₦airaland Forum

Genesis creation account is Jewish mythology of how their God created things. So their God spoke Hebrew.

Prof Ishaq Akintola is a mad man!

Stop dreaming foolishly Amokachi.

K

Men should learn to stop crying unnecessarily.

Scientifically it has been proven that women look out for attactiveness and resources in men, while men look out for attactiveness and youth in women.

It is natural and a biological function of women to look out for guys that have money. No amount of complain and crying from men will ever change that.

anonymuz:
you are very correct.no team work at all

Worst super Eagles team ever. They'll just go and share points to their opponents in the world cup. They won't win a single match.

Benny Hinn is presently receiving medical help in a hospital with great doctors but he is selling anointing oil to fools.

Butterflyleo:
This automated mechanized oaf is at it again. Do you believe Elijah ever existed? Did anybody named Elijah ever call down fire from heaven? Are you slowly loosing your atheistic mind or have you actually completely lost it?

All of a sudden you now want to act like you believe the stories in the bible and are now using them in your lamentations of a mumuhumanist version 3.0

If indeed you suddenly now are atheistically deluded enough to believe the writings in the bible and wish to use them to wail at bennyann then your madness has just begun and will only get worse.

This your inner turmoil and pain will keep getting worse day by day until you yield to God, only then shall you be free indeed. But if you keep resisting then watch your lamentations and wailings of a mumuhumanist hit version 6.0 and perhaps by then you would have been tied up and bundled to a psychiatric home.

Why do you act a fool always with this puerile logic you always display?

Someone used Elijah a character in a story to make an example and superhumanist also responded according to what the Elijah character was written to have done in the story and you are here crying baa baa meh meh, and asking him if he believes EliJah existed. Must he believe that a character in a story exist to say a thing or two about the character based on how the character was portrayed in the story? Elijah was portrayed as a killer in the story and he mentioned it when a Christian brought Elijah up, how you turned it to your nonsense is what I do not understand.

Remember it is the same you that was foolishly telling an atheist that Jesus loves him endlessly when you know that he doesn't believe in Jesus and doesn't believe that Jesus exist. You know that very well but you kept telling him that Jesus loves him, going by your logic you were telling him that nothingness loves him endlessly knowing that he's an atheist that doesn't believe in the existence of Jesus but you kept telling him that nothingness loves him endlessly.

So who is now the fool BTW the two of you? He considers Jesus as nothing, you know that very well but you kept telling him that nothingness loves him endlessly. You are truly mad. Go and take your remaining drugs. You know you are a self confessed mad man.

soldadoe:
U dnt judge pples character with their religion.....how does it sound to u when u hear someone type this rubbish u just posted about ur religion! Bro, you re more exposed than this for taking this MURIC post serious im a muslim and im not violent! You may say many re buh thats thier character! Dbt judge a book by its cover!
I dnt give a bleep about MURIC man! Im just someone who wants to live life like a good muslim the quran a d hadith wants me to be...

My post doesn't concern you, it only concerns those that belonh to MURIC and those that also agree with MURIC.

Butterflyleo:
Discussion closed. I gave you numerous chances to substantiate your claim but you clearly couldn't.

Next time do not make claims you cannot back up even from the very place you said is being conflicted.

Thanks

You gave me chances to substantiate which claim? I've already proven my case. Christian display subjective morality and I've given clear examples that you could not deny.

I asked you if they were conflicting or not buto yu could not answer and you are here yapping bull. You claim Christian morality is objective but can not give a simple and clear example. I've given numerous examples to show that it's subjective, something you couldn't deny.

You are busy yapping about source and other nonsense that has nothing to do with my points.

Where is your example of objective Christian morality as displayed by Christians? Where is it?

KingEbukasBlog:
Asking for a friend ...

This man, how have you been?

What is this? Madam this is not an achievement. She reached menopause as a virgin but is still talking about keeping herself for her husband abi?

Butterflyleo:
You have shown me absolutely nothing but your PERSONAL OPINIONS.

For your proof to be taken seriously then you must show from the source how there are actually conflicts.

YOU ARE NOT THE CONVENER OF CHRISTIANITY. YOU ARE NOT THE SOURCE OF THEIR MORALITY. SO CANNOT SAY THEY HAVE CONFLICTS BECAUSE YOU ARE ALSO CONFLICTED.

Only their source can show this.

I have told you repeatedly that you cannot claim there are conflicts without proof from the source of the morals of Christianity which is either Jesus or the bible. So where is your proof?

Are you the source of the morals for Christianity for you to say there are conflicts?

You are just flogging yourself for failing and losing this argument woefully.

Can I see them now? Show them or be quiet. If you don't and can't then I would have to end this discussion.

You want to shift the direction to source. But I've given you many examples without any of your so called source.

I asked you questions instead of answering you are running empty commentary.

Are the moral claims on female dressing BTW christ embassy and deeper life are not in conflict? I've shown you clear Co flick and you are busy shouting and talking about some elusive source.

Butterflyleo:
You are the one who said there are conflicts so why would you say there are conflicts if you cannot show me FROM THE BIBLE where those conflicts are. Why are you still asking me for that? Am I the one who said there are conflicts?

I have corrected this erroneous talk of yours so many times here its now apparent you are deliberately turning a blind eye to your mischief.

I've already shown you that there are conflicts. Do you day that there are conflicts?

Are the deeper life and Christ embassy views on female dressing for example in agreement with each other? Is the Young earth creationist view in agreement with the old earth creationist view? What about the anti tithe and pro tithe views? Are they all in agreement with each other?

What are you really on about?

Butterflyleo:
My talk with you is not about an argument between subjective morality and objective morality. I made this clear to you earlier that no matter how hard you try to bait me into it it will not work. I determine what I will discuss and what not to and not you.

You have been wanted to change the discussion and dictate its direction for a while now but I have been unperturbed by your suggestive language

You just said again THAT THEY (CHRISTIANS) INTERPRET THE BIBLE SUBJECTIVELY.

The source is the bible. If the source of their interpretations is already there for them then their interpretations are not subjective because what they are basing those interpretations on are right there in the bible.

Premise is everything.

Argument number 3 struck out.

So young earth creationist and old earth creationist views are not subjective abi?

The deeper life view on dressing and that of Christ embassy are not subjective abi?

Where in the bible are they basing their different subjective views?

Butterflyleo:
So you agree that THEY INTERPRET THE BIBLE and not their self derived subjective views.

Thanks again for the support.

Another point struck out.

The bible is NOT an objective document. Everybody interprets it differently and subjectively. That is why Christians display subjective morality.

I noticed you are not even trying to dispute the fact that Christians display objective morality.

Butterflyleo:
You have already destroyed your entire argument in your prior comment so no need trying to wake up what has been destroyed.

You've started with your dance of shame .

Do all Christians interpret the bible the same way? No they don't. Christians display subjective morality. Even interpretation of the bible is done subjectively that is why there are various/ different sects within Christianity.

You just keep shouting the bible , the bible as if all Christians interprete it the same way. There is no universally accepted Christian doctrine and there is no universally accepted Christian morality that is objective. Christians display subjective morality and that is the fact that you can not counter.

Butterflyleo:
Thank you for speaking in support of my very position.

So THEY ALL USE THE BIBLE AS THEIR FOUNDATION.

So where then did your claim of subjectivity for Christians come from?

I helped you make it clearer by making it bold for you in your own comment.

Case closed and dismissed.

It is immoral for a lady to wear a tight jeans, wear heavy make up, climb the pulpit and preach in deeper life Church, the same lady can do that in Christs embassy and he actions will not be considered immoral.

My claim of subjectivity comes from what Christians display. They don't display objective morality.

That was how Bobrisky started but look it him today.

Bobrisky in the making.

Butterflyleo:
Again I have to laugh at you and your display of crass illogicality.

You talk about CHRISTIANS and you think the bible suddenly becomes an alien word from CHRISTIANS?

You are the one who set your premise when you said there are conflicts in morality so I simply asked you to show me these conflicts from the very SOURCE of Christianity. Can you do that now?

Instead of doing this, you go off on red herring after red herring and want me to take you seriously?

You demanded that I show you proof for your own conflict claim. So who or what are Christians conflicting?

IS IT YOU?

You say you have shown proof. Are you the standard for Christians? If not then show proof from their standard which confirm your claim of conflicts


No long talk abeg. Its becoming boring and lack luster.

I have shown you evidence that Christian display subjective morality. No you are trying to turn it to source. Who mentioned any source. Do all Christians interprete the bible the same way?

Is it not the same bible that Christians use to justify all their conflicting positions?

Let me give you just a few examples, the young earth creationist and Old earth creationist all use the bible . The pro tithers and anti tithers also all use the same bible. Those that believe women should not lead any church activity and those that believe women can become pastors also use the same bible.

Stop talking about the Bible here because Christians do not all interprete the bible the same or hold the same universally acceptable doctrine from the Bible.

I've shown you that Christians display subjective morality with very clear examples. If yu disagree then show me that they display objective morality with examples.

Butterflyleo:
Dalaman you simply have no single logical fiber in you and discussing logically with you is serious brain drain and waste of useful resources to say the least.

When you say CHRISTIAN what do you mean?

You keep saying CHRISTIANS but what does that mean?

You make a claim about conflicts but never show proof for this from the same book you claim they are conflicting and rather say YOU HAVE SHOWN PROOF. HOW?

Are you the foundation of Christianity? If you say CHRISTIANS have been conflicting their roots then use their roots to prove this conflict and not your claims without proof.

I don't have time for your wuru wuru logic.

Christians as I have shown you with very clear example display subjective morality.

Now you are trying to force the discussion to be about the Bible. I don't care about the Bible. All I care and have done is to show you that even Christians display subjective morality and I've done that, the different sects display subjective morality. What is morally acceptable in one sect is considered immoral in another sect and I've given examples. If you disagree then show me that they display objective morality. That's all you are to do.
No long talk.

Butterflyleo:
You do not even see your premise stating at you.

YOU USED THE TERM CHRISTIANS

So what do Christians have in common if not Jesus and the Bible? Would you pretend not to know this? Wow.

So why would I then mention the Bible if you did not FIRST mention CHRISTIANS?

Still confused?

Do Christians show objective morality? No they don't. What is morally acceptable in this sect is immoral and not acceptable in another sect. That I have shown , if you disagree then show me that Christians display objective morality. Ive already shown you that they don't. Show me that they do instead of all the empty talk.

Do Christians have the same idea about Jesus? Nope

Some believe he is God himself and some believe he is not God himself but a distinct son of God. Do they all believe the same thing that Jesus said, no they don't.

Do Christians have the same bible and translations? No they don't.
Do Christians display objective morality? No they don't they always display subjective morality and I've given very clear examples.

Where is your evidence to show that Christians display objective morality? Where is it?

Butterflyleo:


When your rather shallow reasoning is exposed you jump on the next available train and embark on another fruitless journey.

Did you forget you demanded for where such conflicts are found in the bible despite being the one who first said Christians have conflicting morals?

Were you not the one who began your questions with mentioning the bible when I never did?

If your premise says there are conflicts then you should be able to show where those conflicts are using the moral foundation you claim is supposed to be used by all Christians which is the bible and not to now ask me to show you this when I never made such a claim.

Now when you cannot produce any you suddenly say "source or no source is none of your business" despite saying the below earlier



That was you asking me for evidence for a claim you made. Talk about being confused or being deliberately mischievous.

You keep talking about conflict but still cannot show me this conflict from the same bible you claim they are conflicting.

You are a joke.

You brought the issue of the bible. I only pointed that Christians display subjective morality and I gave examples. You then said this:

Butterflyleo:
There are no conflicting positions. ALL THE POSITIONS YOU CALL CONFLICTING ALL ARE FOUND IN SCRIPTURE. true or false?

You said they are not conflicting position and that all positions are found in the bible, true or false, I refused to take your bait and told you to show me from the scripture where the two positions are to be found. You brought the scripture into it so show it.

All I did was sight examples to show that Christian morality is subjective which I've done. Any other thing is unnecessary commentary from you because I didn't mention the bible when giving my example.

Butterflyleo:
There is no false projection from me. You did all the false projections when you began asking me for proof of what you threw in as a red herring.

I was not talking about the bible and its followership until you threw in your red herring about conflicts and since you can claim there are conflicts, then you should be able to show where the conflicts came from in the bible and how and not to ask me to prove the claim you made for you.

That is dishonesty

I did NOT mention the bible at any point, you brought the bible into the discussion. Christians display conflicting morality and that is the fact. Their morality is subjective as I've shown you. Where they get it from is non of my business , all am interested in is showing you that Christians display subjective morality and that I have done. Source or no source is non of my business. If Christian morality is objective all Christians will accept a standard system or morality. The conflict that is displayed by the deeper life and Christmas embassy for example will not exist.

Butterflyleo:
I did not make any claim. You are the one who made the claim out of nowhere when you attempted a red herring and you said it was conflicting.

How did you know it was conflicting if you did not know where they are to be found in the scriptures and are now asking me for where they are to be found?

Premise dalaman, premise!

You've started with your false projections . I say I see Christians projecting conflicting morality, it is in moral for women to make up, wear tight jeans and tight short sleeve shirt with open flowing hair in their church, but it is not moral for a lady to do such in Christ embassy.

This is just an observation and evidence that christian morality is subjective. You then started with your source. I do not need to know about any source .All I know is that christians display conflicting and subjective morality because their morality is not the same everywhere.

Butterflyleo:
You are the one who said they are conflicting so that means you already should know where they are to be found.

That's the premise you already set.

All I see are Christians upholding conflicting moral values. You claim it's from the scripture, so can you show us from scripture where the two conflicting moral values are written?

Butterflyleo:
There are no conflicting positions. ALL THE POSITIONS YOU CALL CONFLICTING ALL ARE FOUND IN SCRIPTURE. true or false?

Where are they to be found in the scriptures?

Butterflyleo:
You keep saying what is THE BIBLICAL POSITION? Without seeing that you already declared that there is an already given position or foundation which therefore makes anything done by a christian in line with that which has already been given as objective.

If there is a foundation and position as you've said then why are people holding conflicting positions? Why are they not holding a single position if there is only one foundation?

Butterflyleo:
You don't have to say it or support it. The very definition of subjectivity clearly says so

subjectivity
noun
the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

It clearly says its FEELINGS, TASTES AND OPINIONS are BASED ON AND INFLUENCED BY THE INDIVIDUAL and not society.

That means that its INDIVIDUAL FIRST BEFORE SOCIETY. So this means if I had a subjective morality, then my happiness or comfort comes first before society.

Do you deny the very definition?

You see how you tell lies to yourself all the time abi? Am talking about subjective morality and you are busy with the WORD subjective, as if subjective means subjective morality. Subjective morality and the word subjective are not the same thing.
Subjective morality means all value judgements are subjective.

While objective morality means morality is based ob value judgment of some kind, and it must exist apart from human valuations and be immune to them. Thus, it would apply to all humans all the time regardless of what any human thinks about the particular moral issue.

There is no moral issue that meets those requirements at all.

Lying isn't wrong objectively.

The Muslims that hid Christians and lied to ISIS that came hunting them in Iraq few years ago that they didnt know where they were did the right thing. The lies they told was right, if they had told ISIS that came hunting them the truth they would have killed them.

Even keeping your promise is not objectively right or wrong.

If I make a promise to a gun lover to buy him a gun as his birthday present and I get to know that he was planning on using the gun for a mass shooting, the right thing to do is to break my promise in that case and I will do the moral a d right thing.

These are the issues but you don't want to touch it, you prefer writing me meaningless commentaries always.

Butterflyleo:
You still don't get it. Each of those examples you just gave are not subjective but are all based on one common denominator and that is THE BIBLE.

EVERY ONE OF WHAT THEY DO COMES FROM AN ALREARY EXISTING MORAL FOUNDATION WHOSE THRUST IS JESUS.

Can you now say they act OUTSIDE what is found in the bible?

If your answer is no then how then are they being subjective when their foundation is not based on a personal view but their view is already set for them scripturaly and all they are doing is working with it.

True or false

They are subjective because of they were objective , then they will be the same for all Christians. All Christians will see it the same way.

So which one is the true biblical position? That women can apply make up , wear trousers and leave their hair open and go to church and even become pastors dressed that way or that women should always cover their hair, can not wear trousers and make up and can not become pastors. Which is the true bi local position because if it is objective it won't be a subject of debate.

What is Jesus position on this and which one should be the foundation for Christians?

Butterflyleo:
I don't have the chance for anything and I didn't say I wanted to show anything since you want to now throw a red herring after I have taken you to the cleaners. Lmao

The whole issue about subjectivity began when I wanted to show you that you have no right to accuse anyone for anything as an atheist because you hold a subjective morality and as such is personalized. So you support the notion that each individual is free to do or act in a way that makes him happy FIRST before the society.

That is subjective morality. It is PERSONAL FIRST before SOCIETY.

Your lies will not kill you.

When did I support the notion that each individual is free to do what he or she likes or what makes them happy first before society?

I told you that no matter how you want to marry 4 wives in Sweden you can't do that legally and morally. No matter how you want to own a gun in Nigeria you can not do it legally and morally. You don't want to touch my points instead you just create things I am not even saying and making empty commentaries on the.


If morality is not objective how have you shown that it is objective. You don't want to touch it because you know very well that morality is not objective and you have nothing to show that it is.