₦airaland Forum

thehomer: By "wrong", what do you mean? Are you asking for my personal opinion on these issues or about what a society should consider legal or illegal or the advice I'll give to someone on these issues or what?
I also think you would need to separate the idea of wrongness from that of certain human acts being natural because that would just confuse the issue. So, are you going for wrong or unnatural?

^^^ Unnatural. That is what I mean by wrong. Because you started by queryinmg what's unnatural in homose.xuality.

So by wrong, I simply mean unnatural.

You may answer in that light, thanks.

@ Alvinplant -

Particularly from this post onwards -

https://www.nairaland.com/402063/meta-ethics-nature-origins-good-evil/2#5590319

Please read and revert in light of my question (2) above.

Thanks.

@ Alvin Plantinga -

Very well articulated. Quite excellently put.

However I will say as follows -

1. Have you considered the possibility that God is neither good nor evil, but simply IS.

2. Have you considered the possibility that God encompasses the totality of all self-existent principles - and that that encompasses the principles of light as well as darkness

Discssion: https://www.nairaland.com/402063/meta-ethics-nature-origins-good-evil

3. I predict that thehomer (not i) will still raise the issue of natural disasters, cancer, malaria, etc. Although in the words of Harold Klemp, these reverses are required for the development of teh soul.

OOOOOOOOLLLAAAAAADEEGBU! When will you get tired of silly cartoons and videos? ? ?

^^^ And i'm really glad to learn the clarification that he is using a translating software, hance the grammatical errors

Pastor AIO: Abeg, leave Ola to speak for himself. Christianity to him is based on the Bible and it is his 'final authority of faith and practice'.

It follows that St. Peter and the apostles could not be christians because they didn't have a bible to be the authority of their faith and practice.

Gotcha there. Correct.

thehomer: What would the bearing of my response to these questions be to the issue of homosexuality?

ooooo. . .do I sense a hint of fear? Don't worry my good man, I simply want us to start from the underlying premises as to what exactly makes any se.xual act wrong or unnatural. We will then use same premises to see if homo.sexu.ality is unnatural or not.

You usually give unambiguous, short concise answers to questions. But something told me you would fear this particular set of questions. Please prove me wrong: revert to your normal self-assured self, answer the questions, and lets take it up from there.

Cheers.

OLAADEGBU: Yes, they did.

Pastor AIO:

Perhaps Ola means that they believed in the authourity of the scriptures as they were then constituted.

For the genuinely intelligent and honest reader, let us carefully note the context of this "Son of God" business.

"Son of God" is a phrase which, according to most Christian denominations Trinitarian in belief, refers to the relationship between Jesus and God, specifically as "God the Son". To a minority of Christians, nontrinitarians, the term "Son of God", applied to Jesus in the New Testament, is accepted, while the non-biblical but less ambiguous "God the Son" is not.

Throughout history, emperors have assumed titles that amount to being "a son of god", "a son of a god" or "son of Heaven".[1] Roman Emperor Augustus referred to his relation to the deified adoptive father, Julius Caesar as "son of a god" via the term divi filius which was later also used by Domitian and is distinct from the use of Son of God in the New Testament.[2]

In the New Testament, the title "Son of God" is applied to Jesus on many occasions.[3] It is often seen as referring to his divinity, from the beginning in the Annunciation up to the Crucifixion.[3] The declaration that Jesus is the Son of God is made by many individuals in the New Testament, and on two separate occasions by God the Father as a voice from Heaven, and is asserted by Jesus himself.

For thousands of years, emperors and rules ranging from the Western Zhou dynasty (c. 1000 B.C.) in China to Jimmu Tenno of Japan (perhaps c. 600 B.C.) to Alexander the Great (c. 360 BC) have assumed titles that reflect a filial relationship with deities.[1][7][8][9]

Around the time of Jesus, the title divi filius (son of the divine one) was specially, but not exclusively, associated with Emperor Augustus (as adopted son of Julius Caesar). Later, it was also used to refer to Domitian (as son of Vespasian).[2][10] Augustus used the title " Divi filius", not " Dei filius", and respected the distinction.[11]

In the Book of Exodus Israel as a people is called "God's son", using the singular form.[12] Both the terms sons of God and "son of God" appear in Jewish literature predating the New Testament. In Jewish literature, the leaders of the people, kings and princes were called "sons of God" based on the view of the king as the lieutenant of God.[3] However, the Messiah, the Anointed One, was uniquely called the Son of God, as in Psalm 2:7: The "Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee".[3] This psalm can obviously be seen as referring to a particular king of Judah, but has also been understood of the awaited Messiah.[13]


In the New Testament, the title "Son of God" is applied to Jesus on many occasions.[3] It is often used to refer to his divinity, from the beginning of the New Testament narrative when in Luke 1:32-35 the angel Gabriel announces: "the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God."[3]

The declaration that Jesus is the Son of God is echoed by many sources in the New Testament. On two separate occasions the declarations are by God the Father, when during the Baptism of Jesus and then during the Transfiguration as a voice from Heaven. On several occasions the disciples call Jesus the Son of God and even the Jews scornfully remind Jesus during his crucifixion of his claim to be the Son of God."[3]

Of all the Christological titles used in the New Testament, Son of God has had one of the most lasting impacts in Christian history and has become part of the profession of faith by many Christians.[15] In the mainstream Trinitarian context the title implies the full divinity of Jesus as part of the Holy Trinity of Father, Son and the Spirit.[15]

However, the concept of God as the father of Jesus, and Jesus as the exclusive Son of God is distinct from the concept of God as the Creator and father of all people, as indicated in the Apostle's Creed.[16] The profession begins with expressing belief in the "Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth" and then immediately, but separately, in "Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord", thus expressing both senses of fatherhood within the Creed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God

And as far as the term "only begotten" son is concerned, the word is translated from the word "Monogenes" - the very same word the bible uses to refer to single children of human parents. Jesus was not a single child of his parents, and as such it was a reference to him being the only begotten son of God. That the very same word is used for single children of human parents conclusively tells that the NT refers to Jesus as being a firstborn of God, and as such, having a beginning.

NT USAGES -

Luke 7:12 "her only son (o monogenes uios)"
Luke 8:42 "only daughter (e monogenes thugater)"
Luke 9:38 "only son (o monogenes uios)"
John 1:18 textual variation in manuscripts: a. "only begotten" God (monogenes theos / b. "the only begotten Son" (o monogenes uios)
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son (o monogenes uios)"
John 3:18 "he has not believed in the name of God’s only son (o monogenes uios)"
Heb.11:17 "only-legitimate son (o monogenes uios)" – since Abraham also fathered Ishmael, from the slave girl Hagar, and six other sons, from Keturah.
1 John 4:9 "God sent his only Son (o monogenes uios) into the world"


Please do not let cultists spread lamentable lies.

@ thehomer

A few questions for you please.

1. Is there anything wrong with sleeping with a human corpse, the legal rights over which reside with the person so sleeping with the corpse. I.E: A person's spouse dies. The person is the legal owner of the corpse. Is it right, in your view, for the person to have se.x with the corpse.

2. Is there anything wrong in having protected se.x with my 17 year old daughter (please note that 16 is the age of consent and as such she may legally give consent).

3. Is there anything wrong in having protected se.x with my sister, who is also above the age of consent.

4. Is there anything wrong in having protected se.x with my mother.

4. Is there anything wrong, as a man myself, in having homosex.ual intercourse with my father.

5. Is there anything wrong where a man surgically changes his se.x organs to female se.x organs and vice versa.

6. Do you think the human anus is naturally intended to function as a receiving se.xual organ.

Please answer me these questions with EXACTING honesty and we shall take it from there.

Merci.

Kay 17: ^^ No deepsight, Christianity sees man as dust modelled after God

Really? So what do you think it meant in Genesis when it says "the Lord God breathed into man the breath of life, and the man became a living being?"

Is the breath of life dust?

Jenwitemi: Isn't that better than being made of DUST, eh, Mr. DUSTMAN? I'd rather be a cousin of an ape than being a dustman.

Religion like Christianity says that YOU are a mere dust, while evolution theories say that you are related to an ape. Which one would you prefer to be referred to as? I know which one i would want to be referred to as and it is not as as a freaking DUST.

To be fair bro, Christianity does not teach that the inner man is made of dust. It teaches the inner man to be spirit. Only the body is said to me made of dust. And that, i think, accords with science - are we not all made of star-dust? Correct me if i'm wrong.

^^^^ You would think that that would be a simple enough thing to say: on the contrary you have sissified buffoons spewing native inferiority of the most lamentable kind, while seeking to worship a foreign mere mortal man: and lampooning those who do not kow-tow as - wait for it - dishonest.

What an interesting place this world is.

This is the most foolish thread that has even been created on any forum anywhere in the world. no contest whatsoever.

cyrexx: so also is the computer you are now using, it is atheistic (windows is written by agnostic bill gates)
so also is the iphone (Steve Jobs is a buddhist, who dont believe in personal God) and other gadgets you are using manufactured by atheistic Japan (more than 64% of them dont believe in God)
so also the atheistic Japanesse cars you are probably using

Surely this doesn't add up. If these gadgets are "atheistic", would we then call gadgets invented by religious people "christian" gadgets? Is the concept of refraction of light "Christian" for example? Please lets not fool around.

@ benodic - have you read the grail message as i recommended?

^ Yawn.

brainpulse: @ Deepsight i am forced to respond to your allusion here on the bolded, i would rather say you are not a believer in the words of God at all and a deceiver of the brethren, because every words as written in the bible are the mind of God and inspired only by him(II Tim 3:16). For all the words to survive generations and brought together is never the effort of any man if God has not willed. For you to say Paul was lying even when you were not born during this period shows you are deliberately ignorant or mislead in your beliefs.
I will suggest that Enigma seize to discuss with you on this issue because it shows that you are only out to paint the truth lies despite evidences posed before you. I regret if my words sounds harsh but know its in good faith.
Thanks

Thanks for your comments, and yes, I take them in good faith. Don't worry about Enigma, as a famed sissy, he has a long habit of behaving like a girl: so no doubt he will take your advise. No one but her over-aged r[i]a[/i]ping suitors should be concerned about that.

As to the issue, you too should cease to read scripture with the lens of infallibility. Scripture is not infallible: and I can show you this in an instant, if you care.

The plain fact is that Paul stated that God made a statement about Jesus: he quoted from Psalm 45: and any reading of Psalm 45 shows that no such statement was made regarding Jesus!

That is the plain and undeniable fact. As such Paul either was ignorant or simply lied. The latter more likely: which in fact renders him a dubious manipulator of scripture in addittionm to his well-earned status as a notorious chauvinist.

@ Kola Oloye: Thanks for your very succinct and on-topic response.

However, if I may - just a very little question, as you have drawn our attention to Christ's role as redeemer of mankind:

1. What was the state of mankind prior to Jesus sojourn on earth - redeemed or unredeemed - and what were the manifestations of such a state?

2. What is the state of mankind now, after Jesus' sojourn on earth - redeemed or unredeemed - and what is the manifestation of such a state?

Many thanks.

^^^ All you need to do is reject the religious idea of God and think about a philosophical construct of God and a prime-mover or first cause of all that exists.

Yawn.

Enigma:

You will still beeeeg again to discuss with me.

And I will once again laugh at you. In heat, you throw all sorts of insults at me, something you have done from day one. When you calm down, you beg me to discuss. Even me the "Arrow", (I don't think you even know what it means or how offensive it is considered --- another example of your idiotic ignorance), you will still beg again to discuss with.

YOU ARE A CAPITAL Arrow.

Go to bed. Don't worry I will find other posters to beg.

Oh, dont worry, I will pull them all up in my next post myself - and it should be obvious I was cajoling you to drop your very childish approach to things - a developnment which I would have liked to see - but which appears to be a pipe dream.

You ought to be ashamed of your petty woman-like behaviour. Infact, saying that is even an offence to women. You are worse than any female I know in terms of this ridiculous behaviour of yours. My asking you severally to kick your bitterness and engage in a discourse is actually shameful for you. It shows just how silly and childish you have always been.

Olodo. Now you have given five intensely silly responses.

Talking about being begged to chat. . .what a m.oronic Arrow. Are you 12 years old or something

Enigma: Cool.

Yet you keep begging me to engage in discussion with you!

Even on this thread, do you realise how you asked me.

Oh yes, I have been trying to help you drop your silly bitterness and grow up. Doing so would be a sign of maturity. But all my efforts have failed. I honestly dont know hopw any human being - and a supposed christian at that - can carry and sustain the level of puerile bitterness that you do - and for so long. And for no reason.

Olodo. Go sleep joor.

Enigma: I just wanted to show up your idiocy --- once again

And of course, the subtlety in my post is lost on you --- as usual; the unstated thing in that post which you are too thick to discern is that I should not even have replied your first question at all; (though I achieved my aim with the response). It is just not worth it in your case.

Waste of time as already pointed out twice on this thread.

Finally, take the same advice I gave the other fellow: continue in your ignorance and/or deliberate dishonesty.

Of course, you have long made heavy weather of the fact that I am not worth speaking to. Yet you have here allotted me one response and so far could not resist three? And you talk about i[/i]diocy? My boy, you an unintelligent clown who believes ridiculous mythical piffle simply because you have an inferiority complex for the white man. Your posts are nonsensical, you have a pathetically exaggerated opinion of yourself given the extreme poverty of your intellect, and worst of all the way you childishly pose like some primadonna just makes you apear like a bitter gossiping [i]petty woman.

Go sleep joor. Olodo.

ijawkid: @enigma....

Like deÉp sight said that verse is an exact extract from psalm chapter 45....

- - - And Psalm 45 SAYS NO SUCH THING!

Perhaps Enigma is following in the lying footsteps of "Saint" Paul. . .

Enigma: ^^^ You need to go and read up; in this kind of situation I tend to recommend starting with "consubstantiality"; you can start from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiality

What I notice is that you don't really understand what it means to say: The Father is God AND Jesus is God AND the Holy Spirit is God.

This of course would then mean that you really do not understand the Trinity doctrine.

Finally, I do not wish to force you or convince you to believe the doctrine. It is entirely up to you to satisfy yourself about what you believe.

Consubstantiality ko, consubstantiality ni. Nonsense.

^^^ Bros, I thought you allotted me only one response? You are in generous spirits today, I must say.

The fact simply remains that Paul stated that "Of the son, God said. . ." - Paul is either ignorant or deliberately lying, because Psalm 45 clearly says no such thing. I can't shout, I posted the whole of Psalm 45 up there, and any genuinely intelligent and honest person can see that Psalm 45 says NO SUCH THING.

Stop peddling silly lies while laying claim to a high horse the height of which does not exceed that of a poodle. You have no idea how pitifully ridiculous you appear in doing so.

Now, on the subject of honesty or dishonesty, let us take a case:


Enigma cited the following scripture -

Hebrews 1:8

But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

What he failed to do (which would have been honest and proper) is to point out that the scripture above is a quotation from Psalm 45:6. Any reading of Psalm 45 shows that it has no reference to Jesus. It talks about an earthly king described as the most excellent of men and greatly blessed by God. It talks in verse 6 about the eternity of the throne of God. It says, your throne, o God , is forever. This says nothing about Jesus, not to speak about saying anything about Jesus being God. But I will not argue this. I will simply paste the whole of Psalm 45 here and anybody can see for himself what the truth about that verse is.

Psalm 45
45 My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

2 Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever.

3 Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty.

4 And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.

5 Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.

6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

8 All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad.

9 Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.

10 Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house;

11 So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.

12 And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall intreat thy favour.

13 The king's daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold.

14 She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee.

15 With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king's palace.

16 Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth.

17 I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever.

Now, any person is free to read the above for himself and see if this refers to Jesus as God, or if it even refers to Jesus at all.

I must very carefully add that I am tempted not to respond at all, but I only do so, and only once, for personal reasons.

What a laugh.

^ ^ ^ There are clearly reasons why informed and honest poeple could have genuine concerns about the scriptural basis of the Trinity. However I am informed by Enigma that the only reasons for doubting the doctrine are - (a) ignorance, (b) intellectual dishonesty, and (c) intellectual fraud.

I find that an amazing statement. Very presumptuous, judgmental and autocratic. Would have loved to discuss such a statement but the good fella has jumped on his exalted horse and so discussion is closed.

Life's hard, init?