₦airaland Forum

My thots:

1. You have no right to demand from others what you don't have or are not prepared to give, (if yu are not a virgin, you have no right demanding a virgin as partner)

2. Timing of first sexual encounter is personal to each individual but people should be aware of timing and societal issues.

3. Keeping your virginity is not always a choice (Rapists and paedophiles abound in an increasingly crooked world)

4. Even if you wait till marriage, divorce is still a clear and present danger, cos you can only speak for yourself

5. As to the issue of respect in marriage, you only need to fear if you were hoodwinking the guy all along, if the guy knew from the onset that yu were not a virgin then he better keep his trap shut.

6. There are pros and cons to each position, at the end of the day it is left to the individual to take a decision (where he is allowed to ), advise their offsprings accordingly and be committed to live by their decisions in perpetuity while standing by it up to the point it is conclusively proven to be wrong.

Fact: He looked more like Ahmadinejhad than G.W. Bush, heavy beard included based on the evidence in the public domain.

You would do well as a sensationalist reporter, this post's heading is a gross distortion of the truth. The post does nothing than prove that some elements of the old testament is true.

huxley2:
Well said. Just out of my nosey curiousity, how does someone with "sincere uncertainty" conduct their life? Do you go to church? Do you pray occasionally? Would you baptise your children? Basically, how does being terminally uncertain influence the important decision of life?

Accept that which is proven based on consistent evidence and is of utilitarian value, acknowledge the fact that some things are unexplained at present but will likely be as human knowledge advances. It is basically an acknowledgement that mankind at present does not know everything.

I don't form an habit of going to church but I can go, it actually could be a source of cheap/free comedic entertainment you know?

Yes atimes,  I do pray when I'm at my wits end but I acknowledge my prayers for what it is, a relic of my christian upbringing and just in case god is really out there (I also like having my bases covered).

I wouldn't  baptise my children, even the christians aren't agreed on that. They can get baptized in the future if they want to anyway.

Being terminally uncertain does not influence my major decisions in any way, I take decisions within the factual information available to me and leave the rest to probability (time and chance according to the bible).

Being sincerely uncertain is in no way a religion, it is simply a state of being which can either be rejected or accepted.

@blackspade

I welcome you to the state of "Sincere Uncertainty", most of these bible toting types are in such a state as you are hence the reason for the different types of advice, as they are all individually defining their God (though starting from the same basic template).

Here are some of the roads ahead of you (which I don't need any prophetic gift to see) and the decision is all yours.

1. Convince yourself that God exists and become an establishment person like Lady
2. Convince yourself that God exists and become his apologist like Jesoul
3. Convince yourself that God exists and become an hypocrite like Davidylan
4. Convince yourself that God exists and become a fanatic like Abuzola
5. Convince yourself that God does not exist and become a theist's nightmare like Huxley, Mazaje and Bindex
6. Convince yourself that God does not exist but remain a generally nice guy like Chrisbenogor
7. Remain in the state of "Sincere Uncertainty" like myself and a few others (it is not so bad a state to be in as the religionists like to think and I stand corrected in declaring it the most honest state to be in as the others are either lying to themselves and others, being lied to, or making assumptions which may go either way)

e.t.c.

Whatever your decision is, you'll be the one to live with it, I wish you all the best and long live the religion forum.

JeSoul:
Sarcasm thinly veiled as conversation/discussion. Sorry brotha, of such, I refuse to be a participant.

Ouch   , that hurt, that wasn't sarcastic now was it? well if people can so much read any meaning into the words of the omnieverything god (whose word should be law as you say) why should a mere mortal like me expect any better treatment?
Strip away the layers of perceived sarcasm and the truth is as clear as day. God is man's creation hence the reason why he is evil, his creators are evil see?

davidylan:
Can you ever be truly "happy" as an atheist? Believe you me at some point i started to ignore the church, packed my bibles neatly somewhere and tried to move on with a life without rules . . . turned out to be the saddest periods of my life.

It all depends on how you define "happiness". The bible says extremely little about happiness, it focuses MOSTLY on JOY because both are clearly NOT the same. You can be happy for a fleeting moment but have no joy in you. Having fun is not the same as being happy.

Yes you can be truly happy as an atheist, even though that depends on what you define as being truly happy. Sadness comes from cares and worries and all religions do the same thing that atheists do when cares and worries come which is to escape into fantasy. The depth of the fantasy might differ but the principle is the same, only problem is that when christians fail in convincing themselves of this fantasy and end up being overwhelmed, all that other christians do is to further descend into fantasy by implying that those people never truly beleived while Atheists and agnostics do not have that luxury to further deceive themselves.
The only people I know who are happy all the time have more than a few screws loose upstairs.

JeSoul:
Au contraire, while the translation may not be the best the problem is YOU reading it out of context and choosing to stretch and extend its meaning beyond what is suggested in the verse. Anyone can make the bible say anything they want, all they have to do is read & quote it out of context.

Some sort of Vox populi, Vox Dei right? no wonder why God speaks in discordant tunes, he is only echoing the ideals of the people who claim his existence.

JeSoul:
We see God causing disasters in the OT as a means of punishment for the most heinous sins on record. I would think the rapists and murderers in Sodom and Gomorrah got just what they deserved.

Are you implying that all the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah participated in those crimes? is god so much lacking in precision that American laser guided munitions are more accurate in identifying their targets? can it be that scientists have surpassed god in this regard?

or can it be that the olden day Jews wiped out perceived enemies with different cultures and religion (as they are still doing today) and then rewrote history to embolden their offsprings while striking terror into the hearts of the communities that surrounded them?

Every time yu look into the future, it changes.(Nicolas Cage in Next)

Some of my musings:

1. What is the point of looking into the future if you can't change it?

2. The future will not be the future if you can change it.

To answer the question, NO. I have no Oedipus complex.

I do question the characters of the forum moderators as their decisions sometimes border on the incredulous, why should anyone close that thread?

@Bindex
so nice to see yu back and contributing again, relocated yet?

eghosaobas:
fela issue is that he went for the women,not the other way round.

How do you know? were yu there? have yu ever heard the phrase It takes 2 to tango?

Luv polis:
Bloddy fuls, u tink u can joke wit d name of GOD and go unponished?
i pity u all.

Abeg, stop insulting people and tell us what miracle god has done for you today. Perhaps you idled away at home and got free money perhaps.

Maybe because most Nigerian christians are confused and don't even know who their parents are? talk of the height of delusion. I don't hear many american christians calling T.D. Jakes and his ilk Daddy.

The bible no predict am well, what of Abami Eda (Fela) who married 20+ women at the same time?

What a load of bull, do we even have a functionint United States of Nigeria yet?

@Martian

No mind the silly guy, na only for Naija person fit dey talk that kind rubbish. Glenn Hoddle no talk reach that one before dem sack am as England coach. What a shameful religion that derides people for their unfortunate circumstances.

By the way, where have you been? been on the lookout for you and Bindex a while.

deleted

Bastage:
Yes. As I'm aware of what constitutes an immoral act, it wouldn't be imperative for another human being to be present.

But let me expand on that question. Say you were born on that island and that you never had any contact with another human being at all (your mother disappeared and you miraculously survived). Would you naturally create your own system of morality? Would you still be capable of committing an act of immorality?

A slight correction, you are actually aware of what you have been conditioned by training and experience to define as an immoral act.

This is an extremely hypothetical situation, an experiment whose results cannot be predicted to any reliable extent by anyone. The only thing I'm sure of is that whatever patter of behaviour the subject of that experiment comes up with, is likely to be considered barmy by the rest of us as his/her unique experience is unlike anything anyone of us has gone through and in that sense IMO such an individual should not be accused of immorality using any of our standards.

Bastage:
I believe you've fallen into a psychological trap.
I mix freely with religious people and atheists and neither group seems to think that they have the moral upperhand.
Talk to any regular Christian and he will tell you that he is immoral. As seen in this thread, the Bible teaches them so (however it is interpreted). It is only the charlatans that believe that they are superior.

Two reasons (in my opinion) why atheists seem to hold this view that Christians think they are morally superior:
One - the fact the Christianity revolves around morality. It is very difficult to extricate the people from the system and view them as separate entities.
Two - fundamentalist preachers who roam around telling everyone else that they're going to Hell. It's these vermin who get the media attention and get stuck in the psyche of the non-Christian.

Most of them belive that the bible tells them Christ has wiped away their sins or something of the sort and that makes them beleive they have the upper hand morally.
If what you say is true, then the charlartans are in the majority and the group will be seen mostly in that light.
Atheism is not a religion, and it is not really a group in that sense it is simply a challenge for people to see religion in the light of human evolution and development rather than the divine mandate adherents take it to be.

Bastage:
Regarding moral values. How would you answer the question about chopping down the tree?

If you chop down a tree because you need to use it to survive, you have not acted immorally, you can however be accused of immorality if you don't plant one to replace it (but this is premised on the belief that you have an understanding of resource sustainability). Morality is premised on concern for the survival of yourself and your neighbour.
In the instance yu've cited, you may come to regret later your cutting down of the tree with the understanding that the beautiful scenery has an impact on your survival and well being and this new knowledge might then give you a moralistic outlook later in life that what you've done is not right (an evolution of morality in this individual).

Bastage:
The actual system of morality may have involved trial and error as it evolved, but there must have been a time when one of those cavemen realised that "This specific act is immoral", right?

Yes I accept this to a large extent and also accept the Adam and Eve story as a metaphor but the religions don't preach it as a metaphor do they? if they did, we are not likely to be having this discussion as most of our points of disagreement wouldn't exist.

Bastage:
You seem to think that morality evolved exclusive to survival. Where therefore does the concept of altruism come in?: ie Sacrifice and Charity.

1. Human nature and human considerations are complex and you run the risk of oversimplification at the granular level, morality might have evolved predominantly due to survival instincts but there might as well have been other factors not immediately apparent (but the burden of establishing the effects of such factors on the evolution of morality lies with those who have identified them)

2. Human beings are not always logical and rational in their actions (atheists and theists alike).

Bastage:
I have a problem with this.
To me, the Old Testament atrocities perpetrated by the Jews in the name of their god were immoral - even though we can claim that they were committed to help them survive better.

The important words in this statement are in bold. To you, not to the society in which they lived. Although your statement has aptly illustrated the conundrum people find themselves at times in resolving conflict between personal morality and societal morality.

Bastage:
If you believe not, what makes an atheist any different from a believer? Believers justify acts through their God (which in this case was helping the Hebrews survive). Atheists justify the same sort of acts by saying that they were necessary for survival.
In this case, all you're doing is just cutting out the middle man.

I don't think its really about justification, it is rather an attempt to explain how morality grew and evolved and the difference in viewpoints couldn't be more striking, one is logical and consistent, the other an escape to fantasy for want of a better explanation. There is a big difference in viewpoint when someones says you fall back to earth when you jump because God ordained it so and understanding Newton's laws of motion and the effects of gravity.
Even in your own words, "cutting out the middle man" creates a world of difference.

Bastage:
Is it not possible to commit an endless stream of immoral acts in the quest for survival? IE: Shitting on your brother in a bid to get ahead. And are there not times when morality will end that survival? IE: Taking a bullet for someone.
Or is morality totally relative to each individual?

It is quite possible, yes there are times when morality does end that survival (it is often the reason for the demise of great civillizations IMO) and morality is totally relative to each individual and some portions of the bible attest to this in the verses that talk about knowing to do right and not doing it and the one in the epistles talking about God winking at people in the time of ignorance. It is really only in law and rigid legalistic religions that ignorance is not an excuse.
Acts 17:30 and James 4:17

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=268892.msg3834626#msg3834626 date=1241697890]Morality has evolved? How do you mean?[/quote]In the sense that various societies' acceptable code of conduct have changed over time and that includes religious institutions too.

There was even an evolution between the delivery of the so called mosaic law and the coming of Jesus. The transition from the Judaic laws to Christianity was an evolution of morality which left some folks behind.

The transition from christianity to Islam was simply a sort of backward evolution which some would see as a sort of revival or a back to the basics kind of stuff.(of course with some indigenization with respect to the arabic culture)

Climatic considerations and the clamour for abolition of WMDs is yet another evolution of morality which is ongoing.

The important trend to note is that the evolution of morality in the past revolved around certain individuals or groups around whom various mythologies grew (so that their paradigm change could have enough credibility and keep people in line subjugating them through the awe inspiring stories that grew about them) in the past this was the effective way to make people obedient but in recent history this has changed because most people no longer really believe in such spooky stories which have mostly been discredited by science and the advancement in knowledge (except in backward societies such as are plenty in Africa).

Nowadays statistical studies have come to replace such spooky and mystical stories but the intended effect is the largely the same which is to invoke fear/awareness in people as fear is about the most effective way to control people (A study of Hitler's war and the Rwandan genocide aptly illustrates how fear can be used to induce people to commit despicable acts). The truth is that, if you can induce fear in a person or group of people then you have some form of control over them

Maybe its becos a mixture of white and black becomes gray and some people want to be certain of where they stand or maybe some people are just too stuck in their ways and can't change with the times, depends on whose perspective.

uplawal:
no differece btw humans and goat, too obstinate and difficult to change

Have yu ever seen a goat wanking?

True words Mazaje, the evolution in morality can be seen in recent history in issues varying from Slavery to sexual orientation.

To answer Bastage's question I would say NO.

IMO (as I cannot claim to speak for all atheists) the litmus test for morality is the age old adage "Do as you would be done by" or "Do unto others as you want them to do to you" (there is however a risk of oversimplification as the others need to be defined).

I believe this is where the world is headed to anyway (though it might take forever to get there due to the selfish survival instinct mazaje spoke of) and even Jesus alludes to this in Matthew 7:12 which is why I take him to be a philospher ahead of his time (after you strip away the veneer of mysticsm that has grown atop the historical person)

Bastage:
I don't dispute that.
But the question is that if it so clear cut, why do they interpret it so differently?

Logic dictates that if it was as clear as you state, there would be no difference in interpretation between Churches.

Logic dictates that people shouldn't beleive in cock and bull stories but they do any way.

I don't know about the accusations against him but he actually made me stop beleiving in miracles, there was this episode of his TV program I watched (before the authorities stopped such lies being shown on TV) it was about a man supposedly blind from birth who received his sight in one of his crusades. Oyakhilome then asked (to confirm the authenticity of the miracle) what the colour of the shirt he was wearing was and the man replied "Blue".
You can draw your own conclusions on why I stopped beleiving in such miracles. But the question Oyakhilome needs to answer is how come a man blind from birth recognized the colour blue (it is sickening that such obviously blatant lies still fool people in Nigeria)

How I wish there was a you-tube clip available of that crusade to paste here.

Another, that made me stop going to redemption camp was an Holy Ghost Festival night (2004 or 2005) when Pastor Adeboye was taking testimonies and a man dumb from birth supposedly started speaking and he spoke in perfect, flawless english and to add insult to injury Pastor Adeboye then mentioned that God did not only give him the power of speech but flawless diction. That was the last straw, I wanted nothing to do with such a congregation of idiots no matter how many they were.

mazaje:
you are getting it wrong here. . . if you ask any christian how sin got into the world he/she will refer you to the eve and serpent story. . . that is a basic christian principle. . . .christians believe that they sin because satan is always on the offensive trying to lead them away from their god not because they are human. . . ask any christian why he/she sin and he/she will point to the devil and blame him for tempting him/her. . . .

majority of christians believe in the original sin as the way sin got into the world. . . not as you are putting it. . . .

I guess he wants yu to define "christians" as those sects that are either catholic churches or offshoots with the same mainstream beliefs (as if the gnostic church is in any statistically significant quantity in Nigeria) a lot of the sects he is referring to are even more confused than the mainstream christians anyway.
Bloke just wants to show that he is full of knowledge, but he seems quite incapable of applying the knowledge to relevant issues.

Bastage:
@duduspace.

You're just noise.

and yu're just full of nonsense.

Bastage:
What a crock of shit. I am not your "internet tutor".

The link explains perfectly well the Orthodox stance.
Putting it into my own words or copying and pasting is a waste of my time when the link does the job perfectly well. And why should I bother when you either haven't looked at it or understood it yourself?

Actually, I was educated in the UK. You should also  be aware that I'm very capable of interpreting things for myself as many of my posts here have shown. I would level the charge of not understanding the implications of Original Sin in the Orthodox church directly back at you.
After all, you seem to follow the typical atheistic dogma that all creeds of Christianity are exactly the same.

To tell the truth, I doubt that you were even aware that the Orthodox church existed until I pointed it out to you.

So instead of giving me the ridiculous claim of "You don't understand what your link says", why don't you actually read up on the subject as I actually suggested.

Another egoistical idiot thinking more of himself than he actually is, answer the simple questions and stop muddling up issues, what business is it of yours if I know about the Orthodox church before you mentioned it or not? and where exactly did I ever indicate that all the creeds of christianity are the same? in this days where everyone writes his own bible? what a laugh.
My questions are simple and should not need me to "download the internet" in order to get an answer to them, I will repeat them once again for clarity's sake.

1. What do those "churches" have to say about the Garden of Eden story (perhaps they don't even have it in their bibles becos everyone writes his own bible this days, even murderers such as Rev. King)?

and

2. What was the coming of Jesus supposed to achieve according to those christian sects?

Surely, those are simple enough questions to answer for an erudite UK educated scholar like yourself without needing to direct me to an internet link.

babs787:
Manmustwac,please what flaws have they identified and you could do the needful by directing to where they both displayed 'intelligence'. Thanks

What more do we need to add? your holy book speaks for itself hence the need for such violence to cram it down people's throat.
Your false prophet was a very bad copy artist, if Mohammed should attempt what he did then in this day and age he would be sued for infringing on copyright and then producing a sub-standard work.

rotimy:
I disagree. Not all Nigerians that grew up in this nation of corruption that are corrupt. They are saints here despite our corruption infestated enviroment.

What exactly do you disagree with? He has already said the "matured" son is entirely responsible for his actions.

Are you

1. Implying that environment and upbringing have no effect in influencing a child's behaviour in adulthood ?

or

2. Just disagreeing because well, you have nothing better to do?

Sorry, I almost fell into the same trap of something I've accused others of on this forum (thinking in binary), feel free to add any other reasons for your disagreement as option 3, then we can take it on from there.

Bastage:
If you are too dumb or lazy to read the link or follow up on the subject for yourself, why should I bother handing everything to you on a platter? The link contains the answers and is only "useless knowledge" if you asked your questions in ignorance.

Notice where I wrote this?

Go read for yourself. I'm not your wet-nurse. I've given you the information you need to get started.

You are being quite silly, if yu can't answer questions simple questions simply and all you can do in advancing yur viewpoint is resorting to insults to cover your intellectual inadequacies.
Have you read that link yourself at all and do you think you understand it? if then you should be able to summarize your thinking. This is a clear example of what is wrong with Nigerian education, you can only recite a mantra verbatim and can't even understand its implications.
I know your type well, in my secondary school days you used to recite v = u + 1/2at² and don't speak to anyone before going into the examination hall.

I feeeel you man, even for the staunchest of christians when it comes to choosing between a particular church and guaranteed nightly bedmatics, meen there is no contest.