₦airaland Forum

I agree. And if we are to follow this exaggerated claim it would be more specific to say he died only temporarily and even had foreknowledge of his alleged resurrection...so who knows if that had a part to play in his willingness to be allegedly sacrificed. However I question this type of redemption that needed centuries to spread all over the earth where even up until today there are some groups of people in rural places that are oblivious to this supposed urgent redemption.

maclatunji...oh please be so generous as to share your vast knowledge to expand my “simplistic mode of thinking”

logicboy01: Yes and you can see the four corners of the earth from a high point, according to the bible.

Four corners of the earth is a reference to the 4 compass points. That passage is not suggesting the earth is angular.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]How so? which of the seven conditions I stated does not describe God.[/quote]I interpreted impartiality as neutral which god most certainly isn't.

It depends on who is considering your actions as wrong, remember you are the all-powerful, all-knowing creator and lawgiver. You would only have been wrong if you allowed Abraham to carry it out to the end because then you would be contradicting our own nature.

But you had already admitted that whatever god says is "good" so if Abraham wasn't stopped from sacrificing Isaac would you still not mark such command from god as "good"...after all Abraham would have just been seen to obey god.

dapsy d: the question that still trouble my mind as regards human being is that, why should human being always want to compare themselves with God. He is our creator, he can do anything he so pleases with our life. If for instance u use clay to mode something like pot and decide later to use the same clay to mode chair, who will question u and say u have not done well. So are we with God, its only a fool that will question his or her maker.

I do not compare myself with god; I will never do such a thing. The righteous atrocities of “god” far outweighs any unrighteous mischief I might have caused during my short span on earth.
But should god not be charged for the damages “he” has afforded people because of these unsolicited “test of faith” he so frequently conducts or are we just raw materials meant to accord this being continuous uncritical praise?

The clay I mould has no live personality and no conscious so if I was to remould the clay what hurt have I caused? What alarm should that arouse?

But if it’s perfectly okay for this biblical god to “do anything he so pleases” with human lives (as you are suggesting) because “he” allegedly allowed for our existence and the further nauseating excuse of such trials being a mere “test of faith” then such a being is not only highly conceited but also manipulative and for our sake should be kept very far away from us – well at least from me.

SimonAndal: If the story of Job is true, then I don't see God as evil, I think he just doesn't know what and how it feels like to be human. It's like the scientist and the lab rat, one is lord over the other, and so does whatever he likes to it. But if he could feel what the other feels, he'd stop his experiments with immediate effect. (Not the best of analogies, I know, but it's the best I can come up with. I'm only just waking up, you know.)
If half the bible is true, then it means God has lost his way and needs to know what being human is all about, 'cause question: if a king kills off your only child, or ten, your spouse and your livelyhood just to test your devotion to him, will you, truthfully, bow down with a clear heart? A heart sans animosity?

That is an interesting point but Simon the thing is scientists do not claim to “love” these lab rats they are experimenting with.

Sapphiredamsel: yeah,what i mean was dat d word 'love' is being overused &doesnt have d effects it ought to.earlier 2day,i got a call 4rm ma litu bro.mind u,he is just 17.he told me he loves a particular gurl.dis is d fifth tym he wi call 2tel m he loves a gurl-different gurls.what am i as a sister shud tell him 2do? Well,i said just two words;Be Careful....

Do you think the word gets cheaper when it's used in the various relationships of the proclaimer?

claremont: Here we go again. . .

Lol...what do you expect from a Romance board ...it's a guaranteed theme of discussion.

Sorry do you mean the word "love" has no useful meaning anymore or no use anymore?
Either way I don’t believe that’s the case however I think it’s perhaps an overused word; carelessly and naively employed. Perhaps even a case of mistaken identity as regards to what to term actual feelings and so a feeling not really qualifying as “love” might have been misinterpreted as love thus love is blamed when it may have possibly been an imitation in its stead.

Sapphiredamsel: i av got my observations&reasons

I would like to hear some of your observation and reasons...

Pastor AIO: Who fancies a general chat about Philosophy and what it attempts to do.

*raises both hands* I'm with thehomer on this - "Well I do".

TerryCarr: I....."African languages don't have a lot of speaks", and "There are too many languages" and other stupid things like that about language policy in Africa...... the only nations that don't have colonial are Ethiopia, Somalia, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco but nobody cares about the Arabs/Berbers so moving along.

Lol

Okay...I guess I hadn't really divorced the image I had of "God" when you asked me the question although I still think your description doesn't match that of "God" (well at least the one in the bible).

And I was looking at impartiality as neutral not fairness.

In any case if I had such characteristics I can thus provide the best possible answer but that doesn't necessarily mean that the solution I present may not involve an act that may be considered wrong like I talked about the case of murder in post no.10.

(However I would never create a situation where another will have to prove their loyalty or allegiance to me and that is why I find it hard to accept that the biblical god is impartial.)

I may know the final outcome and even the best possible solution but I would not interfere because that will betray a partiality IMHO.

Even though my convictions and my own understanding may not necessarily be in harmony with what your saying I really appreciate your comments.

As regards to the topic as an irreligious person I can perhaps also bend the rules if I believed my action may benefit the majority or even those who I have a loyal inclination to but I don't adhere to a moral agent only my conscious and common sense.
But if a god (regardless if the god is legitimate) ordered me to take the life of another (or commit something that would ordinarily be unpleasant or cause me to break the law) even if it was a "test" my conscious would be pricked so I would naturally decline. But if I perhaps understood the reasons why I was asked to carry out such action and how that may affect the majority and the future I would be really conflicted and whatever may inspire my next action would not be because of any "loyalty" to god but more so a sense of duty to my neighbours on earth.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]For anything to be a true standard for morality
1. It must be all-powerful or at least more powerful than man i.e. must be powerful enough to punish evil and reward good.
2. It must be omniscient i.e. must be able to properly know and understand everything and every motive
3. It must be all-seeing i.e. must be able to see a case from every possible angle. No evidence should escape it.
4. It must agree with man's conscience but must be able to determine when man deviates from the dictates of his conscience.
5. It must be impartial and must deliver justice irrespective of persons.
6. It must not waver and must not change with the wind i.e. what was once evil will not suddenly become good and vice versa(note this is different from it's permissiveness)
7. It must essentially be singular i.e. it must be of one mind and purpose and must not be self-contradicting.

It is to the extent of which a legal system satisfies these criteria that we can say it is a just law. Do you agree?

The criteria I have laid out are the characteristics of my God. Any other god must have these same characteristics to be an objective standard for morality.



I don't see any major difference; either way you would be good by doing whatever God says[/quote]Should our morals be attached to an agent that is not impersonal?

And what if other gods satisfied those characteristics that to you qualifies one to be an objective standard morality?

buzugee: rings ? yummy

Lol.

FXKing2012: But seriously, are u guys arguing that we wld have been better of if the missionaries never came? I mean, seriously, is that your stance?

Do you equate “salvation” with “civilization”?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Well, my God never changes, He is the same forever so there is no way He can possibly present an immoral act as moral.

About subjective morality and a society's ethical laws, I believe that here you are confusing morality with some sort of legal system. They are not the same. What we believe as right or wrong are universal.
Considering the examples you brought up, for instance we don't judge age of marriage by an actual age rather by perceived maturity. A government fixes a number so that it can make it a law.
As for sexual orientation, the same applies: we were made for heterosexual sex within marriage. any other form of sex is immoral and a weird kind of lust.

The law and morality are two different things.[/quote]Point taken about morality and societal laws. Sometimes the law of a society may even clash with certain morals although societal laws may influence an individual's moral compass.

Mr Anony but not everybody acknowledges your “God” and others may have their own god.

And don't you think there is a difference between saying...whatever god say's is "good"....against...it is "good" to do whatever god says?

X = Nothing

Stand back and watch the psychopath continue slapping the madame tussauds wax impression of me whilst I quietly dial the number for the local mental asylum

Wrong...it's emo[b]fine[/b]

Next:

Free Kola Xionez

The issue is not about reverting at all not even solely conserving. It’s about constructing and more importantly challenging these often held stereotypes.

FXKing2012: I'm tired of hearing these atheists making absolutely no sense but thinking they are making sense. How is the story of Job different from that of Abraham whom God tested his faith, he passed the test and God made him greater than he cld have ever imagined.
Job's faith was tested - God even boasted that Job is a righteous man who wldnt deny Him - and he (Job) was made greater than he ever was or ever cld have been.
As an engineer, when u build a new piece of machinery, you put it to the test to see how reliable it is. As a pharmacist, when u develop a new drug you test it to see how efficacious it is, etc etc. We are God's creation and there is nothing bad in Him testing our faith in Him.

Actually "God" wasn't testing Job "he" was proving Job.

^^
so now u don appear

Next:

cocoa/kola

abeg abeg abeg...wetin I fit talk again?

Xionez: Make I no lie. Bekay, chimezie et all.

na so o

@OP E-engineer + the whole class of Forum Games 2011

and you don goof big time

oya Xionez, no spoil my prediction o

Pore.

Xionez: The smell of air in the morning after a rainy night.

Me and you both.

Eat popcorn whilst watching Xionez and J12 duke it out

here we jus dey flex...

Watiyo - Don Bruce

@topic To murder for example is not considered good and is a breach of the law of all religious bodies and also in secular societies.
However (and this is in the most extreme cases) to perhaps murder a person (maybe such an individual is a national threat) may be seen to serve the greater society. Thus even though usually it is not seen to be good to murder, sometimes the goal post may shift and priorities may change. But we can still do wrong in the hope of making a situation right. So even though killing may be the right answer in certain scenarios does it make killing right? But even though such act of killing is immoral it still satisfies a moral obligation – i.e. police protecting the society...or I suppose it may even be attached to loyalty to one’s own nation etc.

Kay 17: ^^^

There is this intuitive feel about an action having an intrinsic moral value on its own, that its occurence triggers a subconscious moral judgement.

IF God's whims dictates the good and bad, then it goes against our moral antenna. For example, God instructs a genocide or murder, the individual receiving the order will be hesitant and feel that alarm in his head.

Loyalty is seen as a moral obligation, at least in one's philosophy, but within the moral scale is loyalty the highest priority? Sometimes. In some "moralities" self preservation is.

Precisely.

PhysicsQED: This is one of the things that has always bothered me about the story where Abraham was about to sacrifice his son Isaac. This is the first time I've seen the issue that was bothering me expressed so clearly though.

I know it was just a test of loyalty, but at the same time you have to wonder why Abraham was loyal when what he was being ordered to do was no less evil than what other "gods" made their followers do. What happened to his morality in that period of time when he resolved to go through with the sacrifice?

This story is just one of the multiple screwed up stories in the Bible, with the story of Job being another.

The issue with this is that in some cases it can be very dangerous...the example of Abraham highlights a deity who governs a moral framework but in order to test Abrahams faithfulness (loyalty) "he" orders him to kill – undermining a particular moral code "he" provided – and for that instant, attempting to sacrifice Issac is “good”. But after Abraham showed his willingness to oblige to the will of his “God” he is stopped...thus at that moment killing Isaac after being told not to would be deemed wrong. So within that sequence of events of “God” ordering Abraham to sacrifice his son and ordering him again not to...murder shifts from a bad act to a good act then to a bad act yet again...and what seems to separate an immoral behaviour from a seemingly moral one is loyalty...thus loyalty to “God” is placed above even “his” moral laws.

In this story I wasn’t gripped by Abraham’s loyalty so much as I was by “God”’s manipulation.

italo: As a believer, morality has to do with what is good, and what is good is what God says is good. I should not necessarily pick morality over loyalty or vice-versa because, to me, morality demands that i should be loyal...to God. I should be loyal to man as long as it does not lead me to be disloyal to God.

I hope i understood your question well.

So whatever “God” says is good?

But “God” (I believe you are Christian but correct me if I’m wrong) has already given a moral template for “his” subjects to follow and never break. So if whatever “he” says is good (which may possibly contradict with “his” own written laws as we have seen in the bible) why then have a standard moral code? Or is it not fixed? Or could they perhaps be broken at "God's" discretion?

In the Bible we have read instances where “God” ordered the Israelites to wipe out whole nations...in any other context this is genocide...but because “God” allowed for it...it is thus believed by “his” followers to be an act of “good” in that current situation because what "he" says is “good”...

So I’m left wondering should morality be attached to an altering agent?

And believers of a different faith/deity and even non-believers (who are not loyal to your "God") will certainly have their own moral framework...so that in which you or similar believers of your own faith may perceive as moral because of that in which ordained such act...may very well be regarded as immoral by people not in your faith...

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I agree with Italo here. Morality is not subjective. God defines what is moral and what is immoral hence there is really no conflict between morality and loyalty to God. I am speaking as a christian here.[/quote]Since “God” defines what is moral or immoral then couldn’t god tomorrow present a once considered immoral act as moral?

And when I said morality is subjective I meant that a collective/individual’s ethical laws may not be mirrored in another collective/individual’s society i.e. certain laws when it comes to marriageable age or s[i]e[/i]xu[i]a[/i]l orientation.

snubish: emphatically seconded!

online "relationships" are here to stay and about time too. as long as our communities continue to lose their social cohesion, and tend towards individualism, relationships in cyberspace are bound to increase. some people have an office-home-office routine as soon as they leave school; how are they supposed to meet prospective partners. 21st century life is too fast paced, and going online to socialize is just simply practical.

in the past, u went to a get-together, meet a few people, then probably initiate a relationship with someone. nowadays we go to a forum and one thing leads to another.

people generally let down their guard when online, so we find that internet discourse is usually more obscene than real life banter. i dare say that due to this absence of pretense, relationships initiated online have the potential to be more fulfilling and meaningful than the other type.

as with all things with great promise, online affairs are fraught with significant risk, and much maturity and discretion is required. we humans in spite of having evolved intellectually are still very physical beings, i would not advise anyone to fall in "love" online. however the internet is a welcome place to meet someone, then arrange for a physical meeting and watch how things go from there. it is not a joke for adolescents. the link below from the guardian today may be enlightening.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/jun/29/love-online-dating-websites-facebook

Interesting points....and as regards to the bit in red ...but what if it was purely a platonic relationship and both characters involved were sincere about who they are? Would it thus matter if it their affair never spilt offline?