₦airaland Forum

btoks:
It's the year 360AD, majority of the population cannot read, you have never heard Revelations or Hebrews read as some places hadn't even received them due to disputes. Please tell me exactly these people were meant to have learnt about God's teachings. Do you really think everyone carried a bible about up to 400 years ago? In this context, do you really think Jesus would have established sola scriptura?

The church is what he set up to go out teaching and as the pillar and bulwark of truth and the power to bind and lose. Please read about the Ethiopian in Acts 8:26-31 and what he said about understanding scripture and needing a guide!

Are you still in the era when you cannot read? In church and crk were we not taught many things that we thought was in the bible only to later read the Bible to see that it was not there and vice versa?

Or in school were we not taught that the constitution is the highest law in the land only for me to grow up reading more to see that the constitution is itself unlawful and that Natural Law is the highest Law in the world?

Please, your argument holds no air.

advanceDNA:
They dont even allow them read cos he clearly said they are not meant to understand it on their own...
...if the Pope tells them "thou shall not kill" interpretes a "thou shall not eat" ......that's final....

Yeah! Under the magic word called "mystery". And when they say that word I always ask them that mystery did not stop them from discovering how lightening and thunder play in the sky instead of staying in the mystery that it was the gods coughing and moving

Kukutente23:
Has Ned obeyed?

Do you not see that the Law is not waiting for him to obey?

It is only Natural Law that upholds that statement on Nigerian Bar Association logo that says ubi jus ibi remedium - "where there is a right, there is a remedy".

Which I think should be "ubi errorem ibi remedium"- "where there is a wrong, there is a remedy".

So,, here we see that Natural Law respects that it is Neds right not to collect the bride price, but that there must be a remedy. And Natural Law has provided that the remedy is that they drop the bride price in a place that he can collect it. End of story. Justice served.

Meanwhile you can see how your legal breaks law for why would the police arrest Regina's brother over a marital issue?

Now, reports are saying that he is going to arrest the mother on Monday, meanwhile we can see that nobody can get the boy released even when he has not committed a crime and neither has he been charged to court as your constitution said must be done.

So do you see that injustice and wickedness comes from your so called positive law?

Kukutente23:
Has Ned obeyed?

Do you not see that the Law is not waiting for him to obey?

It is only Natural Law that upholds that statement on Nigerian Bar Association logo that says ubi jus ibi remedium - "where there is a right, there is a remedy".

Which I think should be "ubi errorem ibi remedium"- "where there is a wrong, there is a remedy".

So,, here we see that Natural Law respects that it is Neds right not to collect the bride price, but that there must be a remedy. And Natural Law has provided that the remedy is that they drop the bride price in a place that he can collect it. End of story. Justice served.

Meanwhile you can see how your legal breaks law for why would the police arrest Regina's brother over a marital issue?

So do you see that injustice and wickedness comes from your so called positive law?

Kukuntete23/DeepSight

Thanks to our conversation on the Soyinka thread, you have made me real eyes that we have been blinded from not seeing and thinking your so called positive/negative laws (man made laws) should be called Artificial and came laws like we call every other thing that is man made and not natural eg artificial grass, fruits and trees etc.

So, you see, if you really want to understand the Truth of Law and it's operations and effects, it must be looked at in terms of Natural Law vs Artificial law, so that we all would be clear in our minds when we are talking about Law and the operation of Law

advanceDNA:
I ddnt interpret anything....go and read the bible on your own u will see it clearly written what I said..m.no need of any complex interpretation......u are just lazy
.
..just as it is written clearly "though shall not lie" ....it was clearly written that Moses was told to build the tabernacle like the exact one he was shown and it was clearly written that Jesus entered that heavily ark by his blood to reconcile man back to himself..

The problem with y'all Catholics is that u don't read the bible.....

Like jws the church tells them how they should read the Bible in the church's eyes.

btoks:
We've likely debated before, the fact is catholic, orthodox do not worship Mary as we've stated countless times. Worship (Latria) is given to the Trinity alone and you can see an exampleof this in the catholic mass. Prayer /request for intercession (even with pious flowery words) alone is not worship.

Mary is venerated with hyperdulia /given honour, just like the original Ark was. All the other saints are also venerated. Where some peopls might cross the line due to overzealous piety , the church corrects that. E.g. you may have read that the vatican has recently discouraged the use of co-redemptrix for Mary as it could cause confusion if not explained well

As I've stated before, God decided how the incarnation was to happen. It is clear that the OT ark imagery is fulfilled in the NT by Mary, which made her a unique case. She was greeted , Hail Full of Grace by angel Gabriel . And mother of my Lord by Elizabeth. These are not casual titles.

That is why the ark typology matters. Once it is recognised, the honour given to Mary is not an invention but a response to what God has done.

Yes we have debated before and yes, the record shows you people denying it, exactly how an accused usually denies an offence alleged.

So, the next point is trial and proof of the offence by the accuser and defence raised by the accused.

And this is where you people fail for as this thread shows, the facts of your offences are shown and even you people the accused admit them so the trial moved to whether you people can raise any valid and lawful defence. And this is where you people fail pityfully for ALL the defences raised and offered do not stand as they were mostly fallacies or logically penalized answers or evasive answers, as you have just done in answer to the point you raised that Mary was sanctified like the Ark of the covenant which I replied to but here you are moving post to denial and explanation of your act which amounts to worship of Mary. For the spirit of the word "venerate" is worship even when the dictionary says "with great respect". But your acts shows that this is more than respect and that word "great" respect already shows that it has crossed the line.

And therefore, what stands is that you people have no defence to the accusation of your worshipping Mary, hence it is reasonably imputed that you are guilty of worshipping Mary.

So, yes, you people always deny it, but the records prove that you have no valid and lawful defence to the accusation, hence, you guys are guilty!

btoks:
The church works from what God actually did, rather than 2nd guessing what He might have done with Joseph etc. God chose the manner of Jesus' incarnation and early christianity recognised Marys role as the Ark of the new Covenant. The theological conclusion can be seen feom  the way scripture presents her with several undeniable parallels in the NT compared the OT . Or do you think Luke was making the parallels by accident? (Compare 2Sam 6 2 -11 to Luke 1 35-56)

If you acknowledge Mary as the ark of the new covenant, it would be easier to understand the immaculate conception you currently disagree with. If the original Ark was prepared with care and sanctified for the presence of God (Ex 40.9). wouldn't it be fitting fornthe NT ark to have similar treatment or even better. Thisnis the catholic church teaching in immaculate conception of Mary

Obviously, youll need to accept the ark typology to better understand the catholic church teaching.

Even if you go by the sanctification of the Ark, it stands to record that no one worshipped the Ark, so also no one should worship Mary.

Secondly, we saw how the Ark was sanctified, and by the Law, we can presume that Mary and Joseph are people who complied with the Law of sanctification and holiness as seen by their trips in going to Jerusalem.

Therefore, since they complied with God's Commands, it is only natural that God would use them exactly how He used Saul and David before they messed up and Esther too, so there is no big deal here.

Naijalegal:
Have you heard of the word Caveat Emptor

Deceit too is a ground for divorce

Kukutente23:
Secondly, and more importantly, marriage is not a natural law. It is a human invention (or God's if we go with the Bible) based on social interaction. If it were not so, we will not have different forms of marriage and even have those who choose to abstain from it

Is this not the principle of Natural Law at work?

https://www.nairaland.com/8555835/ned-nwoko-gets-48-hour-ultimatum#137380463

their tradition allows a woman to leave a marriage if she chooses, and her family must return the bride price to end the union formally.

According to them, Regina’s family had made several attempts to return the payment, but Nwoko allegedly refused to accept it.

They said if he continues to reject it, the money would be placed at the Ikeleke Quarter in Ogwashi-Uku, a traditional action that would signify the end of the marriage.

Meanwhile, in your positive law, your youslesss courts sometimes say that an aggrieved person is without remedy because your positive law (constitution) did not provide a solution. So how shall injustice not prevail? It is for this reason why you people say that the law can be exploited but it is in your fake man made laws that can be exploited and not Natural Law

Penguin2:
So you are calling what your village do paganism and not tradition?

Traditional practices are born out of paganism

Kukutente23:
You have still failed to take note of the distinction between natural law and positive law. Natural laws are laws deemed to exist by the force of nature. Positive law is in effect, actions that the govt established upon the principles of natural laws are expected to enforce to ensure that the liberties granted under natural laws are enforced and protected.

Conversely, there are also negative laws which are actions the govt established upon the principles of natural law are expected to refrain from to ensure that the liberties granted under natural law are not infringed upon or denied an individual
I hope you can see the distinction now. That a law is made from positive law does not mean it is made from natural law. Rather, it is made to ensure and enforce natural laws.

It is you who is refusing to accept the clear distinction between natural law and your so called positive/negative and govt laws especially when natural law was doing very well and very well enforced until your so called govt who are unlawful and illegal exactly like the bandits in the north then came and deceived you people into allowing them become what you call govt.

All Rights and Liberties were already guaranteed and protected under natural Law as you have even just confessed that rights and liberties are given by natural law and are protected by the principles of natural law.

So, you see Natural Law can do without man made laws but man made laws cannot stand without Natural Law which is why if anyone should tell government that they are unlawful, they would never be able to defend it under valid Law which is Natural Law.

Kukutente23:
Do you think it is fair for one individual to claim that he and his generations have been chosen to rule over his fellow humans as Kings and thus summarily turns them to subjects?

Under Natural Law, and even your man made law called legal, find that they cannot oppose it, it is The Law that "No man has a right to rule over his fellow man... without his consent".

Abraham Lincoln put it another way "No man is good enough to govern another man without the others' consent"

"Government itself is founded upon the great doctrine of consent of the governed and has its foundations upon the principle that men are endowed with inalienable natural rights". Leland Stanford.

So, you see by Natural Law most government in the world would be unlawful and "illegal" as they never obtained the consent of the people being governed exactly how the bandits ruling the north are unlawful.

"For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery". Jonathan Swift.

So now, you see that most governments today are exactly like the bandits in the north and the all started the same way. And that is why they will never teach you Natural Law and they ensure they give it a bad name while lifting up their own fake and unjust legal laws which they liefully called positive law.
For they are unlawful under Natural Law and how can they be called unlawful by their own falls laws which themselves are unlawful?

So, you see, that is why people would always complain forever about lack of justice from the legal system no matter how they change it up and down. It will never do justice for even it, itself is unlawful.

So, there was nothing like government and positive laws before in the world using the area now and known as Nigeria before 1851 as an example. Yet, the Rules of Law and Justice and Order was on ground and in force. The Benins and Yoruba had contracts with themselves and foreigners like the Portuguese, British and French. All based on Natural Law.

Kukutente23:
For you to thinkk you are being robbed of your rights, you have to be aware of such rights in the first instance.

Nature has made it that every man knows his rights and where he may not have known before, Nature let's him know later and in natural law he is even entitled to recover his rights covering the period when he did not know. Exactly why employees sue their employers for benefits they were supposed to be given which was not given because they did not know that they were entitled to it.

But the more they teach you legal laws, the more they steal and cover your rights. And the more you fall into slavery as you can see, Tinubu, Trump, Putin is taking you people to.

Kukutente23:
A man who believes all land is owned by the King will not claim he has a right to the land. Even in the Bible, there are numerous examples of those who let go of their lands for the king because they believe it belongs to him by right.

This is the result of brai.. lundry. In the 80s backwards it was known that all lands belong to God and every one was entitled to a reasonable use of it for free even or for a small fee. But, King Obasanjo in 79 now came and scattered it using the excuse of land fraud to now appropriate lands to the king, whoever is FG.

And thereafter they brai.. laundered all children into believing this anomaly by teaching you legal laws while hiding natural law that would have told you that they are lying theives.

And you would see that in the bible Samuel warned them that they should not have a king as calamity would follow them. And see it, we are complaining about wicked government and injustice.

Kukutente23:
There are women who were married without their agreement and consent.

And as they were forced to be married it is permanent and cannot be altered abi?

So you h never heard that they can have that forced marriage nullified and have the forcee pay damages for the unlawful marriage abi?

Kukutente23:
Secondly, and more importantly, marriage is not a natural law. It is a human invention (or God's if we go with the Bible) based on social interaction. If it were not so, we will not have different forms of marriage and even have those who choose to abstain from it

Please, I don't have power for another stoopee argument. The word social interaction already tells you it is natural and therefore controlled by natural law.

AI Overview
+6
The statement that marriage is a creation of natural law is a viewpoint within legal and philosophical traditions that see the institution of marriage as a natural union of man and woman. This perspective is rooted in natural law theory, which posits that certain principles are inherent in human nature

So go and argue with Google.

Kukutente23:
But it is positive law not natural law. Natural law is distinctly different from positive law. I believe the premise of Deepsight was to make that distinction clear. You seem to want to imply that positive law is part of natural law now.

I already pointed out that was it's making by people based on any positive law in existence?

No!

So, it's settled.

And no, I do not imply that positive law is part of natural law, but ... thinking about it, I say it is part of natural law because parts of natural law are nearly always put into it

However, what I would have told you, is still what I have said which is "positive law is based on natural law and arose from it"!

Penguin2:
Did Nnamdi Azikiwe, Awolowo and Ahmadu Bello honour themselves?

Invalid argument of Off Point/Change of Post

Penguin2:
Pagans also gather like the Osun River festival, etc.
Should I take it to mean that when you people gather at Redemption Camp that you are doing what pagans do or engaging in pagan practice?

Off Point/Change of Post

Is it that there is no way you can make any valid argument at all?

And just for fun, I lightly answer that every reasonable person has adjudged Osun river festival as a pagan practice but no reasonable person has adjudged going to Redeem camp a pagan practice.

But as I said this is off point so, you have not provided any valid counter to the issue.

Penguin2:
What do you understand by Jesus’ command of “do this in remembrance of me” and why are you ignoring the fact that the Apostles continued to gather and pray and break the bread in Acts of the Apostles?

This is Off Point too but I will address it.

The Passover and Sabbath and many other activities God commanded are "a do this in remembrance of Me". And they are done anywhere. And you people never called them mass.

Penguin2:
Stick to providing logical disproval of my positions instead of labeling everything as fallacious.

Do you not know that fallacy is The Law of disproving illogical and false and deceit filled arguments?

"A fallacy is a misleading or incorrect argument based on faulty reasoning. It is an argument that appears sound but is logically unsound. The term comes from the Latin "fallacia," meaning deceit.

And this is why everyone is telling you that Catholic church is deceiving you like Satan deceived female Adam.

Penguin2:
How was the Apostles supposed to wear the Scapula with Jesus and Mary in their midst?

Not our problem! As long as it is clear that you admit that they never did.

And as an obiter, you did say that redeem people wear the pictures of their g.o, so nothing stops the apostles from doing same.

But, the bottom line is that they never did and we all know that it is because it is unacceptable and it will be in breach of God's Command.

Kukutente23:
Clownery
Have you ever heard of anti-law of mechanics
They do not exist because the laws of mechanics do not need your permission or acquiescence to hold.

Off point!

Kukutente23:
The key word is that natural law is a system of belief not a law that exists by the force of nature. That's the solemn point you do not get.

.. That your so-called natural laws need your agreement before they can hold shows that they are not laws in their own rights but beliefs
Do you get it? Think man. It's a part of natural law

The operating point proves that it is a lie when they say Natural Law is a belief system for No one needs belief to cry out for justice when he is unfairly treated in contract. And no one needs belief to raise a court like the ones the Yorubas, ibos and Edos have when they felt that they are being deprived of their rights.

Kukutente23:
. Anything that's naturally occurring should not need your interference or agreement to hold

So as the ground is naturally occurring, it could not be interfered with yet we farm, mine and scatter the ground to build estates and cities on it.

A woman is natural occuring yet you seek her consent and agreement to hold and marry her.

So you see, you are talking absolute rubbish

Kukutente23:
The UN declaration of self-determination is widely considered a principle of positive international law,
See how you fraudulently jumped this part in your quest for self-glorification.

You already know that positive law means laws made by men, so the question is on what grounds were those laws made?

And there you saw the answer that they were based on Natural Law.

So, you see, you disgrace yourself and all other things you try raising are Off Point!

Is this Judge ok?

How do you grant a forfeiture under an exparte motion? Meanwhile the NDLEA is still asking for investigation!

Not According to their juju chant

Holy Mary,
pray for us.
Holy Mother of God,
pray for us.
Holy Virgin of virgins,
pray for us.
Mother of Christ,
pray for us.
Mother of divine grace,
pray for us.
Mother most pure,
pray for us.
Mother most chaste,
pray for us.
Mother inviolate,
pray for us.
Mother undefiled,
pray for us.
amiable,
pray for us.
Mother most admirable,
pray for us.
Mother of good counsel,
pray for us.
Mother of our Creator,
pray for us.
Mother of our Savior,
pray for us.
Virgin most prudent,
pray for us.
Virgin most venerable,
pray for us.
Virgin most renowned,
pray for us.
Virgin most powerful,
pray for us.
Virgin most merciful,
pray for us.
Virgin most faithful,
pray for us.
Mirror of justice,
pray for us.
Seat of wisdom,
pray for us.
Cause of our joy,
pray for us.
Spiritual vessel,
pray for us.
Vessel of honor,
pray for us.
Singular vessel of devotion,
pray for us.
Mystical rose,
pray for us.
Tower of David,
pray for us.
Tower of ivory,
pray for us.
House of gold,
pray for us.
Ark of the Covenant,
pray for us.
Gate of Heaven,
pray for us.
Morning star,
pray for us.
Health of the sick,
pray for us.
Refuge of sinners,
pray for us.
Comforter of the afflicted,
pray for us.
Help of Christians,
pray for us.
Queen of angels,
pray for us.
Queen of patriarchs,
pray for us.
Queen of prophets,
pray for us.
Queen of apostles,
pray for us.
Queen of martyrs,
pray for us.
Queen of confessors,
pray for us.
Queen of virgins,
pray for us.
Queen of all saints,
pray for us.
Queen conceived without Original Sin,
pray for us.
Queen assumed into Heaven,
pray for us.
Queen of the most holy Rosary,
pray for us.
Queen of peace,

Kukutente23:
..."Natural Law School is a philosophical and jurisprudential framework centred on the belief in inherent, universal principles governing human conduct."

"Natural law is a philosophical concept that refers to a system of right or justice believed to be universal and inherent to human nature, rather than established by societal rules or positive law. It suggests that there are objective moral principles derived from nature that govern human conduct."
As you can see from the above. It is a system of belief not based on any scientific or empirical proof. So basically, there is no agreement of the existence of natural law. Rather, there is a belief in the existence of natural laws which form the basis for the jurisprudence. If you read further, you will see that the theory of natural law was debunked in the 19th century by such writers like Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham (see link 1). The skepticism about natural law theory still exists till today in some contemporary schools of thought.

I Don't care what some pervertous persons wish to bend it into and the debunking is highly circumscribed. It did not challenge the real flow and power of Natural Law but went on to the areas where free will, (which is still again a power and gift of Natural Law) holds sway.

But the real eyeity is that we have all seen how people live and operated on Natural Law even without the need of belief.

No one needs belief to cry for justice when he is unfairly treated in contract. And no one needs belief to raise a natural law court like the ones the Yorubas, ibos and Edos have when they felt that they being deprived of their natural rights.

So, you see the anti natural law philosophers are talking rubbish trying to deceive young ordinary people like you.

Why do you think that all these anti natural law philosophers are always taught to young students?

It won't fly with adults for adults know a lot and have experienced a lot and can see through sheeats a lot

Kukutente23:
I am not responsible for your ability to comprehend. Your claim is that natural law is a universal law. I rejected that claim.

Now you are trying to change post yet again by going backwards to issues that have been settled. And in your mind, you think you are smart being slippery, not real eyesing that you look very stoooop ... eeeeeeeeeee .D

Reject it all you want but the thread clearly shows that your rejection of it does not make sense and everything you said was invalid and unreasonable as sealed by the questions put to you which you severally dodged and in some occasions you refused answering them.

So, this argument has ended since, I just wanted to see how deep your edy OSI can go. I ain't ever met a person who loves being wauta.

Kukutente23:
Now I'm showing you that sharia law does not obey natural law and you're asking me for the relevance of my post.

I said this is Off Point and change of Post yet you are still talking about it, does this not prove how wauta u r?

Kukutente23:
I want to believe you missed the point and not being intentionally petulant.
You have not made any serious point with your interjecting question.

Yet you kept dodging and dodging the question, clearly the point has been made already

Kukutente23:
The international law Bashir is relying on is the UN charter on self-determination.

Now see how you look like an egufē!

UN Charter is based on Natural Law

AI Overview
The UN declaration of self-determination is widely considered a principle of positive international law, rooted in natural law. its legal force derives from treaties and consistent state practice, and from natural law principles.

Connection to Natural Law Ideas
The modern concept of self-determination has origins in political philosophies that align with natural law thinking:

Consent of the Governed: Traced back to the American and French Revolutions, the idea that governments derive their "just powers from the consent of the governed" reflects a belief in inherent, universal principles of justice and legitimacy that exist independent of enacted laws.
Justice: The very idea of self-determination is a derivative of natural law, as it embodies a fundamental principle of justice: that people have an inherent right to determine their own fate freely.

Kukutente23:
Again, Bashir professes to prefer sharia law above and over any other law. He is benefiting from international laws that are not recognized nor provided for by the same sharia. Do you understand the contradiction now or you need to be spoon-fed further?

Who cares what Bashir prefers? Did anyone ask you? So do you see how silly you speak?

Kukutente23:
Eerm have you been to Arab countries before? Who is clamoring for human rights in Arab countries and on what basis?

Where you not born to see that women finally got the rights to drive in Saudi Arabia in 2017 after years and years of clamouring for human rights and women rights?

Clearly, you do not have any reasonable thing to say.

Kukutente23:
Again, you've gotten it all wrong!
Sharia law is not in tandem with the theory of natural law! Sharia law does not recognise right to life! Sharia law believes that Muslim life is more superior to the life of a kafir. Sharia embraces slavery and subjugation of women. How is it then in tandem with natural law? Are you sure you're on the same wavelength with this conversation?

I just accused you of trying to shift the post to shariah law/natural law when it is not the issue. Yet you are still trying to change the post

Does this action not make it easy for someone to insult you?

If you know you cannot continue this enquiry reasonably and supply a reasonable or valid answer to the question "when you say international law, can you tell us the specific international law that provides for Bashir and US's rights?" Is it not best you keep get out of the thread instead of setting yourself up to be insalted?

Softmirror:
In a nut shell, that is a Roman Pagan tradition. Case closed.

Oh, you even told him.

Penguin2:
The way your village people bury someone that dies in your village, which book prescribed that they should be doing the burial that way and not incinerate the corpse and pack the ashes like Indians?

So you admit that it is truly a pagan burial.

Penguin2:
1) The Apostles didn’t pray Rosary to Mary.

Answer:
Mary lived with the Apostles, so, why did they need to pray to her when she was living and communing with them? Maybe the Protestants should educate us where Mary was ever disrespected by the Apostles or called an envelope like their theology teaches.

Therefore you Admit that they never did such a thing despite your fallacious arguments.

Penguin2:
2) The Apostles didn’t pray to the dead.

Answer:
I believe that by praying to the dead they have the Catholics’ reverence for saints in mind.

Now I have a question. Are we, Christians of today, in same pedestal with the Apostles who suffered persecution with Jesus Christ and even suffered martyrdom in some cases in their bid to propagate the gospel that we now know today?

The Catholic Church reverence these people, Peter, Paul, Mathew, James, John, etc, for the role they played in enduring the persecution of early days of Christianity to preserve the gospel. It’s similar to same way we Nigerians honour Sir Herbert Macaulay, Nnamdi Azikiwe, Obafemi Awolowo and Ahmadu Bello for roles they played in ensuring we gained independence from the British. Now, can anyone tell me what is wrong with such honour?

Reverence is not "pray to".

So in the end you confirm that the apostles did not do these

Penguin2:
3) The Apostles didn’t do satanic processions.

Answer:
What is satanic in procession?

Again, how did the Wall of Jericho fall? Joshua got the Israelites to “process” around the wall of the city until he blew the trumpet and the wall came down.

Now, if Joshua and the Israelites processed, what is satanic about procession?

Pagans like oro festivals and satanists do processions, so therefore you say that their processions are not satanic because Joshua processed around Jericho?

Penguin2:
4). The Apostles didn’t go to Mass.

Answer:
This is the most laughable of all the claims because at the Last Supper, Jesus Christ broke bread and blessed wine and gave it to His disciples with strict command, “Do this in remembrance of me.” (1 Cor 11:23-26)

Again, the Acts of the Apostle is replete with the Apostles coming together to break bread and share communion which was where Stephen was appointed the first ever Deacon to assist with coordination of the event. (Acts 6:1-15)

This coming together of the Apostles and disciples is what the Catholic Church has sustained till today in the Mass, and some people dare condemn it?

Thank you admit that it was a "supper". So since when did dinner and dinning become a mass whatever that word means?

Even before and after Jesus's last supper, they had other suppers in different places, are those places also called mass?

Penguin2:
5). The Apostles didn’t wear Scapular

Answer:
Says someone who is most probably hanging the image of his Daddy GO in both his car and his home.

When would the traducers of the Catholic understand that these iconoclasms are intended to preserve the images of the Jesus, Mary and the Apostles in the minds of Christians?

And yes, if you believe that the image of your Daddy GO can scare away the devil and keep bad energies away, we also believe that the images of Jesus and Mary (Scapular), the origin of our faith, can do even much more in scaring the devil and keep bad energies away.

Tu quoque Fallacy. Also, you admit that they did not wear scapulas

Let me stop here for I tire.

Kukutente23:
Thank you for your links
I have read them and my arguments are valid. Natural law as you call it is a theory as attestd by both links. In science, a theory must be proven before it can be accepted as law. What was established from both links is that it is an ongoing debate older than modern civilisation. Some accept the existence of the divine rights while others contend its universality and applicability just as I have done....

Have I not already given you examples of its practical uses since the beginning of the argument citing that every place in the world like them Yoruba, Bini, Ibo, exercised rights of migration, ownership of property, engaged in contract, conducted marriages, settled succession and inheritance, prosecuted and judged criminals etc even when there was no democracy and as you ignorantly say and there was no rights and law as you say?

So is it a theory where it has already been utilised and practiced by those who claim not to accept it?

Kukutente23:
The 19th century thinkers however disagreed with the force of morality in natural law theories. So you see, it is still a subject of debate and not a universal law as you posited.

Hope you see that this statement proves that they agree that Natural Law exists but what they contend with is the force of morality in the natural law? (Which is a separate and distinct topic of which since Cain murdered Abel, till the world ends, everyone everywhere feels the force of morality even if they do not always obey it. So, there really isn't any debate going on as it has been settled.

But as I said, this is a separate topic and it does not affect the fact that natural law is applied all over the world)

Kukutente23:
You did not need to descend into insults. Only the weak indulge in insults in an intellectual debate. Be guided henceforth
If you read his links, you will realize that the modern view is that human rights is a progressive form of positive law as against natural law. In other words, when you use the word "human rights" you are already de-legitimizing the concept of natural rights.

Off point.
Again, you are dodging the question you find proves you wrong.

In which part of the world do the people not clamour for human rights?

Answer: None.

Kukutente23:
Unfortunately, Bashir is using international law which fall under democratic norms here. And he's using it as a bedrock to defend his preference for sharia law. Ironically, the big question is if sharia law itself recognises natural law or democratic rights? Can you answer that question on behalf of Bashir? If it does not, how logical is it to build your argument for sharia law on a concept which it does not recognise nor align with?
Same goes for the murder of Christians. US law is using its own laws on human rights to demand protection for Christians. Does Sharia law recognize such protection for Christians and indeed people of other faiths in its domain? If it does not, is the US not going to be in conflict with Bashir? How then does Bashir intend to fight this cause?

See how you are shifting the post to proving shariah law is in tandem with natural law which is not the issue.

So the only valid thing you said is the bold.

And when you say international law, can you tell us the specific international law that provides for Bashir and US's rights?

chimex38:
https://www.nairaland.com/post/137354188
This is an extract from my Post

This was your reply to it

and you say "as it is" doesn't make a difference?
even after I said "correct" meaning i agreed with your last statement?

@MaxInDHouse made a rhetorical question while passing his message across which I fully understood he didn't literally mean.
I also attempted rhetorical response while passing my thoughts across. If you read the response in context , I am sure you will see I didn't mean it literally.
but you took it literally and couldn't express yourself initially, typing sth else, which I pointed out, yet you don't want to acknowledge it, Now you outburst spewing more of what you initially believe rather than acknowledging the difference "as it is" makes in your follow up response.

and you resurrected the discuss by quoting me from a reply to someone else after over 1 week ago in the first place.

I can see your trigger is getting the best of you.

I rest my case with you on this.
Peace✌

Clearly you saw I did not know whether you were still opposing Max's response and that is why you said "correct" thereby putting my response to rest and thereby admitting the implementation of both I and Max's point which is your cannot counter the impropriety of worshipping dead Mary as it is improper to worship dead Moses. It's as simple as that.

chimex38:
babalawos
I see the issue is still the wordings "pray for us". Just like in. Our discuss thus far,
In this context you itemised, I will prefer they says pray for us to God/the Lord which is the context they will tell you if you ask for explanation rather than just
"pray for us.".which doesn't help their Ministry. it adds to why people see them as worshipping Mary.

(as someone said it's to shorten the words as they "chant".)

You are still trying to change the argument.

The issue is not pray for us or pray for us to God/the Lord.

The issue is you said "They call it honor and Jesus and God are always at the centre of such activities." and then I asked you to judge the shortened version of the whole prayer to Mary.

So, stop being deceitful by always trying to change the argument. Every time you resort to this act of deception and diversionary tactics it just proves that you yourself know that it is not defendable so you are trying to cheat craftily.

chimex38:
On the issue of queen of peace.
First and foremost Jesus is the Prince of Peace.
Her Queen of peace is still taken to be below Jesus's Prince of peace.

It's the way you tend to see it as rivalry to Jesus which is not..

Is a queen below a prince?
No!

chimex38:
One could also call Jesus King of Peace. If it suits your Faith and psyche.

Off point. Another diversionary tactics

But to kick this fallacy, you yourself have seen that no one in Christendom says so as ever Christian understands that Jesus's Father, is The King of Peace!

So off Point and invalid and your lack of passing judgment on the propriety of this chant proves that you yourself can see that it is out of order .

chimex38:
There's no other female figure above her, hence Queen and mother is usually used.

But for Jesus who has Father in heaven, Prince and Son is often used.
I don't think It relegates Jesus and elevates Mary..

You say no other female above her yet a queen is higher than both males and females and a mother is higher than her children as a Father is higher than the son as Jesus Himself upheld in the, so you are wrong and this is invalid and you even know it but you are just trying to defend an indefensible thing.

And you cannot and no one can because "there is no valid argument against the Truth".

chimex38:
I just searched through the full "Hail holy Queen" Chant from google.
Banished children of eve signifies when God casted Adam and Eve from Eden.

Off point!

chimex38:
Since the whole essence was to honor or elevate Mary as a kind of mother or woman figure; "eve" was used rather than Adam.
What again is the crux of the prayer.

Ehen! You see it. You have confessed what the world accuses you people for. You people have elevated her to the status of a god upto the point of praying to her and even creating beads and an alter to her. The very same thing pagans do.

Imagine girls and daughters with 80-90% of those "Chanting" qualities from infancy.
Won't the world be a better place even if by 1% .

And here you confess that you are indeed chanting all the godship you people have given to her.

And of course you know that it is not just girls and daughters alone who do it but grown men and boys too.

And since when did chanting change your girls and daughters? Does this world say go to Catholic church to get virgin girls and good wife?

No.

So, invalid response.

And besides this is Off Point.

So in the end, even could not deny that this babalawoism to Mary is out gravely out of line and even the portions you tried to use to defend it, does not hold.

So you see, there is no valid argument against the Truth