent Design is science. Strictly speaking, it is not even a theory. Talk of memes is just the latest in a succession of ill-judged Darwinian metaphors.


Dawkins compares religion to a virus: religious ideas are memes that infect vulnerable minds, especially those of children. Biological metaphors may have their uses - the minds of evangelical atheists seem particularly prone to infection by religious memes, for example. At the same time, analogies of this kind are fraught with peril.

Science and humanism are at odds more often than they are at one. For a devoted Darwinist like Pinker to maintain that the world is being pacified by the spread of a particular world view is deeply ironic. There is nothing in Darwinism to suggest that ideas and beliefs can transform human life. To be sure, there have been attempts to formulate an idea of progress in terms of competing memes—vaguely defined concepts or units of meaning that are held to be in some ways akin to genes—although nothing like a scientific theory has been developed. Even if there were such things as memes and they did somehow compete with one another, there is nothing to say that benign memes would be the winners. Quite to the contrary, if history is any guide. Racist ideas are extremely resilient and highly contagious, as is shown by the re-emergence of xenophobic ethnic nationalism and antisemitism in post-communist Europe. So are utopian ideas, which have resurfaced in neoconservative thinking about regime change. The recurrent appearance of these memes suggests that outside of some fairly narrowly defined areas of scientific investigation, progress is at best fitful and elusive. Science may be the cumulative elimination of error, but the human fondness for toxic ideas is remarkably constant.

Lol, Dawkins sef. The extents a man will go to avoid the logical conclusion of his premises. The third paragraph is class!

Gray is now the leading voice of humanism and science for Anony and Enigma.


Keep the fallacy going!

MacDaddy01: Gray is now the leading voice of humanism and science for Anony and Enigma.


Keep the fallacy going!

Lol your comprehension ability is poor. No one is saying that John Gray is a humanist

MacDaddy01:

Yes it is a simple disbelief in God. But humanism? Not so simple for you as you keep failing on its premise

The point is that you can never accuse me of knowing nothing about christianity or islam but can accuse you of being ignorant about humanism

Please educate me on the complexities of humanism.

By the way, I hope you do realize that there are such things as christian humanism, islamic humanism, humanistic judaism, early greek humanism etc.

My case today is with secular humanism where the human being is at the center. My challenge to all is to show me how altruism/self-sacrifice as having high moral value logically follows from a morality based on the self.

Your best response so far has been calling me a bigot. I really hope you can do better than that.

Mr_Anony:
Lol your comprehension ability is poor. No one is saying that John Gray is a humanist

Did I say that he is a humanist or a voice on humanism?

Why should Grays opinions be of significance?


Many here have pointed out the issues with such a stance.

MacDaddy01:

Did I say that he is a humanist or a voice on humanism?

Why should Grays opinions be of significance?

Many here have pointed out the issues with such a stance.

you said: "voice of humanism" read your comment again

One more Gray extract --- this time in relation to the hive colony etc thing that someone mentioned earlier on the thread and I guess also the 'hive psychology' thing that I saw on another thread some time ago.

Evolutionary psychology is in its infancy, and much of what passes for knowledge in the subject is not much more than speculation—or worse. There have been countless attempts to apply evolutionary theory to social life but, since there is no mechanism in society comparable to natural selection in biology, they have produced only a succession of misleading metaphors, in which social systems are mistakenly viewed as living organisms. Indeed, if there is anything of substance to be derived from an evolutionary view of the human mind, it must be the persistence of unreason.

As the related discipline of behavioural finance has shown in some detail with regard to decision-making under conditions of risk and uncertainty, human thought and perception are riddled with bias, inconsistency and self-deception.** Since our minds are animal minds—as Darwin argued in The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872)—things could hardly be otherwise. Shaped by imperatives of survival, the human mind will not normally function as an organ for seeking out the truth.** If science is the pursuit of truth—an assumption that begs some tricky questions—it doesn’t follow that anything similar is possible in other areas of human life. The idea that humans can shape their lives by the use of reason is an inheritance from rationalist philosophy that does not fit easily with what we know of the evolution of our mammalian brain. The end result of scientific inquiry may well be that irrational beliefs are humanly indispensable.

** Cf

Jeremiah 17:9 (NLT)

"The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?

Romans 8:6 (NLT)

So letting your sinful nature control your mind leads to death. But letting the Spirit control your mind leads to life and peace.

Mr_Anony:

Please educate me on the complexities of humanism.

By the way, I hope you do realize that there are such things as christian humanism, islamic humanism, humanistic judaism, early greek humanism etc.

My case today is with secular humanism where the human being is at the center. My challenge to all is to show me how altruism/self-sacrifice as having high moral value logically follows from a morality based on the self

Most religions have human being at the centre. Tell me, is christianity about self salvation or collective salvation? Christianity is between man and Yaweh.

The Coming of the Kingdom

20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’[a] For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”




As for Humanism, you are foolish to forget that while it starts at the individual, it also realises the effect of individual actions of society.


Altruism comes from individual actions that creates a better effect on society.


Simple commonsense but you wish to call humanism another form of satanism. Feel free to indulge in your slander like a pig in its own dirt

Enigma: One more Gray extract --- this time in relation to the hive colony etc thing that someone mentioned earlier on the thread and I guess also the 'hive psychology' thing that I saw on another thread some time ago.

Evolutionary psychology is in its infancy, and much of what passes for knowledge in the subject is not much more than speculation—or worse. There have been countless attempts to apply evolutionary theory to social life but, since there is no mechanism in society comparable to natural selection in biology, they have produced only a succession of misleading metaphors, in which social systems are mistakenly viewed as living organisms. Indeed, if there is anything of substance to be derived from an evolutionary view of the human mind, it must be the persistence of unreason.

As the related discipline of behavioural finance has shown in some detail with regard to decision-making under conditions of risk and uncertainty, human thought and perception are riddled with bias, inconsistency and self-deception.** Since our minds are animal minds—as Darwin argued in The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872)—things could hardly be otherwise. Shaped by imperatives of survival, the human mind will not normally function as an organ for seeking out the truth.** If science is the pursuit of truth—an assumption that begs some tricky questions—it doesn’t follow that anything similar is possible in other areas of human life. The idea that humans can shape their lives by the use of reason is an inheritance from rationalist philosophy that does not fit easily with what we know of the evolution of our mammalian brain. The end result of scientific inquiry may well be that irrational beliefs are humanly indispensable.




** Cf

"The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?"
Jeremiah 17:9 (NLT)

"So letting your sinful nature control your mind leads to death. But letting the Spirit control your mind leads to life and peace."
Romans 8:6 (NLT)

Sweet!

Mr_Anony:

Sweet!

MacDaddy01:

Most religions have human being at the centre. Tell me, is christianity about self salvation or collective salvation? Christianity is between man and Yaweh.

The Coming of the Kingdom

20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’[a] For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”

You miss the point. It is all about God and not the individual. The individual is completely subject to God.

As for Humanism, you are foolish to forget that while it starts at the individual, it also realises the effect of individual actions of society.

Altruism comes from individual actions that creates a better effect on society.

That is the point I am challenging. If the individual is the central focus of humanism, then altruism cannot possibly exist within it's framework since all acts of the individual will be judged based on how best the individual is benefited. The best you can get in a secular humanist worldview is mutualism.
Altruism can only logically exist in a theist worldview

Simple commonsense but you wish to call humanism another form of satanism. Feel free to indulge in your slander like a pig in its own dirt

lol, again your comprehension isn't top notch. scroll up

Mr_Anony:
Lol, I don't even know how to come back from that. My own words condemn me


Dawkin's selfish gene argument is really interesting because he has been called to task on it a few times. Personally, I haven't read the work in detail but his arguments have some flaws
1. When an ant dies for the colony, it does not consciously die i.e. it is not a sacrifice for the ant because the ant does not reason.

2. Dawkins holds that our genes dictate our actions....when asked in a debate against professor John Lennox how we can be held morally responsible for anything since we are under the control of our genes, Dawkins' response is that "we have to rebel against our genes" It is further pointed out to him that this is self contradictory as it will mean our genes rebelling against themselves. To this Dawkins' gives the example of how we use condoms and pills so as to control our genetic urges towards reproduction. He calls this an instance of us rebelling against our genes.

Now what Dawkins unknowingly implies here is that our reasoning minds are not a product of genetic evolution since we can use our rational minds to go against what we are genetically predisposed to do.
To be fair, Dawkins introduces memes which are units of ideas and culture that are transmitted much like genes i.e. behaviours we have but we don't know why we have them. Basically, Dawkins contradicts himself as he seems to be saying on the one hand that we are powerless against our genes/memes and then on the other hand that we can fight against our genes/memes.

Anyway, long story short; For something like self-sacrifice, Dawkins says it is the product of our selfish genes i.e. the human gene would want to propagate it's species. This is all well and good but it fails in instances where a man risks his life for his pet animals or pets animals risking their lives for their human owners (or maybe that's an instance of anti-gene rebellion....you never know with Dawkins these days lol)

Whichever the case, point is that Dawkins fails to point out a rationale for altruism/self-sacrifice. According to him "it is those genes at work again" or maybe "it is those gods at work again"

What is this? Decent arguments?
I'm not sure what to think of the selfish gene yet, I'll have to consider it some more. Also, this response does not consider morality much, as I've not read the thread yet.

1. According to dawkins I don't think genes reason either. Self-preservation is just coded into them, like the ants, randomly. This aids them battle natural selection, but there was no purpose behind it. So genes wouldn't need a 'reason' to be altruistic. It might aid them as far as natural selection is concerned, it might not. But if most types of organisms do indeed have altruism coded into them, then it probably aids them in some way hence the ubiquity.

2. We are back to determinism vs free will here. I can't get my head around 'rebelling against genes' yet. It could work if you imbue it with natures probabilistic workings but your point is worth mulling over (it jumped out to me too).

With regards to the pets example, I would say that is one of those instances where emotion overrides other considerations as far as determining what an organisms actions would be. Remember not every trait inherited need be beneficial (though that is not the case here as emotions are indeed beneficial). Emotions may seem to distort whatever the presumed balance/objective is and cause actions that may not seem to be beneficial from an objective pov (think, sadly, of the irrational woman stereotype). Again, emotions are useful, but in some cases they might (or seem to) misfire. In the cases where they are indeed misfiring think of the famous example of insects that fly into certain flouruscent lights mistakening them for the light of a star which they use for navigation purposes.

rhymz:

Am just resisting the temptation to derail this thread else I would have inundated you with books and links that have made thorough research into unraveling the true identity of Jesus only to get more convinced that he is more of a mythological person than a historical one.

@Anonym
I remember vividly making exactly this comment on this thread, Yes or No?
You dare try to, once again, deflect from the main issue by blabbing about me copying and pasting as if I ever tried to pass any of these books and research as mine?
I always make it clear when I use articles or excerpts from well researched books to draw my conclusions or make my arguments. It is you who is the pseudo-intellectual here:
i. You make seriously flawed and illogical arguments.
ii You are in the habit of indulging in diversionary antics of hitting below the belt when intellect fails you
iii. Resorting to rationalization of illogicality and trying to psycho-analyze your opponent.
You are a dishonest fellow Mr.

rhymz: I remember vividly making exactly this comment on this thread, Yes or No?
You dare try to, once again, deflect from the main issue by blabbing about me copying and pasting as if I ever tried to pass any of these books and research as mine?
I always make it clear when I use articles or excerpts from well researched books to draw my conclusions or make my arguments. It is you who is the pseudo-intellectual here:
i. You make seriously flawed and illogical arguments.
ii You are in the habit of indulging in diversionary antics of hitting below the belt when intellect fails you
iii. Resorting to rationalization of illogicality and trying to psycho-analyze your opponent.

Friend, there is a difference between making an argument yourself and merely pasting another person's argument (even if you acknowledge the source).
An equivalent of what you do is like if I pasted whole chapters of the bible and then when questioned about them, I have no response. This will immediately show that I don't really have an understanding of the bible I am quoting.

All I am saying is if you are going to paste chapters from someone else' book, be ready to defend it because when I start questioning you now and you have no answer, you'll start complaining that I am being condescending.

As for the Paul Distortion of Chrustianity, thank God my arguements and articles I posted there to support them are all there for everyone to see, so it was not a matter of running away. I decided not to respond to reply again when I discovered you that you kept on regurgitating thesame arguments and using angry tone. You left the core of the argument and started psychoanalyzing me and trying to explain my own arguments to me. It was obvious you were angry and disgusted by my submission that the character Paul was prolly gay with the way he kept on going on and on about parts of his body not not doing what he wants and how he called it a curse inflicted on him by the devil and all that crap he was saying, nigga was obviously fighting with irregular sexual urges that he dare not directly say it. Instead he chose to remain celibate and made marriage look like an option for men with weaker resolve.
Face the facts and stop these nonsense resort to arm twisting arguments when somebody outwits you, it is not always about getting the last word dude, I care less about that, I am more interested in facts and logical arguments. If you dare lie again, I will derail this thread and post my arguments on the paul thread, let's see who ran away and who made better argument.

Mr_Anony:
All well and good.
I agree it is in the self interest of an individual to work towards a progressive society by being benevolent.

I agree that being kind to our children is important to our evolution (I won't define it as 'altruistic' though because they are our children so it is more like a 'selfish' duty to our offspring and doesn't really qualify as selfless love)

I do not agree that based on an atheistic premise, that altruism is a rational response. Being "good for goodness sake" is a meaningless statement and just a fancy way of saying being "good for no reason". Just like saying "talking just for the sake of talking" or "laughing for laughing sake" or "being mad for madness sake" it means nothing.

Now if poor people are a threat to society, the most logical solution would be to kill them off so that they are not a burden on the rest of the society. That should serve your self-interest much better than being benevolent towards them and having to drag them along.

Another problem for the humanist is how does he rationally justify dying for someone else since it is not in his self interest to do so?

My friend Avicenna, I do not hold that a secular humanist does not do good, what I am saying is that based on a secular worldview you do not do good within reason. You do good in spite of your 'better' judgment.

That is what I call "blind faith" because your actions - noble as they may be - are devoid of reason.

I'm surprised. That you think the most logical solution is kill off the poor people. NO, IT IS NOT. The most logical solution is taking them out of poverty even if it requires trading/invading/subjugating people of other countries!
History has kept repeating itself. One society must survive over the other. This is nature. Until we can be completely self -sustaining(I don't think its possible now), the selfishness of one country to the other will always be there. Now, who do countries do this for? Their society, their people(poor or any other adjectives) and finally the individuals.


Dying for your dog is irrational. This is when your emotions have clouded your reason. You do not know which gene will express itself strongly than the other. This should point out that the total human system is flawed. Some people kill their dogs.


Dying for other people in wars is protecting your society. You v accepted you are going to die. Why not die for someone you consciously or unconsciously perceive to be better than you? Why not exchange your life for two other people or entire platoon/company/brigade? These are reason.


Disregarding emotional actions, most altruitic actions are indeed not that altruistic when you look at it. They fall within reason. I said before that I feel good when I do good. Who knows, I may love the feeling, then do good SPECIFICALLY to get that feeling? That's within reason.


I won't say Humanism is perfectly good or anything like that. In my self-interest, I will not allow the affairs of other people to disrupt my own. Unless, I decide theirs have better value to society. I will kill anyone that tries to kill me. I will fight competition using everything I have, unfairly or fairly. I support death sentence for especially violent crimes(in this case, the logical thing is to get rid of such maniac/demonstrable threat from the society, permanently). I'm pro-life even tho I know most of them unwanted babies may become a threat to society, they have a right to live. All this morality preferences fall within reason. We have survived with it for centuries long before any of the abrahamic religions came into existence and we will continue with it long after they are extinct.

wiegraf:

What is this? Decent arguments?
I'm not sure what to think of the selfish gene yet, I'll have to consider it some more. Also, this response does not consider morality much, as I've not read the thread yet.

1. According to dawkins I don't think genes reason either. Self-preservation is just coded into them, like the ants, randomly. This aids them battle natural selection, but there was no purpose behind it. So genes wouldn't need a 'reason' to be altruistic. It might aid them as far as natural selection is concerned, it might not. But if most types of organisms do indeed have altruism coded into them, then it probably aids them in some way hence the ubiquity.

2. We are back to determinism vs free will here. I can't get my head around 'rebelling against genes' yet. It could work if you imbue it with natures probabilistic workings but your point is worth mulling over (it jumped out to me too).

With regards to the pets example, I would say that is one of those instances where emotion overrides other considerations as far as determining what an organisms actions would be. Remember not every trait inherited need be beneficial (though that is not the case here as emotions are indeed beneficial). Emotions may seem to distort whatever the presumed balance/objective is and cause actions that may not seem to be beneficial from an objective pov (think, sadly, of the irrational woman stereotype). Again, emotions are useful, but in some cases they might (or seem to) misfire. In the cases where they are indeed misfiring think of the famous example of insects that fly into certain flouruscent lights mistakening them for the light of a star which they use for navigation purposes.

Lol, you seem to have this misguided bias that christians are intellectually inept.
Anyway let us leave Dawkins and his selfish gene theory. It is tangential to this thread and since you don't hold his position.

The question this thread revolves around is: How does altruism fit as a rational behaviour within a secular humanist worldview?

@Wiegraf

I can't get any atheistic literature where I am. Sadly. If you ask them bookshops, they look at you somehow AND they won't have it still. Maybe, when I'm out of here, I will get all of them. I have such a long list.
The selfish gene. Thanks for the synopsis.

Mr_Anony:
@Martian, I am not trying to paint secular humanism in a bad light. I am just saying that it doesn't follow from an atheistic premise so I call it blind faith.
Perhaps you can solve this puzzle for us by showing us this logical link. Once you can do that, there'll be no need to argue further

Humanists think it rational for them to be altriustic and help each other because they have no reason to think a god or any other supernatural entity is going to intervene in human affairs. That's the basis of the whole thing.

rhymz: As for the Paul Distortion of Chrustianity, thank God my arguements and articles I posted there to support them are all there for everyone to see, so it was not a matter of running away. I decided not to respond to reply again when I discovered you that you kept on regurgitating thesame arguments and using angry tone. You left the core of the argument and started psychoanalyzing me and trying to explain my own arguments to me. It was obvious you were angry and disgusted by my submission that the character Paul was prolly gay with the way he kept on going on and on about parts of his body not not doing what he wants and how he called it a curse inflicted on him by the devil and all that crap he was saying, nigga was obviously fighting with irregular sexual urges that he dare not directly say it. Instead he chose to remain celibate and made marriage look like an option for men with weaker resolve.
Face the facts and stop these nonsense resort to arm twisting arguments when somebody outwits you, it is not always about getting the last word dude, I care less about that, I am more interested in facts and logical arguments. If you dare lie again, I will derail this thread and post my arguments on the paul thread, let's see who ran away and who made better argument.

Lol, why don't we just paste a link here shall we:
https://www.nairaland.com/933277/bombshell-pt2-how-paul-distorted

By the way, the aim of logic is not to outwit but to find truth.

Everybody is probably gay just like I am probably a Japanese woman. The problem comes when you give that as a reason for something else, then must tell why you are sure that he was.
It is ok to say Paul was [b]probably [/b]a homosexual. The problem arises when you now say Paul did x because he was a homosexual, then you have to tell us how you know he is.
It doesn't help when instead of providing evidence, you resort to playing the victim.

Anyway enough of your wahala for now, the claim was not even yours in the first place. All I am saying is if I go on to argue on your new thread, then you must be ready to back up your friend Acharya S.
Playing the victim is the wrong way to argue. Your position is either true or it is false. Silence is neither an admission of truth nor falsehood.
Any i[i]d[/i]iot can write a book. Her claims are not new. Because she wrote a book does not automatically make what she says true.

As I said before; Don't rush me. Allow me to give the book a look, to understand your arguments and then we can debate. All I ask is be ready to make a proper debate. Don't just throw in stuff you can't back up.

Mr_Anony:


That is the point I am challenging. If the individual is the central focus of humanism, then altruism cannot possibly exist within it's framework since all acts of the individual will be judged based on how best the individual is benefited. The best you can get in a secular humanist worldview is mutualism.
Altruism can only logically exist in a theist worldview

@bold
The $tupidity in your comment come from two fundamental errors;
a) "Benefit" means different things to different people. I would die for my children, you would. My children are my future and a benefit to me and my legacy and not to yo.

b)Humanity recognizes the individual but everyone is an individual and an individual action can affect other individuals. The acts of the individual is will also be judged on its effect on other individuals if it does effect others. If the action of the individual does not affect others then,the action is for the sole individual to judge


Anony Debunked for good this time!

lets see how you come back from that one!

Mr_Anony:
Friend, there is a difference between making an argument yourself and merely pasting another person's argument (even if you acknowledge the source).
An equivalent of what you do is like if I pasted whole chapters of the bible and then when questioned about them, I have no response. This will immediately show that I don't really have an understanding of the bible I am quoting.

All I am saying is if you are going to paste chapters from someone else' book, be ready to defend it because when I start questioning you now and you have no answer, you'll start complaining that I am being condescending.

You and your childish excuses. You are yet to read or comment on the thread but you are quick to throw unsolicited boastful advice.
How many times me and you don debate on issues before you start blabbing aboout me defending stuff.
Everyone's intelligence and exposure is a product of what they read, experience and are taught, don't come blabbing to me about posting chapters of a book that succinctly proves beyond any doubt the truth that Jesus Christ is never existed and all you could is to whine about non-issues while ignoring the damning facts. So intelligent of you. Need I remind you that it is perfectly ok for me to be making an argument and then decide to post well researched articles, pages of a book and materials from verifiable source that very well support my arguments.
I don't not to indulge endlessly in your usually tiring round and round argument without any serious facts to back them up. And please don't trying to insult my intelligence by passing my observations and comments on issues we do not agree on as a lack of understanding on my part, that is childish and a weak punchline.
I explained my argument very well to you with bible verses and quotations from your bible, don't tell me I misunderstand what it says when the implication is so obviously clear. Matter of fact, I shall post it now sef. .

^^ na by force?

SNCOQ3: ^^ na by force?

Abeg help me ask am o!

rhymz: The Suggestion that Paul was a gay man is usually met most often with responsel ranging from pure dismissal to outright anger. I know the idea that a writer of the Scriptures, which are considered to be the direct Word of God in much of Christianity, could be gay is startling to say the least. However, it is still important that we rid ourselves of emotinal outburst and critically look at the issues.No doubt, Paul was a very dramatic man, deeply convicted and emotional.

In fact, his overly emotional nature should cause a stir as he lived in a society that did not look kindly upon such emotional display. But this in and of itself could simply be a unique trait possessed by Paul, not necessarily representative of his orientation. However, his stark emotionality leaves him more vulnerable to the probing of a textual critic, making our exploration a bit simpler. Looking at Paul's letter to the Romans, Paul’s last before his (presumable) execution. In this letter, he gives one a slight clue to the battle going on within him.

Allow me to quote an English translation of his words in Romans 7:23: “…I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members”. This passage reveals more than we might first notice upon first reading. On a closer look, one discovers that Paul speaks in the larger context of this chapter about a constant war. He claims sin dwells in his “members,” or his bodily parts.

However, he attempts to control these members with the “law of his mind” that seems to be often failing him.

Expectedly, you will want to explain this to be merely a passage referring to the human struggle with sin, however, bringing in other elements of the Paul's letters, such interpretation becomes a bit lacking. In his earlier and 2nd letters to Corinthians, one notices yet another clue in this intriguing puzzle in chapter12:7 NASB and I quote: “there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me”, now put this passage in a larger context and try to decipher what he was trying to say.

In the opening chapter of Romans, Paul describes those he sees as the enemies of God as being confused sexually as a punishment for their sins. In his letter, he says that “God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error” (Romans 1:26-27 NASB). This seems a bit odd as Jesus is not seen as discussing sexual orientation, a subject one would believe he would preach during his discussions regarding sexual indiscretion, assuming that he considered the actions or state of gay individuals as being sinful. It is important to remember that Paul views himself as a representative of Jesus, so this contrast should of course cause a stir in the reader. This is not the only time Paul is seen displaying tendencies that can only be described as homophobic. He makes what appear to be negative statements toward gay individuals in his first letter to the Corinthians. It is, however, worth noting that the concept of sexual orientation had not yet developed, so such verses refer to lust and sex as stand alone sins, not in any way connected with a concept of sexual orientation. Keep this in mind as we continue to examine the issues at hand. Aside from the homophobia displayed in the Pauline letters, another often- overlooked trend becomes noticeable upon careful reading. Paul seems to take a negative view of women and marriage. He writes to his male readers, “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Corinthians 7:1 NASB). Paul was not married as he directly states when he gives these instructions to the unmarried and widow in 1 Corinthians 1:8 NASBs: “But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I”. Marriage is seen by Paul as a last resort for weak individuals in the next passage, 1 Corinthians 1:9 NASB “But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion”. One is probably now wondering why Paul would feel the need to create such a defensive web of misogyny and anti- marriage bias if Jesus did not seem to have an issue with gay individuals.

Let's not forget the fact that Paul knows very well how Judaic laws frowns at adultry. So while Paul is responsible for the propagation of Christianity, he was writing with the perspective of a convert who was previously an extremely dedicated and educated expert on traditional Jewish laws.

To indulge his passions, were he gay, would have been a grave sin.

Now that I have considered this array of clues from Paul’s writings, it becomes important to finish addressing the passage with which I began my study of Paul's writing. Talking about “war” in Paul’s “members.” There is a strong possibilty that this war in his members is thesame thing he meant by “thorn in his flesh” that served as a “messenger of Satan.” Whether or not it is the case, the question still remains… What part of the body will not obey the “law of the mind?" You and I know it is the Pen.i$, Looking at the anatomy of a male. Arms, legs, and the like can be controlled by the mind. The pen.i$ remains the member that ofte. .

This was my argument when you decided to dismiss my argument that Paul may have been gay.
Abeg posters make una tell me why he feels it is wrong for me to suggest that he was probably a repressed homosexual?
Tell more lies, let's see.

Enigma: One more Gray extract --- this time in relation to the hive colony etc thing that someone mentioned earlier on the thread and I guess also the 'hive psychology' thing that I saw on another thread some time ago.




** Cf

Jeremiah 17:9 (NLT)

Romans 8:6 (NLT)

I don't understand how John Gray's arguments are relevant here in respect to you.

Martian:

Humanists think it rational for them to be altriustic and help each other because they have no reason to think a god or any other supernatural entity is going to intervene in human affairs. That's the basis of the whole thing.

You see Martian, that stance will only be true if they once believed that a god used to help them but has now disappeared so they now have to help each other. It doesn't follow from a premise where they believe that such a helper god has never existed in the first place.

rhymz:
This was my argument when you decided to dismiss my argument that Paul may have been gay.
Abeg posters make una tell me why he feels it is wrong for me to suggest that he was probably a repressed homosexual?
Tell more lies, let's see.

LOL! Abeg posters please help him spot the "proof" in his post.