₦airaland Forum

EnemyofGod4:
The imaginary God didn't gave Moses any imaginary ten commandments,the story of Moses is just a fairly tale,not real.

God , Satan, Jesus Christ, Angels and demons doesn't exist, there's no reliable concretable approvable evidence of their existence,

heaven and hellfire is just a figment of imagination, it's not real.

Open your eyes and free yourself from religious bondage.

Thanks for showing that satan is real!

Goosethetruth:
The laws may not have been plagiarised but these laws were certainly influenced by earlier Babylonian civilisation.

Did you not say morality is innate?
So, which land anywhere did not already know and have the laws which you want to claim influenced, The Law?

As you said it is innate, therefore, the law was not influenced by anybody's civilisation, to even remember that God hated those civilisations and wiped them out. So how can He then be influenced by them?

Goosethetruth:
I tend to ignore your inane posts in the religious section because of your one track mind but just look at where your one track closed mind took this discussion....Tinubu?!
What has that got to do with the fact that the ten commandments are not original to Moses and the Hebrew God? The ancient Babylonians had written the codes of Hamurabi thousands of years before Moses and his ten commandments.
What has Tinubu got to do with the fact that Morality is inate inside every human being or that morality evolves as mankind advances in knowledge and societal development?
What has Tinubu got to do with the fact that morality does not come from words plagiarised and written on tablets of stone ?

I know your usual modus operandi which is to resort to insults or try to derail threads. My last response to you.

You are just running away because you know when I answer you, you can never have a reasonable and valid reply.

For see it now, i have answered you and now you have changed post. In the post i responded to did you say that the 10 commandments are not original?

No!

Nor, did i deny that morality is not inate?

See, you have changed post because, there is no valid argument against the Truth, and so you run cos when I come and say the Truth, you cannot reasonably rebut nor counter it.

dahmie2013:
I couldn't agree more OP. Before, I usually criticised men who lust after women, but now I don't. Especially in the wake of these homosexualism. It's better for a man to lust after a woman, than a man. The world needs healing from this epidemic the devil is spreading.

It is not better. Both are going to the same place, though hom 0 is worser

EnemyofGod4:
Because Some pastor's has come to realized that hellfire doesn't exist,

God , Satan, Jesus Christ, Angels and demons doesn't exist, there's no reliable concretable approvable evidence of their existence,

heaven and hellfire is just a figment of imagination, it's not real.

Open your eyes and free yourself from religious bondage.

You wish!
When bandits or cancer catch you would change your statement

gohf:
does our society morality include people loving God?

To love, is morality.


Character hapu mu.

Goosethetruth:
Lol...
This guy again.
I tend to ignore your one track mind which reflects untruths and half truths.

Then point out the untruth if you truly can else you are caught by The Law of "There's no valid argument against the Truth

angelboy01:
Hell doesn't exist and even God proved it doesn't.

Jeremiah 19:5
They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.

Deuteronomy 18:10
“Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire…”

Deuteronomy 12:31
The nations “burn even their sons and daughters in the fire” to their gods — something God says He hates.

This is God himself speaking against people who burn humans for whatever and God explicitly said it has never entered his mind and he hates it.

God Spoke against murder, so do you say murder does not exist?

Meanwhile, those are man's own hels
Leviticus 6:13 shows us God's own hel, so don't disi.. yourself

Goosethetruth:
Interesting.
Don't you find it strange and egotistical that this God spends almost half of these commandments talking about himself and what he wants?
Like I said,I find it interesting that an omnipotent God seems so insecure.

How does our not doing what He wants affect Him? Is it not you people that suffer and cry.(Today's world has already proven it.) So, you see, you think unwisely

Goosethetruth:
The point I am putting across to you is the fact that morality does not come from just a bunch of written laws on a stone tablet or a piece of paper.
Morality stems from many different factors such as inate empathy.
Evolution of empathy helps humans understand each other better.
Secondly human reason helps people develop the aim of the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
While I agree that religion may play a part in morality,it is obvious that as humanity progresses and thought process evolves,religion itself has to evolve and adopt the rules that benefit the greatest number of people in the society.
Morality is inate. It is in born. It is the human ability to distinguish right from wrong. It does not totally come from a set of rules written in a religious book. It is the humans that wrote the rules in the religious books.

Yes, there was already morality even before Abraham gave birth to Isaac and Jacob.

But no book has ALL THE Moral laws man needs to know and live rightly above the Bible.

That is the point of the op i believe

gohf:
so we should imprison them for the rest of their lives or have them burn on a stake...

I did not dictate nor prescribe what shall happen to them. All I'm saying is that thank God she did not say that God Said that we should pray for them. So there is no problem here.

AntiChristian:
Do Christians still need to obey the law?

I thought Paul has cancelled it all for y'all.

Paul actually said obey the Law. 1 Thessalonians 4:2-8/11 &12.

And more beyond Thessalonians

TheMadame:
Does all morality come from the 10 commandments and the subsequent paraphrasing by our Lord Jesus Christ? I sincerely believe it does. The 10 commandments are the basis of all forms of morality and moral justice.
Love God with all your heart and do onto your neighbor as you will have them do onto you.

Good day everyone.

You are correct however, the 10 commandments do not stand alone. They are further reinforced by God's Ordinances, Precepts and Judgements. And these too contain all the moralities that are in the world.

TheMadame:
Jesus modified these ten commandments into two commandments in the New Testament . Jesus said:
1. Love your God with all your heart
and soul.

2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

This is found in the Gospel of Mathew Chapter 22. Verses 37-39.



Chapter 22.

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.

Wrong!

He did not modify it. He simply gave us the secret behind them. And any intelligent person can see that His Lightenment goes on all through the commandments eg. The 3rd commandment is like the second; and the 4th like the 3rd and so on.

So, nothing was modified.

maasoap:
I don't know the separation you're talking about. Won't they need money and properties to live their life separately?

Do they not have the things they owned or acquired before/during the marriage? Everyone would go their tents or their father's/mother's tent as the case may be

Thank God you did not show any scripture which says we should pray for them, so, you are just talking your own

Jesus will not lock out a friend and a friend will not be locked out, so therefore, it means that those locked out, wrongly thought that by their being in His presence was a relationship. They need to go and study what a relationship means

vanvickie:
I don't think the law is absolute. I think there are exceptions, like evidence of threat to life DV, serious neglect and abuse etc. Also, nobody said they must live under the same roof for the two years innit? One person can move out.

Yes, there are exceptions however it is almost impossible to meet that bar, hence why many die in marriages.

And since you agree that the couple must not live together, then that is divorce; constructive divorce

AllBlack:
Everything you said now points to ignorance on her part. She was assuming when she had all the time to ASK him for an affirmation. The court does not ride on assumptions.

C'mon man don't be harsh on her. she must ask him. It is natural to ask. However, that is the power of constructive divorce. If divorce was easy then this case would be against her as it would be clear that if Ajayi did not divorce his wife and his wife did not divorce him either then it means that they never intended to divorce since it is very easy to divorce. So no constructive divorce.

However, as presently constituted, divorce is not a stroll to the mall and so, it naturally discourages people from going through the process which is even very costly, hence most people rather create the constructive divorce situation.

QuinQQ:
See, the idea is to PREVENT divorce because people who want divorce today may not want it tomorrow. So all that process gives time for tempers to cool and time for reconciliation before divorce becomes final

That was the idea in those days when marriages was seen as good and taken very seriously and of course no one planned to divorce. But today, yes marriage is good but it is also bad and so divorce is in mind. So, couples today do not really require a cooling off period.

In those days, the couple thought the offending spouse could change. Today, the couple know that there won't be a change. So, it's either they stay married and endure or they divorce

AllBlack:
Who cares what she thought or was thinking?

The court does. It's all about representation. There is no way that you would see a married man everyday and you do not see him with a wife or children that you won't reasonably presume that he is married. Even worse is when he confirms that he has left his house. That is implied and constructive divorce and it is natural for her to act on it.

maasoap:
Divorce is not as simple as marriage, a lots of things would be involved during the divorce process which we all know that registry can't handle, most especially money, properties, kids, etc

Just like marriage takes place usually even before the couples start having rights and liabilities, so also divorce can take place and then like psqaure brothers who "divorced" first, they can still sue each other for their rights and liabilities.

So, divorce is separable from determining the rights and liabilities of the former couple

This is where you see that women are out to dis troy men

abisola85:
As how naw

Simple na.

The registry will just use another office and call it divorce section and it will have tables and chairs and that their big book where they would register divorces just like they register marriages! You see am now?

QuinQQ:
How can you have divorce before all these? It is like putting the cart before the horse. These things can prevent divorce

Just like marriage takes place usually even before the couples start having rights and liabilities, so also divorce can take place and then like psqaure brothers who "divorced" first, they can still sue each other for their rights and liabilities.

So, divorce is separable from determining the rights and liabilities of the former couple

JoeEeL:
We for no know no o brother. O su mi.

O sumi gaaan!

AllBlack:
No Sir. My comment is in no way a direct reflection of the Ajayi case.

I am talking of a married couple who decided to call it quits and go their separate ways without court involvement.

Ajayi and his wife never had that arrangement.

Did the report not say that they lived apart for a very long time (10yrs which is why she even naturally thought that he was divorced?


2. Helen Prest (the long-term concubine)
Helen Prest met Dr Ajayi after he had reportedly lived at the Sheraton Hotel for about 10 years following his departure from the matrimonial home. She spent approximately 25 years living with him as his companion and partner, was publicly known as "Mrs Helen Prest-Ajayi,"

This is known as constructive/implied divorce which the court ought to recognise.

And all this would have been voided if only he could have just walked into the marriage registry (divorce section) fill in the forms for divorce and wait 21 days. Shikena

capnies:
Read job16:9
It's in the Bible
It's Call hermeneutics you use gospel to interpret gospel.

Nothing in job 16:9 says gnashing is laughing at people rather job 16 talks about Job being in severe pains

capnies:
Just pity you
Your God is wicked

You are the one who is ivu and who expects that after all the ivus you have done, you would just repent and all will be over. God being Good agrees with all humanity that is not good/lawful that bandits will escape punishments.

So, ivu fall on yiu

LordIsaac:
Chaos. People will no longer be careful in choosing life partners. Even with the difficulty, see what we have!

I think they would be carefuler since all their wedding preparation things would be a waste

AllBlack:
After marriage, lots of things have gotten entangled and it might take some legal battles to untangle them.

Some marriages didn't even reach any form of court before they dissolved. Both parties simply MOVED ON and maintained their stance for years.

This is where you see the Ajayi case is standing on and now see the confusion it is causing.

https://www.nairaland.com/8696874/ajayi-vs-ajayi-battle-inheritance

If only divorce was easy all these issues could have been voided