₦airaland Forum

The logical inconsistency is the creation of such a being. Like I saud, I am inclined to view darkness as self-existent. That, in my view, eliminates the inconsistency. The bible account of "war in heaven" seems mythical, folk-lorish, and wholly implausible to me.

Again Deep Sight you have merely restated your position.The attribution of Satan to darkness is only allegory(God being viewed as the light).Satan is a being just like angels and he is not Darkness as we know it. Could you state what is your understanding of what Satan is?

The impact of Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism in the world are all also truly immense.

However it is crucial to note that nothing in this post has addressed the question: how does the supposed sacrifice actually "save."

To demonstrate this, I should like to quote your statement in the OP wherein in summarizing my concerns you wrote - "The concept of atonement through jesus Christs death is incompatable with Justice and the concept of a just God."

Thus you can see that the cardinal question is atonement.What you have written above only states that Christ provided a "good living example" as to how a man should live. With respect, there are several who could be said to have provided such "good living examples" such as the Buddha, Lao-Tze, John the Baptist, Confucius. . .ad infinitum. . .

This in no wise addresses the specific question of atonement.

Basically what i ascribe to is what in Christian Apologetics is called Penal Theory of atonement.Penal Theory of the atonement holds that in dying on the cross Christ bore the penalty of sin that we deserve, so that the demands of God’s justice are met and we may be forgiven and our guilt removed. Mind you this is not the same as being Saved.Infact not all christians accept the doctrine of salvation.With Catholics being the most critical.Salvation stems mainly in protestant churches and it has become so muddled and mixed up that it is often used to ascribe it to the atonement.

Salvation in my own understanding is simply abandoning one's sinful ways and emulating Jesus since he was morally perfect.Unlike the evangelicals who sell salvation as a sort of magical transformation, I think of salvation as a decision,followed by action by an individual to transform his life.

Because the fact of the matter is that before the death, man was required to be upright inorder to be "saved." Many failed. Now the exact same thing obtains after the death. So what exactly did the death change? It changed nothing. Man is still required to be upright to be saved: and many still fail.

I thus say to you that the Christian view evinces no convincing reason or purpose for the supposed sacrificial death. What exactly did it accomplish? How exactly did it atone for sin? What has changed since the supposed atonement?

I'll be the first to admit that i do not know mechanically how the Penal Theory of atonement  is supposed to work.And i'm not alone in this. This is still a new area in Christian Apologetics,and even reknowed Christian philosopher like William Lane Craig and J.L parker concluded that,"We should avoid any attempts to found it solely on human models of retributive justiceand suggests that it be seen not as a mechanical explanation (how it works) but rather kerygmatically (what it means to us)"

I must admit that the doctrine of atonement is a very complicated and not easy to understand doctrine.St Anselm's Satisfaction Theory of the atonement was a bit different(Which i do not have a firm graps on).While i was taking Christian Philosophy classes this was a rather grey area.

But in no way does our lack of proper understanding of the atonement show that Christianity is false.Because the Truth or Falsity of christianity lies primarily on the Truth or falsity of the Resurrection.If The Resurrection account is true,then Jesus was who he said he was and Christianity is true.But if the Resurrection never happened,then Christianity is false.

So are we to accept that the sacrifice on the cross did not infact defeat evil.

Now the entire concept of Jesus returning to "defeat" evil seems folk-lorish to me. Evil is here, clear and present, and always has been. Do you expect that it is a satisfying answer to the problem of evil to tell me that a Jewish fellow who lived 2000 years ago is "returning to defeat" evil. How doea that sound in your ears? The self-same fellow already came around 2000 years ago, and departed with evil still intact in the world.

Aren't you already assuming what you want to prove? the question of whether Jesus was "just a jew fellow" really hinges on the ressurection account and its truth.If it happened,then jesus was not just a "jew fellow" and he's promise to return is not a folklore.The Big question here is not "how its sounds" it's,was Jesus who he said he was? and there is only one way to prove him right or wrong,examining the resurrection account.

I will live it here for the moment and await your reply,i really want us to concetrate on one topic at a time.The point about the inquisitions and crimes committed by christians is really a red herring maybe even an ad hom.You never develop an argument against a belief system based on the behavior of it's subscribers.You attack the central beliefs of that system.You can never get a valid argument starting from "X does this,therefore he's religion advocated for this." 

As i await your reply,i would like to throw a challenge to you.Which ethical system do you believe rightly addresses the problem of evil.If i am not wrong you do believe in an ethical system whose ontological foundation is in a supreme being right?(since you believe in free wil and the existence of an omni-God).Therefore i am hoping you will not appeal to naturalistic ethics since they presuppose an atheistic worldview.(where the ontological foundations of ethics is not God).

Regarding the article on Theodisius and Christians persecuting jews and pagans,this is really not relevant to the discussion at hand. And i am afraid we are going on a very different tangent here.I don't see how you make the jump from," Some christians did this,therefore Christianity does not teach this."


My point about 'tolerance, love, and respect and equality' is based on the teachings of Jesus and that is the main theme in the NT.Some christians burning a jewish temple and theodisius harsh treatment of the pagans does nothing to invalidate the argument that Christianity teaches love,respect and tolerance.Infact it goes to show that these Christians clearly did not follow what Jesus had preached to them.I fail to see how the above article shows a failure of Christian Ethics.

Pastor AIO:
no sir, you have not given me any examples as yet. You have merely made some general statements without siting any cases. Please quote me the bible passage, the catechism the prayer book, the creed, or any authoritative document of christianity that explicitly advocates for equality, Justice and freedom as articulated in the bill of rights. Where did Jesus deal with women differently from the rest of jewish community. How do you know that women played a background role in Judaism. Have you heard of Deborah? Have you heard of Esther? I don't see that women were treated any differently in christian communities than in the wider jewish community. Please site me some cases of this. How does everyone having access to God translate to the Bill of Rights?
Actually I would say that Judaism didn't do so any less than christianity. Then there is buddhism. Not to mention Jainism which did so to the extent that people considered it impractical. You couldn't even kill insects in Jainism. All these religions predate christianity.

What do you think about Greek humanism and philosophy? Would you say that it's values had more of an impact on modern society and it's ideas of equality, democracy etc? They certainly had a big impact on the world at the time Christianity started.

I was specifically avoiding quoting verses in this thread,my statement is not simply a general statement.It is the summation of what is prevalent in the New Testament.While Greece did have some sort of democracy,it was not a true democracy.Modern Democracy as is known the world over originated much later in England.Remember the Magna Carta in the 1200 AD?the American constitution which is considered the most democratic society derived its constitution from the magna carter.

My point is not that modern day constitutions pulled out Bible Verses,rather they have their foundations on Christian ethics.Equality for all men and women was not practiced in many societies even in Chinese societies where budhism and Confucianism was the main religion.Women were still looked down upon and religion did not provide a moral obligation to do otherwise.

I beg to differ about the difference between the treatment of women in Judaism and Christianity.Judaism was very clear on the place of women in society.
Esther and deborah and some women being only exceptions.Women had their own courts in the temple and were not allowed to enter the temple during their menstrual cycle.There were modes of dressing for women,barren women were considered curses in the society and adulteress women were stoned to death while their male counterparts were not.

http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/6005.html

You can google the role of women in ancient jew traditions.

Have you considered that Constantine only abolished crucifixion because it was the manner in which Jesus died and not because he suddenly became soft hearted. And that is Totally wrong that the purpose of crucifixion is to mutilate the body or whatever. It was a tortuous death, that is why they did it. Anyway, let me show you what I mean by giving examples or historical cases to support you claims.
Below I present some examples of christian 'tolerance, love, and respect and equality':
http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/rome23.htm

These things are all on record. If you disagree please show me the historical records that say otherwise.

I do agree that Crucifixion was a mode of torture and acted as a deterrent for crimes, but they did not just want to torture,but to kill,and to kill buy mutilating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

Constantine stopped crucifixation when he became a christian.that is my point.He did not suddenly have this urge to stop it simply because jesus was crucified.Jesus meant nothing top him before he became a christian.Constantine initiated a couple of legal reforms after adopting Christianity not just the ban on crucifixation.He stopped the Gladiator Games which were violent games where prisoners slaves etc were condemned to fighting for their lives in the arena.Subsequent Roman rulers like theodosius went further by putting an end to pagan worship and sacrifices which often involved child sacrifices,.

Thank you for your definition of Salvation. Now please tell us how Jesus' death and resurrection effects this.

I have addressed this point in my response to DeepSight.

Jenwitemi:
Question from moi for easylogic; Do temptations really represent evil or aren't they just tests of spiritual maturity for humans to overcome as part of their spiritual evolutionary journey or progression?

Since all temptations according to Christianity stem from satan,then it is correct to attribute temptations to evil.Though we would not necessarily say a person who was tempted sinned.At the same time,it is also true that from these temptations Christians can grow and learn to be steadfast in their walk.This does not only apply to Christians,but to all human beings.A husband who refrains sleeping with a sexy secretary develops a character of faithfulness and virtue.A person who works at the till and does not steal,helps himself to be principled and hence make better decisions in life.

thehomer:
@ PastorAIO

I really hope your predictions about this thread's demise do not come true.

@ easylogic

I'd like to add my question.

I'm assuming that there is not evil in heaven but, is there freewill in heaven? If there is, then where does heaven fit into your many worlds description?

Also, are we speaking only of evil with respect to one person's acts towards another or do we include suffering which is also present and which I think is a major problem when speaking of God in this instance.

Welcome Homer.Free will being in heaven is quite a controversial topic where most theologians have failed to agree.Let me try to put forward my position regarding the issue at hand.

Whether humans have free will or not really depends on God's "epistemic distance" from us.This is to say,God's hiddennes. By NOT showing himself or making his presence overwhelmingly obvious,he is able to preserve free will.And Thus we are able to Sin thinking that God is not seeing us.But in heaven the full glory and presence of God is overwhelming and over bearing that it would possibly eliminate free will.Though some could that we can still have free will as in W4 above,but due to the full love and knowledge of God it would be absolutely pointless and stupid to sin.Sort of Like,you have the ability to wake up tomorrow and jump off 24 floors thinking you will fly.While it is true you have the freedom to do that if you wanted to,but,you are also aware that it would be very stupid if you tried to since you would die.

Thus in the same way,doing evil or sinning will seem soo stupid/horrific/pointless that no one will chose to do it.It would be like a woman confessing to you that she has HIV and you still go ahead and have unprotected sex with her.Evil actions will seem MUCH MUCH irrationally than that in heaven.

It is upto you to decide which position sounds mote plausible.


And for your second question,we are discussing Moral Evil,not Natural evil like diseases,earthquakes etc.That would require another thread altogether.

Good thoughts Pastor,and I am happy you were willing to indulge yourself in the thread.

Really?  Can we have examples please?  What part of any bill of rights is derived from what part of christianity?

The underlying tenets of Christianity advocate for equality,Justice and freedom.Jesus Christ dealt with women radically different from his fellow Jews at his time.Women were normally frowned upon in Jewish societies at the time and there roles were supposed to be mainly background.Even in his resurrection,jesus appeared to Mary magdalene , he would have chosen to appear to Peter or John.Perhaps no other scripture captures the belief that in Christianity every person has access to God than John 1:12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.

In Short its from the themes of Christianity which preached tolerance,respect,love and equality did modern societies derive Bill of Rights.Otherwise there was really no other belief system that advocated for such far reaching rights.

The romans were notorius for Crucifixations and killing people at will.In one instance 6000 spartucas men were crucified on their way to Rome when they were being held as slaves.The goal of Roman crucifixion was not just to kill the criminal, but also to mutilate and dishonour the body of the condemned. In ancient tradition, an honourable death required burial; leaving a body on the cross, so as to mutilate it and prevent its burial, was a grave dishonour.

Crucixation was abolished by Constantine the Roman Empire when he converted to Christianity.

Yeah but how does the green part actually save, that's the question isn't it, or am I missing something.  Does having a good role model save?

The purple part.  Having demonstrated that he can pay the ultimate price, tell us how does it actually save.  What are the mechanics of it?  And when we talk about salvation what are we being saved from.

Okay, but how does it actually save?  And what are we being saved from?  Is it death?  People are still dying everyday.  Is it sin?  People are still sinning everyday.  Professing christians are at the top of the sinners list.  What was the salvation from?  And how was it actually actuated.  No soundbites please.

By saving Christians mainly mean one has abandoned his sinful ways and has decided to live a righteous life just as Jesus did.That is why Christians say Jesus "saves". Jesus is the exemplification of what is Good and what a good moral character is,therefore by emulating Jesus,one is saved from sin.That is,one is able to abandon a sinful life.

We should not view salvation as a sort of magical transformation, it simply means that a person has decided to let God/Jesus be in charge of his/her life and therefore live by God's will,the way Jesus did.

Probably the word "save" was used to illustrate how significant this move was. Saved here connotating the act of moving from a world/character of habitual sinning to a character of being morally good just like Jesus did.

Deep Sight:
Hi again, Esaylogic -

As you will see in Post #4, I had already indicated to Pastor the specific approach that you would take, having had the benefit of reading your views before on this subject.

I should however say to you that for me the problem is not the existence of freewill viz-a-viz the existence of evil. I have no problems in that regard, and there is no need for us to re-hash that age-old debate because i have no troubles or issues with the existence of freewill and the existence of evil.

Ohh Okay.That is a relief. Since we are in agreement that there is no logical contradiction between the existence of God and Evil,then we can move on to your concerns.

Let us note carefully that my trouble is specifically with regard to the biblical worldview regarding evil. In this regard my concerns are -

1. What is the signifgicance of the biblical account of the origin of evil in Eden

The significance could be to demonstrate exactly what the Free WILL defense expouses.That, a world with Free willed beings there is bound to be an evil act.Satan in this regard is a tempter.I believe the Eden account demonstrates the first instance of evil.How human beings came to start doing evil.

2. What is the significance of the biblical narrative which indicates the existence of an adversary of good: to wit - the Satan

I do not merely think this is a narrative but an event that occured.We can derive its significance from what later teachings in the bible tell us of ways of avoiding temptations.But perhaps i do not understand your querry.

3. The bible indicates the Satan as a created being. I do not subscribe to any such entity as "Satan" and I know nothing of such, but my concern is that I am more inclined to view darkness as a self-existent precept opposite to light in line with the principle of duality.

I fail to see how this is an indicator or argument against the existence of such a being.Merely stating your position does not equal to an argument.Are there any logical inconsistencies with an existing Fallen Angel in the name of Satan and an Omni God?

4. How is evil addressed in biblical terms? How does the sacrifice of Jesus supposedly address evil - especially given that evil continues, anyway, the supposed sacrifice notwithstanding.

This is really good question and one that most christians have never sat down and asked themselves.How does the death and resurrection of Jesus "Save"?

Remember in my earlier post i talked of Free Will.God having chosen W1 where he has given human beings free will,then he cannot possibly interefre by preventing human beings from doing evil so as to reduce the prevalence of evil.So he's choices are limited.

Think of a scenario,there is a very beautiful girl at your work place whom you really like,but she does not show interest.You have to devise ways to make yourself look more desirable so as to attract her attention and hopefully fall in love with you.You can't force her to love you, she has free will to chose NOT to.

If God is defined as the true measure of perfection,the omnibenevolent creator ,then it is only right that we should try to emulate him as much as possible since,he is perfection.

This is where Jesus comes in.God is unable to force humans to be good/act morally,so he sends his son(personhood) of Jesus.By sending a person who emulates what a perfect human being should act and live like, humans have a living example of what a perfectly good morally character is.God does not stop there,by allowing the Crucifixion of Jesus,God again shows that He is willing to pay the ultimate price for human beings.The Resurrection is significant as it shows God can conquer death and good triumphs over evil.The resurrection was also very important for the first followers of Christ.Had he not resurrected,then Christianity would have died at the tomb.

What was the result of the coming,death and resurrection of Jesus?Christianity! the world's biggest religion.The biggest milestone for Christianity must have been when Rome adopted it as its official religion.After years of killing and persecuting christians.It is a well known fact that many of todays Bills of rights and constituions all over the world have their foundations in Christianity.The impact of Christianity all over the world is truly immense.

Would the world have been a better place without Christianity? i don't think so.Romans seized most of their barbaric practices after adopting christianity by Constantine.Christianity is credited with the bill of rights etc.

5. What is the overall biblical supposition regarding the ultimate fate of evil: and does that supposition resonate with any tangible meaning for the living human spirit.

According to the Bible,the ultimate fate of evil is defeat.In revelations and the gospel,Jesus will return,defeat the devil/satan and create a world where evil is non-existent.This is W4 in the free will defense.This world is heaven.And it is only actualizable because God is present.Some may argue that there is no Free Will in heaven.

In conclusion.

As illustrated Christianity,more than any other religion or non-religion for that matter addresses the problem of evil adequately.Evn though evil persists in our society,the life,death and crucifixion of Jesus proiveds humans with a benchmark,motivation and hope that they can too,live morally good lives and hope for eternal redemption.

If Christianity is false,then there is no way out from evil.If the Bible is false,then God does not show us anyway we humans should behave.We would depend on Naturalistic forms of ethics.Evil wins all the time,and the temporary victories of good,are all meaningless in the long run.

I have seen the thread,and i would very much want to avoid quoting Bible verses in this thread.I do not believe that Sin originated from Satan.My position is rather that Satan is merely6 a tempter.Evil in itself was bound to originate from Free Willed beings.Maybe we can dwell on which part of the Free will defense you find inadequate.

Pastor AIO:
Can I make a prognosis for this thread.

One party will say where did evil come from and can a good God create evil.

Another party will say free will etc.

One party will say free will can only make choices between potentials.  Who created the potential for Evil?

Some one will try to pin the blame on satan, but will be refuted with 'but God created satan and knew what he was going to do, and furthermore do angels have free-will too?'.

Then things will go round and round and round and round.  I myself would not participate in the thread but I'll keep seeing it pop to the top of page 1 and it will keep getting longer and longer till it's about 7 or 8 pages long.  By which time I will not be able to contain my curiousity any longer and I will look into the thread only to find that far from talking about the problem of Evil we are talking about Joagbaje and the cost of Pastor Chris' new shoes.  
At that point I will become a keen observer of the thread but I'll not actually make any contributions to it.  Then some long winded person will join and start writing long-assed posts that would take an hour to read (if I could be bothered to read it, which of course I won't) at which point I'll retire again.

haha Pastor, give the thread a chance.You can contribute.It is practically impossible to discuss Problem of evil without infering Plantinga's Free Will defense.Which is considered to have put to death the POE a long time ago.Ofcourse i am avoiding bible type of discussions here.i.e quoting verses etc.I am simply dealing with the philosophical aspect of theology.

Problem Of Evil

Deepsights Concern

Yes, you are right, for me it has a wholly unsatisfactory view as to the origin of evil and the treatment of evil. The Genesis account regarding the fall of man may have deeper symbolic indications: but it nonetheless remains for me a far cry from that which will resonate within the spirit as the truth regarding the origin of evil and the general question of evil.

While i do agree that the first instance of evil as indicated in the bible is in the account of Adam and Eve in Genesis,Evil does not really have an origin per se.Evil can be described as acting in a way that is considered immoral or Not morally permissible.Therefore Evil is not some sort of thing which originates from somewhere then kind of spreads to other persons.I am aware some christians believe that our tendency to do evil things is inherited from Adam.

I am going to use Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense to buttress my point.There are about 4 possible worlds God could have created.By world i mean a state of affairs.

W1: (a) God creates persons with morally significant free will;
(b) God does not causally determine people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong; and
(c) There is evil and suffering in W1.

W2: (a) God does not create persons with morally significant free will;
(b) God causally determines people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong; and
(c) There is no evil or suffering in W2.

W3: (a) God creates persons with morally significant free will;
(b) God causally determines people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong; and
(c) There is no evil or suffering in W3.

W4: (a) God creates persons with morally significant free will;
(b) God does not causally determine people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong; and
(c) There is no evil or suffering in W4.



Before i proceed to explain each of the Worlds,let me get back to the Inherited sin/Adam situation.Whiver world God would have chosen,he would have to place adam or any other human being in that world.Therefore,any human being would act the same way Adam acted.Now, Since it is very clear that God chose W1,then it is safe to assume that any Human being living in that world would act similarly to Adam.Now someone would ask,why didn't God chose to create a human being who had free will just like Adam,but chose not to eat the apple?I would then interject and say,you are not talking of W1 then,you are talking of w4 then.

But God cannot guarantee that by putting a human being in W1 he/she would not chose evil from time to time.therefore you can see there is really nothing like origin of evil,it's just that in a world where there are free willed human beings,some are bound to do evil things.

Again,asking why didn't God then not create "Murder" or "Theft",is akin to asking why didn't God take away Free Will.Theft and Murder are not THINGS which can be created or NOT.Its simply the lack of a morally perfect good character.

Let us explore the WORLDS above.W2 is a world with Robot like humans.We cannot do whatever we want.here thye concept of goodness and evil is really non-existent.Having humans who can only do Good,invalidates any good thing they did.Its a self defeating idea.If i can only do good actions,what makes those actions good if it is the default position.Whether i tried or not i would have do0ne it anyway.It seems pointless to congratulate a person for NOT stealing when he couldn't have even if he wanted to.God forcing human beings to obey and love him is tyranicall and inconsistent with an omnibenevolent God.

W3.Is clearly contradictory,persons in w3 cannot really be considered to be free if God intervenes to influence or change their decisions.Therefore it is logically incosistent and therefore not possible.

w4. Is this world possible?yes it is possible in the logical sense of it.There is no contradiction in having free willed beings who commit no evil.But this world is not actualizable.What i mean here is,it is not practical that a human being will not commit atleast one evil act in his lifetime if he has the freedom to do it.God might not be able to actualize such a world since every time he would try with different human beings,they would commit atleast some evil act.

The most practical World is W1.Someone might ask why God sees this as a better world to create as opposed to W2?why is freedom soo improtant?It all has to do with the nature of God.There is really no point of creating puppets,God wold rather not have created at all.Infact a God who creates such a world is evil and does not deserve worship.A world with free willed beings where some willingly chose to obey and some willingly chose to worship God is the best possible world an omnibenevolent God should create.

Therefore i do not see any inconsistencies with the existence of evil and the nature of God.

References:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense

Deep Sight:
That would be great, Easylogic. Lookforward to the post.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-568346.0.html#msg7335210

thats the thread.

Deepsight Hope you are well.Anyone is invited to contribute,though i encourage insightful answers.A Civil and well mannered discussion is also welcome.

These are the 3 main reasons deepsight sees as the barriers to Christianity.

Barriers to Christianity?

Yes, you are right, for me it has a wholly unsatisfactory view as to the origin of evil and the treatment of evil. The Genesis account regarding the fall of man may have deeper symbolic indications: but it nonetheless remains for me a far cry from that which will resonate within the spirit as the truth regarding the origin of evil and the general question of evil.

The entire ontology of God as depicted within the Bible is contradictory and internally inconsistent. God is depicted in the Old Testament as genocidal and barbaric: in the New Testament he is depicted as an all forgiving Santa Claus who could not hurt a fly: I can not accept that God is changeable: the bible presents us with a changeable God, whereas I am persuaded that God being a necessay and self-existent factor, remains immutable and unchangeable.

Regarding that which is required for salvation, it ticks me off that the NT presents a picture of a situation whereby it appears that the rules of the game had been changed half-way: that whereas once obedience to the law was required, the NT emphasizes belief in christ and grace. I have no problem with either: but like I said I do not believe in a changeable God. For me, God is and remains immutable: and accordingly God's standards and requirements for salvation would also be immutable and unchangeable from eternity to eternity.

I can not accept the idea that God arranged a sacrificial death for the remittance of sins. I regard this as completely averse to everything that I understand God to be. I believe in the exacting justice of God: and for me that justice is not satisfied by such a bizzarre arrangement.

I do not believe in or accept the deity of Christ. I believe that Jesus was a human being like any other. Accordingly I am seriously turned off by the christian tendency to worship Jesus, the claims that Jesus is God, the doctrine of the trinity, etc. Frankly I regard these as blasphemies. At all events I am aware that it has been the tendency of mankind to deify their spiritual leaders and I regard the case of Jesus as being no different. I simply cannot bring myself to go along with these things.

I do believe in a spiritual tractectory for the spirit of man. And I firmly believe that all men of any religious or cultural persuation may attain spiritual light if they will live in simplicity in accordance with the dictates of a conscience premised on love - whether or not they ever heard of Jesus of Nazareth or not.

If i may suimmarize(correct me deepsight if i misquote).

1. Christianity fails to tackle the problem of evil as regards to its origin and purpose in creation.
2.The concept of God in the bible is contradictory.He's character in the OT and NT are radically different.
3.The concept of atonement through jesus Christs death is incompatable with Justice and the concept of a just God.


These are pretty wide topic and thus i propose we start with only one topic which is in itself very big.

The Problem of Evil.

Deep Sight:
Viaro is on an extended strike. its been ages since he posted on this Forum.

Barriers to Christianity?

Yes, you are right, for me it has a wholly unsatisfactory view as to the origin of evil and the treatment of evil. The Genesis account regarding the fall of man may have deeper symbolic indications: but it nonetheless remains for me a far cry from that which will resonate within the spirit as the truth regarding the origin of evil and the general question of evil.

The entire ontology of God as depicted within the Bible is contradictory and internally inconsistent. God is depicted in the Old Testament as genocidal and barbaric: in the New Testament he is depicted as an all forgiving Santa Claus who could not hurt a fly: I can not accept that God is changeable: the bible presents us with a changeable God, whereas I am persuaded that God being a necessay and self-existent factor, remains immutable and unchangeable.

Regarding that which is required for salvation, it ticks me off that the NT presents a picture of a situation whereby it appears that the rules of the game had been changed half-way: that whereas once obedience to the law was required, the NT emphasizes belief in christ and grace. I have no problem with either: but like I said I do not believe in a changeable God. For me, God is and remains immutable: and accordingly God's standards and requirements for salvation would also be immutable and unchangeable from eternity to eternity.

I can not accept the idea that God arranged a sacrificial death for the remittance of sins. I regard this as completely averse to everything that I understand God to be. I believe in the exacting justice of God: and for me that justice is not satisfied by such a bizzarre arrangement.

I do not believe in or accept the deity of Christ. I believe that Jesus was a human being like any other. Accordingly I am seriously turned off by the christian tendency to worship Jesus, the claims that Jesus is God, the doctrine of the trinity, etc. Frankly I regard these as blasphemies. At all events I am aware that it has been the tendency of mankind to deify their spiritual leaders and I regard the case of Jesus as being no different. I simply cannot bring myself to go along with these things.

I do believe in a spiritual tractectory for the spirit of man. And I firmly believe that all men of any religious or cultural persuation may attain spiritual light if they will live in simplicity in accordance with the dictates of a conscience premised on love - whether or not they ever heard of Jesus of Nazareth or not.

Interesting.Maybe we could move this to a new thread and discuss it there,hehe for Old times sake.Maybe we will be able to draw Vairo from his hiding place too.I am going to start a thread and post the link here and we can start a CIVIL discussion there.Think of it as a sort of tea party where old folks are discussing the bigger things in life.a non confrontational yet stimulating discussion.

Deep Sight:
Easylogic! Nice to see you popping in again. . . a great head you've got on those shoulders, bro.

Why do you ask about crossing over to xtianity? Do you have such an expectation of me?

Haha,It is usually a thin line between Deism and Christianity!!I never quite could figure which argument you considered the greatest barrier to Christianity .Is it the Problem of evil? By the way where is Vairo?

Deep Sight:
And another great thread went south. . .

I agree.We had great threads here.Maybe we should revive some, or start other great ones.By the way,are you still a deist or you crossed over to Christianity?

Why don't you post the information here,for free,so that whoever is intrested can see.besides,a quick google search can easily reveal the tuition free countries in europe.

there is nothing an agent can do that you can't do.you can seek an agent's advice in filling the forms,but make sure you submit the application yourself.

SAKUR:
I'm tired of here anyway am in,but they have to send a girl with me preferably a Brazilian .

with a big a** preferably.I am not so sure how sex would be in a place where gravity is soo little compared to earth.You might have to work alot harder.

I don't about the UK high comm in Lagos,but when i applied for my UK VISA a few months a go in Nairobi,i did not have my original degree transcripts though they were stated in my CAS.i presented scanned copies of the original since i did not have the originals with me.The originals were in Malaysia and i waas waiting for them to be sent.

All the other documents were fine. i was dead sure they would deny me the VISA,but to my surprise i got the VISA in three days.

Ofcourse i would not advice anyone to try this,but it goes to show that the high comm is not as rigid as people think.or maybe proof of funds is more important.

the easiest way to get to anywhere in europe is a student visa.

@ Poster normally you should be issued with the VISA but be aware that it will be pretty difficult.You will have to show very good reasons why you are undertaking an undergraduate course at 30 years old in a foreign country.They might just think you are tired of Naija and are looking for a way out.

But, just try and maybe luck will be on your side.

@ Poster, you have to be more specific so that people know what your talking about.I am afraid you have not helped anyone by not telling us your story.

AK,you will not need to show the 2,500 Usd if you have a student VISA.You sound like a reasonable person,just forget that plan and talk to your parents about applying for the cheaper school.I am sure they will be very happy at your maturity and concern for there financial status.

Ak Money,

I studied in Malaysia.First,it is IMPOSSIBLE to travel to Malaysia with a one way ticket.You will be denied entry at the airport if they discover your ticket is one way.You will have to purchase a return ticket or an onward ticket.i.e a ticket which shows you will leave malaysia to another country eg Thailand or Singapore.But the problem is,Thailand and Singapore will also expect to see a ticket that shows you will leave the country.

A 3 month social Visa is almost impossible to get in Malaysia.Standard Visitors Visas are only 1 month long.Plus you beng a Nigerian you will likely be given 2 weeks VISA on condition you possess 2000 USD.Nigerians have a bad reputation over there and there is a chance you will be denied entry at the airport if they suspect you are upto no good.

Best advice i can give you is,just make a fresh application for the cheaper school,get the student visa and go hustle free.Your parrents will have to know about it,there are no short cuts.

Do not take the risk of being deported and having to explain to your parents that you were lying to them.

Furthermore,even if you manage to pull the trick off,how will you explain to your parents why the Exam results have the name of a different college?

You can always Google all the information you need about a particular country.Samoa is a tiny country with about 200,000 people,It is mainly an Agricultural island,though tourism plays a big part.

Its a relatively poor country,though the average income per capita per person is higher than nigeria's.You will not have much luck there,given that its economy is not diverse.Unless you want to work in a farm or become a beach boy.

Am sorry the only Africans i knew who were in singapore were kenyans but their job contracts expired and they went to UK.The main reason that the singapore government ir reluctant to issue work permits to africans is because of Nigerians bad reputation in malaysia.Singapore would rather deal with chinese and indonesian immigrants because of the Treaty signed between south east countrids which makes it easier for Indonesians,malaysians and chinese to work in singapore.

You have to have a very specialised skill for you to get a work permit in singapore as an African.The kenyan friends i had were really good programmers,thats why it was easy for them.But they found life too expensive in singapore and had to relocate.

Goodluck in brunei!i can guarantee you lots of boredom.

I've been to Singapore,very beautiful small country.But very strict.also very expensive to live.the cheapest apartment you might get will cost you around 700usd a month.Its impossible to get work if you don't have a work permit,and you cannot survive there illegaly.Unfortunately from my friends experience,Singapore government will most likely not issue a work permit to an African.Singapore is a place where you go and buy your stuff and get out.There are a f ew africans working in Singapore but they are very few.

Brunei?tiny country of about 350,000 people.Strict islamic country,no clubs no beer is allowed.i highly doubt whether there is a single african in that country.

@ landis,i am not joking! google any information on North Korea.The world cup team has ofcourse been allowed to travel to the World CUP.The only citizens who are outside North korea are the ones who have managed to escape.The major reason n.korea refuses its citizen to leaue the country is because they don't want them to defect to south Korea.N.korea and South korea are technicaly still at war and their borders are divided by an electric fence,landmines and thousands of US and Korean soldiers.N.koreans are granted automatic asylum in S.korea if they defect.

Please do some research.

The UK schools are only concerned with your grades,if what you are learning is compatible with what they teach,i.e similar modules,then they will have no problems admitting you.just relax and don't give up,apply to as many uk schools as you can next year,and make sure you get good grades,and you will be able to transfer.my cousin who was in malaysia did an american transfer program,but he was denied a US visa,so he applied to UK and was admitted for 2nd year and got his visa last september in Malaysia.So don't worry,just concetrate on your studies for now,when that time reaches,you can start worrying.lol.

Your welcome.tell him to forget about it.if he really has to get out of Nigeria by all means,better look at the caribean countries,belize,bahamas,panama or St.kitts and nevis.i don't know if they are visa free,but their visa's should not be that difficult to obtain.

@poster,we are not fools.so you want people to believe that you managed to get a belize Visa but your problem is getting an airline to take you there.So that desperate Nigerians and africans can call or email you to ask how you managed to get the belize visa,and bang!you refer them to an agent who happens to be you or your partner in crime.