DeepSight's Posts

Nairaland Forum › DeepSight's Profile › DeepSight's Posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 (of 809 pages)

Christianity Etc › Re: Wallace: We Cannot Be Good If God Does Not Exist by DeepSight(op): 3:05pm On Apr 01, 2011

@ Jesoul. Maybe it missed you that Jesus told that parable in response to a specific query he received: Lord, what must a man do to be saved. It is therefore obvious that the parable was his summation of what is required of man inorder to stand right with God. This is beyond cavil and i will shudder if you dispute this.

Or perhaps you will be so kind as to relate to us what other 'spiritual' requirements for salvation there are which Jesus must have tardily, carelessly and thoughtlessly left out of his summation, but which requirements are doubtless known to yourself?

I am not surprised, for i have become used to Christians outrightly rejecting the plain teachings of Jesus in favour of their own ideas, and apparently you are no exception to that grand tradition

Christianity Etc › Re: If Homosexuality Is Really A Sin. . . by DeepSight(m): 6:41pm On Mar 31, 2011

We should never acede animal norms as a yard stick for human norms.

Animals, for example - Lions and other predators - will beat up another animal and seize its meal. This is perfectly normal behaviour amongst both predators and predator-scavengers.

Should we then conclude that such should form a basis for humans concluding that it is right to beat up other people and seize their belongings? In the human code of conduct, that is called armed robbery/ theft and is a criminal offence. This should show you that animal behaviousr cannot be a yard stick for huma behaviour as humans have different norms and behavioural - societal standards.

Animals also eat their young sometimes. Should we conclude that this is an acceptable practice for humans?

If a stronger lion is able to beat up another lion, he takes over the defeated lion's pride and takes over the lioness as his own harem. Usually he will immediately kill all the offspring of the defeated lion.

Should we conclude from this that once anyone beats you up, he should be entitled to have your wife as his own, and kill your children.

That is the absurdity that will arise from holding humans to animal norms.

Christianity Etc › Re: Wallace: We Cannot Be Good If God Does Not Exist by DeepSight(op): 6:29pm On Mar 31, 2011

Now it is instructive that Jesus selects a Priest and a Levite to demonstrate his point – because the Priest and the Levite as you well know symbolize those who expressly acknowledge God, accept all the attendant doctrines about God and morality, and actively execute the outward rituals of “worshipping” God.The Levites as you know were a dedicated tribe of holy priests within the nation of Israel.

1. “A Priest and a Levite” – are clearly indicative of people who have formally acknowledged God and are also at the fore-front of all the outward rituals and ceremonies.

2. “A Samaritan” – is considered on the wrong side of doctrine and dogma and is also “generally despised” in religious terms.

However it is easy to see that the man who is supposedly on the wrong side of doctrine – who no indication of God is made about is painted in glowing terms by Jesus because of his kind and merciful deeds.

[size=24pt]! ! ! ![/size]

Christianity Etc › Re: Wallace: We Cannot Be Good If God Does Not Exist by DeepSight(op): 6:14pm On Mar 31, 2011

Fair enough. I am at least content that through the Parable of the Good Samaritan, no less a personage than Jesus Christ announced full agreement with my view.

So indeed, you are free and welcome to disdain or reject the view Jesus expressed as elucidated above.

Christianity Etc › Re: Any Difference Between Hell In Christian Beliefs And Hell In Moslem Beliefs? by DeepSight(m): 4:38pm On Mar 31, 2011

Someone once told me that in the Islamic conception, once an evil man dies, he will immediatley see four very short and stocky demonic animals that will rush over to him at great and terrifying speed and crate him off to the place of endless torture, lol . . .

Christianity Etc › Re: Wallace: We Cannot Be Good If God Does Not Exist by DeepSight(op): 4:13pm On Mar 31, 2011

I reproduce in blue below the post in that thread which sums up my view and the point laboured to be made -

^^^ And what does it take to worship God, if not simply be a good person Viaro?

Are the outward forms and rituals, such as Prayer, Praise, Ceremonies etc really required by a Living God?

In all sincerity, let me ask you what you understand by the injunction that one must worship God is Spirit and in Truth?

In my own understanding, that simply means that dead outward ceremonies are not the substance of worshipping God - that the worship of God rather relates to the inward state of the spirit which corresponds to eternal truth.

This is why I brought up the parable of the good Samaritan, which I thought should be sufficient to show you from your own bible that the worship of God has absolutely nothing to do with outward ceremonies, rituals or dogmatic or doctrinal acknowledgements.

Now to elucidate the point it is critical that we carefully note the context of that parable -

The Gospel of Luke provides the context for the parable as:

One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”

So it should be noted that the parable was given within a context of salvation – namely that which would be required for one to be accepted with God.

Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”

The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

So it is also clear that the ensuing parable sets forth that which it takes to “love God” and “love one’s neighbour.”

This is all the more emphasized since as you well know Jesus often stated that those who care for their neighbours were actually showing such love to him and to God. “I was hungry, and you fed me . . . whenever you did this for one of those, you did the same for me. . . “

The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”

Jesus then replied with a story:

“A Jewish man was travelling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side.

Now it is instructive that Jesus selects a Priest and a Levite to demonstrate his point – because the Priest and the Levite as you well know symbolize those who expressly acknowledge God, accept all the attendant doctrines about God and morality, and actively execute the outward rituals of “worshipping” God. The Levites as you know were a dedicated tribe of holy priests within the nation of Israel.

However Jesus has just shown what I am trying to say – namely that all the outward forms of acknowledgement of God which these people subscribed to did not in any way mean that they were really worshipping God – because of their action of ignoring the man who was hurt.

Now note carefully the next verses –

“Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him.”

Stop press! Note the words “despised Samaritan?” Why did Jesus not use any other lay Jew or even a non-specified person to elucidate his point? He rather chose to select what? – a DESPISED SAMARITAN!

Now Wikipedia says -

Portraying a Samaritan in positive light would have come as a shock to Jesus' audience.[1] It is typical of his provocative speech in which conventional expectations are turned upside down.[1]

Thus note carefully the context – the Samaritan symbolizes people who are deemed to be “on the wrong side” of correct religious doctrine at the time and people who were accordingly “despised.”

Notwithstanding that, this is what Jesus conveys –

“Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’

Jesus concludes –

“Now which of these three would you say was a neighbour to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.

In this parable it is critical to note the imagery of the selected individuals –

1. “A Priest and a Levite” – are clearly indicative of people who have formally acknowledged God and are also at the fore-front of all the outward rituals and ceremonies.

2. “A Samaritan” – is considered on the wrong side of doctrine and dogma and is also “generally despised” in religious terms.

However it is easy to see that the man who is supposedly on the wrong side of doctrine – who no indication of God is made about is painted in glowing terms by Jesus because of his kind and merciful deeds.

I need to point out also the Imagery of Brotherly Affiliation. Note this from Wikipedia –

According to the Jewish version of events, when the Judean exile ended in 538 BCE and the exiles began returning home from Babylon, they found their former homeland populated by other people who claimed the land as their own and Jerusalem, their former glorious capital, in ruins.

And –

Jewish tradition maintains a different origin for the Samaritans. The Talmud accounts for a people called "Cuthim" on a number of occasions, mentioning their arrival by the hands of the Assyrians.

Much may be said – but basically there was this divide existing between the Jews and the Samaritans.

Now In answering the question – “who is your neighbor” – the parable of the Good Samaritan goes the extra step of showing that neighborliness arises not from tribal or religious affiliations but from loving acts of concern for one another.

What this shows is that the “groups” of churches, mosques, or other theists, are useless in determining the question of neighborliness. An Atheist or Buddhist could as well be a better neighbor than your Deacon in Church or your Imam in Mosque.

And given the parable of the Good Samaritan, in such an event, we can clearly see WHOM has done the will of God. . . .

So my dear friend, while you edify nobody by talking endlessly about definitions (define this, define that), I assert to you today that which was the living essence of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ – namely that love trumps all things and is the very essence of Christianity.

And if an Atheist or a Buddhist will show such love, then he has certainly met the requirements of the God that Jesus preached about – regardless of whether he accepts that such a God exists or not.

This is so simple and so pure – and should come so naturally to the Christian who is steeped in the ideas of Christ – which ideas tended towards love and doctrinal flexibility: and not towards iron cast “definitions” which you regrettably seem adamantly attached to – at the expense of the simple beauty of the gospel of Jesus. Jesus statements on the observance of the Sabbath and other such – just show the flexibility I speak about – which tends towards –spirit and truth – and not outward forms.

At all events since it is a given that you will yet dispute this simple and lucid example; for the objective reader – I state in simplicity – An Atheist or a Buddhist, if he lives a life of love and charity - certainly does the will of the God that Jesus preached about.

Christianity Etc › Re: Wallace: We Cannot Be Good If God Does Not Exist by DeepSight(op): 4:05pm On Mar 31, 2011

JeSoul:
Not a very well written or thought out article in my opinion. But nevetheless, I don't think the author is aruging so much that it is[i] impossible[/i] for atheists to do/be good . . . but rather, the good that the atheist does is:
1 - self-serving
2 - influenced by only limited human understanding, deficient in the divine

and therefore not really good at all - and this from a spiritual perspective - very important.

I would like to echo Nuke's point:

Since Viaro is not here to defend himself, I will help him.

After reading 3 pages of that thread, I don't see where Viaro 'disagreed' with your statement, infact just the opposite: His gripe was with your assertion that this "goodness" of the atheist is somehow 'worship' to 'God' considering the fact that the selling point of an atheist in the first place is that he denies the existence - talkless of worship - of a God. And furthermore which/what God? because there are diverse conceptions of God across the religions. I don't intend on raising dead horses to flog them over, but this is my understanding of Viaro's position. So when you say -
What is your understanding of a "Christ-like" life? is it just going about doing good/charity? Because scripturally, it entails much more - a spiritual angle - which the atheist rejects/denies - and therefore cannot exactly be "christ-like".

Unless of course the 'like' in Christ-like is what you were going for. In which case I retract my submission above. Cheers.

What is "worship" of God? What is the "spiritual angle" of such worship which you refer to? As far as I know, the worship of God is best practiced by showing love for fellow man, Chikena. And anybody who does this and lives this, as such is already worshipping God in the purest possible way, whether or not such person knows or acknowledges that God exists. That's what i was trying to say to viaro, and that is what i say to you.

Christianity Etc › Re: Wallace: We Cannot Be Good If God Does Not Exist by DeepSight(op): 3:48pm On Mar 30, 2011

Personally i think it is possible (and indeed I have observed this constantly) for an complete atheist to be both morally conscious and indeed live a more christ-like life than a supposed theist.

I have discussed this ad infinitum, ad nauseum on this forum, notably here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-411111.0.html

- - - where the indefatigable and tirelessly irrational viaro disagreed.

Christianity Etc › Wallace: We Cannot Be Good If God Does Not Exist by DeepSight(op): 3:34pm On Mar 30, 2011

Wallace : We cannot be good if God does not exist.

Wednesday, 30 March 2011 00:00 By Imelda Wallace

I READ the article in Sunday Guardian (March 20) titled “Can we be good without believing in God?”by Leo Igwe which comes to the conclusion that “people can be good without believing in God” and that “human beings can achieve moral excellence without belonging to any religion.” I beg to differ!

A person who believes that God does not exist usually believes that man evolved from the apes in which case he must logically believe he is just an animal with a more highly developed brain!!! If this is the case then of course he is not a spiritual being and we should not expect him to reason or to be able to choose. If he cannot choose then he is not free and there is no morality, no good deeds and no evil deeds. He is just conditioned by his environment, as other animals are, and follows his instincts just as other animals do. He cannot have any concept of goodness or evil since these concepts are abstract. Animals do not have intellectual knowledge.

They follow their instincts in an orderly programmed way. They live spontaneously doing the ‘right’ thing at the ‘right’ time, according to their species. G. K. Chesterton wrote in his inimitable paradoxical way that if you want a man to stop drinking after he has had several pints of beer you may pat him on the back and say, “Come on, now, be a MAN!’ and you may shame him into stopping. On the other hand if you are in the bush and you see a crocodile about to devour his third hunter and you pat it on the head and say, “Come on, now, be a crocodile!” the reptile will probably continue eating its hunters because it is natural for animals to follow their instinct of hunger and eat whatever food is handy!

The Oxford don, Ronald Knox, used to say that if a dog were to know it was a dog, it would no longer be a dog – it would be a human being! He was pointing to the fact that what distinguishes man from animals is the fact that they have intellectual knowledge - ideas and self-consciousness are not physical or material.

Now if man is merely a descendent of the apes then obviously there is no such entity as a human being. Moreover, the idea that “people have been caring for each other before religions started” cannot possibly be so since if we came from the apes who undoubtedly have no religion it is hard to see how they care for one another for real care implies love and REAL love is either spiritual or it is not at all!

Francis Collins, the pioneering geneticist who led the Genome project from 1993 to 2008, was an atheist until he began to question the fact that human beings care for each other. He thought that there must be an altruistic gene which made people sacrifice themselves or give their lives in the service of others. He says, “In my view the DNA sequence alone, even if accompanied by a vast trove of data on biological functions will never explain certain special human attributes such as the knowledge of the Moral Law and the universal search for God.” His reading of “Mere Christianity” led him to become a Christian. In that book Lewis states: “If we discover a desire within us that nothing in this world can satisfy, then also we should begin to wonder if perhaps we were created for another world.” He also said: “If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end despair.”

Jacques Maritain and his wife Raisa, both eminent Philosophers met as students in the Sorbonne and, under the influence of Atheism and Existentialism, decided to commit suicide within a year if they could not find a reason for their existence because they could not bear the fact that their love had no meaning. They found the Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, loved each other according to their newfound truth and both lived to a ripe old age.

Can we be good without believing in God? Not if we believe we are animals. But there are people who are good, as our writer said, who do not believe in God. They are, however, able to choose to be good only because they have a mind that can reason and consequently a free will which have been educated by parents and teachers to know and choose the good.! Otherwise why do mothers spend most of their children’s lives saying: “Don’t be greedy!”, “Don’t be lazy!”, “Give Johnny back his toy!” Animals don’t need to be told what to do – they just do it. Human beings need to be told what to do in order to be able to develop their intellect and will so they can make the necessary choices to fulfil themselves as mature human beings and not just go about life seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.

If a person does not believe in God then he probably believes he has only this life to live because after death there will be nothing. If he seeks the good he will be seeking what is good for him. In other words he believes there is no objective morality based on the laws of an intelligent and loving Creator. And, as Professor J. Lorda wrote: “The whole of the moral life consists in the determination to live in accordance with the truth of what man is and what things are.” If man has a body and a soul then God exists as Creator and religion is the relationship between man and God and, as C.S. Lewis wisely pointed out, “A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell.”

• Wallace is a teacher in Lagos

http://guardiannewsngr.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43155:wallacen-we-cannot-be-good-if-god-does-not-exist&catid=38:columnists&Itemid=615

Comments?

Christianity Etc › Re: Who Wrote The Bible And Why It Matters by DeepSight(m): 7:37pm On Mar 29, 2011

Edit!

Christianity Etc › Re: Who Wrote The Bible And Why It Matters by DeepSight(m): 7:20pm On Mar 29, 2011

Pastor AIO:
May I suggest that Nebuchadnezzar's dream falls into a mythological pattern for describing history that is found not only in the middle east but all over the world.

The are often called the four ages of man and are always labelled, Golden Age, Silver Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age.

The earliest written accounts of such a description of history is to be found in Hesiod's Work and Days. Hesiod lived in the 8th century BC. That is some 600 years before the book of Daniel was written.

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

Is there any reason why this should be seriously viewed as a credible interpretation of the Dream? ? ?

The dream spoke about world dominion, and you seek to rebutt that by talking about pedantic geographical trifles. The Arabs must be accounted for, you say. . . what about Assyria etc. If i didn't know you better i would mistake that for stand up comedy. All of these are neither here nor there and betray a loss of focus on the essentials being conveyed.

Christianity Etc › Re: Who Wrote The Bible And Why It Matters by DeepSight(m): 6:12pm On Mar 27, 2011

pastor AIO you have entirely missed the context of the prophecy. I am shocked you could valo about geography. That is such a sadly myopic view of what was obviously a reference to kingdoms that would rule the world and the succession thereof. Perhaps you missed the accurate prediction of Greece splitting into four after Alexander. Typing on a phone, discuss later

Christianity Etc › Re: Who Wrote The Bible And Why It Matters by DeepSight(m): 3:32pm On Mar 27, 2011

^^^ I dont think your concerns are apt to the trajectory and context of the prophecy and its considered fulfilmments. Nebuchadnezzar's dream and Daniel's interpretation concerned the arch of prime world powers - those that would excercise global (known world) dominance as successors to Babylon as the cheif world power. It is therefore needless that such a dream should countenance every coneivable empire or great world power that ever existed. The dream concntrates itself around the world powers of a leading line the succession of which directs the course of global events i general terms.

Jehovah's Witnesses Interpretation

In the Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream,[19] the statue is said to represent the following kingdoms:

1.The gold head - Babylon
2.The silver bosom and arms - Medo-Persia
3.The copper belly and thighs - Greece
4.The iron legs - Rome
5.The feet partly of iron and partly of molded clay - Anglo-American dual power

The Anglo-American power is seen as the last dominant world power, emerging from a part of the Roman Empire (the iron legs) first as the British Empire, and then with the formation of the United States of America, to develop into the present-day special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. The dual nature of iron and clay (hard and soft), seemingly incompatible materials, is said to indicate the dual aspects of 'hard' and 'soft' power - military strength and diplomacy - both of which have been used to full effect by the USA and UK, while also hinting at inherent differences and even weaknesses in the relationship between the two powers.

The "kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and , not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever", in verse 44 of the prophecy, is said by Witnesses to be the heavenly kingdom established by God, with Jesus as appointed King, which will ultimately bring to an end human rulership.

Jehovah's Witnesses also believe that the sequence of world powers in Nebuchadnezzar's dream parallels that given in the vision in the Book of Revelation Chapter 17, verse 10 which speaks of "seven kings: five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet arrived". (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece having "fallen" by the time Revelation was written; Rome was the world power at the time - "one is" - while the British Empire and subsequent emergence of the United States and their later alliance was then yet to come, hence "the other has not yet arrived".)

Christianity Etc › Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by DeepSight(m): 3:09pm On Mar 27, 2011

Sweetnecta:
@Deep sight and Benodic; You will have to agree that your position at best is 50/50 chance that you are correct, while mine 50/50 chance that I may be wrong in matters of the absolute presence of God and or my chosen religion.

This world is not so intelligent that it brings itself to being. But it is so organized that it is impossible to say there is no Organizer of some sort. That One Organizer that has Absolute Intelligence to make this happen is God.

God can't create all of these and us human in [it] without a purpose.

I have no idea what "position" you are alluding to in referring to me.

It seems you do not read.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by DeepSight(m): 6:14pm On Mar 26, 2011

Sweetnecta:
@Deepsight; « #38 on: Yesterday at 09:53:30 PM »I do hope that you at least feel that all the generations of humanity that passed before the cross would be considered doomed, if the crucifixion is all the only truth for salvation, forgiveness, redemption? Can The God Who set up such process by morally just to those people before the crucifixion, since there were sins recorded and acts of repentance and forgiveness were known even as early as the time of Adam [AS] and Eve? What role did the cross play in those generations or are all of them destined for hell? Why was Moses given victory over Firawn then, and what was the importance of the Taurah he was given? Id it just if the likes of Hitler who was a christian were to enter paradise for believing in the cross, while Gandhi ended up in hell without wasting a single innocent life versus Hitler with 6 millions only from the jews, not counting other?

I DONT know what you are on about. I do not believe in the crucifixion of Jesus as redemption for anybody in any form whatsoever, nor have i ever indicated such.

See my views here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-336988.0.html

Christianity Etc › Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by DeepSight(m): 11:12pm On Mar 25, 2011

vescucci:
I believe if we follow our moral compass, we know what's right and what's wrong. Some people are good even when they do wrong because they do it for the right reasons and some are evil when they do good cuz they do it for the wrong reasons. Only God knows about all that. We're to try our best.

Post of the year 2011.

Bros, you sabi.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by DeepSight(m): 9:53pm On Mar 25, 2011

Pastor AIO:
If the core doctrines of christianity that you outlined are really core doctrines of christianity then that would mean that Jehovah's witnesses were not christians. They don't believe in trinity, or the oneness of Jesus with God.

In fact that would mean that those 'christians' before the doctrine of trinity was judged to be acceptable were not christians.

Excellent. Cardinally articulated.

Now take a moment and read again the above. Recognise that it simply shows that which i have tried to put across: namely that religious doctrines are dissimilar!

For the very reason that these very dotrines you have artiulated vary from sect to sect.

Now it is you and I that contend that Love is all that matters. Many contend that too. Nonetheless we must be sincere in acceding that the vast majority of the Christian world regard such elements as the trinity and redemption by the sacrifice on the cross to be absolutely central to Christian doctrine! Particularly redemption by the sacrifice on the cross! - Nor can you deny - even by a reading of the bible - that that dotrine is central to Christian thought. I needn't be tempted to produce the quote where you advised me that the redemption by cricifixion was a sacred rite completed before the founding of the world.

You therefore may not deny that that is a core christian teaching.

Pray, tell me where such a dotrine may be found in Judaism, Islam, Busshism or Hinduism? That is the point i seek to make.

Aside that, i very well understand and accept the obvious common threads of truth: such as the common adjuration towards human love and brotherhood.

Abeg now Deepsight, cool down for me. Sebi we be padi? No dey vex for me like that now.

Your repeated snub notwithstanding, I am the richer for interacting with you sir.

Christianity Etc › Re: Why Did God Make Homosexuals? by DeepSight(m): 9:29pm On Mar 25, 2011

In blue below a previous argument i had advanced against the notion that homos.exuality is natural.

@ SEFAGO;

@ Sagamite -

Interesting debate you have going on. May i present myself as a judge of sorts. I do happen to have a legal background.

In reaching my conclusions, i shall use the premises and resultant conclusion set forth by Sefago below:

SEFAGO:
Basically my argument is predicated on these premises:
1) Humans are animals
2) Animals engage in homosexuality
Conclusion: Therefore in the natural order of things homosexuality is not a deviance from expected biological behavior.

Premise 1 - Humans are Animals.

Although this premise is only partially correct, and may be said to be an over-statement or a limitation of definition regarding the nature of humanity, i will not dwell on it because humans undisputably are given of some of the same physical instincts as animals are. I will therefore give this premise a pass mark. Let's proceed.

Premise 2 - Animals engage in Homo Sexuality.

Now this premise is fraught with severe problems. Some of these problems are:

1. It is a mis-characterization of an exception as a rule:

Let me elucidate:If one were to state: "Human beings eat food" - the direct inference would be that eating food is a normal and standard practice for human beings. That would be a correct inference as the statement has been set out in broad, generalistic terms.

Let's take another statement: "Human beings are cannibals." This is another broad generalistic statement that could lead to a wrong inference: namely, that it is in the nature of human beings to be cannibals, and thus a normal and standard human practice. The correct way to phrase this statement would be - "Some human beings are cannibals." In this way it becomes clear that it is not necessarily within the nature of human beings to be cannibals, but that some human beings do practice such.

This is why i said that the second premise is a mis-characterization of an exception as a rule. It should properly have read: "Some animals engage in homosexuality" - thus making it clear that homosexuality is not necessarily the norm within the animal sub-set.

If it is not the norm within the animan sub-set, we can hardly use this premise to reach a conclusion that it is anything but an exception for human beings (who, by the way, have a higher ethical reasoning capacity). That would be a fundamental contradiction in terms.

Even if the foregoing reasoning is wrong (i doubt that it is), there is a second and even more fundamental problem with the premise. This problem concerns the nature of animal homosexuality in the first place. To wit -

2. Animals are not homosexual in the proper definition of the word. Let's watch the cases of so-called animal homosexuality. Do such cases have any co-relation with human homosexuality? I contend that they are entirely dissimilar. This is the reason:

Animals do not make a distinction regarding the object of their sexual attention with reference to instinctive physical motions. For example when my dog is on heat, he will attempt to mount anything at all: including humans. He will push himself against a pole, against me, and against other dogs (male or female) in excercising the instinctive sexual motion. He does not see and develop a desire for a fellow male, he only makes instinctive sexual motions directed at anything. This is significantly different from humans who will see and have specific desires for persons of the same sex. No animal will engage in homosexual conduct if there is an available female on hand, against which it may throw its instinctive physical motions, but human homosexuality will actively disdain the female and specifically desire the male.

If you appreciate the foregoing, you will understand that animals are not in fact homosexual at all - in the proper sense of the word. Do they have a homosexual desire? Can you show me even one single animal that only sexually targets the same sex? You cannot, because animals are not homosexual in the definition of the word, and their so-called acts of homosexuality, comparatively speaking, are really just mindless acts of self-service on any available entity.

Therefore, on either or both planks - the point must emphatically be made that animal acts of homosexuality can never be a premise for human homosexuality because as i have shown above -

i. Animals are not homosexual within the context of homosexual desire and

ii. Even if they are, it is the case that some animals are, and not all. It is the exception, rather than the rule, and as such this could not possibly make a case for human homo-sexuality being anything but the same: the exception and not the rule.

Given that the premise fails, the conclusion also naturally fails.

However, the Conclusion, if i might add, suffers independent problems of its own.

The conclusion states: "Therefore in the natural order of things homosexuality is not a deviance from expected biological behavior."

Can we define the word "deviation".

Without bothering to consult a dictionary, i suppose that we can all agree that a deviation is a departure from a norm, a variation or a digression.

"Expected biological behaviour", must clearly refer to the in-built sexual orientation geared towards biological goals. That's the only apt use of the word "biological" within that phrase. It is patently clear, from both the structure of reproductive organs, and the biological result of copulation (reproduction) that the sexual behaviour expected by nature should be heterosexual in nature. In addittion to the fact that homosexuality is not the norm in any human society, it could thus be said to be both un-natural and anti-social. At the very minimum, it definitely represents a deviation, however that may be defined.

With a heavy heart, although i do appreciate SEFAGO's good efforts and good reasoning, i am constrained on the basis of the deductions set forth above, to conclude that both his premises and his conclusion are deficient and significantly flawed even in terms of logic alone, but also in terms of sociological and biological considerations.

However: addressing the topic of this thread, i must state without much ado that although i previously had a murderous attitude to the very idea that any person could be gay, i concede that it is patently obvious, and also empirically verified, that some persons have abnormal hormonal imbalances which affect their sexual orientation. Some men have degrees of female hormones that render them effeminate, and some women (beard and all) have degrees of male hormones that render them mannish, and thus inclined to become lesbians. This is a scientific fact, and no person can contest this.

But in summary - it's ceratinly abnormal and unnatural and perhaps scientific solutions (such as hormonal re-balancing) should be sought.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-279591.864.html#msg4603721

Christianity Etc › Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by DeepSight(m): 8:58pm On Mar 25, 2011

^^^ Salutations.

Re: the last bit of your post above - if that was the case then there would be no need for us to have come into the world at all.

These are tellingly contradictory -

JeSoul:
. . . I believe that "there/next" will be the fruition of here . . .

Which to me is the most beautiful thing about Christ. He presents a way of salvation - redemption - that does not rest on our "performance" here on earth . . .

Christianity Etc › Re: If God Is So Forgiving And Loving Why Did He Feel It Necessary To Create Hell? by DeepSight(m): 8:11pm On Mar 25, 2011

thehomer:
I really do not understand how your analogy relates to the issue at hand. I'm not talking about God punishing the Israelites but God punishing other tribes. i.e it would be like enabling your child to go about killing other children who they are competing with in school for academic excellence.

Sadly, this is what is conveyed in the bible and other religious texts.

I personally see no rational basis for supposing that the description of God contained therein has any similarity with that GOD which i perceive to be the creator of the universe.

Christianity Etc › Re: Why Did God Make Homosexuals? by DeepSight(m): 8:01pm On Mar 25, 2011

Hi Mr. Homer?

Do you regard homos.exuality as natural?

Christianity Etc › Re: If God Is So Forgiving And Loving Why Did He Feel It Necessary To Create Hell? by DeepSight(m): 7:59pm On Mar 25, 2011

Did God create Nigeria as it is ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

And yet Nigeria is hellish, no?

So, if "hell" as descrbed does exist, why must we presume that it is created by God.

Human beings create hellish situations.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by DeepSight(m): 7:52pm On Mar 25, 2011

Dulcet7:
So here is the question: What do you think about the Mystics' (and Shopkeeper's) assertion? Is religion truly various surfaces of the same object?

Religion is a variegated quest for truth. However, given that it is colored by human tradition, culture, politics, warfare, and even economic considerations, Religion, and religious doctrines are diversified, notwithstanding that common themes do permeate the lot.

Religion, however, is to be distinguished from TRUTH.

Truth is constant.

Religion is not.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by DeepSight(m): 7:48pm On Mar 25, 2011

We once discussed the possible similarities between Christian tradition and that of a particular African Religious Tradition.

I quote you -

"I don't think that it is right or fair on either tradition to be mixing and conflating them."

Your words, not mine.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-505605.0.html#msg6685078

Christianity Etc › Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by DeepSight(m): 7:39pm On Mar 25, 2011

I reproduce below in blue the post in which i summed up my view to you -

@ Pastor –

Many of the things that you put forward are quite amusing. “Sounds esoteric and so likely to be different on a superficial level. . .” I must have entirely failed in interacting with you or conveying my ideas or mind . . .and my failure is resounding.

Let’s have a look at it again: and this only for the objective reader.

Perhaps it is apposite before proceeding to set out to you the basic premise I have laboured to convey: and I say it again for the millionth time: all religions do preach love and detachment from worldly things – nevertheless the specific doctrines of major religions show sharp differences such that any claim that such religions are markedly similar in doctrine must perforce fail.

In case you have forgotten: the initial remark from Mad Max which triggered this discussion was that all religions are staggeringly similar in terms of thought, belief and doctrine.

I firmly disagree with that; and I still do.

The fact remains, just as I have said a zillion times already – the broad similarity in terms of the teaching of love and detachment from the world (which is all that you have pointed out by the way) is not sufficient to support the claims that Mad Max made.

In this regard I did set out a number of charts which you most cavalierly dismissed as inapplicable. Those charts very succinctly set out the core worldviews of each religion and I am aware that you were eager to dismiss the chart only on account of that which it made very painfully obvious; the significant divergences in THOUGHT AND BELIEF between religions.

Now revert to the fact that Mad Max’s opening statement talked about thoughts, beliefs and doctrines!

Here we go – what are the core beliefs of Christianity?

1. That God is supreme and must be worshipped in spirit and truth

2. That God is a Trinity

3. That Jesus is God and part of that Trinity

4. That original Adamic sin introduced death and suffering to Mankind

5. That Jesus’ death on the cross was a sacrifice to deliver remission for sins

6. That Jesus’ resurrection was conquest of death for mankind

7. That belief in Jesus’ saving sacrifice is required to attain salvation

8. That the saved Christian must live in tandem with Jesus’ teachings on love

OF ALL OF THE EIGHT CORE DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY WHICH I HAVE OUTLINED ABOVE, ONLY NO. 8 IS A COMMON DENOMINATOR WITH BUDDHISM AND MANY OTHER RELIGIONS.

I state to you that this is absolutely insufficient to deduce that the religions are markedly similar; for the first seven core doctrines as you well know are VERY VERY VERY central to Christian thought and belief; AND THEY DO NOT FEATURE AT ALL IN BUDDHISM.

Now I talked about the thrust of the Four Noble Truths.

Here are the Four Noble Truths again –

1. The Nature of Suffering (or Dukkha):
"This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."[3][4]

2. Suffering's Origin (Dukkha Samudaya):
"This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."[3][4]

3. Suffering's Cessation (Dukkha Nirodha):
"This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it."[3][4]

4. The Path (Dukkha Nirodha Gamini Patipada Magga) Leading to the Cessation of Suffering:
"This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration."[5][6]

No logical person can look at the foregoing and insist that these truths are not centrally about suffering and escape from suffering. And not conceptually about the non-contingent love of Christian doctrine.

What I overwhelmingly need to emphasize is the fact that the entire concept and thrust of the Four Noble Truth and indeed the generality of Buddhist thought derives from the philosophy of avoiding, or growing past suffering. Suffering is the central idea which these truths strive against; and it is without doubt that the central plank upon which the cessation of suffering is based is the cessation of craving.

Everything within the Four Noble Truths and any knowledgeable enunciation of those truths points ineluctably to this. Indeed this is the very soul of those truths – they proceed from the point of view of suffering, and then devolve onto the source of suffering: which is identified as craving. Ultimately they wind up prescribing a death to craving as the solution; and it is instructive that the ultimate state for the Buddhist – Nirvana – is a state wherein the ego is virtually removed. Self as known to man, barely exists anymore.

Pastor – you cannot but agree, unless wilfully stubborn, that all of this in concept, origination, thrust and delivery is markedly different from Christian thought and doctrine: for Christian doctrine proceeds from the point of view of a fallen nature of man; which must be remedied by a divine sacrifice; which sacrifice forms the central basis and plank for Christian salvation.

I think it is important that I add that the Noble Truths as I have explained above do not centre around a non-contingent teaching of love. They are not built up from an imperative of love: they are built up from an imperative of suffering and elimination of suffering. It is true that ethical behaviour is therein prescribed: and there is no doubt that ethical behaviour will lead to a reduction of communal suffering: and this is and remains the thrust of the Four Noble Truths and Buddhist philosophy.

THIS IS THE REASON I MADE THAT STATEMENT TO YOU: THOSE TRUTHS DERIVE FROM THE CONCEPT OF SUFFERING AND ARE CONCEPTUALLY DIFFERENT FROM CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND BELIEF WHICH ARE CENTRED AROUND SACRIFICIAL REMISSION OF SINS AND NON-CONTINGENT LOVE!

Now taking apart the Noble Eight Fold Path, we can see the further construct that I try to convey to you: namely that the thrust of these truths centres about suffering and seeks to ameliorate these through the path of moderation through ethics –

[Souced: Wiki] - The Noble Eightfold Path is sometimes divided into three basic divisions, as follows: Wisdom (Sanskrit: prajñ ā, Pāli: paññā), Ethical conduct (Sanskrit: śīla, Pāli: sīla) and Concentration (Sanskrit and Pāli: samādhi)

All of these are suggestive of a meditative approach to ameliorating the problem of individual and communal suffering.

1. Moral law of karma: Every action (by way of body, speech, and mind) will have karmic results (a.k.a. reaction). Wholesome and unwholesome actions will produce results and effects that correspond with the nature of that action. It is the right view about the moral process of the world.

2. The three characteristics: everything that arises will cease (impermanence). Mental and body phenomena are impermanent, source of suffering and not-self.

3. Suffering: Birth, aging, sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, distress, and despair are suffering. Not being able to obtain what one wants is also suffering. The arising of craving is the proximate cause of the arising of suffering and the cessation of craving is the proximate cause of the cessation of the suffering. The quality of ignorance is the root cause of the arising of suffering, and the elimination of this quality is the root cause of the cessation of suffering. The way leading to the cessation of suffering is the noble eightfold path.[22] This type of right view is explained in terms of Four Noble Truths.

Everything above emphatically proves the point I tried to make regarding the FOCUS of the Four Noble Truths as SUFFERING AND THE AVOIDANCE THEREOF: which thrust is divergent from the core of Christian Doctrine which in many degrees actually embraces suffering in pursuit of salvation – AND AT ALL EVENTS is motivated by salvation based on the sacrifice of Christ – which is a doctrine you will not dare to equate with Buddhism’s Four Noble Truths!

In all of this let me remind you that it will not be useful if you inundate me with details of the positive and agreeable results of all religious lines of thought – including such as are applicable to Christianity and Buddhism: that is a common denominator which is not at issue, thanks.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-474866.32.html#msg6377887

Christianity Etc › Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by DeepSight(m): 7:27pm On Mar 25, 2011

Pastor AIO:
I believe that I've made my position clear (or unclear to such as Deepsight) several times on this forum about the relationship between the various religions and Truth.

I made it abundantly clear that the divergence was simply on matters of doctrine. In that regard i believe that in that thread vescucci provided a definition of the word "doctrine" the subtle nuance of which seems to have escaped you. I more than appreciate your viewpoint on the common truths inherent in virtually all religions, the common fabric, and were you not wilfully stubborn you would have seen a zillion places where i stated exactly that. For Pete's sake i have spent too much energy on this forum arguing the common salvation and freedom of all men of good conscience, for you to deliberately misunderstand me so extensively. You are all too aware of the numerous times i have pointed these out to Noetic, Davidylan, etc. Thus the common principles are not in doubt, Pastor, can i say that for the zillionth time?

What is defintely in doubt, a falsity that you cannot export in the least, is this - the religions do exhibit starkly dissimlar doctrinal bents in terms of their dogma: to wit - Islam is vehemently opposed to a dogma such as teh trinity: the central idea of "redemptive christianity by the death on the cross" is totally alien to Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism etc.

These dogmas, empty and man-created BS, in my view, are what i assert to you to be indisputable hallmarks of differences in doctrine. This cannot be nuclear physics, Pastor.

Politics › Re: April Polls: First Lady Gives Fund To Female Candidates by DeepSight(m): 6:40pm On Mar 25, 2011

pro01:
We can't conclude that the money donated to these women's campaigns was directly obtained from the federation account. I mean we all know it takes nothing for any initiative from by the President or his wife to easily raise billions from a random Dangote here, or Otedola there. That aside, it can't be such a bad thing to assist female politicians with little campaign finances if that would help increase the level of female representation in politics. I guess it's all part of the 'women empowerment' that they have been clamouring for since time immemorial.

It seems we so despise this woman that absolutely nothing she does can make sense to anyone. Should not be so, if you ask me.

Well I personally do not know the source of the funds and so cannot comment in that regard. I should however draw your attention as follows -

1 - There is no such office known to law in Nigeria as the "office of the first lady"

2 - Over the years and across virtually all governments in Nigeria, government funds have been deployed to finance the "office" and activities of the first lady, which usually include one bazaar or the other.

3 - IF such activities are funded by tax payers money, this is gravely illegal and amounts to nothing but the usual ego-massage and nepotism of our leaders. Such is not acceptable.

Christianity Etc › Re: Don't Allow Religiousheads To Take Over This Forum by DeepSight(m): 12:04pm On Mar 23, 2011

Enigma:
Sorry nah nah, he was caught plain red handed; I'm sure even he would not be fool hardy enough to deny it. He did not post on the Religion section (at least not as Deep Sight) again from the moment he was plain caught out.

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Politics › Re: Reason Why Jonathan Did Not Attend The Presidential Debate by DeepSight(m): 8:13pm On Mar 20, 2011

Sagamite:
Everyone has a liberty to do whatever they want to do but when you are a public official some liberties are taken away otherwise it damages one.

He has a liberty to not even campaign for ffs but not choosing to go to this debate makes it obvious his judgement is moooronic. If you factor in that he rather found time to be interviewed by Dbanj and then refused to go to this debate, then he has an IQ of a Silverback Gorilla.

Nigeria does not need a Silverback Gorilla to lead it at this stage of its existence.

I take it you were too busy and did not find time to read this?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-626780.128.html#msg7948366

Rubbish!

What campaign schedule?

No 1, where was he on the night of the debate? Not a few minutes away in Aso Rock?

No 2, what makes you think this is not a top campaign platform?

No 3, he was given enough time to slot such an important occassion on his schedule and anyone smarter than a Silverback Gorilla would move all other shcedules to accommodate this, but Retardeen refused after he was told he would not get expo. Instead he found time at shorter notice for "Onitsha girls like koboko" interview.

Well said bro.

The annoying thing is that these same goons supporting the boycott of the debate will be the same lads who will watch an American Presidential debate and wistfully dream of the day that Nigeria can have that level of open and direct democratic exchange. They would envy the beauty of the American open debate. But give them a chance to have something similar and it immediately becomes obvious that they are not yet ready for any improvement in their own local system! They sit about idly and defend a mighty snub dished out to them by their own president. Its simply shameful.

Anyhow, a people get the leadership they deserve. So if we wind up with a leader who thinks its not worthwhile to engage us in open discourse, then surely, that's just what we deserve.

Politics › Re: Reason Why Jonathan Did Not Attend The Presidential Debate by DeepSight(m): 5:07pm On Mar 20, 2011

pro01:
How many pricks your mama suck to put food on una table today?

You don't worry about my mama, she's doing just fine.

Better to spend your time reflecting on the conundrum of humble high-handedness, which you seem to espouse.

Politics › Re: Reason Why Jonathan Did Not Attend The Presidential Debate by DeepSight(m): 4:46pm On Mar 20, 2011

An excursion into the terrors of violent psycotic confusion -
The incomprehensible and contradictory assessments of GEJ by Pro01 (Patient no 12753 at Yaba-Left)

Here, the patient describes his subject (GEJ) as "humble" in addittion to being "approachable" and 'friendly" -

pro01:
The extent of uncouth condemnation and name-calling 'showered' on the president is entirely regrettable. What exactly is this man's crime?

. . .

I guess his only crime is humility, a warm, approachable demeanour, and a friendly countenance.

Doctors are still studying the advanced forms of amnesia and multiple psycosis that could have therefore previously moved the patient to say the following about his same subject (GEJ) -

I'm repulsed by the unwieldy deployment of maximum state force to effect Ibori's arrest! After storming his hometown with a combined team of Army, Airforce, Police, SSS, and EFCC to arrest him dead or alive, the government further unleashed the INTERPOL on the accused. What for? Did he commit mass murder or terrorism?

For the avoidance of doubt, I must emphasize that I do not hold brief for Ibori. But I insist that the high-handed deployment of the full majesty of the state and full instrument of international (law) intruments to hunt him down is an aberration to say the very least.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-444610.0.html

The patient's schizophrenic defense of his subject over a negative action (not attending a debate) and condemnation of the subject for a positive action (arrest of a politician for corruption) remains a subject of avid research at the Lagos Institute for the Chronically Politically Demented.

Particularly troubling is that the patient (Pro01) describes his subject (GEJ) as BOTH HUMBLE AND HIGH-HANDED! ! ! !

Reuters shall keep the public informed of developments regarding the very dangerous mental state of this beleaguered and troubled patient who still suffers from multiple signs of CDPO (Chronic Desire for Political Oppression).

- - - Reuters

Politics › Re: Reason Why Jonathan Did Not Attend The Presidential Debate by DeepSight(m): 4:27pm On Mar 20, 2011

pro01:
I guess his only crime is humility,

Humility. It is "humble" to ignore a credible presidential debate that gives you an open chance to interface with the electorate through a series of queries. You call that humble. I can only conclude that you do not know the meaning of the word "humble." And that further cements the glaring fact that you belong to the class of people who would rather not see the emergence of an open democratic culture of exhange of ideas. This is what specifically ranks you as primitive and grossly uneducated. You were clearly born to be oppressed, and i verily pray that you meet that obvious divine destiny in your life.

Far from being humble, his action shows the height of arrogance.

a warm, approachable demeanour,

Again this just sums up what i am saying. Are you high on something, paid by Jonathan, or just plain dumb. You state that he is "approachable." Wow, staying cooped up in Aso Rock during an open presidential debate is very "approachable" abi?

You are mentally, and specifically - grammatically - challenged.

Any sane person can see that that amounts to distancing himself from the minds of the electorate rather than being approachable. As someone has already noted, the only leader that can afford to do such is a leader that does not need your vote to win: and as such regards you and I as absolutely irrelevant. Such a leader must know that he intends to rig the election in any event.

Sir, I repeat: you are both illiterate and a professional clown.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 (of 809 pages)