₦airaland Forum

musKeeto: Why did God WARN them not to eat of the fruit of 'KNOWLEDGE'? Why didn't God want them to 'KNOW'? What didn't He want them to 'KNOW'?

To be actual...the protagonist in the bible prohibited the “knowledge of the good and evil”. So the kind of knowledge was specified. It was not the knowledge of science, knowledge of arts etc...just “good and evil” according to the book called the holy bible.
“Tree of Life” and the “Tree of the knowledge of good and evil” aside, it was not told what other type of trees was present in the Garden of Eden.

However the protagonist or if you like "God" did actually state why “He” did not want Adam (and I say Adam in particular because from what I read “he” never directly instructed Eve thus the greater responsibility fell on Adam and that’s why “He” first questioned Adam ) to partake of the tree.

Is it because, in a sense, acquiring knowledge makes GOD less awesome, man more self reliant?

In a broader sense it depends and it does not solely bear effect on the biblical god.
The more humans have an understanding of their universe, certain phenomenon that was once accorded to god i.e. Thor striking his hammer thus causing thunder...the less relevant such god becomes. The more we know, the less that god(s) becomes a handy explanation in their specific functional role...in a way it’s kinda like the last god standing.

However despite what is known...there will still be those who will credit god for all things because to some "he" still caused all things to happen or engineered the whole system to operate as such.

So sometimes when some people know they will become less reliant on god whilst some people will become more enthralled by god.

Of course, I know a corrupt government has caused most of this, not religion per se, but wouldn't you agree that if the 'anointing oil' and other 'spiritual materials' were not touted as solutions to the problems caused by a wicked and vicious set of people, that Nigeria would have less intellectually lazy people or ZOMBIE christians?

The most disadvantageous aspect I’ve observed with organized religion is the design to follow follow. It’s quite telling that in the very bible such population are aptly called “sheeps”. Metaphor for believers or not it still holds.

So essentially if one follows religion in effect such a person would follow - (some may say “guided” as a euphemism) - Pastors, senior staffs and co. Why cannot one seek or maintain a relationship with god independent of man I wonder. This brotherhood or "sheep"hood absorbs the majority.

Sometimes it’s hard to draw a distinction of whether religion is truly poison or if religion has been poisoned but if people cannot think beyond religion, think beyond Pastor and think beyond a book then that could prove quite harmful and not only to the individual but to that individual’s immediate society and Nigeria has suffered for it.
A book is meant to inspire one to think not to cage one’s mind.

Does being a Christian, while giving one 'hope' of salvation and a ticket to heaven, relieve one of earthly duties and roles that better the society?

First of all one has to become familiar with the “earthly duties” Christians believe they uniquely assume - although from my observation sometimes the goal post is conveniently shifted.
As humans of course we have our duties but Christians too have their own duties and when the standard duties may sometimes appear in opposition to the Christian ones the “ZOMBIE christians” will no doubt forsake those “earthly duties”. But when it’s in favour to their Christian ones well...there you have it.

This is quite informative, nice thread.

I never knew there was a distinction between the hijab and the shayla. How does one tie the hijab?

I gather that part of the reason for wearing these uniforms are to preserve modesty and not stir lustful attraction however with the exception of the burka are not the eyes also an appealing feature that can draw another’s attention?

@Topic In my OP I wrote:...

If we are to use choice A as a measurement of which god doll is genuine then who is indeed the original doll? Afterall an original must exist in order for there to be a counterfeit. Is the original not likely to hail from the earliest people? So in order to find the original do we look to the earliest people? But an original can still be improved and not necessarily even locally. However there will always be an original even if not relevant in today’s society.

...

But I’m always intrigued by those who are rather conceptual or non-exhibitionists. Some may even have a reckoning of doll/god but:
a) never physically interpreted that entity (so possibly in another period their rendering may not have been translated or captured in any sort of tangible means thus remaining unknown in later generations and even possibly their immediate generation)
or
b) another person adapted person X’s notions into a physical interpretation.

Once indeed these rumors of a havoc-causing creature are established,then the skeptic moves onto the next question.Which of the accounts above are most consistent with the said animal attacks.

I was just thinking...what if some witnesses keep their accounts to themselves...we thus have only a limited amount of evidence/data.
The reason I was thinking about this is because some - as they call it - "believers" are rather individualistic in their approach to god. To some it’s extremely personal that they may not choose/wish to share or exhibit their belief (so to speak) although granted that is one’s own prerogative and just because they have kept that which they regard as "real" and sacred as personal should not automatically make their own concept redundant or not to be considered as possibly legitimate (although it would be impossible for the outsider to review,compare and contrast that in which is concealed). And if that person passes away so do their notions which wasn't shared.

***

@AlvinPlatinga

Just a curious mind.But i have read lots of Philosophy books,science books and articles.Your questions are very intriguing to say the least.

Ok I can identify with you there but I’m at the infancy stage. I have a lot to learn. I also find your inputs rather intriguing.

Can one tell just from observation? It’s possible but not a secure method besides that means one must rely on stereotypes and it’s not to say that serotypes are necessarily born out of falsity but that some (in this case phenotypes) are not necessarily exclusive to a particular populace no matter how prevalent certain phenotypes are amongst a particular collective plus some groups are diverse.

To be honest it may also depend on how observant a person is; there are tell-tale signs that may not always be so obvious. Not all our guesses may be correct of course. And the fact we’re even guessing in the first place means we’re not 100% sure.

But let me indulge in this experiment even after being informed of these people’s ethnic background:

The guy in the second picture (to me) resembles very much a South African...probably one of the only hints that would have made me think otherwise was perhaps height differences assuming your cousin is tall.

Looking at the images of your female cousin and sister - South American springs to my mind.

To be honest I’m still finding it hard to reconcile you with being Nigerian/Igbo±. If you hadn't addressed what your background was I would have guessed perhaps Southern African and it’s not because I believe you don’t “look” Igbo etc but I think you as well as your relatives (well the ones you’ve posted a pic on and solely based on their pictures) have an ambiguous look.

Also light/dark may be relative because in your OP you described yourself as “dark” but I would have classified you as light.

As for me I’ve been guessed to be another nationality/tribe. And sometimes those reasons were a little laughable and flawed to me because after being informed of the template used to compare me with those other “tribes” to satisfy these guessers assumptions I thought to myself...well I doubt those basic features are unique to a specific group.

So my last question for you is, if you had the chance to find or approximate your genetic ethnic mixture would you do it?

Hmm perhaps although to be honest I doubt that will serve to affect me much or weigh in on my identity or how I choose to identify myself because even though I’m aware I have other admixtures that has never made me to re-evaluate the way I identify myself.

then the third picture is my big sister and i. I am the skinny one, not the one with opean teeth. Most people say i look more fula than igbo or yoruba. What do you guys think?

How much do you know about the Fula by the way?

[quote author=Master_1]God is all powerful.
He can do all things
He can create a stone dat is so heavy he can't carry it
1.He can't carry it,
He can't do all things
God is not all powerful
2.He can't create it
He can't do all things

He can't do all things, he isn't God!!![/quote]Just because a being is supposedly capable of doing all things does that mean that being will necessarily do all things?

AlvinPlantinga: I might be off on a tangent here and may not understand what you are actually querying.Is it a question about truth,how do we get to know what is true or not.Is there objective truth?that is the notion that is some things are true for everyone no matter what others think?

No actually I assume full responsibility for that. It was me who went off on a tangent. Initially I was interested in the various interpretations of a common subject present across all cultures and what will ultimately render one’s version more legit than the other. For example why are certain versions of a deity given greater legitimacy or titles such as "The one true God"? By employing such title that quite clearly shows that such believers are confident that other versions are therefore false. Based on what exactly is what I was pursuing. What makes that version more real than others hence my (former) title “the one true doll”. So I was tackling this issue through dolls or at least I tried to anyway.

It was kinda like maybe all interpretations are after all legitimate if we consider what informed those particular interpretations i.e my father viewing Barbie as an idol. Even though he had his reasons there is at least something that could still be measured in his interpretation that may even support his analysis anyway – like I said Barbie has a following, is a cult and may very well even be used as an idol.

I guess it’s more about attitudes to different perception and interpretations especially if the subject is rather subjective. What would make one subjective interpretation more valid than another? And in addition what are those factors affecting our attitude to another’s interpretation?

In this case we must have a starting point.there must be an absolute definition and concept of a doll which is true and independent of any observer.
How do we get to know this definition and concept?through various deductive arguments and reasoning.My point being, it does not matter whether there are various opinions,misconception of what a doll is.ultimately in our case, there is a true definition of what a doll is, which is independent of us.

I quite agree.
If you don't mind me asking are you a scientist?
I'm curious as you always inject a scientific/philosophical perspective.

ATMC: there is no way one can' t be exposed, d only thing is dt exposition is in degrees...i didn't really get ur last point about interpretation.

Yes you’re right. But I meant if a subject is taken out of context i.e. dolls. Then what other factors affect one’s interpretations. But still your point still stands because I guess our individual exposure will affect our reasoning i.e. my father’s perception of certain dolls.

Ptolomeus: Hello dear friend. It is a pleasure say hello.
I understand that anyone who makes a doll, doll materializes its IDEA (of woman or girl). Possibly this "idea" of the wrist has a purpose ... For example, I think the barbie woman looking for a perfect model (with the Western sense of perfection).

Interesting. I wonder how the doll in other cultures concerning the ideals of females could be studied.

Continuing the analysis (off topic)), I have never accepted the physical image of God ... I understand that if there is no god in human form. The human being is the "doll maker" in developing his concept of God.

Yes I agree the human is the doll maker in terms of moulding an abstract god.

I very much agree with everything else you said and I am of the same stance. But human beings being visual creatures may have wanted to attach a portrait to their individual/collective concept of god perhaps in an effort to make god more tangible.

I send my warmest regards!

Me too amigo

@AlvinPlantinga The heading was merely employed to evoke an imagery of god as that stood to be the comparison.
This particular topic is not focusing on the debate of whether such an entity as god exists or not although this topic allows for consideration of such entity’s existence. My main focus was more concentrated on contextual interpretations and how these can affect one’s analysis thus what is used to measure the truth of another’s reality.

Following from your analogy: and in certain societies there is often accorded greater legitimacy to one account (sometimes possibly even more) - based on what exactly is the angle I’m looking at. And which indeed is the greatest factor in shaping our own interpretations.
I guess you could say I’m looking at this in a more anthropological way than a scientific or even spiritual angle.

I asked in my OP if one can actually understand another society or at least elements of other societies cross-culturally because sometimes in order to understand a foreign culture we may have to have something similar or corresponding in a context in which we can comprehend in order to make sense of that which is foreign. Thus I used a familiar item – dolls. But even that in which one may consider a doll may be (mis)construed as an idol. If one observer is wrong and the other correct what separates the right answer from the wrong answer? One may use the dolls as idols or the idols as dolls.

it is easy, in most cases to examine the existing observations of the physical and metaphysical nature of the universe to conclude which version of god is most consistent with our current experiences.

And to that I ask what is your conclusion?

ATMC: @op, there's no rship btw doll nd God judging from ur post.

The idea was that a doll like god is present and captured in some sort in every society. So I thus used the two entities as a point of comparison.

You said God made man nd man made God, Man made doll...

I never said that, I cited those famous quotes to actually highlight my reverse analogy.

but then doll didn't make man.

That’s not the point. I used dolls as metaphors to examine different interpretations and what can be or is considered legitimate or not and according to whom or what.

Again, perception is affected by exposition so d basic thing dt affects our interpretation is EXPOSITION.

Yep or lack of it. So in the absence of such what do we thus turn to? Explanations are not always given so we may consider other things when interpreting a subject especially that in which we’re not familiar with.

@logicboy get exposed right

+1

What parallels can be drawn from dolls and god(s)?

Perhaps the doll can pose as an analogy (albeit reversely) to that in which believers call God:

“God made man in his own image” ... “man made god in his own image”...

The doll is a popular cult and has a large following – such reminds me of god in some ways.

There is a doll in every country and every culture has its own depiction.
But which doll is the correct interpretation?
And how do we measure which doll is right or indeed wrong?

a) Originality perhaps?
b) Accuracy in human likeness?
c) And/or other?

If we are to use choice B as a barometer then whose human likeness are we measuring?
(Let’s use the doll Barbie for example.)
Barbie; although appearing incredibly life-like in her facial features is still not an accurate portrait of my own likeness and many other females for that matter. Thus in another context the human likeness of Barbie is not accurate at all.

But if we are to take into account not just the features alone but the whole figure then in reality the Barbie doesn’t actually proportionally correspond to any female mortal.

Hmm...but what if the doll is meant to be abstract?


If we are to use choice A as a measurement of which god doll is genuine then who is indeed the original doll? Afterall an original must exist in order for there to be a counterfeit. Is the original not likely to hail from the earliest people? So in order to find the original do we look to the earliest people? But an original can still be improved and not necessarily even locally. However there will always be an original even if not relevant in today’s society.


And what about choice C? What other factors could there be to determine which is the right doll (if any)?

***

Can we truly understand other societies cross culturally?

As an African who grew up in the Diaspora, I have always in my childhood perceived the Barbie doll as a seemingly innocent toy. Nothing s[i]e[/i]xu[i]a[/i]l, nothing chauvinistic, nothing exploitive and nothing detrimental to one’s self esteem. Today I regard the Barbie as a symbol to all those things and more that hadn’t even crossed my young innocent mind at that tender age.

But my African father coming from a nuclear animist background had perceived the Barbie doll as an idol; no different to those fetishes he left back home in Nigeria.

Whose perception is correct? My father’s or mine? Or were we both wrong or both right?

But having said all that...if my father had presented me with the native idols of his society what if I at that tender age saw them as just dolls?

The reality is, art is subjective so any sufficient interpretation may still stand.

But what informs our various interpretations? Understanding? History? Motive? Function? Culture? (Mis)Education? Etc...

Precisely Jenwitemi. This is what grates on me concerning the lack of knowledge and demonization of African traditional religions whilst glorifying outside faiths.

Love it. I love blood as a medium.

Marc Quinn used over 4 litres of his own blood to create a visceral sculpture of his portrait: http://streetanatomy.com/2008/11/03/marc-quinn/

JeSoul: I think what can be considered 'extremist' is fluid with time, circumstance and availability of knowledge.

Yep. I quite agree.

Did you ever watch the series 24?

I only bothered to watch the first series and that was when the show was drawing to an end

Obama could certainly use your helpp right about now

Haha I'm actually not on the Obama bandwagon myself so would naturally feel reserved to tailor his scripts but I wish him well all the way from London.

JeSoul: One issue though would be how would you determine what is "an extremist" view?

Hmmm true and I had considered that. Perhaps I don’t speak for all but I regard extremists as those whose political purpose is to threaten the security of an individual, collective or nation due to intolerant ideals and beliefs.

Honestly, you should be in leadership & government.

Lol thanks but I disagree. I love politics as a subject but not as a career (speechwriting exempted).

Callotti: Meanwhile, na dem gay pass o!

Abi o.

The idea of an omniscient god using trials to inspect individuals appears contradictory to “his” alleged attribute. However it would at least sound more plausible if it was claimed that an omniscient god uses trials as a means to develop the individual’s character.
Using trails to “test” us makes us sound like lab rats in a sick experiment. Testing our love, testing our faith...why does an omniscient god need these confirmed if not for vanity? In addition it’s always attached to a reward or a penalty i.e. worship me and I’ll make you to surpass your enemies...if you don’t worship me then such and such plagues will be added unto you.
The irony is, the biggest way god can use to test an individual’s faith and love is to remove the intimidation of heaven and hell.

JeSoul: You guys have been asking all the questions, my turn.

Lol I never saw your post earlier on, ok.

1- Do you agree that gays are a relative minority in most soceities? (pls discount their capital of San Franscisco ).

Yes I agree that gays are a relative minority in most societies.

2- What percentage of non-gays fully support the gay agenda? (lets use the western world for this part)

To be honest I’m not sure of the percentages but I am aware that reserved and/or hostile attitudes towards gays outside religious institutions even in secular societies still persist but at least there are laws in those secular societies that protect gays as a minority and don’t criminalize them.

3- What do you think about minority views being imposed on a majority that may not agree?

Well I believe the views of minorities (depending on their views i.e extremists excluded) should not be marginalized and their rights too should be upheld; the majority doesn't even have to “like” the views of the minority, just don’t disrespect and discriminate against them. But that’s not to say that the views of a minority should be “imposed” on the majority unless there is no credible means of marginalization and yes if the minority is being threatened. Minorities need to be heard and not silenced and sometimes even protected. I maintain that our differences should be equally respected. Besides the majority is not always right or should remain unchallenged.

4- What would your "ideal" soceity look like in regards to a)gay rights and b)religion

It’s interesting because I don’t regard any sexuality or religion as innate attributes so this is definitely one thing I believe society should consider before discriminating on the grounds of “unnatural” behaviour. Such religious people should also remember that they were not born as an adherent to a particular faith (maybe under a religious household but religion is not hereditary) so by that same token religion is just as “unnatural” yet such individuals claim their religion is integral to their being.
Gays won’t be marginalized just because they are a minority (just like left handed people) or concealed for fear of treading on the sensibilities of particular groups, religious or not.
Although recognizing the rights of the religious populace (such populace will be free to practice their religion) the influence of religion in the politics of the state will pale - so I suppose you can say it will be a secular society.

JeSoul: Of just the church? Why would I believe that? Non-religious people have been getting married for centuries and centuries long before an organized 'church' ever existed. I do not think they should be subject to the 'leanings' or 'beliefs' of any church. As a society, historically, it has always been between a man and a woman - that is what I primarily mean. Even areligious people have always found gay unions to be 'unnatural' (excuse my use of the term). It is with the changing of times (and mostly in 'western' societies) that it has become more & more acceptable mainstream. Cheers.

Kinda reminds me of a debate I once heard about heterosexual “unbelievers” being given grace to marry in church but none dispensed for a particular homosexual couple who were “believers” attending that actual church for years.

But in the same manner just as the secular populace resent the church and other religious institution interfering with the laws and politics of the state I can understand the religious populace not wanting the secular populace interfering with the laws of their beliefs.
But seeing that none is independent of each other (the happenings that occur in both the state and the church directly affects each other) the body that carries the most clout will eventually impact on the laws governing the other.
I appreciate your honest response, thanks.

Jesoul, just curious...do you believe marriage is the sole property of the church or any other religious institution?

I used to write, not so much in recent times though: Id share (don't laugh)

Ha I won’t but this command made me laugh

***

Not bad thanks for sharing. I particularly like “The Names So Dear” .

Just to be clear, when I talk of “context” I’m not making reference to the medium alone but the tool in relation to the period of it's formation, setting, society etc. Because when one reads the Qu’ran or any other “holy” book for that matter one has to understand or be careful to quote particular passages or verse(s) “in context”.
So seeing as the revelation which happened a very long time ago has been meticulously preserved I wonder are all laws and tenets that governed the people/society back then still relevant in today in an ever changing world?

Where is the exclusivity when most adherents are not even arab?

The exclusivity comes from having to apply and learn Arabic in order to capture the full essence of the revelation which is solely fixed in classic Arabic and apparently cannot be mapped out or translated precisely into other contextual forms. Despite there being a vast number of Muslims (many of which that are non-Arabs) have you or any other Muslims considered how much more “Muslims” there could have been in the world if the “truth” of the final revelation wasn't locked in only one context?

Talking of blind people

That’s nice but just to clarify I was using blindness as an analogy.

Image123: i wonder where you and jemwit got that definition.
God uses the same oxygen, the same water, the same fire to sustain the whole earth/humanity. i don't see it so odd that He chooses to reveal Himself in one same context to everybody. It's the context of faith in the only true God.

Really? Well I often wonder where the biblical god got the title “omnipresent” from when allegedly the revelation of such god was apparently exclusive and contained.

With all due respect, the truth of an omnipresent god being exclusively revealed in one context alone is difficult to fathom and accept unreservedly.

Is it fathomable that an omnipresent being apparently did not or could not reveal the truth of itself for centuries on particular continents?

Do you believe that at a particular period that people in the world had not an awareness of the “truth” before the bible and Jewish monotheism became epidemic?

The idea that the truth of an all present god had to be publicized before the world “he” apparently created and hovers around ironically shows a lack of faith in god. Confirming the truth of god is one thing but to suggest that a significant segment of the world knew nothing of such truth for centuries is rather inconsistent to the personality of the god that such individual/collective claims is “omnipresent” no matter how certain groups interpreted the truth according to the context of their surrounding.

Claiming to be the sole owners of the truth and that nobody else outside the Eastern window could have had any prior reckoning of the truth immediately annuls the characteristic of an “omnipresent” god.
Claiming that the truth of an “omnipresent” being was made manifest through one context that holds no relevance or impression to one’s greater core but for only a specific group actually marginalizes a huge fraction of the globe. My value is thus only based on my conformity unlike a Jew who is automatically relevant.

Really, could not the “infallible” truth have been locked into our essence than contained in one context that betrays partiality?

bayooooooo: Honestly, the more you examine all these faiths from Judaism, to Christianity to Islam etc, the better convinced you become that the idea of God's existence is entirely man-made and that there is indeed no God sitting on a proverbial throne anywhere.

I can accept that there are elements of truth within all belief systems but as to which extent these truths begin, end or have been borrowed is another question entirely.

But I don’t appreciate the fact that some belief systems should be given greater validity solely based on their geography or population because if there is an omnipresent god then such being’s essence would have or should have pervaded all time and societal barriers and be interpreted by various cultures, individuals and periods in various contextually relevant ways so if people from all over the world was privy to at least fractions of the “truth” then all articles and knowledge of a deity in one’s immediate society should pose as a piece of puzzle to a global jigsaw and not marginalized for failing to belong to the club of Abrahamic religions.

Infact, the world would be a better place without religion.

Or maybe the world would be better without particular religions relegating other belief systems. Honestly I doubt the world would be a stimulating environment if the whole global population belonged to a specific religion.

"Somalians?" Is that a correct term? My friends from Somalia always assert it's Somali

Cool site. Thanks for the link. I love spoken word. Do you compose poems yourself?

Interesting subject and introductory post originally composed by mrmayor.

I’m curious; do those who adhere to the belief of reincarnation and a soul thus believe that there’s a limited number of souls?

jamace: Sosongo means thank you for efik/ibibio language.

Sosongo

[quote author=Na-Me]Na wa o! Me never see this thread before. Abeg make pesin polish im pidgin vocab jare![/quote]

@PhysicsQED thanks for the info. Were these particular animals with their special status thus perceived as sacred in the Bini Empire at the time?

deols: its understandable. no probs, we'r cool

Many Muslim guys join in wearing skinny jeans . I just know there was something wrong about that.

Lol.

^^^

I can see I have a lot to learn about Islam and the Qu’ran.

Whenever you want..

Hhmm can you start by telling me what you think of philosophy and what you believe it’s purpose is. I ask because of what the gentleman in the video said concerning (in his own observation/experience) a correlation between philosophy and those who oppose religion.

Do you think philosophy is a refuge for the irreligious?

By the way have you ever found some of the questions I’ve asked concerning Islam or even God offensive?

Well I’ve been spying on this thread for some time and I’m not yet desensitized by the magnificence of these breathtaking masterpieces and can’t help wondering how proud the Binis must be of all these artifacts on display.

@PhysicsQED There are a few recurring motifs I've spotted and I suspect they carry a lot of meaning and symbolism.
Maybe details as to their significance has been posted before so perhaps I can be directed to those pages but I wonder what some of these animal motifs mean i.e. the leopard, snake etc?
Btw Physics I do admire your work here on the culture section and the invaluable information you’ve shared. I’ve learnt so much from your threads.

Haba! you wey be nativedoctor you no fit conjure up some charms to resolve this issue eh?

Baffles me why women expend a lot of time and energy in being hostile to each other

Yeah we should be using that time to plot and take over the world


However women are not "naturally engineered to be hostile to each other" but we're a product of our competitive society.