₦airaland Forum

ThothHermes:
It's not the Creator that "shoots you dead". It is a system set in motion from the foundation of the world. The consequences or otherwise of your actions result from your existing in that system.
Option A leads to consequence A while Option B leads to consequence B.

Who set that system in place? Nobody?

Jakumo:
E get as e be. Na condition make crayfish bend.
Buffalo when see hunter begin dey run, go don save hunter life join hin own.
Monkey no fine, but hin mama love am.
Man pikin when plant corn near main road, nogo fiti dey sleep for night.

E get as e be indeed!

Workch:
That's because the creator story according to religion is bullshit and a bronze age contraption is what formulated by nomads who had to idea how the universe works

Whilst ceding that there may be much myth and legend in ancient creation accounts, and that such people may have "had no idea how the universe works" - I dare say that even in this day and age we still know very little about how the universe works.

ThothHermes:
Yes.


Using it contrary to what is prescribed by the Creator. The same way you would be abnormally using your phone if you used it contrary to what is written in the owner's manual that accompanies it.
I call heaven and earth to record against you this day that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Deuteronomy 30:19

It hardly appears an honest grant of freewill to me if one then puts a gun to the head of the recipient and says - "Choose as you like, but if you do not obey me, I will shoot you dead."

ThothHermes:
Alright.


From the Holy Scriptures (read: Bible), we see the character of the Creator. The words "omniscient" and "omnipotent" with which you describe Him are not in that book so you may want to tell me where you got those descriptors from.

You will pardon me, but I do not limit this discourse to your scripture alone - I address generally held notions of God across cultures and across ages (including scripture). I would, however, be interested to know if you specifically say that God is not omnipotent or omniscient.

However, the Scriptures describe him as just, righteous, faithful, jealous, visiting the inquities of fathers upon their children even up to the fourth generation, without variableness or shadow of turning, slow to anger, holy, merciful, among others. From these we can discern His modus operandi, not with logic and intellect alone, for He dwells in a realm superior to this one.

And how do you feel about the bold?

All of these predilections can only be checked by perpetual reliance on the supply of the Spirit. This was and is the original design. Man lost the manual when he used His freewill to commit sin in Eden.

It is heartwarming that you admit that the proclivities are inherent. This alone calls into question both the motives and competence of the said creator, surely?

Besides, something else springs to mind as I read you say - "Man lost the manual when he used His freewill to commit sin in Eden" - and do you know what that is? It is the fact that there exists an odd paradox here: for if man never committed any sin, then you would say he was living according to the will of God, and this would be no freewill. It emerges that the endowment of freewill could only possibly make sense with the possibility and reality of sin, and that it would only make sense therefore that the creator granted freewill with the express intention that sin would follow. This again takes the responsibility for sin right back to the creator - its only logical place.

Man's misuse of freewill brought disasters, disease and all what not. They were not in the original manual. As the Zenith of creation, his actions affected and continue to affect the rest of creation.

This is a most bold, and I dare say, arrogant, anthropocentric view of creation and the universe.
1. Is it just - as concerns all other creatures in creation?
2. Is it rational, especially in consideration of the role of "natural disasters" in the cosmos?
3. Is it rational, in light of the natural cycles of ecosystems within the biosphere?
4. Is it so taught in your scripture, that man is the greatest or highest of God's creations?

Jakumo:
Let us wait patiently for the scamdemic crew to show up and parrot their usual conspiracy theories they hope will bestow them with immunity from the virus that has now launched a fresh mass attack on the human race, with Europe and the USA as ground zero, again.

Oya o, we dey wait ona. Unu know ona sef. Come begin dey halla like Ileya ram here haha.

Jakumo, while I am no "Covid-denier" - (I deny neither its existence or its capacity to inflict death) - I would be mildly surprised if you do not find much cause for pause in the global response to to Covid-19. It would also surprise me if (notwithstanding our notoriously poor record keeping) you have not noted a significant difference in the degree of fatalities between North America/Europe and sub-Saharan Africa (well, perhaps not, if you do not live here in Africa).

What would really astonish me though, would be if you do not cede that mankind seldom let a good crisis go to waste without turning a profit thereon.

The world is full of shades of gray - and thus not every adherent of the orthodoxy of the day is wise, and not every rebel against such orthodoxy is foolish. If anything, excessive and rigid orthodoxy has always been a most dangerous thing in my humble view.

NNTR:
Evil comes from the abnormal use of this free will.

Including disease and natural disasters?

Besides, can you really explain to me what would be abnormal use of freewill.

Finally, a worthy response. Thank you.

ThothHermes:
This Creator is unlike other creators. He has the ability to give His creation something no other creator can -- a will.
The Creator passes judgment based on what the creation does with that will.
Steve Jobs would not be responsible for a defective iPhone if it had a will.

The defense of freewill is the most regular response to the problem of evil - which perceptive persons would have instantly recognized as one of the dilemmas under-girding the poser offered by this thread. However one must note that freewill as an assumption for mankind in the context of overall responsibility for the nature of the world is highly questionable. However before I proceed further here, permit me to establish two different questions which are cardinal here -

1. The question of overall responsibility
2. The question of freewill of mankind

Let me start with the question of overall responsibility. As inferred, what is referred to here is the question as to who bears overall responsibility for the nature of the world. I posit that that responsibility could rest on no one else than the creator of said world - especially where this creator is said to be omniscient and omnipotent.

So when you point out sir, that we are talking about a very unique creator - a creator who bequeaths a will - you must also not forget or leave out the fact that so great is the uniqueness of this creator that he is also said to be omniscient and omnipotent. The paradox must in this case instantly leap out at you - that an omniscient creator would necessarily know and understand the consequences of creating free-willed beings. Furthermore an omnipotent creator would have every capacity to create the most positively inclined free willed beings conceivable and in the most ideal environment for the expression of same. Now is this the case?

I say that it certainly is not the case - neither in terms of the alleged "freewill" of the created beings nor in terms of the environment created for their dwelling, and my reason for so saying is simple - man is highly circumscribed in his will by both the very nature he is created in, and the environment he is created in. I assert that both this created nature and the created environment actually predispose man very naturally to what is called "sin" - if not outrightly compel him into it - and for this reason I therefore say that it would be deceitful for a creator to wave freewill as some sort of escape from its responsibility for the nature of man and the nature of the world. Not that religious scripture generally gives us any reason to think that the creator is a stranger to deceit, but I digress.

Why do I say that both man's created nature and his created environment predispose, if not outrightly compel him into what is called sin? Well lets start with the very hormones by which man is reproduced. They are designed for constant and easy arousal from a fairly young age. They are not built with rigidity and refrain as second nature, but with spontaneity as their natural flow. This has predisposed mankind to every sort of social, political and I dare say even military complication which the mind can imagine throughout the ages.

In both his nature and his given environment, mankind has been forced to be competitive for survival. Again this spirit of competition, vital as it is to his survival just as is the instinct of sex, has myriad natural consequences for the nature of Earth-Life for man as it is virtually impossible with such a given-nature, to avoid the spectres of jealousy, covetousness, greed, ambition, competition for resources, class-war, and outright war. All of these are inevitable consequences of the nature of man and the nature of his given environment.

And the creator of both man and his environment cannot escape complicity in all this. It is disingenuous to create a sexxual being, with all its implications for territorialism, jealousy and covetousness, and place such a being in an environment which demands spirited competition for survival, and then assert that one has not thereby created a being definitely disposed towards certain obvious outcomes.

To do that and then hide behind alleged freewill, is simply dishonest.

But the foregoing is just the tip of the iceberg because when I say that man's freewill is highly circumscribed, I mean just that. It is most limited in many ways. Who determined for him what planet he would dwell on? Who made him male and female. Who made it so that he must kill and consume living things for his survival. Who placed in him the sexxual instinct? Who placed in him all of his other multifaceted desires? So long as you cannot say that man's alleged freewill is responsible for all of these things, then you must at once recognize that man has been created into a given and already defined context and system, and that in itself circumscribes and limits freewill and for this reason you cannot blame man's freewill for his nature, and you cannot exculpate the creator from responsibility for the nature of man.

Finally, this rabbit-hole goes even further. How many things will you blame man's freewill for? Will you blame it for natural disasters. Will you blame it for the existence of mosquitoes, fleas and disease giving worms and the like. You will end up blaming man's freewill for the very cycle of nature and that will simply be absurd.

NNTR:
Now the created human beings needed to be judged off his and her character. It hasn't got anything to do with being personal or vindictive, but it is just as you judge and decide with H&S in mind, what ends up in the dustbin or trash can.

We can explore the created with further more consideration(s), if you so wish or if inclined to.

This is the well known concept of separating the wheat from the chaff which I have no problem with, save to note that one cannot accuse the created of any guilt where they are so made by the creator. The creator may therefore judge himself and choose his best works while thrashing the worst, but they all remain his works, and his works alone.

Kobojunkie:
You no think this one through at all at all..

I'd really like to hear why. Sincerely.
Because the only remotely serious answer I have ever received is freewill - which i believe has problems of its own.

Dtruthspeaker:
What kind of mad talk is this when it is clear that The Creator did not do anything but Relaxing in His Own House?

Obviously, you have run out of your reasonability quota of the day!

Mad talk? Steady now, calm your nerves and stop being emotional. Take a deep breath and then a cold clear look at this question:
If a product is faulty, who do you blame - the product, or its maker?

Its a really simple question with an equally simple answer.
Why are you so eager to defend a God who is so eager to accuse you?

Dtruthspeaker:
Who diseased the world?

Answer: the creation itself.

This is absurd, only the creator could do such.
A creator is responsible for its creation.

Dtruthspeaker:
And unfortunately for us creations, we have no factory defects.

This is a bold claim, considering the diseased nature of the world and the fallible nature of man.
It seems to me that what you are doing is blaming the created thing for its fallible nature, whereas the responsibility for that could only ever rest with the creator.

It is always unreasonable to excuse any creator while blaming any created thing in the matter of the imperfection of the created thing. That, my friend, is always a question of the creator's competence or motives.

And don't be ignorant. I could point you to physical factory defects in a jiffy.

Dtruthspeaker:
Is it Peugeot that is to judge the iPhone or Steve Jobs?

Of course the point being made here is exactly that if an iphone is faulty as released from the factory, surely, Steve Jobs would be the man to question, not the Iphone.

Well, the great thing is that your opinion is inconsequential exactly as when Steve Jobs or Toyoda Judges that certain iPhones and Corollas are fit for destruction.

And it is again exactly this sort of puzzling arrogance that really is worrisome: we are repeatedly told how inconsequential we are in the matter of our own existence - while he who created us as we are sits in righteous and pious judgment over we the inconsequential. There is something markedly perverse in this, surely.

And it is done!

And no one can stop their destruction.

That is the Incontestable Power and Right of A Creator!

No contest - but that remains entirely the deed of the said creator, from start to finish, warts and all. That cannot be blamed on any created thing.

LilBlaze24o:
We are all born to observe natural deterioration. Hence it may seem impossible for some to believe that humans can be exempted.

Science has shown that as one cell dies in human million more cells are reproduced from that dying cell. At some point the dying cells stop reproducing, old age set it, sickness, pains, death.

What if these conditions can be reverted?
I believe in the bible. And I believe in these words here

Job 33:25
Let his flesh become fresher than in youth;
Let him return to the days of his youthful vigor.

Old age and death can be reverted.

I have no doubt that aging can be scientifically addressed, but I see no reason to therefore think that the flesh of man alone, of all flesh, could have somehow once been exempt from the natural order of death.

Be sure you understand what special pleading is -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

For it has always seemed somewhat odd to me, that one may create something, and then proceed to sit in magisterial judgement over it - in terms of condemning it to destruction or granting it life. In terms of saying that it is good or evil - Because - any such judgement is necessarily a judgment of the Creator itself and no one else, surely?

Who else is responsible for the nature of a created thing if not the creator of the thing?

Timodeyforyou:
It's true that the wages of sin is death. We are all going to die because we are all sinners. We all have committed a sin against God. No one is sinless but one who believes in God and seeks for his forgiveness and who genuinely repent from his or her sins shall be saved

You have to plead with your creator to permit you to live, and seek his forgiveness for the nature he bequeathed to you?
Are you certain this creator is not a lieutenant of Beelzebub?

LilBlaze24o:
Hope this answers your question.
#StaySafe

While I thank you for taking the time and care to offer your view, regrettably, it only appears to me as special pleading in terms of exempting humanity from that which is natural. And therefore contradictory: because in truth, everything physical is subject to change/ deterioration.

seunmsg:
Well, we can only rely on the information provided in the Bible no matter how one sided it is.

Surely all literate persons are aware that the bible is not an inerrant record?

femi4:
Illiterate
The "death" isn't physical death but a spiritual one

Do we take it then that physical death was always and already part of the program, even before "sin" came into Eden?

seunmsg:
The wages of sin is enjoyment and not death!

How does anyone know for sure that this man called Yeshua was without sin?

Interesting15:
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal in Christ Jesus our Lord" Romans 6:23

If death results from sin, why do non-human animals and plants also partake of death?

Chloraseptic:
Biden can't just order his people to fire missiles without soliciting the go ahead of some Congress members.

He can.

freshkpomo:



I thought you claimed to be civilized? That's how these Africans claiming WOKE are, they insult everyone (like the caveman they are) who goes contrary to their opinion...

I won't mention you again though, there so many of you who can't hold reasonable conversations without insults, maybe it's how you were raised from your homes.

I have no civility to waste with nincompoops like you who seek to drag us all into slavery.
Be gone, slavish orangutan!

freshkpomo:


Man keep craving for absolute freedom that he cannot control. If everyone is allowed to do what they like, you will not be alive....

That's why certain actions are designated criminal. Because they harm your fellow man.
Your hairstyle is not such an action.

Please you are disgusting me.
Stop this pathetic nonsense at once, I conjure you.

freshkpomo:
Oga stop , even before the Colonial Era there was a government and if you act abnormal you visit collect. Some youths today are not different from mad people.

You wonder why SARS (though not justifying them) keep going hard on them?

Do you know that 90% of the people that dress anyhow have questionable characters?


Many of you shouting civilization will not even survive in civilized countries with this lifestyle.

Police nor go look you two time when them go shoot you, and next thing you start shouting black lives matter.

There is nothing in the law which empowers the government to regulate hair styles, period.
Please stop yearning to be enslaved!

Musrataman:
Very intelligent of you!!
Just listened to what lazy, useless Nigeria youths are saying above could you imagine that.

I pity all of them because they don't actually know where they are in this present time

You, my friend, belong in the stone age.

dhope:
I was about typing this before I read your comment. The future of this society is in danger because of the high level of moral decadence here and it's clearly the failure of parentage. To the human right activities who are defending this tout, don't come here on nairaland to complain when he or his group members harass and attack you on the road or under bridge like agege at night. It's what ure supporting that is hunting you. You don't need to quote me, locate anyone with that hairstyle in ur neighborhood, give ur sister to her in marriage, strike a business deal with them and enjoy urself. I come in peace

Medieval chamber pot retriever.
Go live in North Korea.

matm:
Welcome development,instead of the police arresting the dreadlock youths and labelling them armed robbers or yahoo boys.
There is no reason criticising people up and down.
Do your own which you think is better than what he does starting from your kindred,and see if ur efforts will record any good result.

Relocate to North Korea, dimwit.

freshkpomo:


Nothing like power drunk here, some youths not just get sense... Imagine them dey raid thieves or mad people, many of these youths won't survive it.

I recently realized something, too much freedom nor good..

You lack a proper education and have no recognition of the rights of the citizen and the role of government if you see no abuse of power here. Please emigrate to North Korea so you may dwell among like minds.

adekolaelect:
The majority of comment here is showing you how Morales our societies is nowadays in the name of social ,Freedom and Human right . Can any cooperate organization allow it for their workers ? Majority of those that dress like that are majorly unemployed ,Touts , Froudster and the rest But our morales societies is celebrating them simply bcs moral is not common any more.

1. Fashion choices are not the responsibility of government.
2. Sign up for classes in written English please.

olasaad:
Thank you ooo. How many parents can see their children keeping dreadlocks without first scolding him. No parents will be happy with such and even our society as a whole.

Even if you keep a friend that do dread or all this crazy hairstyles your parents will not like you to be moving with such person because of his crazy hair cut. And to the ladies how many of us do date this guys Few and your parents will always question the type of guy you are dating.

But I don't know why you guys always deceive people on the Internet. And please those of you that are castigating the man do feel free and take your crazy hair style to work next Monday. Thankyou Mr. Chairman say no to moral decadence in our society.

Poor girl, you simply dont understand the functions of the government.
Best place for you is North Korea.