₦airaland Forum

^^^ ah ahn. This thing is glaring now?

My question remains unanswered: namely - did bible writers actively militate against slavery in the manner that Wilberforce did.

aletheia:
^Do you have something niggling you? Out with it!

No bro, I just felt his last post pretty much hammered away the point.

William Wilberforce lived within a period when the self same 'economic' and 'legal' system of slavery was in full swing: and yet his vociferous and passionate fight against the system remains recorded in history for all to see.

We cannot claim that men inspired by the Divine God itself, would be any less conscientous regarding the self-same system. What is abundantly obvious is that bible writers did not preach against slavery: only in a few instances did they plaintively seek the freedom of a slave here and there: but in no wise may it be contended that they advocated the demise of the system: they did not: and if they did: please show me where.

abeg alethia make u siddon joor, idehn don sammer you

Grey Beard:
I think we can agree that Faith and Religion are not the same and in the context of your original post I think using the two terms inter-changeably is mis-leading.

Very well. We must however agree that there is such a creature known as religious faith - that faith which is based on the doctrine and dogma of a religion, and adhered to as such.

A faith doesn't have to be a religion but a religion includes faith at its centre and is completed by a number of other components. So in my view a religion can make sense without requiring it's core faith to make sense.

I feel that this is a violently contradictory statement - unless of course you can rationalize it for me?

Is faith like an emotion - something that one just feels and which as such needn't make sense? I don't think so. Have you read the post of m_nwankwo above? Please do review it and share your thoughts.

However, if someone says that their faith demands they kill others in order to enter paradise then I think you'll find that they have been misled by others looking to use faith for their own ends.

Certainly. This may also be true of many other less harmful beliefs.

There is nothing wrong with the faiths or religions used to justify these events in history. The faiths are beautiful and and religions honourable. What caused these event to occur were the people who exploited those religions to their own ends. If you properly examine all the religions today (apart for Judaism which is more of a culture than a religion) you'll see they are all reasonable and seek to provide mankind with a good moral compass. But what makes them seem senseless in some cases is when they are manipulated by unscrupulous individuals who seek to use the nature of faith itself to justify their acts.

Quite agreed: just as a point of interest though, do you regard Judaism as unreasonable?

The reality of the matter is that even if somehow all religion and all faith was eliminated from this world, it will not change the nature of some men willing to do anything for power. Religion is just a tool they use and if it is no longer there or changed to make it impossible for them to use it, they will simply use some other means to achieve their goals. As long as there is Power, there will be evil. And as long as there are human beings, there will be power.

Absolutely.

Hi Jesoul. I need to make a correction of my earlier response to you.

When you said -

1 - who a religion needs to be sensible to. Is the practice of my religion (as long as I am not infringing on another human being) supposed to make sense to anyone else but me? is religion a personal journey? is it meant to be subjected to outside standards that will declare it sensible/not sensible?

And I responded -

This is a very dangerous argument you are attempting to make: you should recognise that it will be well suited to even the pagan human sacrifice ritualist: who would well conclude that his religion only needs to be sensible to himself and as such, remains good and acceptable.

- - - I need to note that my response was not proper because on reading your post again i see that you had already inserted the caveat "(as long as I am not infringing on another human being). So my example above may not be very apt.

Nonetheless let me note generally that religions do have an insidious way of affecting everything in the world, even when one does not subscribe to religions. And let me reiterate the latter part of my response where I noted that -

I am persuaded that it is a superior view to hold that where there is common reason, the commonality of mankind should be able to recognise such. To give a very simple and plain argument of the extremes: if a man were to state that his religion consists only of a commitment to assist the less privileged: no one, bar non one - could view that as unreasonable. The man thus has no need to insist that his religion must only make sense to himself and no one else. In truth, such insistence is the seed ground of divisive fanaticism.

Thanks.

Some brief words I posted about a year ago on the subject -

Well if i may briefly. To understand this, i think we should return to the philosophical question of necessary things and contingent things. Basically necessary things are things which self-exist - things which could not NOT exist. Contingent things basically are not inherently self existent: or put better - require a cause to exist.

For a simple example, let me cite these: Time is a necessary thing. Time is something that cannot NOT exist. Time is. Now without getting into the dynamics of whether or not space and time were created at the moment of the "big bang" let me just say this - i refer here to infinite time, and not finite time.

Infinite time is basically eternity. Eternity is not something that needs to be created. It quite simply is - a constancy of continuous infinity of time. It is thus a necessary and not contingent thing, and is self-existent, and needn’t be created. It is intangible, and can be referred to as a flat state of reality.

Now let’s look at another example. Let’s look, for instance (just to give a wild-example) at my Sony Bravia Flat Screen Tv. This is by no means a necessary or self-existent thing: It is a contingent thing, and even if you came upon it in the furthest reaches of the universe, you would conclude that it required a cause to exist.

Now although I know there are hairs to be split on this: let me say that the principal thing to note is that necessary things are by nature intangible, whereas contingent things are tangible. Think of every conceivable self-existent thing: eternity is self existent: and per force intangible. Numbers are also self-existent – and per force intangible.

If you think about it, you may see that anything that is self-existent, cannot also be tangible or material. One pointer to this fact is that self-existent things, being necessary and uncreated, are not capable of change. Matter, on the other hand, changes constantly and this betrays the fact that it is not a necessary or self-existent thing and accordingly: required a cause, or causative/ creative agent.

I honestly hope that this has given some perspective as to why I do not, and will never regard material things or matter, as being self-existent.

^^^ Have you done a study of the philosophical notions of necessary things and contingent things?

Martian:
God is, God is,god is ,god is>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>god is what for goodness sake?

The refrain "God IS" - is a completed statement already. "God IS" refers to a permanent, immutable and self-existent state of being - namely that God simply IS.

You need to study and reflect on the philosophical notions of necessary things and contingent things.

The eternal element that is and remains the source of all existence is referred to as something that IS. That is a philosophical statement of self-existence. A thing whose intrinsic nature renders it existent.

Maybe it's because of the onesness of infinity.

Of course it is.

@ thehomer: if you could not see the meaning in the story given by imhotep of "the formular". . . I am really and truly gobsmacked.

^^ Yes.

Why something instead of nothing?

JeSoul:
You cannot post your own argument and then declare it 'successful' DS . . .  the way you are patting yourself on the back self . . . anyways . . .

Actually no: recall that I had stated within the early part of the article that the argument of the extremes may not always be applied successfully because we live in a wolrd of nuances. Thus I am merely saying here that this is an instance in which we can actually apply the argument to glean at least some basic premises. The basic premise gleaned is that it is insufficient to base religious beliefs and practices on faith alone.

I also noted that faith is a universal defense for every religion, anyway, and in the same way, divine revelation is claimed by all. The point here being that in addressing the question as to what a sensible religion is, it is not helpful to cite faith and divine revelation as rendering a religion sensible. Everybody will claim these, anyway.

It would be helpful, if we could clearly iron out -

1 - who a religion needs to be sensible to. Is the practice of my religion (as long as I am not infringing on another human being) supposed to make sense to anyone else but me? is religion a personal journey? is it meant to be subjected to outside standards that will declare it sensible/not sensible?

This is a very dangerous argument you are attempting to make: you should recognise that it will be well suited to even the pagan human sacrifice ritualist: who would well conclude that his religion only needs to be sensible to himself and as such, remains good and acceptable. [Edit: This is an innapropriate example as I have noted in my post No. 10 below]

I am persuaded that it is a superior view to hold that where there is common reason, the commonality of mankind should be able to recognise such. To give a very simple and plain argument of the extremes: if a man were to state that his religion consists only of a commitment to assist the less privileged: no one, bar non one - could view that as unreasonable. The man thus has no need to insist that his religion must only make sense to himself and no one else. In truth, such insistence is the seed ground of divisive fanaticism.

2 - what exactly sensible entails - seeing how diverse cultures are across the world and across generations. Is there a universal acceptance of this criteria you will select?

It was my intention to place this very issue at the centre of the second part of my article, and I will do so.

Should spiritual beliefs be subject to physical judgement?

What is "physical judgment?" Reason is reason. That is why Jesus himself ALWAYS deployed simple logical explanatory parables from the physical world around him to impart spiritual truths. Reason holds the same in a basic sense. This is why, for example, the physical phenomenon of seed time and harvest time is used to impart and explain the spiritual truth of reaping what we sow. Similarly the laws of gravity, magnetism etc, are all used to explain spiritiual truths, notwithstanding that these are physical laws. Or I might more accurately say that these are laws which also have a physical manifestation. I say this because, all laws are really various manifestations of the one singular and ultimate principle encapsulated in primordial divinity. That principle manifests itself in an infinite array of ways as different laws within creation. A single law will have spiritual as well as physical applications. Hence analogies may be extrapolated from a physical law to understand a spiritual truth. That is what Jesus did in so many of his parables.

Grey Beard:
Insightful post!

I agree. Faith by itself is insufficient to constitute a religion or indeed justify any practises thereof. However faith (that unshakable belief in something that is impossible to prove) is intrinsic to religion and when looked at under the microscope of the "argument of the extremes" has incalculable benefits to mankind.
For example, you wrote:

However, if you look at the other extreme, you'll find that faith can Move Mountains, Heal the Sick, Give Sight to the Blind, Cause the Lame to Walk, Raise the Dead - in other words, Make the Impossible Possible. With "extreme faith" you can do literally anything on this earth.

Regarding the Aztec human sacrifices, I would question whether those things were Acts of Faith or merely Practises of Religion or Culture that emunated from an overall belief system. Another way of looking at it would be - when a Christian takes Holy Communion, is he/she committing an Act of Faith or a Religious Practise? I seriously doubt whether any Christian believes that the bread entering their mouth is literally the flesh of Jesus or the red wine his actual blood. But the practise continues as part of their overall Faith in Jesus. The point is, the Faith part is Jesus dying and resurrecting (an impossibilty made possible) and the religious practise part is the taking of bread and wine.

To me, Faith in its essential form is believing in the (seemingly) impossible - so strongly that it eventually manifests itself. This of course can have good and bad consequences depending on what a person believes so strongly in. But overall, a world filled to the brim with extreme Faith is a glorious thing where magical, impossible things will happen everyday and would be achievable by everyone and anyone. Poverty would not exist except by choice because extreme Faith would allow anyone to literally Move Mountains.

But just imagine a world completely devoid of Faith. The strong would enslave the weak and the empowered would be free to enact all sorts of wickedness on everyone else. It would be a lot like the world is today - Only worse.

I don't see Faith as the problem here. The problem is man's hijacking of a faith or a belief to justify their own ends - usually for money but more often for power.

- Aztec Human Sacrifice
- The Christian Crusades
- The Islamic Jihads
- The Spanish Inquisition
- The Trans-Atlantic Slave-Trade etc

These have all being carried out in the past under the guise of one faith or another to grossly enrich and empower a group of human beings. But by blaming Faith itself, we stand the risk of throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

Many thanks for your excellent comments, Grey Beard. However the thrust of your commentary is somewhat off-topic. This is because the benefits of faith are not disputed; in the same way as the pit-falls of faith are not disputed. Faith arose within my opening article based on the question - Is it necessary for a Religion to be sensible at all? In pursuing that question I noted that many religious people will use the argument of faith to rebut the supposition that religion must make sense. To them, faith is just faith, and it needn't be reasonable.

It was in that specific context that I approached the question of faith: examining the tenability of the position that faith needn't be reasonable. The summary of the argument in the opening article is that religious faith ought to be reasonable. And surely, if religious faith is deployed according to reason, then all these which you mentioned -

- Aztec Human Sacrifice
- The Christian Crusades
- The Islamic Jihads
- The Spanish Inquisition
- The Trans-Atlantic Slave-Trade etc

- - - - Would certainly be avoided.

Princek12:
All the comments here are so funny. I dare these ladies to meet their prince charming who wants to wife them, just to let him go because she won't change her last name to his, if he insists that he would want his wife to change her name.

I guess at that time that woman would be back in the market looking for that man who will allow her to keep her name.

That'a just the summary of the matter. The deepest feminist could still meet a man that sooooooo gets her that she would be excited. . . desperate even. . . to have his name.

On the other hand, even a woman who would normally take her man's name could meet a man who turns her off. . . or perhaps he is named Okworoforijimukupetwi . .  .LOL!

Chai

lastpage:
As Naija peeps, we like to "posse", "swagger" and "blow big/heavy grammar" INSTEAD of addressing the core-issues!

Let me quote someone else: @dremoney
Let me ask: Since we can have "free VIDEO CALLS" via most social-network applications like SKYPE, MESSENGER, GOOGLE-TALK, and about ten other different ones, WHY HAVE MOST NIGERIANS NOT MIGRATED TO USING SUCH "FREE" VIDEO-CALL APPLICATIONS BUT RATHER STILL PAY FOR VOICE-CALLS, AT EXORBITANT PRICE?

A honest, soul-searching ANSWER to the above questions will point us to the right direction, in implementing whatever policies SANUSI wants to implement!
Now, let me answer the question above: Its because of the same reasons quoted above: POOR OR UNAVAILABLE INFRASTRUCTURES to make it work properly!

I tried using Skype/Fring for my video calls but the "Bandwidth" at the Naija end is soo low, they could hardly make a connection!
It breaks off every ten seconds and tells me it cannot carry video!
When l revert back to "voice-only", it works for a minute and then "automatically disconnects!
Meanwhile, "Abroad", l use my Broadband connection to STREAM my Home-Surveillance System, to my Mobile Phone, from work! Thats how easy it is.

Yet, in the same "Abroad", I still occasionally have reason to pay "cash" for purchases made in the store, l even paid cash for a 42" LED TV!
it was a matter of "choice", as l have Credit cards for two of my checking Accounts! No one penalized me! ITS MY MONEY!

If l wanted to withdraw/Save 10Grand, l only need to EXPLAIN the SOURCE of my money (very reasonable) and l still make my transactions! NO FINE!! The bank actually give me "incentives" to make purchases using my card, for example, l dont pay "online banking charges" in the month, if l can make at least ten purchases, using the card! Does that not make sense, Than "imposing a fine"?

Thus, the issue we should be addressing (Which Sanusi should have made his priority) are:

1.)How can we ensure uninterrupted Power Supply?: I've heard some talk about batteries but please, why cant we aspire to be intelligent people and do things properly? They dont use battery to power their business in advance economies, BATTERIES ARE USED AS BACKUP, SHOULD THE MAIN, ONLINE POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM GETS SHUT-DOWN FOR A FEW MINUTES (e.g if there is a problem, like an accident or terrorist attack!)
But Nigerians want to turn it to our "MAIN SYSTEM" in Nigeria?
Let us tackle power first, then we can think of "cashless" next, in that order!

2.) How can we ensure EVERY HOUSEHOLD HAS ACCESS TO INTERNET?: There is about as much you can do from a "mobile phone" due to its "limited screen-size and keypad". I-Pad, Tablets and Touch-Screens are coming up but still way-too expensive for every Tom, Di-ck and Harry in Naija, for now.
In advanced countries, as you build a house, the cables for LANDLINE TELEPHONES are laid immediately. This is the bedrock of BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS! GSM/Wireless internet has LIMITED BANDWIDTH, even in advance countries and that is why they are called "Mobile Access" (for use on the-go and in emergencies).
For a "landline-based" Broadband Internet, it is way cheaper and for just 20GBP or $30 or 25Euros, you can install some 5MB (Upload) / 50MB (download) Broadband access which will allow you do wonderful things on the Web and take advantage of all the E-Commerce in the world.
In Nigeria, that "useless thing they call BROADBAND internet" is at best, a very good DIAL-UP SERVICE! And it costs so much! Anyone who has used "REAL BROADBAND" abroad will attest to this.
If you use Nigeria's current "epileptic internet service" while trying to make a payment, it will "BREAK MID-WAY AND YOU WILL END-UP PAYING MORE THAN ONCE! Who will help you get your money back in Nigeria? Is it Sanusi or GEJ? What if your Phone runs out of battery juice, mid-way? Abegii, now?

The "INCENTIVE" to go "cashless" is in the "[color=#000099]cheapness, smartness, ease, safety and security of the system; NOT SOME FUNKY-MALLAM who graduated in [b]Islamic Studies from Sudan university, IMPOSING FINES ON YOU FOR WITHDRAWING OF SAVING YOUR MONEY! And you still reserve the right not to take advantage of it![/color][/b]
How do we expect a "Sharia-Graduate" to properly "drive technology" properly? The innate lapses will always come-up at crucial times like this.

Thus, what are we going to do, to ensure "MOST" houses have access to a decent Broadband Internet Access? What is the government and Sanusi himself going to do about this, FIRST' before IMPOSING "CASHLESS" ON US?

Or are we just a Nation that punishes its people, even when they are not given or have an OPTION?
Lets put FIRST THINGS FIRST, before we start copying GOOD THINGS from Abroad.
Am not saying going cashless is not good, it is very desirable.
Those talking about it as "providing business opportunities" for jobs like "Merchants" should have asked themselves: How come we dont have CCTV Monitoring for our streets and important locations, as obtained in the U.S? How come all our street lights dont work 24/7 as obtainable Abroad? How come EVERY HOUSEHOLD still has to sleep under the NOISE AND FUMES of Mechanical GENERATORS, in the 21st century? How come we are still short of fuel (better under GEJ) and Kerosine, even when we are a major producer of Crude oil and we are not under any sanctions like Iran (who apparently produces enough fuel/Kerosine and exports the excess?)

Finally, any sensible NATION with good leaders WILL ORDER ITS PRIORITIES of a "Scale of Preference" (as we were taught in O-LEVEL Economics) and "solve them" from the highest, to the lowest!
Which is more important to Nigeria NOW: being "Cashless" or having the tools (Power and Internet Broadband) to become Cashless in future?

Cant we for once, LEARN TO CRAWL BEFORE TRYING TO RUN? Are we a jinxed nation? What manner of "Leaders" are ruling this country sef?

Nuff said.

Thank you joor.

Can you imagine the Policy? ? ? If I want to withdraw N1 Million I will have to pay 85k as penalties!

Gosh!

seedord247:
Induvidual like me and you have access to edit and do anything on wikipedia.

That's only partially true. You don't understand wiki's system. When you edit info on wiki, if you refresh your brwoser, you will see that that info does not appear immediately on the site. The editted text only shows on your laptop and not on the server. Other users cannot see it.

It is only published to the common server after it has gone through wikipedia's quality checks.

Wiki is quite reliable because every article provides references and those that do not have a warning at the top of the article indicating that wiki cannot confirm the article because it has no references. Articles may also be contested based on facts. There is also a warning at the top of contested articles stating that such articles are contested. Most of the contributors to wiki are seasoned professors and advanced academics who are authourities in their various fields. It is thus a really great resource. Any way, aside from all this grammar, you needn't challenge wiki information in basics such as that which I posted, ubless you are stating that such information is false.

and pls who told you tradition is a flexible thing ( Go tell Igbo people that won)

Yes indeed, tradition evolves. Once upon a time women were viewed as property: that is no longer the case: that is just one example of evolving tradition.

is scandinavia a part of nigeria cus i find it hard to understand yu that every country has her own and cultures and moral values.

Is the thread discussion limited to Nigerian traditions? Even at that there is absolutely no reason examples from around the world cannot be deployed, is there?

The Icelandic system, formerly used in much of Scandinavia, does not use family names. A person's surname indicates the first name of the person's father (patronymic) or in some cases mother (matronymic). The words patronymic and matronymic derive from Greek patr (father) and matr (mother), + onyma (name). Most family names in other Scandinavian countries are a result of this naming practice, such as Hansen (son of Hans), Johansen (son of Johan) and Olsen (Son of Ole/Ola) the three most common surnames in Norway.[7]

Patronymic name conventions are similar in some other nations, including Malaysia (see Malaysian name) and other Muslim countries, among most people of the Indian states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala (unlike another Indian state Andhra Pradesh, where ancestral origin village names have become surnames for the people), in Mongolia and in the Scottish Gaelic personal naming system. In Russia and Bulgaria, both a patronym and a family name are obligatory parts of one's full name: e.g. if a Russian is called Ivan Andreyevich Sergeyev, that means that his father's name is Andrey and his family name is Sergeyev. A similar system is used in Greece. However, unlike the Icelandic case, only the family name is generally identified as a surname proper. In Ethiopia and Eritrea, a child adopts the given name of one of their parents, usually the father, as a pseudo-surname. For example, Abraham Mesfin's father's name would have been Mesfin, while a child would be called "Nestanet Abraham". It is important to note that to refer to Abraham Mesfin as "Mr. Mesfin" would be erroneous, and that the correct term would be "Mr. Abraham". Very rarely would children adopt their mother's given name, who in any case would retain their "pseudo-surname".

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

[quote author=Mrs.Chima link=topic=657963.msg8252347#msg8252347 date=1304436306]I answered the questions.  It is not what you wants to hear but it is my answers.  You can either accept it or you don't.   Oguga also answered the question as well but you seem to be riding on me though.  

Let me try this way maybe you will get it.   Surname are expendable.  It can be modified, edited, dissected, multiplied, and divided.  It is still a surname.  There are a lot of families ALL OVER THE WORLD with different surnames from each other.  If your fiance accept your surname and the girls marries another man she will have her husband's surname and when the family have a reunion guess what there would be many different surnames floating around at the reunion.

If you have five daughters and every last one of them accept their husband's surname and delete your surname they will not be recognized as Doe but as FI, Fee, Fo, Fum, and Fa.  Your family will still have different surnames.  Your grandchild will not be recognized as Doe, your great grandchild will not be recognized as Doe but Fa or Fum.[/quote]That's cool. I have no issues with this. Cheers.

[quote author=omo_to_dun link=topic=657963.msg8252231#msg8252231 date=1304435252]Mrs Chima. I hear you. I think every couple should---and will---do anything that best suits their situation. However, this also raises another important question: if a couple have different last names, what last name will their prospective children bear? I would think that a woman who is adamant in taking her husband's last name would not take kindly to her children wholly identifying with the husband by choosing his last name. Of course this has been the norm for ages, but I'd like to know what feminists think? Assuming the couple are hyphenating, what should a couple with hyphenated last names do? For example Michael Nnamdi Chukwuemeka-Nwobodo weds Afolashade Omotara Oluwasegunfunmi-Oluwaremilekun. [/quote]Yes, please, Mrs Chima, please address this above.

And also this below -

[quote author=omo_to_dun link=topic=657963.msg8252031#msg8252031 date=1304433368]To all those women saying that they would keep their names, I'd like to remind you those names are your fathers'; so whether you take your husband's name or your father's name, you will still end up with a man's name.[/quote]If you are a true feminist, should you not insist on women keeping their MOTHER'S maiden names, and not their FATHER's names?

What say you?

Finally, you never really answered me on the one-family-one name issue from the point of view of societal identification of family units. Would you like your children to bear a diufferent surname from you? Do you think it would be apt for your children to each choose what surname they want to bear - yours or your husbands? Do you think it is apt for a wife/mother to be the only member of a family with a different surname?

Thanks again.

[quote author=Mrs.Chima link=topic=657963.msg8251599#msg8251599 date=1304428948]Good for you that you found a woman that doesn't have an issue with accepting your surname. What that has to do with other women that have already hyphenated their names or father's surname? Nothing. What your fiance chose to do has no bearing on what other women chooses to do.

You said that you fiance was adamant about keeping her surname and may decides to accept your surname if so she doesn't want to hear the cries any more and trying to deal with the headaches. That is not good if she throwing in the towel, you would wants her to accept your surname with joy and not with contempts.

Look at the threads again, I am not the only one advocating Freedom of choice.

No matter how many men protests that they will not accept their women if they can get and keep one maintaining their surname, women all over the world are keeping their father's surname and/or hyphenating their surnames.[/quote]^^^ Thanks for the comment. But you did not specifically comment on the one-family-one-name issue?

Do you think its appopriate for only one member of a famil (the wife) to bear a totally different name from the rest of the family. Would you like to bear a different surname from your own children?

I already indicated to you that I prefer substance and not form, so I am actually quite okay with the position you advance: I merely wish to objectively address the issue I raised.

To repeat that issue: names are a societal fom of identification. A family is a societal unit. Should a family not bear the same surname as a form of societal identification - as that is the very essence of names. This is the argument I want you to objectively address. If we go the way you suggest then probably only the wife/mother would have a different name from the rest of her family - a name different from her husband and children. Do you think that is appropriate especially when we speak of a name as a societal means of identifaction for a family unit.

Thanks again.

@ Mrs Chima -

Please consider this comment, and kindly do revert.

I am shortly to be married and my fiancee has actually made a big deal about keeping her name. She has built a successful professional career as a lawyer and she feels that putting aside her name would destroy the professional identity that she has built. I understand that.

I believe in substance and not form, and for this reason I never place major stock by outward appearances or such things as mere names.

Nonetheless I also believe very much in family Identity. Let me explain: and please be open minded.

The entire concept of a name is a societal means of identification. If there was only one human being on the planet he would not need a name as there would be no one to identify him by the name. Thus a name is a means for societal identification.

A family is a societal unit.

A family name is the name by which the societal unit called a family is identified as one unit.

When a man and woman marry, they become one family.

Thus, it makes sense to me that they should bear one name.

Now, I am not particular about which name it is .

But It does make sense that they should bear one name.

We are thus considering a hyphenated name for her which drops the first part of my own already hyphenated surname. My issue with is is that as a family we will not have one name. The mother of my children will bear a different name from her own children. Although I already said I am into substance and not form, when I consider the issue of societal identification as a family unit (which is the exact purpose of a name), I am not comfortable with that.

What say you?

^^^ You got that right.

What is a sensible religion? Who is to say which religion is sensible, and by what parameters may we sift a sensible religion from a senseless religion?

Well, in addressing this matter, perhaps the first question that we need to ask ourselves is whether or not a religion needs to be sensible at all. This question is cardinal because of the question of faith: many religious people will tell you that theirs is a faith: and that faith is not reason: faith is faith: and faith justifies itself without a requirement for validation by temporal logic.

For the purpose of this article, I might use the argument of the extremes to rebut that. The argument of the extremes is a tool by which one may decipher that which is wrong or right by determining what would result from each concept if applied to the extreme. Although it is true that in the world of nuances in which we live, the argument of the extremes cannot always be applied successfully: it nevertheless has excellent usages. A very simple example would be to say that the principle of love, if applied to the extreme may lead to a soft and loving world, whereas the principle of hatred if applied to the extreme would lead to a violent and inhospitable world. This simple analogy would suffice to show us that the principle of love is superior to the principle of hate.

Similarly I might apply the argument of the extremes to the question of faith. When it is said that faith is not reason, and that faith justifies itself, or that faith needs no validation via temporal logic, what would be the result if this position is subjected to the x-ray under the argument of the extremes?

Well the result would be clear. The human sacrifices of the Aztec would be justified by faith. All manner of violent behavior inspired by religious inclinations and defended by scriptural authority would be justified by faith. Worship by pagans of graven images and idols would be justified by faith. The gender apartheid against women in many societies would be justified by faith. Child marriage would be justified by faith.

The point being made in the foregoing is that each person well has faith in his own belief system, his own scriptural adjurations, his own traditions, and that all of these are diverse beliefs and practices of diverse people which would stand justified by faith if we are to accept that faith needs no validation from temporal reasoning.

It would not be helpful either, for any group to insist that its peculiar beliefs and practices are justified by faith based on divine revelation or divine injunction – for the plain truth is that this claim is open and available, and indeed utilized by all religious groups in one form or the other. Thus, the Christian or Islamic monotheist who would claim superiority of doctrine over the Aztec, based on divine revelation, should recognize that the divinities of the Aztrec, would equally lend a hand of divine authority to the beliefs and practices of that ancient group. I should note as an aside that neither a reference to the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran may be sufficient to condemn Azrtec practices as wrong on the ground of violence alone - as both these books are themselves riddled with a great many instances of divinely sanctioned violence.

That we do not ramble: I should summarize the point being made as this: namely that the defense of faith is available to all: and equally available to all is the defense of divine revelation or divine injunction. For this reason, it is not apt to suppose that either prognosis is an acceptable way to approach these things.

So let us go to the ritualist. We are all uniformly appalled by the specter of the mutilation or murder of human beings for ritualistic purposes. Were the ritualist to advance the position that such rituals are indeed his faith, and are sanctioned by his divine God or gods, we are all certain that we will not entertain such an excuse from him. This is a successful application of the argument of the extremes, and it shows us that faith alone is not sufficient to serve as a justification for any belief or practice which the common conscience of mankind may sense to be inherently and intrinsically unreasonable or reprehensible.

Thus, yes: religions do need to be sensible.

I purpose the forgoing as the prologue to a five-part article within which we shall examine the principal religious doctrines of the world: the Christian, the Islamic, the Buddhist, and the Hindu – with a view to sensing that which is sensible within these worldviews, and if possible. . . that which is not.

Enigma:
^^^Look, just keep out of my way this morning.

Lol, Enigma, good morning!

Na tease o.

But make we no lie, na true talk na, abi na lie. Black man myth = myth. White man myth = sacred truth.

I cannot imagine a deeper or more exhaustive slavery.

Enigma:
Oh by the way and in case someone is still asking for an example of who prayed TO Jesus, well

Acts 7

But you are a Yoruba man are you not? Why do you not pray through, Oduduwa for example> Why do you not believe Oduduwa was a god who came down to the earth?

You reject that no? But a foreign nation TELLS YOU THE EXACT SAME THING ABOUT THEIR OWN PERSON WHO DESCENDED FROM THE SKY AND YOU BELIEVE IT.

It is safe to say that . . .colonial mentality don take over o!

Black man's myth = myth

White man's myth = sacred truth for Enigma to write hymns on nairaland about.

Lol, bruv, pinkie and the brain got nuthin on you as entertainment

vescucci:
But I don't consider spirituality and religion to be the same thing. Religion is stiff and dogmatical and anti-reason.

Gbam.