₦airaland Forum

UnchangeableGod:
And how do I find where the early Church fathers live or lived sir?

History books, including the bible.

CoolUsername:
Hitler was clearly opposed to atheism despite being critical of Christianity in private, making him a theist or deist. This however, doesn't change the fact that he used Christianity in his public speeches to solicit support

You did read it this time, hence coming to the realization that Hitler's morality is far from the objective morality from the moral giver. Hitler is even more into deontologist worldview than any other thing.

This is the last time I'm going to explain this. Morality is heavily influenced by the social environment we are raised. If it was based on solely in the morality of the majority, then why did I say that we must try to convince others? Your morality is personal to you and that is a fact. To your second point: The invasion of Germany was a good thing because there was a very empirical effect, the death and suffering of millions of Jews. Hitler also dominated Europe with such rapidity that he proved to be a legitimate threat to the world powers.

Morality: noun
conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
What happens when you fail in your attempt to convince others; you forcefully exert 'justice' out of the morality that you (and your likes) formulated. Given that moral subjectivity embraces diversity by seeing that a particular worldview isn't the only right one. The problem comes when you think at any time that your moral worldview is more valuable than the next person's. The moment that moral subjectivity becomes moral superiority, things like holocaust, invasion of germany and the crusades happen- deaths of million humans.

Would you have said that a homosexual should not be harmed before exposure to the Internet? Would you have said that if you had been born in the 1950s. Would you have said that if you were born and raised in Maiduguri? Has this always been your position on this matter?

Whatever position one might have held (or still hold) has nothing to do with the existence of moral absolute. I do not see the point of this question?

Really, you mean to tell me that all slaves were willing participants? I wonder it they could just walk away or if their owners weren't allowed to beat them to within an inch of their lives (The Law of Moses permits slave owners to beat their slaves provided that it takes a few days for the injured slaves to die)?
I wonder if this makes pedophilia okay if the 7-year-old victim gives 'consent'?

Wrong interpretation, read again: "Death is the punishment for beating to death any of your slaves. 21 However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating, you are not to be punished. After all, you have already lost the services of that slave who was your property."
@bolded, what do you mean by "okay"?

This seems more like your own modern and subjective interpretation of Christianity.
Christians have been responsible for anti-Semitism, racism, religious crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, The Hundred Years War, and witch burnings throughout history.
Are you sure those people interpreted the Bible the way you do?
Besides, if the Bible can't stop people from doing what they want, then how is it a source of objective morality.

Christianity is not a source for moral absolutism. I said Christianity recognises and embraces its existence, which should already tell you it predates Christianity. You should also be intelligent enough to make a distinction between Christianity and Christians. Christians have and still commit atrocities because they can't stop being human. A call to Christianity is a call to a life of struggle with sin and its consequences. Richard Dawkins forgot something and while racking his brain, subconsciously muttered "oh my god" on live interview; would you attribute that to atheism rather than to him being human? Christianity does not change, people do.

Alu!

2 years

S5 Duos

Her man looks like Nigeria's current ambassador to the UK, baba daura

UnchangeableGod:
What do you mean by 'home' sir and what is your faith about?

Home is where the early Church fathers live and my faith, amongst all other things you might know of, lies on the tradition and authority to interpret and as well teach the Good News of our Lord Jesus Christ to all mankind.

CoolUsername:
I think you are the one with some reading to do. https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C7404623959

It's either you did not read the whole thing or you have to work on your assimilation.
"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

Furthermore, I agree with you that
I can't impose my morality on others. And that is very good because others shouldn't be and to do the same to me. Rather, we are supposed to try to convince others why our views are right. However, the accepted views of society can and will be imposed on you to a certain degree. The Nazis went against the morality most of the world and paid the price.

By this argument, you are saying morality is a majority-minority thing, aren't you? That justifies the extermination of the jews in Nazi germany- the accepted views of the society was imposed on them. The "rest of the world", out of sheer envy and hatred, took a high moral ground to attack a prosperous and independent nation.

SUBJECTIVE [suh b-jek-tiv] adj.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).

I disagree, we all have acceptable targets for oppression. A homosexual in Nigeria would be happily lynched by 'good' Christians and Muslims. A white male in Europe or America is more likely to be passed over for a woman or person of colour for a job or university admission due to diversity programs. Throughout history, in almost every culture. There have always been people who have gotten the short end of the stick.

Moral absolutes do not depend on acceptability. It's a standard with which we measure our morality. A homosexual should not be harmed in any way regardless the society/country. A white male in Europe or America still has more opportunities than a minority. Affirmative action as a diversity program is a form of sacrifice to accommodate others (which can be seen as a virtue) if done willfully. It's even the asians that are at the short end the stick on this particular issue especially in the US.

I believe rape is bad. I'm sure you agree with me. Now, do you tell rapists to treat their victims romantically or to sedate their victims to reduce the trauma? Or do you just declare that rape is bad?

I don't just declare rape is bad, I advise girls to always have 'protections' in their bags incase such inevitable happens. That said, the ancient slavery is different from modern slavery or rape. Unlike rape victims, slaves willfully become slaves for different reasons ranging from owing debts to serving punishments for crimes committed.

A single sentence prohibiting slavery could have stopped the Christians in Europe and America from starting the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. We didn't get that. The Bible clearly failed in this regard.

Christianity has never been in support of slavery. Christianity recognises moral absolute that every human was created with an innate value. Therefore regarding as unethical, labour practices that enable people to be controlled, exploited and deprived of their innate dignity and freedom. And no, you can't use a single sentence or proclamation to end societal vices.

All GS courses.

UnchangeableGod:
You are on your own on this sir. Obviously, I have been chatting with people who do not share same faith and aspiration with me. Good bye.

I encourage you to come back home; share my faith, it's beautiful. It comes with the best gifts you can ever imagine. May the Spirit of truth do His work in you.

UnchangeableGod:
If your definition of 'Communion of Saints' means praying through departed saints then you see wrong sir. Matthew 18:10 that you quoted talks about angels, it has nothing to do with departed saints. I see where you are coming from. You base your opinions on extra biblical books, probably the Appocripha. I don't claim authority over the Bible as far it's interpretations go. That is why I said earlier that I stand to be corrected, of course, with Biblical references. The Bible (the Scriptures that cannot be broken) is enough for me. God will not hold me responsible for any information He allowed to be contained elsewhere other than the 66 books of the Bible. I am also aware of the grave implications of Revelation 22:18,19. Thanks.

Angels are also part of that communion; and you don't have to limit it to prayers alone:

Communion - kəˈmyo͞onyən/ (noun)
1. the sharing or exchanging of intimate thoughts and feelings, especially when the exchange is on a mental or spiritual level.

@bolded, it's not necessarily about information contained outside the bible but more of the true interpretation of what is already in the bible. The question you have to ask yourself is this: "Where did we get the Bible?" Until you can give a satisfactory answer, you aren't in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture or to claim that you can be certain that you know how to accurately interpret it. Sounds shocking?

UnchangeableGod:
Sir, you are so wrong. The Bible NEVER asked any believer in Christ to approach the dead or departed saints with our prayers. NEVER! Hebrews Chspter 12:22-24 which you quoted is talking about believers (saints that are still alive) sharing same experience and privilege with the departed saints, angels and heavenly beings - a privilege the Old Testament saints did not enjoy (if you read the whole Chapter). It has nothing do to with praying with or through departed saints.

What sort of experience are they sharing, and if I tag it 'Communion of Saints', would you say I am wrong? If I am to apply your Sola Scriptura here, then tell me where the bible says only the saints on earth can pray for one another. Read also Matthew 18:10 and increase your knowledge on such connection between saints in heaven and on earth.

The prayers of saints mentioned in Revelation refers to your prayers and mine (those who are born again and living right). Departed saints are not inferred either directly or indirectly where you quoted. In fact, departed saints are just resting from their labours as their rewards follow them (Revelation 14:13). It appears that some people have been indoctrinated to believe that anytime saints are mentioned, it must be the dead. Before one can become a dead saint, he or she must have been a saint while alive.

There is nothing like a dead saint. It's a deliberate and preposterous formulation. Only if you would learn the theology that goes with Christianity. Such ignorance from pesticostals who are "experts" in interpreting the bible that was written and first taught by the Church's early Fathers centuries before the first schism; you can google search a lot of their teachings and commentaries (as early as 1st to 5th century) on the scriptures.

NB: The Bible does not claim to be the sole rule of faith. The doctrine of sola scriptura is itself unbiblical. Please show me where the Bible claims such a status for itself. Nowhere does the Bible say, "Scripture alone is sufficient" and nowhere does the bible imply it. Neither you nor your pastor, if you have one, has any authority over the bible as far as its interpretations go. Go figure who has such authority.

CoolUsername:
Wrong, because Hitler was clearly opposed to atheism. Likewise, you've conveniently forgotten the part where I said that Nazis were evil in my opinion. You've also conveniently forgotten the religious violence we've faced throughout history. Look at Islamic terrorism in recent times, aren't these supposed to be people with 'objective morality'?

You are the wrong one here. Go and read up on Hitler's belief system; maybe you will forgive yourself for setting yourself up.
I did not forget you said the Nazis were evil in your opinion. My point is, your subjective moral opinion which does not trump another persons' (in this case, the Nazis) subjective morality. By that worldview, it would be tyrannical for you to impose judgement on the Nazi officers.

What do societal laws have to do with the way attitudes towards women and in extension, blacks? The changing attitudes are caused the change in societal laws. LGBT discrimination dropped to a minority BEFORE the law could have was passed. In fact, in a democratic system, your argument is completely wrong.

Maybe I should have used societal norms to represent both the laws and attitudes, since you weren't getting the point.
Not oppressing any human being is a moral absolute regardless of what the societal norms is. One can only measure the degree of conformity to that moral absolute.

I thought you said the Bible didn't condone slavery? Let me ask, which is worse: Rape at knifepoint or rape by sedation? Rape at knifepoint may be more traumatic but does that justify condoning rape by sedation? Why not just speak out against rape? Why not just speak out against slavery? Would you like to be subjected to treatment of slaves even back in Biblical times? Would you like it to happen to your son? Then stop being a slavery apologist.

@bolded, you did not get that from me? I'm sure if you go through my previous posts, you will see me saying slavery is bad. I did say the following as well:

Peter and the other apostles knew that slavery was wrong, but they also knew that it was better to conquer evil with good (Romans 12:21) than to commit evil in order to achieve good. That’s why Peter asks what good it does for a slave to commit evil against his master and then be beaten in return. At least when a slave is beaten for no good reason and does not respond with evil (in imitation of Christ, who endured similar abuses without retaliation), he will stand blameless before God (1 Peter 2:20)

If I go to preach the gospel to prisoners (even those on death row) on how they should be of good behaviour, it does not make me a supporter of the system that put the prisoners there. If the apostles were to be the judges, they will all receive mercy and forgiveness, but unfortunately they weren't.

UnchangeableGod:
Yes, I said that earlier. My point is that it is not biblical to ask any dead or departed saint to pray for you. It is only the living saints that can do that. It is only Christ Jesus, Who is our Eternal Priest, Who ever liveth to make intercession for us, ditto the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 7:24,25; Romans 8:26,27). So stop wasting your time disturbing Mary and other departed saints to pray for you. I stand to be corrected with biblical verses where a departed saint prayed for or was requested to pray for the living. Thanks.

The reason we pray to the saints is that they are still members of the Body of Christ. The life which Christ gives is eternal life. Therefore, every Christian who has died in Christ is forever a member of the Body of Christ. This is the doctrine which we call the Communion of the Saints. Everyone in Christ, whether living or dead, belongs to the Body of Christ.

The Bible encourages Christians to approach the saints in heaven, just as they approach God the Father and Jesus Christ the Lord:

(Heb. 12:22-24) "But you have approached Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels, and the assembly and church of the firstborn who have been enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and spirits of righteous ones who have been made perfect, and Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood which speaks better than that of Abel".

The Bible says we should approach the saints with our prayers:

John (in Revelation 5:8 ) saw the Lamb, Christ Jesus on a throne in the midst of four beasts and 24 elders. When the Lamb took the book with the seven seals, the 24 elders fell down before the Lamb in worship, "each one having a harp and golden bowls of incenses, which are the prayers of the saints."

Similarly, (in Revelation 8:3-4) when the Lamb opened the seventh seal of the book, "Another angel came and stood on the altar, having a golden censer, and many incenses were given to him, in order that he will give it with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne. And the smoke of the incenses went up with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God."

CoolUsername:
Subjective.

So you believe nothing is morally right or wrong? See, if Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Lenin had believed that there was a moral standard outside of themselves that rested in God, and not their own preferences, perhaps over 104 million lives would've been spared.

I disagree, women weren't allowed to vote in civilized countries until the 19 century. Since then, not only laws but attitudes have changed towards the treatment of women.

You're buttressing my point - moral law does not change, societal laws do.

I still don't see where it condemns the act. Ephesians 6:9 and Colossians 4:1 show that although early Christianity wanted fair treatment of slaves it never once condemned the practise of owning and trading people.

Mind you that we are talking slavery of a different kind here, not a systematic oppression of one ethnic group or race by another. The ancient slavery was one of conqueror to conquered and there was nothing that resembled the racist transatlantic slave trade we all know. Ancient slaves served their owners as administrators, financial agents, physicians, secretaries, house servants, cooks, farmers, etc.

In addition to the verses you quoted, Apostle Paul in Gal. 3:28 writes, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile (Greek), neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
In the ancient world, a man setting his slave free and submitting to a woman would have been an outrageous and humiliating thought. Therefore, Paul’s ultimate mission is to see women, slaves, and all races treated equally. But in order to accomplish this, some measure of submission to culture was necessary. In thesame way, Paul encouraged wives to submit to their husbands so that their husbands may come to know Christ, and in time, understand their calling to mutually submit to their wives and to empower women.

UnchangeableGod:
Yes, because you are yet alive in the flesh. Once you die, you can no longer pray for anybody. Thanks.

People in heaven are not dead to us, spiritually. We say they are departed.

Mark of the beast loading...

Did her family approve of this photo op is sharing?

Her jet A1 fuel finished mid air. Hard times.

Painted faces. Abeg I need space to vomit �

Dude in black looks stranded.

CoolUsername:
No, I'm just saying that we may generally have similar moral leanings. But the specifics are never the same.

What does that make it, objective or subjective?

You act like laws don't change and the constitution doesn't get modified all the time. We all want to uphold human rights, but to the average Nigeria for example, these rights shouldn't extend to LGBT people. That's exactly what I said about the specifics being different.

Moral law does not change, societal laws do.

But it was never condemned in the Bible or Quran. In fact, the Old Testament gives specific instructions on how to go about slave ownership. How then did you conclude that it's a bad thing?

It wasn't approved/sanctioned either. Peter told slaves, “Be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing. For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly” (1 Pet. 2:18-19).

Peter and the other apostles knew that slavery was wrong, but they also knew that it was better to conquer evil with good (Romans 12:21) than to commit evil in order to achieve good. That’s why Peter asks what good it does for a slave to commit evil against his master and then be beaten in return. At least when a slave is beaten for no good reason and does not respond with evil (in imitation of Christ, who endured similar abuses without retaliation), he will stand blameless before God (1 Peter 2:20). Loyalty to a master was also a common way for slaves in the Roman Empire to earn their freedom. After serving a master faithfully, a slave would be released as a libertus.

UnchangeableGod:
There are living saints and there are departed saints. It is only the living saints that can pray for anybody (though not the dead). Departed saints (those now in heaven) do not have any business praying for or answering anybody's prayers. Leave Mary alone. She has lived her own life and gone to glory. Your best bet is to become a living saint by repenting of all your sins and accepting Christ into your heart as your personal Lord and Saviour. Then you live right by His grace, follow and serve Him till the end. Thus you will see Mary and other departed saints in heaven at the end of your life. May it be so for you and for me in Jesus' name, Amen.

I am a saint. Saints are encouraged to pray for one another.

@bolded. Where did you get that info from?

thorpido:
A man thinks he knows when he actually doesn't know. He assumes what he thinks he knows is the truth and concludes others don't know.

I want a biblical reference that Mary prays for saints.

Mary is a saint. Don't be naive.

knowyaself2:
we will live it out, my dear, once we disabuse people of religious indoctrination. it is a herculean task, but every effort counts.

Surprising, you just admitted it's not real, at least yet. Goodluck with your fantasy. Baba Hawking and Dawkins will complete the puzzle for you before they return to dust.

and, just so you know, there's nothing divine about all jewish religious programs - they are all tools for control. beleive it to be the infallible word of God at your own peril.

I wish I understood what you meant by Jewish religious programs. I wonder what that has to do with the origin of morality which is as old as the first man that ever existed and has never changed.

Where's his CV? Being young is not a criteria for good leadership.

NwaAmaikpe:


Is he gay?

Why is his preek raising because an oyibo man is touching him?
I've always suspected his relationship with Kingsley Ogbodo.

Na tudee?

knowyaself2:
there's no changing the fact that attraction to same sex comes naturally to them, and as such, i consider them blameless and unfortunate to coexist with people in a religously biased society.

I have not said otherwise

i see that 'evil', from your standpoint, is whatever the bible calls a sin, regardless of whether it is logical or not, or makes for a more civilized society or not. i mean, civilized in terms of tolerance and respect for harmless individual differences.

Tell me what's illogical about what the divine law says of evil and sin. And don't get it twisted, Christianity teaches tolerance amongst other virtues. Even what we regard as civil moral ethics are just mere footnotes to the Sermon on the Mount.

so, you see, evil can mean different things to different people. And, in as much as i appreciate some moral standards set in rhe bible and other religious works, i dont beleive they are not man made and, therefore, should be subject to review as we evolve and advance.

You are making a case for subjective morality worldview which only exists in an atheist's imagination. You can't live such worldview out.

CoolUsername:
The most absolute morality stems from the generally accepted views of society, which change with time.

So there is absolute morality you mean?

And no, my views cannot and should not be binding on others in a democratic society. I can only strive to convince others in order to gain majority approval.

You see why I said you cannot live that out. Tell me again why we have the law courts and police. Does "fundamental human rights" sound subjective to you at all?

Now let me ask you a question, what do you think of slavery? Is it good or bad?

Slavery is bad. It has never been good.

knowyaself2:
homosexuality is not same as fornication and adultery or having a high urge for sex.

You seem not to get my point. Religion aside, being attracted to same sex is same as being attracted to opposite sex. The urge is same. Same sex attraction has existed since time immemorial. That said, biologically speaking, it is an abnormality in human development.

these people are naturally attracted sexually to same sex, and no amount of sermonizing and condemnation by the church and the state will change who they are. it's just like trying to change a straight guy to become a gay whose natural preference is to have sex with a woman. do you get it now?

The Church has no issues with one being gay as long as the individual does not promote homosexuality openly. The problem is trying to de-evilize what the Church considers evil and it is not exclusive to homosexuality alone.

besides, evil is subjective, you frown at having sex outside marriage and call it fornication because the bible and your church fathers say its evil. but i see safe sex as healthy, whether done within marriage or not.
the only real sins are injustice and stupidity, and the nigerian govt is guilty of these.

Evil is not subjective. Evil is evil regardless what individual or society thinks of it; reason why holocaust victims got justice.
@bolded, sex outside marriage is considered evil because the creator of man considers it so. It is neither the bible authors' nor the church fathers' rules. And guess what, the creator himself endowed us with freedom to consider and act otherwise if we so wish. That shouldn't be one's headache, should it? In the end, justice will prevail.

CoolUsername:
I clearly stated that the Nazis were evil based on my own judgment and morality. Read what I wrote carefully.

My point is, your judgement and morality are just like your personal opinion- yours alone. Therefore, it is not binding on any party with opposing views. One can then deduce that where there is no moral absolute, there is no real justice. Truth be told, in reality, you can't even live a worldview such as yours out.