₦airaland Forum

^^^ So in summary within a nomadic group that has no formal laws, all of the following would be right in your world view:

   1. Murder

   2. Rape

   3. Theft

   5. Random beheading based on a muderous sexual urge

I am sure you are aware that the ancient aztecs practised human sacrifice under their formalized laws.

The rituals were perforced in public at the terrace of a temple and the victim would have a slit made by a sharp knife in his chest, the priest would then reach out and rip the heart out of the body while the victim watched on. The still beating heart would then be squeezed and and held up in the direction of the sun.

This was a legal and legitimate practice under their human laws.

Go ahead Huxley, tell me that it was right, since the human laws permitted it.

Tell me you see no objective, naturally stated evil in such (sin).

You can never win this one.

^^^ You are onto something. . . It is that ultimate reality that i perosnally call God.

Haba, Banom, how i go dey the list for hell na? I am a Deist, so unlike MOGANALA i believe in God, and am fair to everybody?

Call dat Angel back and revise your list o.

@ Easylogic -

Thank you sooo much. Your post is easily the best and most incisive post i have read on this forum - and that is saying quite alot.

First off: Yes indeed, i did categorise myself as "an empirical and intuitive Deist.". But you must be aware that Deism, like many other perspectives, is a world-view which has different "faces". In other words, not all Deists agree of all principles of Deism. Given that it is not a formalized religion, there is no absolute standard for all the principles of Deism. . . except the immovable one - namely -

[i]That all that exists, was created by a Supreme Eternal Being - "God.".

You very succintly pointed out that the major question is: what are the characteristics of the uncaused cause, the Supreme Being, and i must say that you did a fantastic job setting out the essential and obvious attributes of the Uncaused Cause.

Not all Deists believe that God is strictly impersonal.

I do not believe that God is impersonal, although i am certain that God's core, is absolutely unknowable and unnapproachable. A deep mystery beyond all time and all space. Nevertheless i do agree with you on the statement that the very act of creation, is by its inherent nature, a personal act, and for this reason, i am a brand of Deist who accepts God to be personal. But that is as far as it goes. . . all other definitions and attributes espoused by the Abrahamic Religions, i cannot necessaily vouch for.

There is thus no disagreement with your brilliant write-up, i believe i am on all fours with the principles you enunciated.

But since you bothered to seek my world view on the subject, let me give a short summary thereon.

Please note that the below, unlike all my other posts, is not a rational justification of anything: it is the summary of my personal creed - and i will only explain it, but not try to justify it to any one.

I called myself an empirical and intuitive Deist. . . empirical because i strongly believe that the existence of the Supreme Deity can be logically deduced or inferred. . . intuitive because i believe that a spark of the creator-nature residing within each human being, can lead one to intuitively sense the things of God, even as the greatest simpleton on earth, without the need for advanced thinking.

So here's the summary of my personal Deistic Creed.

Space. . . Infinite. . .

Time. . . Eternal. . .

Thus an infinite still oneness of infinity.

That oneness of infinity is a singularity, an absolute oneness of all.

That absolute oneness of infinity, is thus a reality that needn't be caused. It is real, permanent, extant, and since infinite, is inherently in itself all things that could ever be. That oneness of Infinity, is what i understand to be God.

Because God is Infinite then, he carries within his core the following -

   1. Perfection (Oneness implies no deviation or variation and is the ultimate perfection. But this is a deep area, it is not perfection as conceived by the Abrahamic religions, it is the perfection of a singularity)

  2. Eternity

  3. The In-substantiate Imprimatur for everything that exists.

Given God's eternal nature, everything that lies within him expresses itself.

That self expression, is what is known as creation.

Everything that exists, therefore, exists within God'S IN-SUBSTANTIATE MIND, or as an expression of that Mind.

Harmony.

Because God is a singularity, he connotes oneness and therefore perfect harmony. This is why all things in nature strive towards harmony.

And this forms the basis for the human conscience.

Human Beings are Spirit Sparks emerging from the Light of God (all things emerge from God). Initially unconscious, we live within creation stiving towards perfection and harmony. God, in his perfect grace, allows this process to be a difficult and even tortuous one, thus permitting the human spirit develop, grow, and form its own complete consciousness within reality.

Life is a dream. And its going on in the ultimate mind. God's mind. That mind is reality.

Because that mind is infinite, it contains all things, good and evil, and thus Good and Evil will always express themselves in creation.

This leads to balance, and also, ultimately, strives towards perfection - towards God.

I thus do know that it will always be well with those human beings who strive for harmony within their spirits.

This is a summary only, and is not intended as a justification or proof of anything; i offer it because you asked, and although i am happy to expatiate on it, i will not defend it.

Thus you can see my peculiar brand of Deism.

I hope this was useful for you.

Peace.

Save Mantraa, nobody has attempted to address the mathematical analogy in the opening post. Please address it directly, show that you have digested it, and give me reasons why it is meaningless to you, instead of simply stating: "O ,whatever, God does not exist!"

Because doing so[b] is [/b] every bit as dogmatic as you claim the religionists are = rather than address the reasoning directly, you ignore it entirely, and fold your arms and shout: "Why must God exist!"

Please guys, lets do some credit: address the mathematics above directly.

wirinet:
I call myself an atheist because up till today i do not know what a God is. What is presented to me in all "sacred" books and myths is very similar to a very powerful (in terms of military and political power), egocentric and erratic tribal monarch (king), who wants absolute submission and control of his subjects, and rebellion can result in fatality.
A list of such Gods includes, Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Thor, Sango, Jupiter and hundreds of others. Since i am unable to believe in any god presented to me, i therefore regard myself as an atheist.

Do you need anybody or any religion to present "a god" to you? Are you not self-rigorous enough to ask yourself the questions contained in the cosmological argument?

How do the misconceived ideas of desperate tribes negate the existence of a prime mover.

Do you believe that there can be effects without  causes?

What caused the big-bang?

If it happened at a particular point in time, what caused it to happen? Why didn't it happen before then?

^^^^ Mantraa, i thought you and i agreed that if there is a Deity, he would work through laws of physics, biology, chemistry and evolution, so why are you saying all this about natural selection? ? ?

I already told you i hve no problems with evolution and natural selection, so please dont keep harping on it.

The figures above show the unlikelihood of the process occuring without external guidance or interference. Did you grasp the analogy of the number of particles in the universe as against the probability of the occurence of DNA? Dont you see that it shows that the chance of DNA could not exist in the physical universe without external interference?

Let's take the Deist Discourse now to Numbers: and we won't be letting up until the motley gang of NL Atheists ACCEPT that Atheism is far more improbable than Theism.

I got this off the Net (i have modified it a bit to crystalize the point) -

Consider the following sentence:

"The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog"

What are the chances of that sentence occurring by random
chance?

It's easy to find the answer. It has 43 letters and spaces.
Excluding things like apostrophes and semicolons and numbers,
there are 26 upper case letters and 26 lower case letters to
choose from. So there are 52 to the power of 43 possible
combinations of letters.

52^43 = 6.139652×10^73

Which means the chances of this sentence occurring randomly are
1 chance in

61,396,520,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

This is the probability of just this sentence, not to talk about the probability of an entire developed human society.

NOTE:
There are more than 10^200,000 possible code combinations in the DNA of
the simplest known micro-organism in the world, Nanoarchaeum.

Bur there are only 10^80 particles in the universe!


By Perry Marshall

Arrrgh! Tudor. . . I will be back. . .

^^^ Hey! You cant get the $200, 000 yet.

I did not say they serve no purpose. I said they do not resemble eyes, and so the argument about resembling eyes fails.

Really the point is although i accept that patterns have functions, there are many instances where the function is simply. . . beauty and nothing more.

See: A Mountain is beautiful - is that because it needs to protect itself? Or have sex?

No - It's beautiful simply because the mind of the Universe (God) ascribed beauty to it to be appreciated.

Hope am not talking trash . . . do you get it?

Atheists:
I have some respect for people who believe in deism. At least they don't believe in a personal god who is always fixing and poking, messing around with tradesman's wives, giving tablets on mountains, commanding you to mutilate your children, telling people what words they can say and what words they can't say, making people feel guilty about enjoying themselves, and like that.

Sir, good, but you are yet to address my questions? Should i post them again? ? ? ? ?

huxley:
You are on the right path but you are still wrong. I am really disappointed with your legal training. Do you currently practice in the legal profession? Where did you train?

Think About why mad people are not also held legally responsible for "some" crimes in some legal systems. Man, think!

Na wa o, Huxley, this is really becoming embarassing!

You are so scared to answer a simpple question, you are busy talking about my legal training! I have answered your question about three times above and i will answer it again now:

Mad people have the same diminished responsibility that Minors have because it is recognised that they do not have a full grasp of their actions.

That's why Insanity is an absolute defence. To Crystalize it for you, a Mad person is not able to conceive a "mala in se" (an act of inherent evil). He cannot have what we lawyers call a "mens rea" (wicked intenstion/ motive), because he is absolutely deluded and disfunctional. Thus the diminished responsibility.

Huxley, please help me out cos i am begining to see through you finally: you cannot answer a very simple question and you are trying so hard to divert attention from that fact.

The reality is that NONE of the things you have raised have ANYTHING to do with the issues at hand. I only bothered to answer the legal questions just to prove that fact.

Please, please, please, please, in the name of Atheism, or whatever you believe, STOP BEING EVASIVE, because YOUR EVASION IS NOW ASSUMING A VERY COMICAL ASPECT!

Its easy enough:

Here's the question again.

You said sin is meaningless for you. Only crimes prescribed by Human Laws exist for you.

So i ask: In countries where there are no human laws stating that cannibalism/ murder / rape/ are crimes, would that serve to make such acts right in those countries?

In other words: If we do not legislate against murder, would murder be ok?

Please i beg you on my knees, just answwer this question and stop the monkey tactics, ok?

If you cannot answer this question, boy, you have no bizness arguing on this Forum?

huxley:
Hello Deep Sight,

I am not being evasive. The questions I ask are prior question to your question and I shall address your question once the most fundamental parts of my questions have been addressed by you. I ask them again in this simple format;

1) Who made this law about the age of responsibility for crime/offense?

2) WHY are children NOT liable for crimes?

The key question is number 2. Once you have address these, I shall answer you question.

Listen: Its simple enough: Its obvious that minors do not have fully developed minds. That's why ALL countries recognise minors as having diminished responsibility. Its much the same way that nature dictates that 9 year old girls dont have fully developed sexual organs. That's why 99% of humanity have laws matching this natural dictate: making sleeping with such a person rape. It might interest you to note that even in Islamic Countries the secular laws prohibit such acts.

You may need to study Jurisprudence a bit, do some research on these subjects: "Natural Law and Positive Law".

Huxley, stop being a coward:

You stated:

huxley:
Sin - is a meanless word in my worldview. But in the theistic worldview, it is a contravention of god's will.

And i ask:

If there are no human laws, would it be right to kill and eat your wife?

Just answer, please!

Noetic 10? ? ? ? ?

What's happening? ? ? Have they banned you 10 times already? ? ?

Noetic - Just apologise to the moderators and stop going into the Islamic Forum to disturb them, simple.

You are being evasive, Huxley.

The age of full criminal responsibility is not very different in most countries, it hovers, plus or minus, around 16 - 18.

You wondered who made this law, of course humans did, because some natural laws are so self evident that all nations adopt them (e.g: Murder is a crime every where in the world)>

As far as i am concerned, you are still running away from these questions:

Deep Sight:
I hope you realize the implications of your statement. The implication is that if there were no Human Laws against such things as murder, there would be nothing wrong with murder, rape, etc.

I take a different view: namely that there is something inherently wrong about such things, human laws notwithstanding.

Otherwise on what grounds would you condemn Paedophilia in Islam? What makes it wrong (since their Human Laws permit it?)

Let me bring my legal background to bear on this.

There are two types of crimes in legal philosophy (Jurisprudence).

There is "Mala in se" and "Mala prohibita".

"Mala in se" refers to things that are inherently evil: e.g: murder.

"Mala prohibita" refers to things that are only wrong because the law says so: e.g: parking your car in the wrong place on a street.

Does this make some sense to you? I want a point by point response.

I need you to affirm to me that in your view, if there is no secular law against eating your son or daughter, then there would be nothing wrong with such an act.[color=#990000][/color]

Please address particularly the last portion emboldened in red, since you have such difficulty focusing on the point in issue.

huxley:
OK, consider the following scenarios;

1) A little toddler, about 2 years old, walks into your living room and picks up one of your prized books and rips to shreds.

2) I, a 40 year old, walks into your same living room, picks up your prized book and tears it to shreds.



A) Did the toddler commit a crime, offense, sin, or nothing? Yes or NO and state WHY in each case.

B) Did I commit a crime, offence, sin, or nothing? Yes or NO and WHY in each case.


Which of the above situation could be actionable in a court of law and why?

You give me a very easy question which i will answer in 1 line. You dey ask me legal question, you forget say i be lawyer.

Answer: Under the law, Children are not liable for crimes or torts (civil wrongs). A child is a person under the age of 12.

Young persons (12 - 18) are liable but only for correctional purposes.

Adults (18+) are fully liable.

Now you have NOT aswered my questions here: ANSWER THEM NOW.

Deep Sight:
I hope you realize the implications of your statement. The implication is that if there were no Human Laws against such things as murder, there would be nothing wrong with murder, rape, etc.

I take a different view: namely that there is something inherently wrong about such things, human laws notwithstanding.

Otherwise on what grounds would you condemn Paedophilia in Islam? What makes it wrong (since their Human Laws permit it?)

Let me bring my legal background to bear on this.

There are two types of crimes in legal philosophy (Jurisprudence).

There is "Mala in se" and "Mala prohibita".

"Mala in se" refers to things that are inherently evil: e.g: murder.

"Mala prohibita" refers to things that are only wrong because the law says so: e.g: parking your car in the wrong place on a street.

Does this make some sense to you? I want a point by point response.

I need you to affirm to me that in your view, if there is no secular law against eating your son or daughter, then there would be nothing wrong with such an act.

Tell me why muslim paedophilia is wrong, since their human laws permit it.

Tell me why Military Oppresive Decrees were wrong, since they were Human Laws?

Tell me why witch-burning was wrong (was it not a human law?)

You cant escape this one.

huxley:
Deep Sight,

Your arguments are so elementary, it is painful to see anyone make them. Mathemetically, there is a finite probability of form the square pattern, but it is so small as to be negligible. As long as the probability is not identical to ZERO, there is still a chance that it could happen. There are many billions of things with very very very small probabilities that happen all the time. Consider this for a start.

What is the probability of exactly you existing, or being born, amongst all the various combinations of eggs and sperms that could have happened? If the egg had been fertilised by a different sperm, someone else, not YOU would have resulted. Now compound that backwards thru all generation of your grandparents on both sides of your family. You soon see that this is nearly ZERO. In short;

THERE WILL NEVER BE ANOTHER YOU AGAIN
But does that mean that you do not now exist?

I am surprised you do not see implicit in your own words the very evidence for the fact that i could not exist by chance.

Excellent

Just a personal question - were you born a Crossbearer or became one individually?

Have you been sealed.

Have you visited the Temple in Austria? I hear its really beautiful.

Thanks as always M_Nwankwo. I really struggled with these questions because i find it very difficult to accept any human being as being God (including Jesus).

Honestly the question of identity was what steered me away from the message. As you said, i will pray.

In my mind, i have a look at Guru Maharaji and Olumba Olumba Obu, they claimed to be God!

That's the same way i tend to see all other claims to Divinity (including the Christ Claim)?

I will pray, though.

huxley:
These thinsg are NOT sins, but they are CRIMES. BIG different.

SIN is a theological concepts whose referent is a God.

CRIME is a secular concept whose referent is humankind.

I hope you realize the implications of your statement. The implication is that if there were no Human Laws against such things as murder, there would be nothing wrong with murder, rape, etc.

I take a different view: namely that there is something inherently wrong about such things, human laws notwithstanding.

Otherwise on what grounds would you condemn Paedophilia in Islam? What makes it wrong (since their Human Laws permit it?)

Let me bring my legal background to bear on this.

There are two types of crimes in legal philosophy (Jurisprudence).

There is "Mala in se" and "Mala prohibita".

"Mala in se" refers to things that are inherently evil: e.g: murder.

"Mala prohibita" refers to things that are only wrong because the law says so: e.g: parking your car in the wrong place on a street.

Does this make some sense to you? I want a point by point response.

I need you to affirm to me that in your view, if there is no secular law against eating your son or daughter, then there would be nothing wrong with such an act.

GODSON2009:
ill say kudos to oyedepo,as long as he can afford it and he didnt procure the funds through illegal or fraudulent means

Tell me, would it make a difference if those funds are funds sourced from the contributions and tithes of Church members?