₦airaland Forum

Umm, the works of Gallileo, Copernicus, and others cannot really be considered secular. In fact, Gallileo himself was deeply religious. A mistaken belief that the world is flat does not constitute a divide between secular and religious minds.

i think i would complain if i really wanted a son and get three kids.

I'm assuming you mean the money used fighting witchcraft is being prevented from doing good in society, not witchcraft itself.

In any case, since witchcraft is such a bad thing, isn't fighting it doing society good?

you can cheat and not be separated. . .

Isn't the point of this topic to address people who either contradict themselves or who can give insight into why this occurs? I shouldn't have to go seek out these people individually, that is the point of this topic, to attract them and get their response.

Also, I have not exactly said anyone is wrong, just that it seems people are partially correct. After all, most people here are basing their definitions of right and wrong on biblical teachings. So, they will proclaim one thing, why not all. That is the main question I'm trying to get answered.

There were some initial posts that started to discuss this, but now it has shifted to an argument of how language evolved. . which is fine, but suitable for its own topic.

So, please, can somebody explain to me what exactly a blood convenant is and its significance over other types of promises or commitments?

really. . witchcraft is practiced a lot in India - give me an example. .

I mean, if it is more than in Nigeria - wouldn't it show up in more Indian movies? I'd hear more about it from my Indian friends than other Nigerians? . . .

i like my answer better

The bible is proof that writing existed before Anno Domini (the year of our Lord - after all, parts of it were written before jesus was born and heiroglyphics exist showing Israelites leaving Egypt). Now:

I feel I should respond now to redirect the focus of this topic.

Here is a condensed (super) version of my original post:

There are people who will say things like "the bible is against premarital sex" or "homosexuality is wrong" or "masturbation is wrong" or other things and will generally attack other people on this board for making posts which may suggest that participating in those actions is ok. For those people, it seems that you are picking and choosing which parts of the bible you agree with. For example, I don't think those people would agree that slavery is right or that we should marry and impregnate our dead brother's widow if she has not had any kids with him. So, to these people and everyone else, I ask, are christians divided on how to intepret the bible or is the bible divisive by its very nature.

I don't think there is that much ambiguity in the topic. I lay out what has motivated me to create this one, then I pose the question. I think I stuck pretty well to my original question - Why are some things acceptable - though clearly wrong in the bible and others not. I also posed follow up questions - why do people feel they can pick and choose what applies to them. I tried to separate things and not post the actual topic question until after I finished summarizing what brought me to this point in the first place.

Hmm. . I think that title should grab attention. Now, to the topic at hand.

First, I must apologize for my current lack of preparation. I will lookup the data to backup what I'm stating here and need to get more info so that there can be greater discussion and contribution from the community to this topic.

So, here is the gist of my topic:

There are many threads in this forum where people are asking advice about one thing or another. Issues such as homosexuality, permarital sex, and others (which some feel are grevious sexual sins) tend to recieve mass replies of condemnation on the basis of scripture (from the Bible). Now, I'm not saying that Christians should not respond or give their views, but there is a lot of attack on those seen as commiting sexual sins - as if those sins are any more serious than lying or stealing a penny from a jar. In my view, more space should be given to showing (if possible) the repercussions of some actions and less to blasting someone for sinning or considering doing so.

So, the more I read some of these posts, the more my ire is raised against those who would use their religious beliefs as a hammer to beat some person into submission. For those who believe the Word of God embodied in the bible is as true today as when it was written, that there is only one strict interpretation of the Word, I pose this question:

The bible indicates (among other things which I will look up and post later) that slaves should not run away from their masters, women should be seen and not heard, and man should not labour (ie work for pay or personal advancement) on the Sabbath. For the most part, Christians do not agree with these laws (or at least they don't live like they do). So, I ask, why?

Why is it that some things in the bible should be taken literally and others, we can ignore? If I will condemn someone for sexual sin, should I also condemn my ancestors for striving to escape slavery? Why is it that it seems people pick and choose which parts of the bible are relevant to today's life. (Slavery and homosexuality are major examples for those in the USA).

i'm afraid I'm a little confused with your post. What is ECKS?

Hmm, well in case I have not made my stance perfectly clear:

I do not believe that people have supernatural powers.

He does not use proper grammar when speaking to himself.

Wife - you have wasted our money on something which is ultimately worthless. We have worked for five years to save to buy a house and have a financial backing to start our family and you have wasted all our effort. I now can no longer trust you with money because you have shown yourself to be irresponsible. I am hurt by what you did and am very disappointed with your actions. If you care for me and our dreams, please promise not to do this again.

I don't think that is verbal abuse. If my wife loves me, that may be enough to convict her. If she cares nothing for me, I will soon discover it. No need for verbal or physical abuse to get your point across.

yep, I could marry a human clone.

Unfortunately, most people here are misusing the word. A clone by definition is an exact replica. However, ALL animal life that has ever been cloned - has never been an exact replica of the original - at least not physically. So, while a person may be a clone, they will not necessarily be identical to the original. In fact, they can never be identical unless we are able to create full grown humans and give them the exact memories of the original person. Since "clones" start off as babies and grow up just like everyone else, they will form their own personalities, etc. In fact, there is little difference between a clone, a testtube baby, and YOU.

So, technically, everyone here was formed the same way any clone would be. The only difference is that instead of using a sperm and an egg, scientists will use other genetic material. It seems idiotic to me for anyone to argue that "clones" will be in any way different from other human beings.

by the power vested in me, I declare this to be a sin.

so what? if one person has hiv/aids and they get married, then both would have it.

In any case, you are ignoring the question. what is so special about a blood covenant? Do people take it more seriously than other covenants or promises they make in their lives? If not, then this thread is silly. He can make whatever covenant he wants with the girl. If he breaks it, then it is broken? So what?