₦airaland Forum

IAH:
The best answer is embedded in your lengthy post. That is it!

Or let her do whatever she wants as long as she handles her responsibilities of being a housewife.

It is no secret that the Christian religion depends upon faith. One definition we learn for it is faith - the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. We "believe" in Christ, in God.

However, proving something requires physical evidence. This evidence must be something that I can show to a room of thousands of people and all of us would roughly agree on what we just saw.

When it comes to the bible, which for the most part is the ultimate proof Christians have to offer, the world can agree that it was written a long time ago by other humans. What you cannot get people to agree on is that the bible is "pure". The known history of the church already indicates that there were many political influences that shape what the bible is now. The known behavior of humans suggests that it could be a hoax. Telling me that if I just sit down and read, eventually God will come to me and reveal the truth does not do anything to convince me otherwise. And knowing that if I die unconvinced, you would have a perfect excuse that would (for you) wrap it up all neatly in a bow only furthers the image that there is no real proof.

Just as a disclaimer - I am not targeting anyone in particualr with this post, its just easier for me to say "you" rather than "everyone reading this post who falls under the broad category of Christian/religious preson who would like to convince others of the existence of God or the "trueness" of their religion".

nicetohave:
you have not said anything to lay credence to the existence of God either, you have merely paraphrased all we have said, and God is a spirit, he practise no religion, however he has set standards whereby a man can reach him and even stricter standards of how man can reside with him, in eternity

Your point? I already acknowledge in my own post the extreme lack of any evidence to the existence of God. I suggest that there may be an argument that could be enough to convince someone of God's existence, though I still need to analyze it to see just how strong it is. As for the rest of your statement, it harks upon another observation I made just this morning:

All (at least Christian) and probably most (religous) definitions of God are circular. Your statement is an example of that. In order to "prove" that God exists, it is required that I have some sort of personal communication with God. As a result, it is easy to dismiss because the skeptic could never have an encounter with God and the believers would just say its because he didn't have the right heart, mind, etc or wasn't open to recieve God.

But, the problem cuts deeper. Even if I were to grant you that God does exists (which I actually do because I'm a Christian but for the purposes of this discussion, pretend I'm a non believer), I still have to ask, how do you know that God set standards down? You may claim he told you or told someone else. . but why should I believe them? For all I know, their claims are just the ravings of a mad person!

How exactly do you counter a statement like that?

Renike:
they don't know Jesus!

actually, many of them do.

just because homosexual people may marry each other does not mean that eventually everyone will be homosexual.

In any case, women can have children without males - there are sperm banks for that.

A woman w/o eggs can still have children - there are egg donors for that.

I don't see how we would not be able to have children even IF the entire world were to become homosexual.

seeing that you are actually asking this question - what do you define as a cheat?

should you be a fool. . .. hmm. . . do I tell him to be a fool. . . or do I not?

umm. . exactly what did the girl do with the other guy that she's afraid of him telling her current bf? If she only went on a single date, there is very little about her that he could have to talk about. If she is that worried, she obviously has been up to more that just a single infidelity.

r2VIRUS:
If you haven't met him in the physical as in face-to-face then you must be taking a big emotional risk

its kinda hard to have a date with someone and not physically meet them:

babie:
Hi,

I met this guy on an online forum like this one-- he sent me a private message and we got to see each other.. we had a date and today am in love with him-- is it right?

I added the emphasis

Hi nferyn,

looks like i'm late to this discussion. I'm truely saddened that almost no christian here has been able to make a half decent argument. Most of the views and posts made here may be enough to convince someone who currently is not a christian and is looking for something to believe in and already believes in the existence of God, but all fall short of convincing someone who needs more than emotional appeals to sway them.

I'm a christian and an engineer and I've given this a lot of thought myself, and through discussions with others - the question of if I was not already a christian at this point, could I convert myself. The answer is NO. In fact, I have determined that it is impossible to scientifically prove that God - ever. This means that no matter how knowledgeable mankind becomes, it could never be done. Even if the world was to end and Jesus comes to raise the dead, I still couldn't prove that God (by definition) exists - at the very best, I could demonstrate the existance of a being that is waaay beyond humans - which does not neccessarily indicate the existance of "God".

Since the bible is acknowledged to have been written by humans, it cannot stand alone as evidence of the existance of God. The fallability of humans taints the very books we hold as holy.

After the third page of this topic, I thought nferyn was actually going to quit as he said given that at best the arguments given to him were like this: God exists, you are wrong - Humans are incredibly complex, therefore only God could have created them.

Well, the first as nferyn has pointed out over and over again is an assertation and itself does not prove anything. The second is a silly statement. If there were a people that were so isolated from rest the world that they had no knowledge of anything that had happened in the past 1000 years and I came to them with a computer, apparently, I would immediately become God. The argument of something being so complex, it must have a designer is an old one dating to the 1700s. However, its fallacy was also proven at that time too.

At the very best, I think there are arguments that could be made for the existence of God. However, there is no way to say if this God is that of Christians, Jews, Muslims, or any other religion. Also, that argument would not only hold true for the existence of one God, but many of them. I'm not a logician and I have not had much time to go through much of the arguments assumptions and statements to see if they would hold up to scientific rigor (since I just heard them recently - a radio show with a very convincing Apologist).

In any case, once I heard it, I determined that at best, a person could convince someone of the existence of a being or beings that we define as God, but it is impossible to say which religion if any has got it correct.

If you want nferyn, I'll try to lookup the exact phrasing and post the argument. I will say that you have . . . something really good . . to be able to continue to post in this thread . . . I would have pulled out around where you originally suggested in order to save myself from going crazy. In fact, I stopped reading around that point and skipped to the end to see if you actually were still posting here. .

let me see. . .you are engaged to marry someone, and you are in love with someone else. Seems like you don't know what you want and have been lying to yourself and your fiancee.

its up to you. Certainly there is nothing in any religion which prohibits your relationship. So, the next barrier would be your family's culture.

myname:
its because we don't marry more than one that we have many leftovers giving us headache now
on a serious note i don't think any man shoulg marry more than one wife that is not Gods plan for marriage. he would have many many eves for Adam in the garden

I don't agree with this. . or many similar conclusions drawn from the bible. Just because God only gave someone one fish and a loaf of bread to eat for breakfast, doesn't mean that is all I eat. You don't see me walking around naked in a garden avoiding trees of knowledge. . .so why should i be limited to one "adam or eve" as well?

heh. . i guess we went a little off topic. . .

i think my post came across a little too polarized - or maybe I didn't do a good job of explaining some of my views because I actually agree with most of your reply.

BTW, I just got this book: The World is Flat by Thomas L. Friedman. I think its a great read at least for Americans who think they can get away with being insular or anyone who thinks they can do that in their own country. Its also a great read for anyone who has or wants to be part of major change in the near future. While it may be geared towards American readers, it provides a lot of insight which anyone with ambition, smarts, and opportunity can take good advantage of.

nferyn:
Now you do have to explain that. I am at a loss

that was not directed at you nferyn, but rather at some of those responding to your posts.

. . . i addressed this in previous posts. . .but like always, things tend to go unread as threads get longer. .

In any case, there are several medical conditions whose solution require some surgery of the female genital area.

Beyond that, there is NO valid cause - other than cosmetic which apparently for many is a valid cause for lots of things - for any work done on the area.

However, there is a difference between a medical procedure and genital mutiliation. If we're talking about FGM (female genital mutiliation) then there is NO reason a person can give in its support. If we're talking about the medical procedures, then there are probably few reasons a person can give against it.

This is turning into a Godwin's Law situation. .

[quote author=Hnd-holder link=topic=272.msg136289#msg136289 date=1135097115]donnie
Cover your face. You could not differentiate letters of Paul from GOSPEL. Taken literary meanings... no wonder you wait for others to pay you tithe. Shallow knowledge.[/quote]This is actually pretty interesting and the source of many problems. Exactly what things should we take literally and what things should we examine in context?

Thou shall not kill - we all take that literally
Paying tithes - I say we should look at the context
Homosexuality - many take literally - i say look at the context
slavery - we all say look at the context

Is there some way we could develop a methodology that would allow people to (on their own) examine the bible and successfully, consistently, draw the same conclusions as everyone else?

I mean, some people say, if you're led by the holy spirit, then you'll know what such and such mean. . . well. . . this assumes that the person making the statement is led by the holy spirit and not spouting off bs.

I want to approach this scientifically (btw science is not anti religion per se) - in a way that everyone can agree is systematic and correct.

For example:

1) if the action that is being commanded against doing would cause physical, emotional, or mental harm to someone else involved - the command should be taken literally
2) if the action does not do these things - we should examine the context

thou shall not kill clearly falls into #1

to throw extreme examples of #2 - homosexuality and idolatry. Both fit into #2, so how can we further distinguish between the two? Perhaps we need to define a better rule. . or a corollary. .

So, this is pretty much the way I'd like to approach things in the bible, especially ones which currently are being interpreted in many different ways. . .

Maybe a third rule could be applied. .

3) If enforcing a command would cause people to exhibit unchristian characteristics - hatred for example, then the command has probably been taken out of context.

This would then mean that #2 should not be applied to homosexuality, but still allow for its application to idolatry. .

Anyone interested?

nferyn:
Ok, I'm going to be good and do what you ask

funny how some of the most unchristian people are christians. . .

vexxy:
It really truly bothers me when someone says, "African American's are this or that" when really you can't speak that way toward any one group. There are exceptions to all of these biased judgements we put on others. It really needs to stop.

Treat everyone as an individual and not apart of "those people" or "that group" and you're sure to find some wonderful people who deserve more than what I've seen people say on here.

Besides, you are only limiting yourself when you shun a group. Last I checked, no one was better than the other be you Nigerian, American, European, Austrailian, rich, poor, girl, boy, married, or single.

I was going to say I couldn't agree more. . .but then I started thinking. . maybe I could. .

timmy:
i still feel he shouldn't have done that, i'm more into the set of people whose will properties to children than spouse's

I don't see how that applies here. . .these are two people who are actively engaged in getting married and presumably have no children. There is nobody to will the house to except each other. . . which could be bypassed by having the house in both of their names and reducing any fees that may occur in settling a will.

vexxy:
I don't see the problem. If they don't stick together they can always sell the house. If they're going to be married, they're going to be co-owners of everything anyway.

I agree. I can't see any disadvantage. Both people at the moment are in love and want to own a home. Both are planning to marry each other. If they get married, then they are in a great situation. If they change their minds, they can sell the house and split the value or one can buy the rest of the house from the other person. Either way, nobody loses financially. . . what exactly could be wrong with this?

i doubt there is anything like that in the psychological makeup of man or woman, its a result of society and culture. When you grow up with people behaving in a certain manner, being encouraged to act a certain way, and think a certain way, it is only expected that most people will conform. There are few people who naturally break free from societal and cultural brainwashing to the point where they are unaffected by these things.

Why does someone else being smarter than oneself damage ones ego? We've been conditioned that we must be better than our peers, or we're failures. Men in most cultures are taught they are the provider, head, and brains of the family. As a result, they find it hard to exist in a situation that is contrary to what they have been taught is the way things should be, what they have seen and experienced as status quo.

I could go on and on about the ideal world or ideal male-female, human-human relationships. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. People in unbalanced relationships tend to polarize in opposite directions. The smarter and more financially successful one always seems to demand more control. Couples tend to forget that they are technically supposed to be like one person, and therefore neither should have more control over one thing just because they happen to be smarter or have a higher paying job. If only the world operated along logical lines. . .

by definition, you are born again when you accept christ as your savior and honor him as the head of your life.

So, everyone who calls him/her self a christian, is born again.

nferyn:
I personally - and I hope I'm not offending anyone too much here - consider the dominant culture of the US as a sort of ugly immature stepchild of European culture. The lack of historical perspective (which can go very far), the sense of uniqueness and mental isolation, the insensitivity to people and cultures with another frame of reference and the inability to reflect on its ugly past and learn lessons from it is offensive to me.

Now I'm certainly not saying that all is well and dandy here in Europe, but the cultural climate over here has matured considerable, especially after the trauma of WW2 and the establishment of the EU. Unfortunately this climate is only prevalent in the reasonably well off, educated parts of the population. A majority of the population is too much occupied with day to day living/survival to even bother with these kind of things.

What I find quite peculiar is that extremist right wing talking heads are much more mainstream in the US than in Europe. We don't have our versions of Coulter, Robertson and the like.

Hope I didn't derail this thread too much.

If the existence of extremist talking heads is the basis for your view of the cultural climate in the united states . . . well, in any case, I disagree with most of what you just posted.

I don't see american culture as an immature stepchild, if anything, it serves both as a lesson and a model to the world. despite the existence of people such as coulter and robertson, entities such as the kkk, america is still among the most advanced in terms of its acceptance of other cultures. If anything, it's Europe which is still resistant to diversity - vis a vis France. .

I can certainly agree that america is a newcomer to the idea of acceptance of cultural diversity, however, america by virtue of how it was founded, economy, gold rushes, etc - has got to be the most diverse country in the world - and I think I can probably show it is the most accepting of diversity.

What many - non americans have expressed as initially disliking about america is what you term american belief in their own uniqueness. Others term it arrogance or hubris. In all honesty, maybe i've been here too long, I don't see it. What I see is pride in the diversity. . . polyglot that makes america what it is . . . americans feel a great sense of accomplishment. . .and one has to admit that they are entitled to it.

However, i think the world is moving (or has moved) to a time when the accomplishment counters of the world's nations have to be reset. Now is a time for everyone to reprove themselves (or prove themselves for the first time). I think this is where some of the . . . dislike . . .stems from. While everyone is working hard to "prove" themselves, america is resting on its laurels and saying "nah. . .we've got nothing to prove. . we're already good".

This I feel is america's problem. . . and why there is going to be major upsets in the world order in the next 20 or so years. . . IF myself and my fellow students are suddenly all killed by meteor showers. . .

So, WORLD, watch out. . . there is a new generation of americans. . . we're not as bombastic as the previous ones. . . but we will make our presence known

it seems to me that in the past, there was a lot more integrity on the part of the male in relationships with women. Since fertility was (still is) a major issue with Nigerians, the women getting pregant before marriage was probably a compromise that worked - however, it depended on the man ONLY taking the step to find out if the woman was fertile ONCE he had decided he would marry her if she was.

However, today's world is different. Not every guy has "pure" intentions and many women still hold on to past traditions or allow themselves to be fooled.

One of the strangest phrases I've heard people say - and so I assume they think it - is: "if me and person A are in love, then I don't have to worry about X". Sure, I understand you are in love, and you believe the other person is in love with you. Still, there are actions which should not be undertaken without fully considering all possible outcomes, no matter what the circumstance. Getting pregnant before getting married is one of them.

well, according to the old testament, if your brother should die and leave behind a childless widow, you should either take her as your wife or at least impregnate her (to carry on your brother's linage).

Now, according to the new testament, we are all brothers and sisters in christ. So, therefore, people should feel free to marry widows, in addition to their current wife/wives.