₦airaland Forum

Its just very curious and very sad that the only former Head of State in Nigeria whose corrupt stash has been looked into and is still being looked into, is a dead one. In other words, ex-heads of state who are still alive have no corrupt stashes whatsoever: Babangida, Abdulsalami, Obasanjo etc?

Moral: If you steal money in Nigeria as a Head of State, you will do very well to ensure that you do not die.

It is true that the words translated "fornication" in scripture (Zana, Porneia, Porneuo and Taznut) generally indicate a certain wantonness, harlotry, excess, and even idolatry - although they are also used in reference to specific cases of unlawful lust.

The tendency of these terms to refer to general "se.xual immorality" is the factor that has made many persons seeking to read the bible with their se.xual organs conclude that it is in fact not fornication to have se.x now and then; but only becomes sinful when it is wanton, careless, continuous, whorish, etc.

Although I personally do not take my creed in se.xual matters from the bible, I must say that such a reading is a wrong reading of the intention of scripture: for the simple reason that it fails to consider what exactly was considered wanton, whorish, harlotry, or se.xual immorality, by the people who wrote the words in question.

Since it is true that those people who penned those scriptures considered individual acts of se.x outside marriage to amount to such "wanton se.xual immorality", then it is clear that indeed acts of se.x outside of marriage are exactly what biblical writers had in mind in referring to "se.xual immorality." This is underlined by the punishments for such stipulated in the law.

Really, what on earth is wrong with you sir?

@ Wiegraf. Many apologies for my delay in reverting to this. I read yours almost as soon as you posted it days ago, but was very tired and knew it would take a long post to address it, and so I put it off.

wiegraf: Just a note, this moves away from fantastical claims like judeo-xtian ones.

Very well: and if indeed it does move away from "fantastical claims like judeo-xtian ones" then surely you should not bring up omnipotence and omniscience at all, as these are precepts you will find in such religions.

What we should do is simply address the concept and idea that a transcendent entity is responsible for this existence - period.

Nevertheless maybe I misunderstand you here: I note that you have stated somewhere down the line that you are addressing yourself to the notion of omnipotence and saying that that notion is internally inconsistent. If this is what you are saying, I say to you in response that it is not internally inconsistent because, as you have acceded, omnipotence could not include the capacity to perform logical absurdities, or any property that would be logically absurd.

This alone, my friend, resolves your conundrum on omnipotence vis-a-vis the existence of suffering and other such challenges in reality.

In fact, at an ontological or existential level, I will go so far as to say that to the extent that there can be no concept of up without a concept of down, no concept of right without a concept of left, therefore in existence there must be positive and negative, light and dark, good and bad, etcetera. This is therefore a necessary hard wired element encoded in reality: which logically could not be otherwise: and as such will fall outside the purview of omnipotence: in other words, it would not be logically possible for the omnipotent entity to create a universe which has up and no down, right, and no left, light, and no dark, positivity and no negativity.

This alone actually resolves your conundrum.

Limiting the suffering is a very attainable objective. We attempt it ourselves, and without violating free will.

Limiting suffering is not attainable in a universe with free-willed beings: think on this: to the extent that beings remain free, they may take any series of actions and our experience in this world is that it is actually mankind's own free decisions that lead to the vast majority of human suffering, no?

I see that you have argued below, and I expected it - that natural disasters do cause suffering. This is certain. I shall address it below: but nonetheless before I do so, you perforce must concede that the vast majority of human suffering is occassioned by the free actions of human beings, and it would be logically absurd for an omnipotent entity to interfere with such, otherwise, there shall be no free will to speak of.

Nobody is hindering free will, just putting in place measures to limit the amount of suffering involved. Suffering like say that caused by those infringing on the rights of others with impunity.

What should God do, if when I see you, I immediately start slapping you? What should God do, if I tempt away your wife from you and therefore cause you emotional suffering? What should God do, if I steal your pension savings and thereby render your old age into wretched poverty? What should God do if as a political leader, I misappropriate the treasury and cause untold suffering to millions of people thereby? What should God do if, as happened in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Rwanda, greedy and power hungry militias plunder, r.ape, maim women and children for filthy lucre? What should God do if unhealthy practices cause diseases to spread amongst people and cause plagues that kill millions and unleash untold suffering? What should God do to stop the free actions of despots throughout history who have caused barbaric wars which have led to untold human suffering and despondency?

The point here is that these are the actions of free-willed beings and it will be logically absurd for an omnipotent entity to grant free will to beings and stop same beings from exercising that very free will.

Do you expect an omnipotent entity to descend onto the earth to stop these acts of free will by sentient beings?

Now, like a government, the best that God can logically do is to ensure that there is embedded in reality a system of consequences: really no more that speaking the basic law of cause and effect: which as a cycle of happening ensures the self-correction of the super-structure of happenings over time. This is called Karma in Oriental Religions, nemesis, what goes around comes around, you reap what you sow, etc. Nevertheless I will not dwell on this right here but will revert to it later in the thread as the discussion evolves. I should however note very briefly that the consequences of this law of reality often produce more and greater suffering and it could not logically be otherwise, and an omnipotent could not make it different, as that would fall foul of our rule of logical absurdities.

And also, again, this ignores natural evil. Lots of beings suffer through absolutely no fault of theirs, just natures capricious whims. Free will need not be involved with suffering.

By natural evil, I take it that you refer to the cycle of nature and natural disasters?

I will ask two questions here -

1. Is it "natural evil" when a lion hunts down an eats a zebra? Is that suffering of the zebra something that an omnipotent entity should do something about to avoid?

2. Is it "natural evil" when the earth goes through its very natural cycles of storms, hurricanes, tectonic shifts, earth quakes, solar storms, and such other perfectly natural phenomena? Are such natural phenomena something that an omnipotent entity should stop, in the scheme of things?

Even as the result of others' actions you have to acknowledge that a lot of suffering comes about as a result of absolutely no agent, non at all, purposely doing something 'evil'. Consider the road to hell is filled with good intentions, henlon's razor, etc etc

See above 2 questions please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Hanlon's razor is an eponymous adage that allows the elimination of unlikely explanations for a phenomenon. It reads:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

And with respect to this, I might similarly ask you why you would attribute to an omnipotent problems that can be easily and rationally explained by our very own actions and in-actions?

Simple miscommunication tends to be the source of most of the grief we inflict on ourselves, imo.

And that is a logical and unavoidable consequence of free will, no? Why then address the notion of omnipotence at all if you admit this?

Anyways, I fail to see how at the very least the god providing a guiding/helping hand is an issue here.

In reality, if you reflect closely here, you will see that you are contradicting yourself. If a being is omnipotent and omniscient, such a being would have already set in motion all the laws of reality in a way that addresses all permutations. Such a being will therefore not intervene further to help anything or anybody, that would be self-contradictory. As such you are really asking for a perfect God who is so imperfect that it has to constantly return to its work to intervene and help things.

And the omnipotent still bears some responsibility, why not? He provided the platform which is now being abused yet does nothing about it, why?

The responsibility of the omnipotent will be to establish laws that guide the established reality. Such laws are in reality self-existent, I may say. Going a little deeper, this is why I have often described God as simply the compound of self-existent laws. Such laws could not logically be otherwise. I would even go so far as to say that the omnipotent did not choose the laws: the laws are a self-existent component of reality - which is in fact exactly what the omnipotent itself is.

If you jumpt up, you will fall down, where there is gravity. If you don't wish to fall down, there are many laws of physics you can deploy to that end as well. At all events, only the natural laws will apply in every instance. What more can you ask of a transcendental omnipotent creator? Do you wish it to be santa claus and tuck you into bed every night, after fighting all your battles and handling all your problems personally, even the self inflicted ones? Would you regard or respect such an entity as transcendental God and creator?

Now, how was anyone's free will is being violated in these situations? You want to create a virus, well do so, no ones stopping you.

Free will indeed will be tampered with in such a scenario. I might enjoy slapping you, and the omnipotent cannot restrain me without obviating free will. However, I should be well aware that you might retaliate, or that I may cause myself harm in so doing. I should also be well aware that the laws of cause an effect which are self-existent and part of reality and part of the omnipotent, will kick in. End of.

If you examine carefully what you are saying you will realize that you are in fact seeking to shirk responsibility. You are denying the personal responsibility for actions which we as free willed being must bear. That will not do.

Why should the omnipotent come to clean up your mess?

Do note though that as you're essentially infringing on the rights of others the law will come after you if it can.

Just as surely as in the laws of reality, Karma will always come after you, and consequences will follow for every action.

Now the above is scenario is responsible, at least much more so than building something potentially harmful then washing your hands off it, especially when you can clearly do something about it.

This is most illogical sir. What is teh "potentially harmful" thing you are referring to? If you examine yourself, you will see that it is the simple law of cause and effect which you are calling "potentially harmful". And it could not be otherwise. Every effect has its cause and vice versa. How else would you have it?

It is also free will that you are effectively calling "potentially harmful" and ofcourse it could not be otherwise, unless you would rather have been created a robot.

And the last part is the worst. You say that the omnipotent could do something about it? Such as what? Take away free will?

Then, to compound on the above example, also imagine a platform that is inherently faulty, a la natural evil like tsunamis, famines, etc.

What is faulty about tsunamis?

Who causes famines?

God(s) is exempt from such criticism because? Or are you saying this is the best possible universe it could have built?

Well we do not know for a fact that the omnipotent built this universe.

. . . . .Just as the omnipotent did not create chihuahuas?

Who did?

Aha.

They are free to suffer, but they shouldn't be free to infringe on the rights of others with impunity just because they can. This is simple morality. So long as you're sentient particularly, I shouldn't have the right to make you say, my slave.

But this is not something that the omnipotent does, is it?

It is something that free beings like us do, no?

Could the omnipotent stop it without depriving us of free will?

Would that not be a logical absurdity?

I could go ahead and try to enslave you, but in this day and age society will (rightly) persecute me if I get caught.

O, just as surely as the laws of Karma and Cause and Effect will round on you as well.

And this still ignores natural evil, suffering inflicted without any conscious agent at all, eg earthquakes. It must exist, OK, say a necessary byproduct of physical laws.

I am pleased that you concede that such must exist: a natural by product of physical laws as you say.

And what gives you the impression that nothing has been done about such by the omnipotent. We as beings have been endowed with the ability to sense and live in sync with our environment, but we have used our free will to corrupt such sync and now lament the catastrophes that naturally follow. We are endowed with a massive brain which today has even led us to understand the workings of these things, yet some people still choose to live within zones that fall on the earth's tectonic fault lines and are earth quake prone, no? There are animals that sense earthquakes will in advance and migrate: we should, as intelligent beings study the laws relating to these phenomena and adjust ourselves accordingly.

Now, this is not to say that in spite of such there will not be tragedies: but such remain in consonance with natural law and fit into the larger picture. Expecting anything else would amount o subscribing to the same fantastical claims that you condemn, no?

Yet others (and not necessarily judeo-xtians, even some deists do this) would claim this same god can hear their thoughts, or judge them, or somehow help them, manipulate certain events, etc etc.

As I am not omniscient, I do not know what the omnipotent can not do or will do. However I can logically infer that it is inconsistent with the notion of a perfect God to expect special interventions by the omnipotent in the reality issuing therefrom.

Are we now arbitrarily deciding what this god can or cannot do? Why is it necessarily "immaterial and transcendental"?

Immaterial: Because that which creates matter cannot itself be matter as nothing finite is its own cause.

Transcendental: Because that which creates a universe cannot be itself the same universe as well, following on the same law. It must stand outside of it. Thus, transcend it.

It has no means of interfering because? If it cannot even do that then it is a rather limited omnipotent imo, I do not think the term 'omnipotent' need apply to it.

All things rest in it, and of it, as self existent. That is the correct understanding of the omnipotent.

Good afternoon to you ser as well

Good evening, noble, kind and gentle sir.

wiegraf: Omnipotent implies being able to do anything conceivably possible, this would exclude logical absurdities. I can live with this definition, I think. I choose it for various reasons

An excellent choice of understanding, which is exactly what i hoped for.

Now tell me, do you not think it would be a logical absurdity to be able to create free willed beings and at the same time ensure that they do not suffer?

Reflect closely on this: genuinely free willed beings would be able to make choices. Including choices to suffer, or choices that cause suffering.

As such, you will agree that this being a logical absurdity, is clearly out of the purview of omnipotence, as you have already said, no?

Humans are not omnipotent, even collectively. We haven't even mastered the energy on this planet, let alone that of the sun or a galaxy.

Humans, even if we were able to harness the energy of galaxies, would still not be omnipotent imo as I cannot see us manipulating physical laws in this universe. Eg, altering the value of the speed of light. Should changing such basic constants be possible then the case for our omnipotency becomes much stronger.

As for building another universe and possessing the ability to tune it as we see fit, that is possible. In fact, that's more or else what virtual universes in computers are. It might be possible to create physical universes as well, but that remains to be seen. Even if we were to create these universes there's no guarantee that we would be omnipotent to said universes, even if we exclude logical absurdities from our definition of omnipotent. We might simply have no say in establishing certain physical limits for instance.

Good again. You accede that humans may conseivably create worlds. In the stretch of eternity, given enough time, I dare say we would in fact do such.

What makes you build your argument against God's existence in this instance, from the premise, as adduced by religions, that this earth and all its flora and fauna are the creation of an omnipotent God? Why could they not also be the creation of other beings in existence as well?

Just as surely as we had the freedom to tinker with genetics and contrive the chihuahua. Why is it not possible that we are just like the chihuahua - namely - that we are the result of similar tinkering by other beings - which tinkering cannot be avoided, since we agree that freewill and the absence of suffering would be a logical absurdity, no?

Now please reflect on that for a moment and then more importantly on this: assuming but not conceding that you succeed in your argument: that would only qualify omnipotence, and not circumscribe the existence of an originating factor - God - no?

In addressing this last, recall, at all events, that the qualification of omnipotence thereby, would not be at variance with that which you acceded to - namely that omnipotence does not extend to logical absurdities: and certainly freewill without suffering will be just one such logical absurdity.

I hope you see the issues here?

Suffering being necessary depends on the goal. Assuming the goal is creating conscious beings, do I think consciousness must exist with suffering? That is unavoidable so long as consciousness involves emotions, which include emotional pain. Do I think all suffering is necessary? Not at all.

O, I simply mean by "necessary" - - - that in the event of freewill, suffering cannot be written out of the equation even by an omnipotent God, since that would be a logical absurdity, no?

And indeed, we must go further to state that the free-willed beings, if truly free, must also be free to choose any extremity of suffering, or cause any extremity of suffering through their actions, no?

Well, not really, as I basically don't think the scale of suffering we encounter is necessary.

As I just said above: free-willed beings must be free to choose, encounter, perpetuate and cause any degree of suffering from their free actions, no?

And this would be excluded from the realm of control of an omnipotent God, as such would then be a logical absurdity, no?

Elaborating, the indifferent, dog eat dog machinations of nature do not look planned to me. Assuming an omnibenovelent or 'good' being, if evolution was planned by it, evolution would be the best it could offer but still a desperate, last ditch attempt. It wouldn't be the effort of an omnipotent/omnibenovelent. For instance, why not create the lifeform(s) perfect from the word go?

Has it occurred to you that this may also be a logical absurdity? For if an omnipotent is defined as God, and such is necessarily immaterial and transcendental: then how exactly may it directly create the physical in the direct manner you contemplate. Would it not rather be obvious that for such to occur, there would have to be logical effects proceeding one from another in a necessary and unavoidable manner, such as to take away such "personal" and "arbitrary" interventions from the omnipotent - on account that they would of course constitute logical absurdities?

So long as it cared, an omnipotent should be able to step in and reduce the suffering. Even we try to do so (but usually fail) as the apex predators on this planet.

Such an action would be a logical absurdity. Where is the free will if indeed the omnipotent steps in to do such. Where is my freewill to inflict suffering for example? Or my free will to even be masochistic?

I also end up with questions like; supposing the goal were to create self-sustainable life, why does an omnipotent need to achieve anything? Is its goal vital? If so, that alone questions its omnipotency strongly. If it isn't, then there was no need for the amount of suffering lots of beings have endured through no fault of theirs for whatever goal wasn't that important in the first place. Non at all. Just so a few beings could enjoy at the expense of all those others?

As I said before, what you qualify by this argument is the attribute of omnipotence, and not the existence of God. And I assert to you that you have answered your own question on the issue when you say that omnipotence does not extend to logical absurdities.

Secondly, on the suffering question above, you will also agree that this is within the scope of our free will. I am free to stop my car suddenly on the third mainland bridge. This will lead to lots of traffic or even accidents that will cause huge suffering to many people. You will agree that it would be a logical absurdity for an omnipotent to stop me from doing that and at the same time endow me with free will, no?

This is all ignoring the omniscience claims, that's another convoluted mess as well.

Yes, and I will have to ask for your understanding of omniscience as well, before addressing that!

Good morning.

wiegraf: Not sure what you're driving at, but we could only be faulty if the 'god' involved wasn't omnipotent.

Are humans omnipotent?

Could humans conceivably create worlds? Could humans engage in planetary engineering? In fact, i'll answer that one for you, research is already underway in that respect. Massive research. Could humans make worlds? With creatures therein?

And once again, are humans omnipotent?

Please answering these will go a long way towards addressing your issue in your OP.

My gripe is mostly with the omnipotent, 'loving' versions of god.

Several issues here. I would first have to understand what you understand by the term "omnipotent".

Does that term, in your view, extend to having the capacity to do illogical things? Such as creating square circles, etc?

Secondly I would need to understand what you regard as suffering.

Does work - even excruciating work, qualify as "suffering" of a nature that a creator should seek to obviate?

Now, after this, I would need to understand if you believe that all suffering should in fact be obviated.

Are there forms of suffering that are either -

1. - Necessary

2. - Unavoidable

or

3. - Beneficial

These questions are very important, so if possible, I would appreciate your answers to them.

But most importantly, also address this further question - If Evolution is in fact the reality as to the development of species, would it be normal or not, to expect that the very fact of evolutionary impetus is necessarily derived from suffering and various forms of a creature's inadequacy in its environment which occassions suffering.

For the others, even if inadvertently, they bear some responsibility. Even if suffering was not part of its plans, fact is it exists yet it does nothing about it. Why? I might not be the one breeding chihuahuas but I'm here all morally superior because I think this is a silly, immoral practice. If I could do something about it I would, but I can't. So, why are the gods silent?

I hope my foregoing questions inspire some further thinking on this.

wiegraf: ^^

And even more. Eg, god makes myriad faulty beings when there probably are MUCH better options around.

Is there anything in the essential idea of the existence of God, to suggest that God created human beings, or even that God created anything on this earth, or even anything in this universe?

If this question seems confusing, let me put it another way. - What do you think is the future of biological engineering. Does it not occur to you that as Chihuahuas are a faulty breed of dog contrived by man, the creatures in this world could similarly be. . . . .?

Image123: soon na to ask why did God put precious metals and mineral resources deep down, or why put the ear on the head instead of on the chest.
@deepS, the Christian God.

Are there different Gods?

God is the creator. If he puts a natural craving within your system, you had better not think urself wiser than him. Its there for a reason, just as surely as hunger and pain are there for reasons.

Now, I charge you, as your sacred master, fall upon the next thing in skirts around you and do holy justice to her.

Who says that God forbids s.ex before marriage? Who told you this? Where did you get this information from?

There are some ancient cultures who wrote in their mythical books such things, but do we then conclude that that is the voice of God? How do you know that that is the voice of God?

[quote author=Area_boy]I'll take only the bolded and elaborate on it how this particular way of thinking was the ignition of me losing my faith in Christianity or any form of organised religion.o

Back in the late part of secondary school and early first year in university in Naija, I used to be in the scripture union. We always had a policy we went by which was fairly simple and made a lot of sense if you don't think profoundly about it.

"Pray like it all depends on prayer, and study like it all depends on studying". This quote clearly contradicts itself but I wouldn't want to go down that line of argument for now. Basically what we are looking at here is two different actions that will give the same result (success in exams) if combined. what it doesn't make clear is the chance that either of the actions may actually be give the same result without the other or fail without the other.

much later when my faith was slipping, I studied for my exams like I always did without any prayer and my results came out at the same average i normally have. I wasn't bold enough to try praying alone without studying but we all know how that would have ended.

I asked myself, If prayer alone will surely fail me in my school but studying alone keeps me going then what was the point of prayer? Quickly my scripture union mindset directed me to the Lords prayer...

"Thy will be done".

This single phrase alone makes every form of "request" prayer pointless and useless. All we needed to do was give thanks and move on. So, in everything we should give thanks. Basically if you lose all your kids to disease and death, all you should to is thank god. This presented another problem to me, "He loves me, will lift me up, will protect me form every evil.....etc".. Why then do people that believe in him with all their heart still have terrible things happen to them? the questions become endless.

Until I began to take an objective view of the word without all that has been indoctrinated in me all my life did I start to see the problems involved in believing in the Christian god particularly. etc...

Before I get carried away with my life and how I lost my faith, I just want to add something to the sad story above. The family got indoctrinated to believe that they can "ask" and it shall be given, "seek" and they shall find, "knock" and the door will be opened, "bind" on earth and it will be bound in heaven.. "where two or three are gathered in his name that he will be present".

With all these, I can clearly see why grown adults will put their infant child's life at risk by uttering gibberish for TWO HOURS rather than running down to a clinic. Sad

I'm not here to tell you whether god does exist or not. I can only encourage you to drop all prejudice and observe all around you with an objective mind. whatever conclusion you come up with is fine, as long as you are deeply honest to yourself.


I for one will tell you the biblical god was made up by men just like us here but a little more ignorant than we are just to control more men like others that are even more ignorant. Is our idea of a "GOD" flawed? I strongly think so.[/quote]I scarcely agree with your posts, but this one is b.ang on point and perfectly delivered. Eloquent, even. Well said bro.

lorenzos1: I don't know why any sane being would be trying to justify the rash deecisions of a very controversial president who decides to pardon a governor that single handedly wrecked a state leaving millions to wallow and die in poverty.What kind of message do you think he would be sending to the average citizen when we all know that Nigerias present deplorable state has been caused majorly by corruption and theft.
Op you really don't seem to understand the implication of the actions of corrupt officials on the people probably because it is not as direct as thatt of a robber who forcefully deprives you of your valuables at gunpoint,am very sure if you personally catch such a person afterwards you wld not only see that your valuables are recovered but also that he should be locked up for as long as possible that's if are don't put a tyre round is neck anyway..So if corrupt public servants that siphon funds meant for medical facilitties,Road Repairs,Provision of Basic ammenitties,Education,Electicity etc and make people suffer and die ealier than they would normally can be pardoned then it would only be logical to paardon evry harmed robber,convicted Killers,Villains that are locked up in same vein.cause they all fall under same category..The presidential pardon on Alam is a slap on our face and his an unwelcome development....

On point.

Corruption kills. It kills road users trhough accidents. It kills people in their homes through generator accidents. It kills people in hospitals through lack of facilities and medication. It killed by own sister's baby in a Kaduna hospital a few years ago when, in pre mature labour, every single hospital they got to had no electricity at night and doctors unavailable.

Corruption is a far greater mass murderer than Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, or any of those ever were.

Pardoning corruption is corrupt. The president is corrupt.

Dee60: GEJ did not just pardon Alams, he pardoned corruption. That is the point. Alams is not the issue here at all. At a point when Nigerians looked to their president to fight the monster of corruption that has reached a new peak in GEJ's administration, rather than he fight the corruption, he pardoned it. With that single act, the president can as well tell any Nigerian that he is fighting any corruption. No one will believe him. The president's body language to nigerians today is: steal as much as you can, the bigger your theft the bigger your chances of getting state pardon!

Gbam!

tomakint: ...and you think all what you stated above is possible under this 'warped system of government' we are practicing? If still in doubt, you may read this at your leisure; https://www.nairaland.com/964274/tale-country-multi-coloured-system-government

You do not get the point. I do not believe that all that I listed will be done in Nigeria. We are a long way off.

What I listed are steps that a serious country that recognizes the depth of the problem, will take.

In other words, these steps, which you ought to take, stand in stark contradistinction to the steps taken here - such as granting a pardon to an ex corrupt public officer.

In simple words, you are losing the game 5 - 0, so you need to score goals (the steps I enumerated). But rather than score goals and reduce the tally, you begin to score own goals against yourself (such as granting pardons to corrupt officers.) ! ! !

tomakint: Can you please elucidate further, perhaps you know something most of us here don't know about Nigerian Politics, I am waiting son

Ol boy, wetin you wan make I talk again? You live in a country that ought to, by now, have imposed the death penalty on acts of official corruption. I personally do not support capital punishment, but something similar to that is the sort of harsh level on which we need to be thinking as per corruption. A radical and very harsh stance has to be taken with it.

We should have a whistle-blower reward system put in place. You catch the thief, you receive a small percentage of the recoveries. Incentive for whistle blowers to blow whistles and blow them fast and hard in a greedy society.

After that, Life-Imprisonment, non negotiable, no possibility of parole, no plea bargaining. All assets forfeited to the states. All honors/ awards forfeited. No bank accounts permitted. Solitary confinement for life, no exceptions. Deny the president powers of pardon for corruption cases. Abolish official immunity from prosecution while in office. Have the EFCC report either to the Supreme Court or the Senate or better still, both; or have it selected and report to the National Judical Commission or other independent body. Remove its investigations from the purview of the Attorney General. Re structure the EFCC to ensure that it is not susceptible to control by the executive of the day. Include Media and International watchdogs on its board.

On top of all that, arrest every person who has held public office in Nigeria since 1979 and cannot explain his total assets legitimately. All of them must declare all their assets and explain them all. Any failure to do this = Life Imprisonment with the conditions I stated above: solitary confinement, no possibility of parole or pardon, forfeiture of all assets.

Revoke all oil blocks granted to politicians. Establish a Resource Control Allocation Commission. Place Media and International Watchdogs on its boards. I could go on and on, son: but the point is simply that in the midst of all the drastic steps that need to be taken, the last thing on your mind should be granting a pardon to a corrupt ex public officer.

tomakint: Even though you come by the handle "Deep Sight" you still can't see! Check it, "Eyes that look are common, eyes that see are rare".....perhaps you will tell us how your above stated psychobabbles can be related to the issue of Jonathan!

The bold in your post would answer that, son.

Sadly, in this case, I would have thought that all eyes should see the obvious.

trillville: If other corrupt officials are treated the same way alams was treated, Nigeria will be better. Alams is not the only thief.

And perhaps the way Bode George was treated as well? Look most people are willing to sit out 18 months or so in prison in exchange for a few billions, you know? Its a great deal: I would certainly take it - if I know that I can fetch a pardon afterwards, and in the case of these two, still hobnob with Presidents and the powerful of the land!

Think!

By the way, Alams was not convicted under this government. As such, you cannot credit his conviction to Jonathan's "anti-corruption" stance. All this govt has done in his case is pardon him.

tomakint: The reason for the hullabaloo is not far-fetched, simply because JONATHAN is in charge

The reason for your post is not far fetched either.

It is because you have no sense of decency whatsoever, no perspective on the travails and the r.ape of your fatherland, and its unborn generations, and no desire to see a decisive stand taken against corruption in your country. In summary, I conclude that you either are, or someday hope to be, a beneficiary of the continuing r.ape of Nigeria's coffers. Carry on. R.ape well, and ensure you have a perfect hard on while you are at it.

trillville: @wizprince, if gej had pardoned alams at the end of his tenure, the international condemnation he is receiving would not have been this bad. What gej is saying to nigerians and the world at large is if you are his friend, you can steal as much as you want and nothing will happen to you.

If gej had granted this pardon at the end of his tenure, he would simply be pardoning alams and no other person. Since his tenure would be over none of his other friends will have the audacity to steal more money.

I hope I have given you a better understanding? The timing of gej's act is worse than the act itself.

In the context of Nigeria's debilitating official corruption, no Nigerian president should be seen to be granting a pardon to any corrupt ex public official, period.

No one doubts that the action is within the powers and discretion of the president.

Discretion, however, by very definition, must be deployed advisedly.

In a country riven with public sector corruption requiring massive surgical anti-corruption intervention, Jonathan's act simply sends the wrong message. Nigeria has been so destroyed and its future and children disabled - that we should actually be considering tougher measures against corruption, and certainly not being seen at this time to pardon corrupt public officers. It sends the wrong message and affirms that the GEJ administration, whatever else may be its merits, has absolutely no intention of lifting a finger against official corruption in this country: because the president is personally corrupt.

X - X + X = X; Therefore . : . Resolve X.

X = X.

Resolved.

The reactions here are more than sufficient evidence. If at a time that we all ought to be collectively celebrating a man of our times, we are saying what I read here - - - - then, there is no time to celebrate, and no country to celebrate. Period.

Let me just add that my prayer for every man who subscribes to the virgin birth myth is that one, day, his own wife or intended wife will present him with such a story, namely, that she is pregnant when he has not touched her, and that an angel appeared to her with that same story as to the pregnancy.

Their reaction, will determine the extent of their "faith".

End of.

This is the problem with lies. Joseph was indeed said to be the link to the "House of David" in which Jesus was born. However, the scripture tells us he did not sire Jesus through Mary - namely - that some spirit being did his work for him beforehand!

How then is Jesus "Son of David" ? ? ? ? ?

Spirits impregnating virgins, bastard child (no offence, a technicality only) out of wedlock, alleged virgin getting pregnant without being touched by a man, and such other nonsense, is what is proffered up as sensible doctrine for Christians of the 21st Century.

I have had my time: I don tire to argue: this is a doctrine that ALL Christians WOULD scoff at, were it proffered by another religion as truth.

They forget, conveniently, that the punishment for being with child without wedlock at the the time, was death - - - by stoning.

They prefer, to believe instead, that, not that the woman and the man (or possibly the writers) contrived this story to hide their shame - - - > but that a spirit being in fact came and impregnated the woman.

These are people that would look down on doctrines of similar st.upidity from other parts of the world.

Wahallahi. . . I can NEVER understand Christian st.upidity!

ooman: You are deliberately forgetting the fact that its not a religious ceremony but STATE ceremony. The church has been separated from state, so it doesn't matter who the majority or minority groups are.

Since its a state ceremony, its the right of ALL citizens that ALL their beliefs be practiced or NONE practiced.

Why should atheists, muslims, satanists etc get a xtian burial. Its a despicable act that must be protested. I would never wish I get a xtian burial.

The right of the dead must be maintained. STATE CEREMONIES SHOULD ENDORSE NO RELIGION OR LACK OF IT. IT MUST BE DONE ACCORDING TO CONSTITUTION.

You are being pedantic.

How does it bother anybody, really? Its a Memorial, no? Set up in a predominantly Christian country, no? And by the way, I would countenance a claim by other theists asking for their religious insignia on the Memorial. But the case of the atheist is ridiculous because the atheist should be indifferent to what insignia is there - given the grief at hand, at least.

And who told you that Satanists were among those killed? Even if they were, you would be stretching the boundaries of reason to expect a Satanist insignia there. . . placed by the state?

The simple point is this: what interest should an atheist have in bothering the religious on their Memorials to their dearly departed tragically killed loved ones? None whatsoever - even if atheists died there as well. It should not bother the atheist, as such insignia are meaningless to him, no?

@ thehomer - Where is your humanity?

At the minimum, you would agree that gross insensitivity begets gross insensitivity. How do you, in a deeply religious country, and specifically in a situation where the nation and people seek to mourn their dead - over 3, 000 of such dead - death itself being a deeply spiritual phenomenon for these people - begin to raise objections at the fact that they seek to have the emblems of their faith on such a memorial?

I would not do such a grossly insensitive and even crude thing: especially when I weigh the depth and gravity of the grief being memorialized against the fact that as an atheist, whatever insignia are placed there should do me no harm and should be meaningless to me?

You behold a deeply religious people in such intense grief, and begin to pout about the religious insignia they wish to place in their memorial to their loved ones? This is not only the height of st.upidity, but also the lowest and rankest conduct that any human being can espouse. It, is, in itself, the zenith of crude and purposeless fanaticism, the height of insensitivity and cruelty to the feelings of other human beings, and as such, I would say that the vituperation received in return is only to be expected, in the grievous circumstance of mourning at issue.

^^^ They found traces of blood in his alcohol stream.

davidylan: Of course He could have changed His mind,

"Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass over my head". . . . . who said this?

He made the conscious choice to do the will of God rather than His...

So his will is not the same as the will of God, as I argued to you years ago.

# Trinity Debunked.

https://www.nairaland.com/344297/dr-david-sheds-some-light/1#4845520

ooman: there is really nothing like 'sin' in nature. There is only good and bad

Your second sentence contradicts your first.

Brother: best believe these: It is not only outright wickedness that constitutes sin.

These also:

Foolishness, is a gigantic sin and is capable of destroying a man's life and lives of those around him.

Weakness is also a gigantic sin and is capable of destroying a man's life and lives of those around him.

InesQor: @Deep Sight:

LOL I am confident that you have made up your mind, since you had to say it thrice

Me I don give up on this discussion sha

Yeah, I posted it thrice in error. Fixed.

Surely, however, you see what I mean in my last post on "authority" in the context of this discussion? Do you now understand why I say looking at it with bare dictionary definitions alone will rob the word of its nuanced connotation in this discussion?

InesQor: It is amusing that you do not care for the definition, right after you claimed that my usage "robs it of any meaning whatsoever from a scholastic or historical point of view", and I provided a reference with a scholastic POV. Make up your mind, brother.

Yes, I have made up my mind. And yes, again, I do emphasize scholastic and historical. You merely gave me the literal definition of the word as well as could have been taken from a disctionary.

By scholastic and historical: I mean that which squares with historical and cultural scholarship with reference to tracing the development of a people, culture and faith.

I will show you what I mean by describing the nuanced authority that I speak of below.

As long as there is no empiricism, the Muslims/Christians are free to believe in the authority that they have chosen to follow.

Same way Muslims are free to believe Mohammed is the comforter that was promised, Christians are free to believe that Jesus is the Messiah that they have accepted. To each their own.

Not with my understanding of authority as defined above. Everyone is of course free to believe whatever he wants, as is the case anyway, but no one is free to command himself and his religion as an authority on the understanding of a pre-existing religion which already had very well and deeply entrenched understanding of its own meaning and intent.

It is also as simple as saying that you cannot be an authority on matters that occurred in your absence. Just as a witness cannot testify on matters that he only knows by hearsay, and did not witness himself. In this correct sense then, he cannot be an authourity. In the specific sense in which the word applies to this discussion, no person or group can be considered an authority on the understanding of that which they did not witness.

Also I should add that those closest to the event, such as those who witnessed from witnesses and perhaps could witness about the effect on the event on the witnesses, are to be better considered as authorities than those further removed in time and space from the event. This is why new scriptures are not being admitted today - because of the distance and removal from the events. Otherwise, surely, God could still inspire anyone to write scripture, no?

By way of analogy I once read somewhere a parable of a church and a cat. The Priest of the church noticed rodents in the church and so bought a cat. He sent the cat into the church before every service to kill the rodents. This soon became standard practice in the church. Many years passed and the priest died. As the decades rolled on, the practice of sending the cat into the church before every service continued: and even became a hallowed part of the church's ritual - even when there was no one in the church who knew any more the origin of the practice.

If the Priest had written about the practice - that would be authoritative. If people around him at the time had recorded the reasons for the practice, that would also be authoritative. However if a future member of the church, far removed from the practice, decades on, claims that such authority is wrong, and that there is a different connotation for the cat in the church, such a person's interpretation is not authoritative.