₦airaland Forum

Ajixegun:
So much educated illiterates are on this forum and in Nigeria at large. I wonder why people will ignore the Government and start calling on religious leaders to carryout governmental duties.

How is it government duty to go carry dem? Na government send them? People should learn to take responsibility!

rejoice4eva:
Blamers. they blamed PDP , Gaddafi etc Now it is pastors turn

Tell them o. As if na Adeboye and Oyedepo send them there in the first place!

These people spent good money getting to Libya. They would not get there for less than about 500k. Instead of using the money wisely, they played babajebu please get me to Europe. Now they stuck they calling god Adeboye and Oyedepo as if na dem send dem! And I bet you that to raise that kind money, dem no pay tithe, or the money for no complete.

Soon time now dem go enter one kind boat with no driver or fuel say they are going to Europe. Boat no go reach, dem go die make food for fish!

Before, dem de come put chain for una neck carry una go do slave. Nawadays, we dey carry chain put for we own neck de beg, "please make me slave". But we useless sotay, na fish food we de end up as!

I sorry for Nigeria. Perhaps we neva call god reach!

I can't say I understand your position here OneJ, if you could indulge me.

To begin with, most English Bibles have In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. With capital Word and God, so where did you get yours with small letters 'word' and 'god'?

OneJ:
Primesky, make I break am down for U to understand.
John 1:1 manuscript reads : "in beginning was the word & the word was toward or facing (with) the god , & god was the word".
Pls, note these points I will shortly highlight.
In your Bible , it reads " In the beginning.." Addition of 'the' beginning gives it a more precise meaning. Let's move forward.
The phrase "the word" gives a precise identity of some one (we know he is Jesus). The next sentence "..& the word was toward or facing (with) the god..".
From a careful & critical observation ,we see "the word" & some one else, "the god".
We have already known that "the word" is an identity of Jesus. Then,who is "the god"? The Almighty Father. Pls note ,we have two distinct personalities here ("the word & the god" ) side by side (not one entity but two entities). The final sentence reads "& god was the word". Here lies the bone of contention. Pls look at sentence well well. "and god was the word". We already know that "the word" is an identity of some one, Jesus. Also, "the god"
too is an identity of the Almighty Father. Let's be honest "and god..." lacks a definite article 'the' attached to it (that verse did not say " and the god was the word".. Therefore, in that final sentence, " god" is not the concrete identity of any entity. But , it points to a quality that is divine or godlike. Also, note that "was god" na past tense ooo!!!!
More so, John never said Jesus is God. Besides, Christ himself never said he is God. He always said he is the son whom his Father, God sent to save man (unless u wanna twist a Bible verse & put your own meaning). Addition of " 'a' god " gives precise meaning synonymous with scripture. Acts28:6. Ps 82:6. John 10:34. 1Cor 8:4-6. Shalom

Primesky:
My brother, please ask this guy to answer the questions I asked him and his colleagues. No matter what you say now, they will twist it. You have to first know what they are fighting to defend and protect.

Because they do not read with context, everything appears as nonsense to them. How can they truly understand the word if God, when they believe that the Holy Spirit of God is just a mere active force. Who can understand the scriptures with mere human logic?.

The original Greek letters translated word for word is the answer, but they've also tampered with it. So we need to go down to the foundation to really know who is who. Because if the root is good, then the branches will good as well, but if otherwise, the branches may look beautiful, but they are not good. Shalom.

None of you involved in this discussion would allow whatever I have to say to really matter since I am an atheist. But since we have no original sources, and have no access to foundations all we have is our "human logic". And I am afraid everyone's logic does not see things the same way. It is this beautiful idea that the almost god, Albert Einstein, made us conscious of when he came up with his General Theory of Relativity. And Paul expressed the same sentiment when he wrote to the Corinthians.

One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas ”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided?

The reply to that question was given by Jesus himself:

Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

But let me translate that, using the baav: "anyone who gives me a cup of water will be rewarded". You might need to decipher that by reading up on the Samaritan who just gave the 'water' regardless of "my name".

I will go over what's been written. Meanwhile, thank you all for giving me water. You quench my thirst.

delishpot:
LOL. What sin and what false withness? Have you not heard of religion that permits men to marry underage girls so long as their father gives his permission and consent?

That once the girl starts menstruating she can be bedded? Look at it this way, many girls start menstruating at age 8 or 10 that to such men means she is ripe to carry a chikd meaning she can be bedded. Yerima the former govnr of Zamfara state legally married a 13 year old girl and backed it with his religion and no one from the law or govt challenged him. She gave him some kids and then he divorced her and sent her back home. Is that not an act backed by religion? What lie or false withness is in that please? Where did I include you in a false withness? Please share.

No, I have not heard of such a religion. What I have heard of is some stupid idiots trying to use religion to justify their own acts of stupidity. And that's more the reason why we pass laws punishable here on earth. I have bothered to post BBC's report below. Read it. Egypt, a country more Islamic than Nigeria says "the embassy "will follow the issue" because it is illegal in Egypt to marry an underage girl".

Nigerian denies child bride claim
A Nigerian senator accused of marrying a 13-year-old Egyptian girl says he has done nothing wrong.

Ahmad Sani Yerima, 49, told the BBC that his fourth wife was not 13, but would not say how old she was.

He denied breaking the law but said he would not respect any law that contradicted his religious beliefs.

The Nigerian senate ordered an investigation after complaints from women's groups but the senator said he did not care what the groups thought.

A spokesman for the Egyptian embassy in Nigeria has said the girl is still at school in Egypt.

“ As a Muslim, as I always say, I consider God's law and that of his prophet above any other law ”
Senator Ahmed Sani Yerima
"Nobody has complained to the embassy in respect of the girl," Mohammed Saber told the AFP news agency.

He said however that the embassy "will follow the issue" because it is illegal in Egypt to marry an underage girl.

Mr Sani was the governor of Zamfara state, where he oversaw the introduction of Sharia law - for the first time in a northern state - in 1999.

'Detractors'

He said he felt this was behind the uproar over his marriage.

"I consider all those complaining about this issue as detractors, because since 1999... many people have been waging different kind of wars against me," he told the BBC's Hausa Service by telephone from Egypt.

The senator said he had followed "standard rules for marriage in Islam".

“ This very evil act should not be seen to be perpetrated by one of our distinguished legislators ”
Mma Wokocha Women's Medical Association head
"I don't care about the issue of age since I have not violated any rule as far as Islam is concerned," he said.

"History tells us that Prophet Muhammad did marry a young girl as well. Therefore I have not contravened any law. Even if she is 13, as it is being falsely peddled around.

"If I state the age, they will still use it to smear Islam," he said.

The BBC's Caroline Duffield in Lagos says newspaper reports of the marriage have created a storm among human rights groups.

Female senators - lawyers and doctors - who are protesting say that they fear for the child's health.

"What we are concerned with is that our minors, the girl child, should be allowed to mature, before going into marriage," Mma Wokocha, president of the Women's Medical Association and one of those behind a petition, told the BBC.

"This very evil act should not be seen to be perpetrated by one of our distinguished legislators... that is what we are saying.''

The senator is reported to have paid a dowry of $100,000 (£66,000) to the child's parents - and to have brought the girl into Nigeria from Egypt.

The women's groups want Mr Sani to be taken to court, to face a fine and a jail sentence.

They say he has contravened the Child Rights Act of 2003 which, although not ratified by all Nigeria's 36 states, is law in the capital, Abuja, where he lives and where his marriage is believed to have taken place.

"As a Muslim, as I always say, I consider God's law and that of his prophet above any other law," Mr Sani said.

"I will not respect any law that contradicts that and whoever wants to sanction me for that is free to do that."

Newspaper reports have also accused the senator of having previously married a 15-year-old girl in 2006.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/africa/8651043.stm

Published: 2010/04/30 09:02:29 GMT

© BBC 2018

delishpot:
You are an atheist that means we have nothing to argue about this issue esp if I look at it from religious point of view and you look at it from the there is no God and all man is free to do as he pleases point of view..
No one is forcing you to engage or not to engage with anyone. But then you should not force others to engage with those they choose not to engage with based on their faith. Dont you think? Anyway, we clearly dont understand each others point of view and you clearly dont get my explanations.

Where did you get the idea that my atheism makes me look at it from an "all man is free to do as he pleases point of view"? Am I not arguing with you here that you, a man, are not allowed to do as you please if the law of the land says you mustn't?

You want people to be allowed to impose their understanding of their religion on society. And you wish to impose your religious ideas of homosexuality on everyone. But as soon as some idiot tries to use his religion to justify pedophilia, all of a sudden what was good for your goose is no more good for his gander. You wish to oppose it!

Please speak for yourself if you do not understand the discussion! I fully understand your point of view. I just don't share your point of view. And neither does UK law which is what is being discussed here. And I am not forcing anyone to do anything. The law is. In UK, the law is made by the people. It is not dropped down from heaven some 3000 years or so ago. Perhaps that's because they actually understand where the book came from and don't think like Nigerians who think God wrote it, I'd have you consider!

If you don't want to worship with homosexuals, you don't have to come to CoE. You can worship your god anyhow you want in your bedroom where you get to make the rules and decide who enters. That's your business. Or you can bloody well leave and go live in a country where gods make the laws! But in UK, you live within the law or you pay the price. You can't use your religion, or your faith, or your god or your church or your mosque or your holy book to justify marrying a 13 year old. And neither can you use them to justify discrimination against homosexuals. I just hope Nigeria could someday learn to impose its laws too instead of bowing to religious idiocy, or some peoples' understanding or idea of their gods or their faith!

May the peace of the Lord be upon you.

delishpot:
Hahaha it will surprise you to know that pedophilai is legal in some religions and judging how sodomy has gained grounds we shall soon accept pedophilia. But dont worry you are too love and light to see that.

LoL joke is on you then. No one is talking about it being a crime here. The subject of contention is if it is a sin or not. Maybe you have not been following the post. Well now you know. Someone here says it is not a sin and Jesus even endorsed it and was in support of gay couples. He said he can show proof from the bible where Jesus endorsed and assisted with the life style. That people are getting things mixed up. LOL to force someone to accept what his faith says not to or else he be thrown in jail? Indeed the persecution of the church has started and true to the word of God even the ellect have been decieved and the false prophets have arosen. Yes Revelation is at hand. The ones who keep Gods laws are being persecuted, mocked, jailed and punished for their faith

2 Timoty 3 vs 10 - end

10 Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance,

11 persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium and at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me!

12 Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

13 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

14 You, however, acontinue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.


* If your friends respect your decision to keep their weed from your home and from your children then they will still be your friends even though you have let them know that weed smoking is not welcome by you and you find the lifestyle not befitting. It is their choice to respect your decision and mantain the friendship if they do not find your rejection of their life choice as an attack on them or leave if they dont like it. If they on the other hand insist that weed has been legalised and as such they have a right to smoke it anywhere and around anyone and if you oppose you are sent to jail or sued dont you see a problem with that? how tight will this noose go? Where do we draw the line?


Now regarding your pork analogy if someone eats pork and comes to your mosque, keeping it a private affair saying his prayers and leaving the place; that is a different thing. If he eats pork and openly shows that he eats pork, insists he is a muslem and he has decided that the "no eating pork rule is obsolete" God is love, do what thou wilt so long as you are hurting no one is the new law etc and as such he should not be made to hide his feeding habits and insists that he must be welcome and not criticised. Dont you think the mosque has a right to say ok you are not following our faith to the letter hence you are not welcome as one of us? If they decide to ask such a man to leave because they believe his openly accepting stance towards unclean meat might mean they endorse his lifestyle or that they see something bad and turned a blind eye to it. Dont they have a right to wash their hands off him? Such a man is free to go join other mosques where he is welcome to bbq his pork inside their building if they so agree. You see this is not about closeted sodomy.

This battle is about people in the act insisting it is right and should not be judged. Did you know that some schools have started teaching kids from kinderghaten that Gay is right and they are free to cross dress if they so desire? Did you know that some schools have started doing cross dressing day for their pree schoolers where boys are made to dress as girls and vice versa? Did you know that in some countries if your son decides to wear a pink dress and a pink bow like his sister has on and you say no Tom, you are a boy and boys dont wear dresses he might disciss it with his teacher who will say you are mentally disrupting his natural instinct and as such you are dicriminating against his orientation? Unless you do not find the devil working at the background the aim of sodomy is not what you think it is but lets leave it at that.

Do you know that it is a sin to bear false witness? Why don't you exclude me from your Church for lying then? Or is it not written that in as much as I have broken one law I have broken them all? Please provide evidence for "pedophilai is legal in some religions" !

If you had been following the thread, you will note that the person who claimed Jesus endorsed homosexuality could not provide any evidence to support the claim despite him continously being asked to. Those of us who asked swept him aside, go read what responses he got.

Whether it is a sin or not only applies if I myself were choosing whether to commit the 'sin' or not. The punishment for sin is clearly laid out. If other persons choose to sin and go to hell, please explain to me when I, buda, changed my name to Jesus and decided to shed my blood to save them? Is my duty at best not just to cast my seeds and hope they fall on good soil? And if they don't fall on good soil, am I not told to say "shalom" and shake off their dust as I depart from them?

If my friends are smoking dope, they are not doing so with my lungs or my money so I don't quite see how they are asking me to "endorse, assist" or "accept" their lifestyle. Hopefully, I am friends with them for reasons way more important than the dope they smoke. The mere fact that I am their friends is sufficient for them to respect and have regard for me and not do their smoking in my face. And they are my friends because I respect them and have regard for them despite their weed smoking or sodomising.

They can only be asking me to assist their lifestyle if they ask me to pull down my trousers, bend over and let me fuq you, or ask me for money to buy their weed. And a simple "No thank you" should suffice if they are my friends. Forcing me is against the law! But more importantly, they can't be my friends if they resort to forcing me to do something against my will. And if I don't understand that, then something must definitely be wrong with me, and perhaps I should learn to be more cautious in the choice of friends I keep.

Just imagine if those dope smokers were my boss, would I tell them to resign because I don't like their smoking? Or if they tell me to go do something, should I say, "fuq off dope smoker. Go do it yourself"? If I don't like their lifestyle, I can bloody go work elsewhere, is the only recourse I have, unless their smoking is illegal in which case I call the cops on their ass. Otherwise, it's their lungs and their money and I should mind my own goddamn business! But if I can't, please know that I do have the choice of whom I am friends with and can very easily make them ex-friends if I wish to. The choice is not their's whether they are my friends. That choice is mine!

If my son reports me to his teacher for my not allowing him to wear a girls clothes, then I cannot really be a good parent now, can I? As far as my son should be concerned, I am god, and if my son does not understand "Honour your father and your mother", and "I am a jealous god", then perhaps its time for me to intensify my child's education in the path I want it to follow or just admit I am a crappy parent.

But just think, is the teacher going to come and tell me that I should spend money that I work for on things I do not support? Please be real and stop with the scaremongering! No one can come in my house and insist my son were a pink dress if I don't want him to. No school can ask a child to cross dress either. If you insist on these claims, provide evidence in support please. If my son reports me to his teacher, then my son has decided it wants different parents so the bastard should get the fuq out of my house and go live with it's teacher, and "sayanora ex-son!"

Do note, and I keep saying this but you ignore it. No one is persecuting anyone for their faith. If my faith or my god says smoking dope or performing sodomy is a sin, then no one can force me to commit that sin if I am concerned about my god. But I must understand that it's my god and my faith, and that I too cannot force other people to worship my god or adopt my faith. My god never said I must punish them. It in fact said I should love them despite their sin, and even that I should forgive them 70 times 70 times knowing full well that I would soon lose count and hopefully recognise the errors of my ways in bothering more about the twig in other peoples' eyes but ignoring the forest that is blinding me!

If I think other people commit a sin against my god, I can only tell them. Hopefully, my god keeps better records than I can, and can decide to thunder their ass when their 70 times 70 is up. But knowing my god, whom a day is like a thousand years to, I wouldn't be surprised if it's 70 times 70 is more like 70 million times 70 million. My god can be crazy like that sometimes!

The choice is mine whether I chose to continue engaging with people I judge to be committing sins against my god or not and not their's as you seem to assume. But I myself should be careful of the sin of hubris that makes me think its okay to say "thank you lord that I am not like that sodomiser over there." I might find my own teeth are the ones that are doing the gnashing!

O, and one last thing. I am an atheist, I don't do devils. If gods builds a house, the devils can't move in!

OneJ:
Pls read & digest Prov8:22-30.Hebr 1:1-3. Gen 1:1,26. Coloss1:15,16 . 1Cor 15:24-28
Then ,John 1:1,2. will make more sense to U. ( As for your request ,if i can. but pls give me time..). Shalom

Read them all. And can understand why people claim Jesus is God from those text, though I have to admit that if one were indoctrinated otherwise, those text and numerous others can be used to claim God is not Jesus.

The Proverbs one comes from a gnostic idea whereby Wisdom is deified. How, what could be considered, Pagan Thought crept into the Bible amuses me, but it is a better book for its inclusion since Wisdom is as worthy as being deified as lightening, and iron by primitive people.

Take the one below for instance

1 Corinthians 15:24-28 New International Version (NIV)
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[a] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

The bolded is talking about two separate entities.

I patiently wait. Thanks.

OneJ:
Here is the Greek transliteration (word for word translation) of John 1:1 to English, as it is in the Greek manuscript.
Greek:
"En archei en ho logos ,kai ho logos en pros ton theon ,kai theos en ho logos"

English : "in beginning was the word, and the word was with the god, and god was the word"

Source: John 1:1 wikipedia.. (From the sub heading "source texts & translations.).

Do me a favour please. Post me Greek for Genesis 1:1. We do know the god there is the big G God. Lets compare with how its written in Greek.

JeromeBlack:
You want me to shine atheist light? How can my light shine when the other atheist has covered it with a bad shade?

"Atheist light" ? Funny. But you give me the opportunity to address a misconception that many people tend to make.

I put it to you that you are not an atheist! By that I mean that defining you in your entirety as an atheist is taking a very tiny aspect of who you are and claiming that is the whole you. I put it to you that if I took as much as is used to define you as an atheist, to define a chair, I'd be calling it a tooth pick. And if I took as much from an elephant I might call it a branch.

I put it to you that way before being an atheist you are a human being! Just as the other person is a human being too albeit with a rather bad shaded light. But there's one thing about atheism you fail to get. We are not some collective with a creed defining us all as one. Take me, for instance. I do not believe that there are no gods like some wishy washy atheists do. I know there are no gods, thank god.

"One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch girl" said Michael Jackson, even if some people think it does. So don't let this bad light atheist shade your bright human light.

Let it shine! Let it shine! Let it shine! I am certain you got one!

delishpot:
Well, if the people of the world and some bishops agree that Aduktery and fornication are no more considered sins. If they eventually say pedophilia is now a natural sexual orientation it doesnt mean everyone must agree. If some chirches open their doors to pedophiles with a welcome God got your back sign, it doesnt mean we should all agree. These people stand firm in their faith. All those who welcome gays and acvept their life style as natural have thrown away faith to favour men. Others have a right to Say NO. Because 10 of your friends agree to do weed and only you said NO doesnt mean you must go with the flow and smoke weed with them. The few that say NO sodomy is not right have a right to their own worship. It is a tricky situation but ones faith is ones faith and I believe there is freedom in that so far as it isnt hurting or harming anyone. Muslims dont eat pork now of down tbe line some muslims accept followers who eat pork openly and even in their mosques and a law was placed to welcome all pork eaters into mosques I will still support the ones who stand their grounds to say NO we shall not betray our faith to please men and close theor doors to pork eaters. Sodomy is a sin if the whole bishops and pastors decide they shall not see it as such and conclude that God must have meant something else I still will consider it a sin. Sodomy is a sin.

You have been doing very well getting me to use my brain. Do not stop now please.

First, homosexuality is not pedophilia. There is a little difference regarding age and consent.

Second, I do not think anyone is claiming homosexuality might not be a sin. If it is, God can bloody well throw them in it's hell prison in due time. What is being said is that it is not a crime. No one shall be jailed for it. And treating them different to anyone else is a crime which one can be jailed for.

Third, 10 of my friends smoking weed does not make them any less my 10 friends! Nor do I have to "go with the flow and smoke weed with them" to be their friends! And their smoking weed has nothing to do with my faith, after all, they are my friends. Don't you think my friends would have respect for me and not blow their smoke in my face?

A law saying pork must be eaten in a Mosque is a stupid law and I would fight against it just as much as I would fight against a law saying sex must be performed in a church! But excluding people who eat pork from coming to a mosque is equally as stupid, though in this instance, I would not fight, I would just laugh. Do you plan to come to my home to come check if I ate pork before I come to the mosque? Or do you think I will come to the mosque with a rash of bacon plastered to my forehead? Same with being gay. I could be gay, do my sodomy Sunday morning, then come to Church without the sign on my head saying "hey, dude! I am gay. I did sodomy this morning and now I am sitting beside you in church." Please tell me how you would know without my sign?

Sodomy may well be a sin. But you must remember that you are not some god who gets to throw people in jail for it! There is no jail for sin. They can go to hell in due time, but that's for God to decide, and not you!

If a a same gender person dare pull down your trousers and try to poke you anywhere without your consent, please note that the crime is rape! Call the police, or even, beat the crap out the rapist bastard with my consent! But don't go not thinking straight by making out some other persons smelly prick has anything to do with you. You will not go to hell for the sin of others!

OneJ:
Primesky, U said "the reason for having 'a god' rather than just God , is nothing but religious bias. "
Also, U claimed that " 'a' destroys the meaning & intent" of the Bible verse.
My questions for U :
(Q1) Remove 'a' from Acts 28:6, is apostle Paul GOD?
Also, remove 'a' from Acts 12:22, is King Herod GOD ?
(2) In the Greek manuscript ( Source: john 1:1 wikipedia) of John 1:1 ,is it "God" that U saw there or "god"?
(Q3) In the English language, does "god" or "God" mean the same thing?
Abegi, use your church mind answer all of them ooo!
Shalom.

And so, in response to the above, Q1 would properly be translated to 'god', and not 'God'.

Q2 is generally translated as 'God', though wiki suggests that it could have meant "divine". It seems to depend on whether one is a trinitarian or not as to which one decides to use. Since most Bibles take a trinitarian position, one should expect 'God' to be meant, and not 'god'. There is no original manuscript to determine which was used, but one can determine that God was meant, whether rightly or wrongly. The Jews would argue that whatever was meant, it was not and cannot be God, the Jealous Almighty.

Q3 Christianity generally differentiates between 'god' and 'God'. The latter being the Almighty Jealous God, and the former being any odd god like Ogun, Sango, Odin, Zeus etc.

Peacefullove:

Theos was translated ' a god' at Act 28 vs 6, thats corrupt right?

'Theos', with a capital letter 'T' was translated to "a god" with small letter 'g'?

Below is the actual text.

The people were waiting for him to swell up or suddenly drop dead. But after they had waited a long time and saw nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

The only way that capital Theos would apply would be if they thought he was the God, which, since they were talking about Paul could not have been the case. A proper translation in the context above would be "a god". So, not a corruption as first suggested.

delishpot:
The point that person was making is not that the doors should be shut at gay people. The bone of contention in that church is that gay people want the church to see their lifestyle as normal and okay and should not be challenged. Now, the fact is those churches do not find their lifestyle okay and believe that they are living in sin and if they do not want to accept it, they can not fellowship with them. Unless you are like others who hold the belief that gayness is natural and nothing to be challenged then you will not support the church for what it did. I agree that a church should be open for any one to step in and find christ but at the same time the brethren are also careful not to be caught endorsing sodomy by accepting it as normal and okay life style which the gays are pushing for.

I believe I perfectly understand the point the "person is making". I hope you understand that I disagree with the person's point.

Historically, the Church, both Catholic and Protestant, have held the position the person holds. They have imposed their wishes on societies too, ensuring laws existed that make homosexuality not only a sin, but a punishable crime in society. However, the Church itself has committed even worse crimes, including homosexuality and sodomy even amongst the clergy, and child abuse and the likes. So who are they to be the adjutants of God with the rights to punish sinners? If homosexuality is a sin against God, then surely God would punish them in due course.

In Nigeria, the law of the land makes homosexuality a crime so the churches in Nigeria can very safely exclude homosexuals. But in UK, homosexuality is no more a crime, and in fact, discriminating against homosexuals is now the crime. The 30 or so Bishops in the House of Lords had their say when the law was being passed for society in general, and even got exemption giving them time before the Church itself had to comply. But now the exemption given them has run out, and everyone must comply with the law. And now anyone in UK, including the churches, would be acting illegally if they hold the position the person holds.

I would suggest you read up on the battles that were fought to get this new position. The majority Church goers eventually voted at Synod to abolish the discrimination of homosexuals after much debate, opposition and battles. The Church did lose people over it. Those who did not wish to fellowship with homosexuals stopped going to Church en masse. But the Church now has gay and lesbian vicars and bishops ministering to congregations. And those who hold the person's position better hold their tongues or they would be asked to leave! The CoE even goes as far as performing same gender marriages these days! And even Muslims cannot discriminate against gay people who wish to attend their mosques!

Please note that people do not perform sex acts in Church. Whether it be sodomy, or toto licking, people do tend to do them in private, so I do not understand why anyone has to be uptight about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms. And I do not see why, even if one were against what gays might do, in private, that it bothers anyone. And no gay person needs anyone to accept what they do as "normal and okay life style". Sex in public is a crime which comes under indecency laws. So if you see gay people sodomising in church, or anyone, for that matter engaging in sex inside a church or even in the street, just call the cops and they would arrest them.

Apart from that, it's their ass and poker, and they decide what they do with it "as long as it doesn't scare the horses", is how we put it down here to denote, " in private". And if they stick their pokers in asses in private, perhaps that person should stop behaving as if it is that person's poker, that ends up stinking of poo!

I hope I have shown that I fully understand that person's position and have explained mine adequately. I end with the following from cnn. Its not from UK nor is it related to CoE, but it shows how sentiment is swinging.

Members of the Church of Freedom in Christ Ministries stood at the main entrance of the parade holding signs that offered apologies for how the LGBT community has been treated by Christians.
A group of Christians attended a pride parade to apologize for how they've treated the LGBT community

delishpot:
Are you a christian? Just asking

No delishpot, I am not a Christian. Today, I am a CoE atheist, being that I was in Church yesterday.

Ubenedictus:
then we are in agreement. I do mean that as a Christian I learn morals through that which God has revealed.


as a side note there is a basic sense in which morality is innate, man is a thinking being and will to an extent know behaviours that are communally unacceptable, stuff like stealing will be considered immoral in every society.. hence the idea of natural law

If you wish to get me in a rage, you just mention "innate" or "natural law" in my presence, and see my red eye!

I used to have this friend of mine, now dead, who used to pull that one me and claim Mozart had natural piano playing talent. I'm always like, so why did his father have to sit him at the damn thing and make him practise for so long? And who or what dished out these talents?!

People who are not taught to steal, either by laws in their society or whatnot, would steal because it would be the norm. Thankfully, one person would eventually like to keep what they have and realise that perhaps it would be advantageous to abolish theft and so laws would be passed against it. But those humans who benefit from theft would like it to continue, so someone would invent prison or hell to make them desire not to steal. And someone will devise a book and school to promote the antistealing ideology, which is the reason you, today, get to say, "I learn morals through that which God has revealed". That, is the ingenuity of humans, and why it is written "Ye are gods". And don't go quibbling about small letter 'g' gods or big letter ones. God is god!

Before gods, religion, school, were devised to teach humans not to steal, theft was so rampant that we stole complete human beings, body, life and soul! If there's anything natural about us learning and devising institutions to teach not to, it's the realisation that it benefits no one in the end as it leads to extinction just about as quick as murdering one another.

My position is that abilities that are innate - breathing, pooing, blinking, etc - do not need to be taught, and anything that has to be learnt and taught - not stealing, not picking your nose at the dinner table, homosexuality], [i]Mozartishnness, your morals taught to you by your virtue of being a Christian, and mine learned from societal mores and my ability to reason, etc - are not innate since they are taught and learned behaviours.

phemmyfour:
I guess its religion that makes our leaders not fix the roads lights etc.

Is Saudi not doing fine economically? Religion was there when $1=N1. The other day, they were blaming big brother. BBN has come and gone and our problems are still there. Until we put pressure on our leaders to perform, nothing will change

Saudi Arabia benefits from a vast amount of resource that the world currently requires. They have so much wealth that despite their princes shooting bullets made of gold, they still have enough money to pacify their populace, albeit with a huge dose of religion too. If I were religious, I would claim Saudi Arabia is currently being blessed way more than any other nation in the entire history of humans. But things are changing fast.

Saudi Arabia recently took out its first national loan because it's resource is dwindling. It plans to sell its oil company because it's no more providing enough revenue. They even removed the ban on women working and driving just so they can generate more income by increasing their tax base! And they are implementing all these changes because they realise that religion is not holding on to people as strongly as it used to.

As you truly stated, Saudi Arabians are putting pressure on their leaders to perform and that's why they are changing. They know that one more generation is all it would take for Saudi Arabia to scatter scatter if they don't change their religious ways!

dermmy:
I'm one of those people who cram pls what's the meaning of tabulae rasa?

Some foreign language for "rice is on the table, let's eat".

dalaman:
Religious faith is nothing but the inner hope and wish of men.

Play along with me dalaman. Imagine it is somehow decided that everytime God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit is mentioned, the God of Wisdom is meant. So for instance, when people say, "For God so loved the world", it reads "For the world was so loved, that Wisdom was sent. That whosoever acquires it shall not perish..." . After all, if it is considered in the days it was written, living till todays' 70 would seem everlasting.

How else would one teach this if not with "In the beginning was Wisdom through which all things came about" and thereby a religion to teach and eventually, corrupt the idea as it has now been done? We humans cannot after all avoid deifying that which we are ignorant about.

HappyPagan:
Welcome back budaatum

But I never went anywhere na.

edicied:
Show him what?

What good behaviour looks like.

Austin4Jesus:
This is pure lies and brainwashing by the colonial power; believe this lie at your own peril.

Slavery was 'abolished' as a result of industrial revolution in Europ and America which made slaves useless in the plantation field. Without that, the whites will never abolish slavery.

Hmm, not quite! In actual fact, some people, mostly religious people at that (though, perhaps that's because most people were religious), realised how inhumane and ungodly slavery actually was and lobbied for its abolition. Temper that though with the thought that the Churches themselves were against abolition. The Church of England had to be paid off to free every slave they owned.

Reference:
I keep on repeating this. Tithing is for the financing and advancement of the kingdom, period. Whether the giver or receiver chooses to imply another reason is left to the person.

Which kingdom? Are they building condos in heaven these days? Or does 'kingdom' mean a bigger church?

Just go London, see how they are selling those buildings these days. They make good pubs and mosques, I dare say, while Londoners continue to use more of their individual wealth to build a proper Godly Kingdom, even as far as Africa!

Greatzeus:
I can't believe that Bonny king can say something like this haba,alot of influential people like the famous Efunroye Tinubu and Kings were slave traders but for an African to oppose abolition of slave trade is just too horrible,I don't want to believe it.

I've always said that despite the number of black people taken away from West Africa as slaves, the white man never left the coast. Or don't you ever wonder how slaves got to them there then? No be we de sell our own black brodas?

Go read up on some history. It is a somewhat sad tale. It might even make you understand that the so called political and religious leaders are no different to slave traders. Once you get over the desire to chose what to believe, that is.

Abbeybailey:
As long as Nigeria have more places of worship than factories, she will continue to be poor. Period.

It is just such a pity that this is not obvious to most people. They invest in their so called, afterlife, and complain that they can't find jobs here on earth!

They should just die quick quick jor, and go enjoy their heaven and leave here to those who care about living!

thesicilian:
The taxes you have been paying to the government since time immemorial, have you been able to hold them to account for that?

What taxes? Do Nigerians actually pay the right amount of tax? Is it not so small that most don't care to not pay it?

Come over to a country where the government steals over 50% of your income in tax and explain to me why you would be so mumu to let them dip their dirty fingers into you pocket and you don't ask, "what for?" If the Nigerian government takes more of your hard earned money, I am certain you'd quickly wise up too!

Lirqur:
So what are you on now? That it's a placebo effect? If it's placebo and it works, is it still placebo?

So it means God does exist.

Allahu Arkbar.

No it doesn't mean anything of the sort. Read up on Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, and Neurolinguistic Programming. You'd find the same concept bar gods.

hopefulLandlord:
actually I've seen his advise would better serve atheists generally which is why I'm even encouraging the usually active Christians to follow his advise. Just watch and you'd see what I'm talking about. this has happened before and the person behind it resumed arguing with atheists after a while when he realised its achieving the exact opposite of what he intended.

Oh, even the adviser failed to take his own advice in the thread where he advised it! I don't think he's capable of taking it.

Martinez19:
lol. I am an atheist. I am very aware of the hypocrisy of christians.

Well, perhaps just be aware of the hypocrisy of human beings in future!

hopefulLandlord:
Note that what you think you'd do when imagining such scenario and what you'd do if such scenario comes up might actually differ from each other

What you think you'd do is different from what you'd actually do? What lies! What I'd actually do is exactly what I'd do once I get over the fear of being caught! Not many would consider not keeping the money. And even if I considered giving it back, it would be after negotiating a finders fee of 50% And that would be only because for some reason, my finders fee is not a hundred percent!

Martinez19:
Given the following:
1) you suddenly saw #547,000,000 in your bank account.
2) you can take the money secretly, no one will found, the money would be yours forever and there won't be any consequences.

Would you take the #547m or will you give it back to the rightful owner?

Silly, really. Ordinary, I'm walking down the street and find a 1000 Naira note. How many of us of any ideology would shout "na who get dis 1000 Naira!?"

If the money is in my account, I will leave it there unless in the imperfect world of your analogy 2) really applies. Though, how I would know it does confounds me. Do I get a note perhaps saying "no one will know if you secretly take the money" ? And what constitutes "secretly" ? And how the heck do I know the "rightful owner"? And why isn't the "rightful owner" asking for their money back?

After a while, like a few weeks, though I bet no more than 3 days, I'll take 10million. And if nothing happens, then 100 and so on until I have taken it all.

If some sort of guilt sets in, I might become a Christian just so I can ask for forgiveness, but trust that I would have made sure to have utilised a large portion of the money so that repentance does not mean paying it all back. I might move to a country that has no extradition rights with the country my account is in before that though. I am sure that when I am basking in the sun on an Hawai beach (if it has no extradition rights, mind, and I will check first!), remorse is the last thing I'd feel. If I do, a Pina Colada would quickly cure me of it!

RuthlessLeader:
Abeg no vex. The guy was saying obviously false trash

Nothing new there then.