₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight:
Accepted.

This is a hilarious statement. I presume on your behalf that you mean this as a joke: for it has no other intelligible or even vaguely rational justification. Moraility favour the cunning? Perhaps your moraility is that espoused by Niccolo Machiavelli.

Hogwash.

I hope you are aware that a country like Finland which is almost entirely atheist sets a moral standard that an almost entirely theist nation like Nigeria can probably never acheive.

Finland ranks amongs the countries with the lowest levels of crime, corruption etc. So quit the chit chat.

Besides, this statement contradicts your excellent opening line.

Most atheists i know of answer to themselves in terms of conscience and not to other human beings. If anything it is the theist in most cases that seems to answer to other human beings. The bit about sweeping stuff under the carpet applies to everybody generally: atheists, theists, pagans, etc.

How is it a ploy?

Hello Deep Sight,

I appreciate your response, sir. However this is only my own persuasion and might even be absolutely wrong ~ I will be ready to have new persuasions when I can be convinced otherwise.

Deep Sight: What is the differenec between morals and ethics.

Your conception of morality is disastrous.

I think it is right, actually. Morals are the description of ethics.

Here is an academic article
http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/types.html

I wish you well.

Morality (or Immorality) has little to do with religion.

Morality is motivation based on ideas of right and wrong. In the process, the person evaluates the scenario and attempts to make it seem right relative to a set principle or his/her own personal persuasion at the moment.

The end game of trying to be Moral (upright) is being Ethical (honorable). Morality revolves around Ethical decision-making and thus undermines the entire purpose. In morality, the person looks for a way to shine a favorable/honorable (ethical) light on an act in order to maintain a clear conscience.

Morality will thus involve a lot of pretense and favour the cunning. People are good at analysis, strategy, manipulation and other means of justifying questionable actions (and even worse, if they have no beliefs in a superior power or being - they are excellent at justifying actions to themselves). This is the only place where I think atheism and morality will clash. The idea of moral justification is bad enough without the belief that you need to answer to no one. In a bid to present morality ~ especially for atheists whose hearts are not answerable to anyone except maybe some fellow humans who definitely cant see all sides of the scenario ~ people spend time looking for loopholes and ways to whitewash or to sweep under the rug that which their conscience tells them is not quite right.

The idea of morality seems to be a ploy to silence all ethical qualms.

Hello Tonye_T

Is Matthew 23:23 really New Testament ~ since Jesus was still alive?

Hebrews 9:16-17
In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.

I don't believe in formulas [/b]for any spiritual endeavour, doctrine or belief.

Or else what does this Bible verse mean?
[b]John 3:8 NIV
The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.

Image123:
What God requires is a tithe of what He's blessed you with. From your concern, it's about 10percent of YOUR gains/profit. The remaining 90percent, you can decide to give God, or yourself and the so called poor around you.

Does God require [/b]tithes from [b]Christians? Keyword: require?
Please enlighten us.
I thought tithes are a voluntary sacrifice? I thought tithes are like fasting i.e. it is for the person's good but it should not be made compulsory?

Dear Toba, Uyi Iredia and other NLers, I know it might be hard but please adhere to nuclearboy's wise advice.

Hello vescucci. You are welcome. Prof Ehrman always shies away from revealing his own personal persuasions, he will rather claim he is only a religious historian. From my personal observation, he is somewhere between agnostic and simply theistic - closer to the latter than the former.

denitro:
tithe is 10% of your increase
If at the beginning of the month, you were worth N500,000
and at the end of the month you are now worth N650,000

Your increase is N150,000
then tithe is 10% of N150,000
N15,000

Does this mean ~ no tithe if your net worth did not increase?

Edit: And what about if the net worth reduced due to bad business? Or a case of insolvency?

@vescucci Edit: I just stumbled on this page at the so-called internet archive. The book is listed as a community book so you can read it online http://www.archive.org/details/BartEhrman-TheNewTestament-AHistoricalIntroductionToTheEarly (note the links on the left) 51Mb pdf.

Featuring vibrant full color throughout, this new edition of Bart Ehrman's highly successful introduction approaches the New Testament from a consistently historical and comparative perspective, emphasizing the rich diversity of the earliest Christian literature.

Rather than shying away from the critical problems presented by these books, Ehrman addresses the historical and literary challenges they pose, showing why scholars continue to argue over such significant issues as how the books of the New Testament came into being, when they were written (and by whom), what they mean, how they relate to contemporary Christian and non-Christian literature, and how they came to be collected into the canon of scripture that we now call the New Testament.

Distinctive to this study is its unique focus on the historical, literary, and religious milieux of the Greco-Roman world, including early Judaism. As part of its historical orientation, the book also discusses works by other Christian writers who were roughly contemporary with the New Testament, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the letters of Ignatius.

The text is enhanced by maps, timelines, an extensive text box program, and more than one hundred photos. An accompanying Instructor's Manual contains chapter summaries, discussion questions, and a test bank. An updated Website Study Guide provides chapter summaries, glossary terms, and self-quizzes for students.

@Vescucci. Prof Bart Ehrman wrote books too, and in fact one of them ~ I believe ~ is a core introductory textbook for religion students in almost every US college. It's titled "The New Testament : A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings".

Great thoughts, madam Jesoul. However due to the time-length I still won't be able to post it on youtube unless I chop each video into 2 or 3 parts ~ don't wanna do that ~ still hunting for a video host with unlimited time ~ maybe I will just post audio files if all else fails.

Meanwhile those koala bears are really cute  

@vescucci
Hi Vescucci. I wish you very well. Indeed 5.1Gb is a lot of data to download at once. They are 24 recorded classroom lectures (each approx. 220Mb, each 30 minutes) on "Lost Christianities" and yes, you can make complete sense of any lecture independently. The titles are:
1. The Diversity of Early Christianity
2. Christians who would be Jews (Ebionites)
3. Christians who would refuse to be Jews (Marcionites)
4. Early Gnostic Christianity - our Sources
5. Early Christian Gnosticism - An Overview
6. The Gnostic "Gospel of Truth"
7. Gnostics explain themselves
8. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas
9. Thomas Gnostic Teachings
10. Infancy Gospels
11. The Gospel of Peter
12. The Secret Gospel of Mark
13. The Acts of John
14. The Acts of Thomas
15. The Acts of Paul and Thecla
16. Forgeries in the Name of Paul
17. The Epistle of Barnabas
18. The Apocalypse of Peter
19. The Rise of Early Christian Orthodoxy
20. Beginnings of the Canon
21. Formation of the New Testament Canon
22. Interpretation of Scripture
23. Orthodox Corruption of Scripture
24. Early Christian Creeds

It is really sad. Multitudes, multitudes languishing in the seas of deception.

@Rhino.5dm How are you this great new week? Please do not aggravate the matter

@vescucci: I can't cut them up and it's still too big for youtube. If you still want it (beware its 5.1Gb in all), email me and I can send you links - I will put it on a private server ~ I don't want to put the links here cos the server is private. emailaddress@y@hoo.com

@mudley: I believe your post above and the thread here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-586748.0.html (respecting vescucci's wishes of no more posts there) are in very very bad taste. Plus ~ it appears Jesoul does not directly have power to ban or unban anyone! You really should stop all of this defamation of her character.

@seyibrown: Hello Seyi. I wish you well. Please note that I have an intuition that I will not answer all the questions you are asking (though you say you are still editing).

seyibrown: 11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
What exactly was the good shepherd doing for his sheep here?

I think I already answered this. Please read through my response to Jesoul, your answer is there

BUT Jesus was prepared anyway to be killed by the people he loved, for the things he believed in ~ and for the good he was doing in people's lives. His death was thus representing the extent of his love for us.

That is what the shepherd does by laying down his life for the sheep. He does not deliberately go into a lion's jaws so that the sheep will be saved. The death of a shepherd in protecting his sheep happens because [/b]he loves the sheep (to show the extent of his love and care) and not that he tends to commit a suicide so that the sheep will be saved. Yet, I repeat, Jesus has not said ~ even here ~ that this death is what [b]saves [/i]the sheep. As I asked in another thread too, what exactly did Jesus say was the criteria for going to [i]hell? This is also different from what churches teach today.

seyibrown: On the Code of Hammurabi, does one whose innocence is proven under this code have 'the power to lay down their life and take it up again'?

No, but see again: it is the accused who leaps into the river by himself, meaning that the accuser LAID down his life and if he is innocent, he will pick it up again. Where the power comes from in the Hammurabi codes is not clearly defined - whether its the accused who does it of their own power, or maybe its the deity of the accused, or pure chance. But the understanding is that Justice will not keep quiet and one way or the other, the innocent one will not sink in the river. One may say Jesus said that because he was Perfect Love and he knew he would be discharged and acquitted of the crucifixion - and not condemned ~ because Perfect Love can never be put down.

If anyone brings an accusation against a man, and the accused goes to the river and leaps into the river, if he sinks in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves that the accused is not guilty, and he escapes unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

As I said before, this is my understanding after careful meditation and a lot of theological study. I do not think you have to believe them. Two women in turn ~ Ileke-Idi and Jesoul ~ have asked me some questions on these threads and so I have answered them. I have no intentions to [i]convert (better put : divert)[/i]any, and please only accept my perceptions if they sit well with your own convictions.

---

Dear Jesoul, Joagbaje and Seyibrown ~ I perceive in my heart that my time on this thread has been exhausted. I wish you all very well.

Thanks so much JeSoul. Meanwhile I have also found out I cant upload on youtube because the videos are too large and even if compressed, they are 30 mins long (exceeds youtube specs). I will keep looking.

Thanks Jesoul. Years ago, I grew up with fanatical Christian views : meaning I always found a way to explain away all the inconsistencies that continually surfaced in my views : most of them based on various concepts of Christianity today and how they all claimed to have a monopoly on truth. I was also told that any study of other theology will damage my faith (I think that is a control measure used in religions).

Eventually I delved into church history and saw that the 'Christian' view has never actually been uniform since Christ. I saw that everyone seemed to have their own religion formed from Christ's teachings and all called themselves Christians. All claimed to be correct. Fortunately for some like Tertullian, their views were canonized and we believe them today and label others heretic. Even the canonized gospels were pushing various agenda: Luke's own provided background for his friend Paul's already written epistles, Matthew made his own stress the fact that being Christian doesnt mean you shouldnt be under Jewish law (opposed to Paul), John arose to infuse beliefs that Jesus pre-existed etc. They were selected anyway.

After a lot of study in religious comparative theology, I decided to be sincere in my search and not suddenly tend towards agnosticism like most in my shoes do, but to drop all the religious views which are obviously all biased (in my opinion), embrace the true teachings of Christ and to meditate for myself. Surprisingly, everything seemed to start springing out at me. All the views you see on this thread and others are exclusively mine. I dont think you will find them elsewhere. Thanks and have a great weekend, you too.

A friend once asked, "Since there were so many forms of Christianity till 325 A.D. (1 God, 2 Gods, 365 Gods, etc each with various beliefs on the birth, nature and divinity of Christ, and various doctrines) how can we be sure we ended up with the right one (actually we ended up with the most aggressive views thanks to our African brother Tertullian)?" So the same way you believe you ended up with the correct version is the way you should believe whatever you believe about Christianity today - by faith. Yes, go ahead and be discouraged but dont stop there. Find the truth, buy it and never sell it.

These are my views.
What did Jesus teach about salvation?
1. He didn't say anything about confessing with the mouth, or about trusting in the death and resurrection. That all came from Paul (Im not saying Paul made it up but we can never know).
2. Jesus is actually reported to have said unless your heart is like that of one of those little children nuella talked about you are offtrack. If the goal for us is to be like them then definitely they are intrinsically qualified.

Thanks Jesoul. In case admin wants to know, they are some recorded classroom lectures of Professor Bart Ehrman Ph.D., chair of the Dept of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The videos will provide some theology to be discussed in the thread(s).
But if your admin says no, I can put them on youtube and post the links. Thanks ma'am.

Questions? Comments? Complaints?

I have a question. Pls how can I attach videos from my laptop to my post? Its for a thread and I want to create a series of posts - 24 videos, each 220Mb. I want it to play directly on the Nairaland page rather than uploading anywhere else. Some forums have media plugins for this but I cant find here. Thanks.

Tonye T thanks again! And more thanks to Jesoul who has a way with asking questions.

Deep Sight thanks. I understand you now. For me I have no qualms with anyone from any race who claims to be divine since I am not divine to be able to prove or disprove it. However the nature of the person's manner of life as perceived by the believers and unbelievers too may help me evaluate probabilities on those claims. This is why I am asking for more information on Olumba.

June12 are you sure Olumba is dead?

Deep Sight can you please expose your own reasons for thinking Olumba may be true to his claims?

Thank you so much for this, Tonye-T.

I do not know much about Olumba but if it is true his physical life, wisdom and love will at least compare with Krishna, Buddha or Jesus. Does his life stand out to those that are not in his brotherhood?

JeSoul:
-from your personal understanding, what do you think was the purpose (spiritual/physical) of Jesus dying and resurrecting?
the bible teaches His blood is what washes away sin and that His death was necessary, a propitiation. What are your thoughts?

According to the Biblical accounts, Jesus died and resurrected. Jesus said he had to die ~ and in his conversation the purpose of this death was to prove the following: Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
Jesus himself never said his blood or his death was in order to save them (this story began after his death) BUT Jesus was prepared anyway to be killed by the people he loved, for the things he believed in ~ and for the good he was doing in people's lives. His death was thus representing the extent [/b]of his love for us. Then the resurrection on the other hand would have been necessary to prove that he was actually an innocent man.

[b]The many Pauline and Johanine accounts (their letters and gospels) in the Bible make attempts to draw parallels to the Old Testament practices of blood sacrifice and label it the "final sacrifice" that achieved what the blood of animals could not do but in my understanding its not in this sense ~ whereas the OT blood sacrifices were a religious rite, they were markedly different from the form of this sacrifice. The person who makes an OT sacrifice understands what he is doing and his own will is remorsefully brought into subjection in line with the poor animal that takes the blame. When we sacrificed Jesus, we did not understand what we were doing, we had no remorse (until the sacrifice had fully expiated) and our will was NOT brought in line with that of this scapegoat - the man Jesus.

But also, I do not know if the Biblical God really asked the Jews for those OT sacrifices on a regular basis ~ I have strong reason to think Leveticus and Deuteronomy are forgeries. As for references in Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, I believe these sacrifices were not regular but were on demand of their God for them to show their dedication. It wasn;t meant to be a continuous, regular affair. The continuous sacrifices of animals was introduced to control the people and to fleece them when they had to buy the sacrifice materials ~ the same thing Jesus drove them from the temple for (I believe, contrary to the popular opinion that they were selling at expensive prices - where did that thought even come from, it's not there anywhere?  ) ~ and nowhere will you read of Jesus doing a sacrifice for atonement for himself or his disciples. It was a corruption that had eaten into the Jewish religion.

That's according to Biblical accounts. But I believe the Bible is heavily symbolic and often we get too hung on the very words that are meant to guide us in truth. The Buddha likened some religious questions to a man shot with an arrow who looks around to see who shot him, then said the man will die with his injury as he is asking the not-so-important question instead of just treating himself. So I am not arguing whether the death and resurrection actually happened or not, because either way it is laced in eternal truth and serves as an example to show us that Perfect Love can never be put down.

I believe the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus is a symbolic example of trial by ordeal, as instituted by the Code of Hammurabi since 1700 B.C.
If anyone brings an accusation against a man, and the accused goes to the river and leaps into the river, if he sinks in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves that the accused is not guilty, and he escapes unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

An accusation was levelled against Jesus when he claimed to be the perfect embodiment of love. So symbolically, mankind subjected him to the Hammurabi code and he was crucified. If he never rose, then everything he ever taught and did supposedly as Perfect Love will become a joke. All mankind were His opponents ~ full of wordly desires ~ but represented by a quorum of Israelites ~ would have taken-possession of everything i.e. that would be the end and we would never hear of him again ~ perfect love will no longer be the walk of salvation. But Justice had to speak forth for Jesus so he escaped unhurt. In turn, we are now compelled to be crucified with Christ - putting our own worldly desires to death (just like how Hammurabi's Code would have made Jesus put us to death) and we are now also compelled to let him have our "houses and belongings" => THAT is what it means to give your life and all to Jesus - he will [b]own [/b]us and we have to let him own us by walking towards salvation in love. He is the victor of the Hammurabi Code concerning his own claims of being Perfect Love.
 

JeSoul:
-what is your approach/thoughts/understanding on the relevance of the OT? in regards to us, and in regards to Jesus as well?

With regards to Jesus, the OT (Old Testament) forms a foundation that he built upon ~ to show a more excellent way that actually works. As he said, he didn't come to erase or replace it but to build on it. In regards to us, I believe the OT is a resource to see how Jesus saw the religion of his day and how he related to that religion, THEN compare that to how people generally practice or practiced religion in our day and KNOW how we will also relate to it. Just like Jesus, we are not meant to erase or replace religions like Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and so on but rather we are to build on them with Perfect Love.

JeSoul:
I don't think at the heart of your views, it is that drastically different from others. The bible does teach that persecution, trials (or for you -friction) is necessary to produce the kind of refined people God wants us to be. I am curious though, what is your take on spirits, demons, possession etc . . .

I do not know too much about spirits. However I believe spirits almost certainly exist but I believe they are not legally meant to continuously operate in the physical realms - and only at such intersections of the two realms as God allows. Men can also operate on such intersections by using their spiritual counterparts to carry out the functions in a form of "remote control" - this is what happens in prayer I believe. As for possession (by spirits), I believe what really happens is that the spirit bullies/influences/domineers (with the person's permission or not) the person's spiritual counterpart and the person experiences the wickedness in this realm. Sometimes the spirit would have stopped the bullying but this person will still carry the influence around ~ like a sour taste that lingers in one's mouth after eating lemons and already spitting the offender out.

Welcome to Nairaland, loveanimal.

Your page is in Romanian. Link below is in English.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.strainisicalatori..com/&sl=ro&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

Greetings to you, Joagbaje. As you can see, seyibrown is also a part of the conversation so it is is by no means private. Please feel free/

But i am sorry if you feel I have hijacked the thread ~ i did not mean to do that.

No sir I am not Jesoul but my intuition hardly ever fails me. Take care.

Thanks

AKHOZEM are you also Joagbaje?