₦airaland Forum

GODSON2009:
how did you conclude that i was a 'young man' as opposed to 'an old man'christianity is not founded on ritualistic human sacrifice,in case you didnt realise the old testament was all part of the bible as well,jesus christ offering his body as a sacrifice is largely symbolic of unconditional love and forgiveness this s different totally from your babalawos,oluwos and apenas who need the actual human blood to activate demonic influences and conjurationslike i have stated christianity never ever promoted nor advocated for human sacrifice unless you care to show me where the bible enjoins thisif you had intelligently and objectively read my comments and understood it in its entirety,you would have realised that the fat book as you refer to it was addressing just one point in a couple that i made which is human sacrifice and bloodshed of africans on their fellow brothers and sisters.

i have never said white people did not shed blood of africans,even a primary school social studies student will tell you that, the point here is that some of their religious crusaders,missionaries saved african babies from sure death to this day either 5 or 10 scottish pounds still has the picture of the incident of twins killing in nigeria including the name of some notable nigerians on its note.

let me intimate you with a few 'facts' from that fat book which you are at liberty to find out yourself
did you know that
ijebu was originally pronounced as ije-ibu in yoruba meaning food for the water/ocean? the paramount king then needed a wide expanse of land to keep the slaves destined to be offered up for the river godess as human sacrifice and they settled on where ijebu is presently situated when it was time they just plucked as many as they wanted and sacrificed them in the river.

did you know that the yoruba kings had to step over the blood of a young male when going inside the inner sanctum housing some gods and when coming out another slave had to be killed this time female for the king to step on the blood?

did you know that in some parts of youba land,human blood was used with other ingredients and applied to kolanut trees in order for a more bountiful yield?

i could go on and on about sacrifices made on behalf of kings,specific times of the year,on behalf of the war generals prince and princesses e.t.c

I don't think I need to say much as Tudor and MyJoe have addressed your post already. Let me just note that the Old Testament is replete with the greatest horde of barbaric and murderous practices such as cannot be found anywhere else. The New Testament, for its part, is founded on the ritualistic human sacrifice of Jesus' blood. Thus you have no case, sir.

Another quote from Ekt Bear -

I know that dredging the river niger is going to cost billions of dollars, and an enormous amount of money to maintain after that. If your state government and people want to sink their money in something uneconomical like that, no wahala. It is a free country.

But there is no reason for others to have to subsidize such.

Are you for real? Who are the "others" that are subsidizing such. Where does the money come from? ? ? ?

Quote from Ekt_Bear -

I've no problem with attempts to "de-congest" Lagos (whatever that means), so long as the relevant moneymaking structures there in (the port) are handed over to Lagos State. Then at that point, any Tom, manliness and Harry can build a port, manage it himself and derive the benefit thereof.

In such a situation, I think the intrinsic and physical advantage of Lagos Port will cause it to still dominate the industry.

I would be pretty displeased if Lagos Port is sabotaged by GEJ, though.

Build more ports. . . but then let us control the management of our own port (and get the revenue from it.)

What do you mean "our own port"? ? ?

Was the Lagos Port built with Lagos State Funds?

Was Lagos not the capital of a Federal Nigeria when it was built? To then demand that that federal facility (built with federal funds) should be handed over to the Lagos State govt is thus not only unfair, but highly opportunistic. If you must be fair, you would not then say that "others should build their own ports." Since federal funds were used to build a port in the then federal capital (lagos) what you should say should be that the federation should not shy away from funding ports in other places - which makes good economic and national planning sense, anyway.

But when you say "our port", lol, bros, that just shows a sad level of divisive thinking which is all the more deplorable when you consider that the said facility was built with revenue from elsewhere.

"Our Port". . . man, i just can't get over that! Your words just sum up the regressive tribalistic mindset of Nigerians. You ask that a federally funded facility in the then federal capital be handed over to Lagos State, and then you demand that everyone else should go and fund theirs by themselves.

Gosh, I actually always viewed you as one of the more rational ones on the Politics board!

^^^ You are so funny young man. You still don't get the point do you? Okay let me walk you through. You talk about ritual bloodshed as being a stain on African religions as opposed to the cosmogony of the "white man"

Is your own christian religion not founded on the very idea of ritualistic human sacrifice in terms of the so called remission of sins by the murder of Jesus on the cross, as supposedly willed by your own christian God? ? ?

If the very foundation of your christian religion is thus ritualistic human sacrifice, what gives you the unction and audacity to condemn other people for the very same act of ritualistic human sacrifice? ? ?

Secondly, I want to assume that your knowledge of history is limited to that old fat book owned by your father. Otherwise you would not exculpate "white men" from acts of barbaric savagery and bloodshed thoughout history. Such has, infact, been their forte.

^^^ What makes you think original African traditionl religion amounts to "worshipping the devil"? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Do you have a cultural inferiority complex?

You deride so called cults, but you very probably accept the religion of these same 'white men' as the proper truth, no? Do you not see contradictions in this? ? ?

Seun:
Why should I not be able to form a local political party to fight for local government chairmanship in Otta?

Legally you are free to do so: the point however is that when you turn up with zero after a general election, your party would have been shown to have no substantive following and will be deregistered under the law to decongest the political space.

actually, tribalism is less defensible than racism

"Cult is the Endeavour that has taken on form" - Abd Ru Shin

Friendship is a cult.

Family is a cult.

And the greatest cult of all time. . . marriage.

The cult to which I now bow my head as a lamb to the slaughter. . . so help me God.

I am on the side of the law, too, my friend. I earn my living as a lawyer, as I said to you earlier. I am simply trying to share with you a a philosophical reality that jungle situations tend to be resolved by jungle measures in situations where systems are not fully evolved. Deal with that: as it is a universal trusim.

By the way, you absolutely did not address the examples raised.

edicolove:
I do get your points and have already responded but you seem not to get it. All the scenarios you have raised have alternatives. I support goodluck but do not agree to the doctrine of necessity theory that was used to bring him in.

What then would you have preferred? Anarchy? What other options were available? Tell me. I hope you are aware that Yaradua was virtually a vegetable, and as such the required letter could NOT be sent. Even if they amended the constitution, it could not have retroactive effect, and as such it was a real log-jam.

So we cannot pretend as though law alone resolves all things. It does not.

And I repeat to you that there has never been and there still is not any single society in teh history of the world where puristic legalism has been practiced without exception or necessary deviation. That exists only in an utopia: or if you are religiously inclined, let me say that exists only in heaven.

There is a reason why true democratic nations adhere strictly to the law.

Please don't make me laugh. Can you point me to even just one such nation in this world. There is none. So long as the word we deploy is "strict". That word admits of no deviations, and in truth there are deviations everywhere in the world.

The reason being that once you start to allude to this so called doctrine of necessity ideology and the end justifying the means, you open the flood gates for anything to happen. the law itself is not perfect but provides a sure meeting point for everyone. the constitution of a country is not a set of rules that everyone is happy with, rather it is a set of rules that everyone can live by in the spirit of coexistence. what is the guarantee that Obama will not use the same principle and commit havoc tomorrow? what is the guarantee our senators will not do something crazy tomorrow in the spirit of doctrine of necessity. the only safe haven is strict adherence to the law, even when it hurts.

My friend, you did not answer the questions i set out for you. By what legal means could Laurent Gbago have been removed? Or Osama caught? Or Goodluck sworn in?

pluto04:
To answer your questions:

1. You can't just rely on headlines.

Nor can you rely on speculations. We can only go with what is given.

2. Even the National Assembly has to hurriedly change law to enable Jonathan become acting president.

The National Assembly did not change any law. I am a lawyer myself and avid current affairs follower: I know this for a fact. What law did the National Assembly change? They simply adopted the Doctrine of Necessity, declared Yaradua's broadcast as constituting a communication (whereas the constitution speaks about transmission of a letter to the Senate President) and pronto - Goodluck was unconstitutionally recognized as Acting President.

Now that was unconstitutional. Yet no one can deny that it was in the greater interest of Nigeria at the time.

3.Laurent Gbagbo's term as president expired 5 years ago. He lost an election that has not been validly cancelled.

Again, you are poor on facts. The fact of the matter is that according to the law in Ivory Coast, the Constitutional Council is the final arbiter of the election. That Council pronounced in favour of Gbago. Thus, if we speak strictly law, Gbago should have been sworn in and retained as president.

But the whole world is aware that the Constitutional Council was a fraud.

So there you go.

Why are you trying to justify the unjustifiable? Even if your points were valid, if the law was violated somewhere for example Tutsi and Hutus in Burundi, we should do the same because there is a precedent. By your arguments, the holocaust performed by the Nazis was justifiable because it has the backing of the 'people' and was 'necessary' to take Germany back from the people who hijacked its economy. By the same token, all the pogroms in the north of Nigeria where justifiable because it enjoyed widespread support.

Like Edicolove stated, the only safe place for everybody is the law. Without the law, we are all doomed and will descend to the jungle of animal society where the fittest survive and the weakest are killed off. Rochas is setting a bad precedent. A 'governor-elect' will soon be giving order for the arrest of a 'sitting-governor'. It is surprising that Rochas a few years ago wanted to be president of Nigeria. I hope he no longer nurses that ambition.

You have not been reading my posts. I am not justifying anything. I am simply trying to demonstrate that puristic legalism only occurs in an utopia.

There is no utopia on Earth.

@ Ediclove -

You make arguments while deliberately refusing to address the very poignant examples raised by kaisem. I thus am not able to discern any substance in the wordy but insubstantial posts you have made above. For the avoidance of doubt let me just make this clear: I do not support illegality, and it is not my view that kaisem is advocating illegality either. Far from it.

The simple point sought to be made is that the puristic legalism you are advocating amounts to expecting an Utopia. Let me assure you that there has never been any place in the history of statecraft where absolute and untainted puristic legalism has been practiced without flaw. Your arguments are thus most black-and-white, and thus unsuitable, given that we live in a world with many muddied grey areas.

Now i do not want you to make another post which will skillfully evade the clear and succint examples rasied. Therefore simply answer me in short, concise and succint words the following questions. Do not beat about the bush -

1. Was the invasion of Pakistani airspace without permission ffrom the Pakistani government lawful?

2. Was it necessary?

3. Was the Acting Presidency of Goodluck Jonathan birthed according to the strict letter of the law?

4. Was it necessary?

5. Was the dislodgement of Laurent Gbago in Cote-de-ivoire carried out in a lawful manner?

6. Was it necessary?

Point: Puristic legalism does not always address jungle situations thrown up by jungle politics. There is an old saying that drastic situations require drastic remedies. There is also another old saying that the law was made for man, and not man for the law.

^^^ You have given Dede two indisputable instances that prove that puristic legality is not always morally or practically expedient. The Osama execution and the acting presidency of Jonathan are cases in point. Well articulated sir.

Kobojunkie:
High-level corruption or not, a civilian has no such power. So this story is likely bogus.

You are often so idealistic, it is at once admirable and sad. You are being entirely naive.

Dede1:
Bros, we shall try not to intertwine the issues of USA/Pakistan/Osama Bin Laden and Okorocha/Imo State/Ohakim. I guess UN article 51 granted instances of self defense to its member nations.

Self Defense against agressors. Pakistan is not an Aggressor against the USA - CERTAINLY NOT IN A DECLARED LEGAL SENSE.

If anything, both countries are supposedly allies. Thus your argument in that regard must fail.

Dede1:
I intended to lean towards the issue of respect for Pakistani air space or lack thereof. However, Pakistan had expressed total lack of knowledge about Osama Bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan. Since Osama Bin Laden had also disregarded the Pakistani sovereign status by driving illegally into Pakistan with armed bandits, I guess the USA has reserved legal audacity according to UN resolution to chase him into Pakistan.

I like that term you have just used: "reserved legal audacity" - - - that says it all. In that term alone, you yourself have acceded that which i set out above to you: namely that jungle tactics are not always addressed by puristic legalism.

By the way, there is no UN resolution that authourises the invasion of Pakistani airspace - especially when Pakistan is supposedly an ally. If Pakistan claimed ignorance of Bin Laden's whereabouts, the legal thing to do would have been to inform them and seek their permission and co-operation. I am just trying to make you see that if you are to be strictly legalistic, then you cannot justify the invasion of the Pakistani airspace - for the exact reason that the state of Pakistan itself is not a declared enemy, etc.

Thus puristic legalism is not always apt for moral situations. That is the point i seek to make.

I do not want to even go into the other aspects of the legality of the whole Osama operation. The man was unarmed and yet shot dead for supposedly resisting arrest. That has to be a joke, right? It will serve no purpose to start a debate on that. Suffice to say that strict legality would be futile in jungle situations.

The sort of looting that goes on in Nigeria, I dare say, oft qualifies as a jungle situation.

^^^ Well I certainly am not cutting him slack bro. I am articulating the fact that systems evolve over time. Whilst that process takes its haul, there will always be instances of jungle logic. Such jungle logic will not be addressed by puristic legalism.

If I am to follow your logic, i might very well say that the UN accords on sovereignty were developed exactly to curb jungle laws, no? Yet it was apt for the United States to set aside such purism in pursuit of a cardinal greater good, no?

Edit.

Dede1:
Secondly, there is a UN resolution that calls for “self-defense”. Since Osama Bin Laden had been allegedly precipitated attack on the USA, the aforementioned UN resolution allows USA to pursue Osama Bin Laden anywhere possible.

You are wrong sir. If we are to be legalistic and puristic about it, whilst Osama may be viewed as an enemy combatant, the state of Pakistan is not legally so classed: and as such the invasion of Pakistani airspace remains illegal to the extent that it was done without the express consent of the Pakistani Government. The proper legal process would have been to proceed with the permission and co-operatoion of the authouries within that country.

However we all know that following such puristic legalism would have been fool-hardy of the US.

This seals the point that in extra-ordinary circumstances it is unreasonable to expect recourse to strictly legal methods when it is crucial to acheive an over-arching positive benefit. Osama's case is a prime example.

@ Dede: I feel your pain. I am a lawyer myself, and it certainly does rile that the application of the rule of law in Nigeria remains in the woods.

However I think that you expect an utopia. You need to recognise that systems and institutions within a society take time to evolve. When the systems are poorly developed there will be anomalies - and in many cases it might take outrightly unorthodox methods to acheive otherwise salutary ends. This occurs when the system is still run largely on jungle justice - and it will be naive for the ideological purist to imagine that recourse to legal propriety alone would resolve the drastic situations that arise within the jungle.

Ours is still a jungle, and it will take sustained effort over time to advance from that point.

However where jungle tactics are still in force, it may take jungle measures to deal with such behaviour.

Study Niccolo Maciavelli's works.

You will find that the greater interest of society is not always met by puristic legalism.

^^^ This post just reminds me why I have so much deep respect for Pastor AIO.

It is important that I remind myself, becaise sometimes he is so erratic that i often fear that it is actually another person that has somehow hacked into his account and is posting as him, but not him.

Anyways, that is the brilliance and splendour of a multifaceted character. A truly LIGHT soul.

You have hit so many buttons right on this thread, I cannot even begin to state them. May the most High God bless you.

JeSoul:
[pun] Don't forget now, (militant) atheism is still not a religion. [/pun]

Is communism a religion? ? ? ?

^^^ Please can i politely beg you in the name of God to stop using these ">>>>>>" marks to make all your points. It is highly destabilizing, as it gives the reader the impression that he is conversing with an automated program, or an extra terrestial robot, or some such thing

Pastor AIO:
The igbo is starting to work again o! (small yabis) The exact argument actually made in the OP and even in the title of the thread is that[b] it doesn't matter.[/b] Not that it does matter, abi are you reading a different thread.

I am referring to the argument I made, not the argument the OP made.

I didn't say I queried if it was divinely inspired on account of it contents. I merely queried if it was divinely inspired. And I mentioned it's contents separately.

Well you must agree that this - - -

The book of Ezra has the dubious honour of being the most racist document I've ever come across. Was this book really from God?

- - - lends itself to conjunctive and not disjunctive reading.

*Runs away very fast in anticipation of a long-assed protracted argument that leads nowhere at a furious pace*

*performs long jump over convoluted arguments and escapes through the door, lol*

*sigh*

The exact argument made was that it did matter who wrote the bible exactly because of the attribution of divine inspiration. . .which attribution has influenced events on a colossal scale throughout history. . .surely you get that?

You cited the book of Ezra. You queried if it was actually divinely inspired on account of its contents. As such you recognise that the origin of the book is important. If the people of Israel for example regarded the writer as a rogue prophet, that would make a huge difference. They may choose to place no stock by his words. They may not even regard it as scripture. You cannot deny that. This is very simple and clear.

They regarded the words of Moses as law - exactly because they believed God spoke to him. If they found that this was not the case, and Moses was either a rogue, or the words were not written by Moses at all, do you not realize that this would be key in framing their approach?

I think what you should say is that it doesn't matter for YOU - beacause YOU will still approach the book critically. You need to realize that that is for YOU. For others, it actually should matter because they approach the book with faith: regarding it as sacred, inspired, and thus the complete truth. They may not feel that way if they found it to have been written by a rogue, for example. Or by persons other than the named writers.

*Runs away very fast in anticipation of yabbis*

Idehn:
Wow, I see that the debate has moved since I was last here. So I will try to jump back in as best I can.
@aletheia

You interpretation of this passage is at best a contradiction with all the other passages where GOD itself commands/instructs its followers on obtaining/maintaining/emancipating slaves. My position that God was telling its followers not to enslave themselves unless debtors/criminals is consistent(not to mention generous) with all the other passages I have cited. Especially the ones where God literally commands his followers to obtain slaves from war/commerce.
This economics argument is a weak cop out. God(of the bible) cannot be eschewed from his act of promoting slavery, when it is stated quite clearly that God gave commands to his followers to practice it and how. You can ignore those passages all you want, but please stop saying that it is not God's will for man when God itself is telling people to go slaving. You do not express your disapproval of something by telling people to go out and do it. That is simply absurd.

You need to look up the Empires/Confederacies such as Dahomey,Benin,Oyo, Aro,Kongo(whose King even converted to Catholicism) that traded there enemies to Europeans to finance their expansion efforts. Europeans obtained most slaves from these groups because it was too costly to go on raids themselves or expand their territories (disease/language/knowledge of terrain etc. . .). They did not care how they were obtained either. You will find that the bulk of all slaves originated from these regions which the Europeans established contacts with. Race and religion had their role to play in this shameful affair and not just Christianity either. I am just pointing out that the bible can be easily shown to support slavery as well.

I did not cite sources specifically because this page would explode, but if you continue to insist that all or even most slaves from Africa were somehow not prisoners of war/conflict I will gladly start doing so. Obviously, organized African military participation was crucial and well documented to the point where regions were noted as literally being depopulated.

You mean this.
This again is Paul continuing his pleas to Philemon because Onesimus is a useful convert to Paul. He even cleverly emphasizes/injects this fact in his "love thy fellow believer" petition in the bolded part. In short Paul was trying to guilt Philemon into releasing Onesimus because of his utility. I have shown passages where Paul is more than happy to let followers own slaves and slaves wallow in unending servitude even going so far as to implore believing slaves to be happy/accept their station. What more evidence do you need? Do you concede that Paul in fact endorses slavery?

You tell me. I do not know how he could possibly get the idea that Slavery was wrong from a biblical point of view. Even your economics/human institution argument is extra-biblical.

That is great and all, but we are talking about justifying slavery using the bible. We know why people would want slaves, unless you are suggesting the Israelites/Hebrews/believers owned/sold slaves for reasons other than cheap labor and profit. I certainly am not.

First I have shown passages where God instructs his followers to enslave entire surrendering cities. Obtaining slaves as prisoners of war is not just a "one time thing". You just ignored that passage. Second the bible documents the Hebrews/Israelites/Judeans being in a lot of conflicts with their weaker neighbors. The fact remains that during these conflicts, obtaining slaves as prisoners of war was considered an acceptable practice by the bible. God even commands its followers to do so.

Tell us what was un-biblical about the way Europeans obtained/maintained slaves compared to what Hebrews/Israelites/Judeans were doing. Did God not instruct its followers to get slaves from heathens? Did the Hebrews/Israelites/Judeans not get slaves from wars? Did the Hebrews/Israelites/Judeans not purchase their slaves from heathens abroad? Did the slaves of Hebrews/Israelites/Judeans not work on farms? Were some of the slaves of Hebrews/Israelites/Judeans not slaves in perpetuity? Where the progeny of said slaves not also slaves in perpetuity? What exactly is the difference here?

As stated earlier this economics argument is just weak cop out. Also at this point, you interpreting however you feel like with no context is written in the bible. We have asked you to point to where God clearly says that owning slaves is wrong all you have is the Exodus passage. I interpreted that passages kindly as saying not to go slaving amongst yourselves. However, it can also be interpreted as do not steal each others slaves which is more congruent with all the pro-slaving passages we have amassed here. Furthermore, you keep bringing up that exodus verse which baffles me because you do not seem realize what else is found in that very same passage.

Clearly God has no problem with his followers obtaining slaves through commerce/war. That verse makes far more sense being interpreted the way I have than how you have. The passage shows that not all slaves are debtors or one of God's followers. Why would God make rules obtaining/selling perpetual slaves and suddenly in the same passage say that you will be put to death for forcing other people to be perpetual slaves and selling them. It does not even say the daughter has to be willing to be sold into slavery either. It just says that you can. Of course nobody is asking the children of slaves if they want be slaves forever and if you can sell your own daughter into slavery, I am sure you sell the child slaves too.

Lastly I fail to see how "love thy neighbor" can even begin to address the biblical atrocities that have been brought up in this discussion,much less slavery.

Gbam! Gbamer! ! Gbamest! ! !

Pastor AIO:
The book of Ezra has the dubious honour of being the most racist document I've ever come across. Was this book really from God?

Oh please what a question sir. I thought it doesn't matter who wrote the bible. . .


[size=40pt]? ? ? ! ! ![/size]

You now ask the quetsion of divine inspiration. When I asked that same question in relation to the argument in the OP, you bin wan break my head.

Case closed. If I talk, now, na abuse go follow. Abeg, no abuse me o.

Here's an excellent example of a rampant and rapacious form of modern slavery which is actually consecrated in churches. . .

Joagbaje:
Slavery is synonymous to servants.

No it is not sir! ! !

Servants are paid a wage for their services: they are also free to resign and walk away if they so please and seek vocation elsewhere.

Slavery on the other hand connotes bondage.

What do you suppose the terms "bondmen" and "bondmaids" refer to?

^^^ Simply and correctly stated.

debosky:
The NT preachers did not see it fit to repudiate it either as a system, but merely encouraged a few individuals to get out of slavery if they could.

The excuse of 'economic system' does not wash for me precisely for the reason of William Wilberforce. He FOUGHT slavery when there was still a demand for slaves, so I do not see any reason why the NT preachers did not condemn slavery.

Precisely. The above summarizes the point succintly.

Enigma:
Interesting discussion.

@debosky

I take the points you are making but I have the following questions.

Would you say that the New Testament supports slavery?

What about Christianity, would you say that Christianity supports slavery?

Good argument Enigma: my understanding of Christianity is that it is a doctrine of love for fellow man. As such in Christian parlance slavery should be condemned: but the NT writers who lived in the midst of it and commened on instances of slavery did not make any effort to condemn the system as ungodly. They absolutely did not repudiate the system: and indeed they appeared to adjure slaves to behave themselves obediently.

Also, there are many things (a lot cruel and barbaric) in the Old Testament that were not explicitly repudiated in the New Testament, would we say those are still part of or acceptable in Christianity.

The distinction lies in the fact that all those other things did not arise for comment in the NT context at all: slavery on the other hand, was alive and well and practiced in the NT milieu and specifically, the NT writers had ample occassion to comment upon it as seen in the writings of Paul.

aletheia:
^
What was the basis for William Wilberforce's active campaign against slavery. Or put another way: where did he find the moral justification for his struggle? 
I am sure you know the answer to that! That will answer your question.

So why were bible writers, supposedly guardians of a higher calling, not able to militate against slavery as Wilberforce did. Rather they set out regulations for it.

If you argue that Wilberforce's inspiration was the bible, then that only worsens your predicament as it begs the question as to why a distant European would derive that unction against slavery whereas the very bible writers themselves failed to derive such an unction from their very own words?

I hope you have seen debosky's last post. The truth is GLARING.