₦airaland Forum

Jenwitemi: An objective God would stay away from influencing any event in the universe and just let things take their course. The God that we have being having shoved down our throat, on the other hand, is anything but that.

Well if "God" supposedly created us...isn’t that interfering already?

buzugee: always objective-never subjective

galatians 6 vs 7[b] Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap[/b]

acts 10 vs 34 God is no respecter of persons:

"God" (the one you adhere to) is not detached, has emotions, has consequences, is a Judge ...has a chosen people...thus such God is not objective.

Chimezie198: @OP abeg no vex . Trying to deliver a message.

...messenger, you want me to shoot you?

*Yesterevening I typed what I wrote in a slight hurry although I had thought about what I was about to write for a long time before I jotted it down.*

So I’ll rephrase some of my questioning...

If God is said to be universal does that make “God” a universal truth?
Is a universal truth necessarily an objective truth?
And are all objective truths universal?

When I mean “objective” truth I meant that in which is true regardless of personal belief...but a believer has to exercise personal belief in “God” in order to qualify as a “believer” anyway.

But “belief” is subjective, right? Or perhaps because the belief is in a particular “God” it’s subjective.

So the position is:

If there is a God...perhaps a “one true God”...so all believers from all belief systems alike will most likely agree to the idea that there is a God...(although amongst them it hasn’t been objectively resolved which “God” or “Gods” is legitimate)...but they all reconcile with the concept of God.

So if God is.....well then God will be an objective truth whether accepted universally or not...but that is dependent on “if”.
If it’s possible to explain an objective truth subjectively then such is the case with “God”...

However I’m more curious as to how this relates from the other side – If “God” is an objective truth...Is “God” objective? – at least the “God(s) we have been introduced to...although like I've written earlier an objective truth may be explained subjectively...

So maybe for a second (just for a second) if we forget all that we have been told about “God” as most often times it’s attached to biases -
My question is:
Could and should an objective truth act objectively?

***

The fact that the sun is hot or the earth is round is not dependent on whether we worship or believe in these elements or not...because they are independent of our opinions...these truths are impersonal, immutable and impartial thus they are objective.

However we have to believe in a “God” in order for this “truth” to manifest in our lives...thus this truth is dependent on individual opinions...how then could God be an objective truth?

When God is biased, betrays emotions and impartiality etc...but then we can be and are told that “God” like time exists regardless of whether we acknowledge this entity/force or not.
So I wondered...If “God” exists regardless of our inclination...would an “objective truth” proceed subjectively?

Even if I said the sun is cold...it would have no effect on that in which we call the sun. The sun wouldn't suddenly become cold because of my remark or because I declare it’s not hot...I would not be judged by the sun...I would not be condemned by the sun...but that is also because the sun has no expectation of me yet a relationship still exists.

Should not this way be mirrored by a supposed “objective truth” such as God? Wouldn't more people be likely to acknowledge such entity if given to impartiality?

If God is an objective truth...should God be objective?
If God is not objective why should we trust God’s judgement? Why should we trust God’s word?... And accept such as the absolute truth?
Do “objective truths” have a personality?
Can an objective truth be subjective in nature?

deols: i hope u'd entertain my curiosity as well.
If u arent atheist and not religious, what is ur religious belief

Do you mean what is my belief about religion or what is my "religious belief" or simply what are my beliefs?

@OP tell him to budge up...I wan join am sleep too (snoring)...

^^^
ah well u no try at all ...0%

Xionez!

Lol...join in on the pillow fight

There are truths which are objective.

Objective truths are impersonal thus invariable and impartial.

Many believers claim that "God" is a universal truth, thus supposedly an objective truth.

If there is a universal God...could this agent...or supposed objective truth act in an objective way?

Would an "objective truth" proceed subjectively?

Novak!

faithin9ja: I am old enough to remember Osibisa in the 1970's, Sunny Ade concert in London in 1980's and of course the perptual Fela. None of these musicians despite their worldwide fame never hit it big in mainstream music worldwide. They were always known as 'world music' an expression coined in the 1990's.

Well I find it rather ironic that those artists of “world music” have actually influenced mainstream music even though their music was not directly inaugurated into the mainstream whilst Dbanj (or whatever he’s called depending on the geography of his fans) is heavily influenced by mainstream music.

It is indeed a possibility that Dbanj may unfortunately be the biggest Nigerian musician to hail from Nigeria at least in this current era but biggest doesn't necessarily mean better. However when Dbanj’s fame finally fades sadly he won’t be remembered in the same light as those artists of so called “world music”. Authenticity and/or originality is the difference between “legends” and mundane musicians. And that is why Dbanj can be replaced whilst someone like Fela cannot. If one wants to leave their undeniable mark (which I suppose not everyone cares to and that is completely fine) they may have to become pioneers or forge their own style instead of patterning themselves on to already existing ones.

Also I might add that some of those “world” musicians had many opportunities to break into the mainstream but transitioning into the mainstream requires one to tailor their style so compromises have to be made that not every musician is prepared or willing to submit to. I’m pretty sure Dbanj can manage the requirements however.

By the way, I believe the term “world music” to be bogus and marginalizing thus I resent that term .

But D'banj is different, his music is making waves on the UK charts, played in clubs around Europe (not just the black or nigerian based clubs), Oliver Tiwst is getting a lot of radio play, even played in a very popular UK soap opera 'eastenders' when the show was showing young people having a party.

Lol I once recall Fela’s music being played on that show...

the track 'oliver twist' as most nairalanders know is actually sung in a mix of pidgin english and Nigerian slangs. this is bringing Nigerian pop culture to the world akin to reggae promoting jamaican patois or even American rap with hip hop of the 80's.

Hmm not quite. Despite the relative fame that Dbanj has acquired...Pidgin English (at least in the UK) was a lingo that at the very least many Urban Londoners especially in South and East London or any region possessing a significant Nigerian/West African diaspora was very much aware of but of course pidgin has never thus far eclipsed the clout of patois in the UK and understandably so given various factors i.e. music. If anything Dbanj may be credited with peddling its popularity not causing it.

So is D'banj on the verge of becoming Nigeria's most famous and influencial musician?

Well I would argue as of now he seems to be one of if not the most influenc[b]ed[/b] Nigerian musician and he imports more than he exports currently...but he has a goal and that is to be recognized. So I don’t doubt that Dbanj may very well be one of the most famous Nigerian musician...but not every musician’s goal is to become famous...some just want to make good music, some just want a platform to be political etc...and Dbanj wants to entertain.

I know many people will mention FELA, but the great Fela's music was never mainstream around the world and many newer Nigerian musicians are just FELA wannabes hence they are not really breaking new ground or getting really new auidences.

You have a point but it’s quite ironic given Dbanj and some of his colleagues who not only jump on the Fela bandwagon when convenient but some are also American wannabees...which is actually worse .

But that also goes to highlight my earlier point that Fela unlike Dbanj is irreplaceable because there was a uniqueness about his music and in extension himself that cannot be imitated and surpassed by even that of his sons.

However D'banj's music brings a fresh look at contempoary music that fit's well in current popular music despite it's Nigerian roots.

I agree.

Bear in mind popular music doesn't always have to be about' no light', no water', 'dem dey tief' - sometimes we just want to dance.

Of course and popular music doesn’t always have to be about copying another’s known style but it can satisfy an already known genre. And popular music neither means that such music is good...but that’s just my opinion.

No doubt that Dbanj is getting his name out there and it is being heard but let’s not exaggerate the implications of his fame .

Otumfour, u fit dance azonto?

Lol...@OP give him a big hug then tell him to kneel down and resume his begging

maclatunji: You have O, by saying you are an Atheist, I know you will grow out of it- youthful exuberance, I says.

Assumptions...assumptions...tut...tut....read my response to deols

deols: And thank God you are a religious person. To an atheist, the terms would av bn different.

Lol I’m not religious actually but not an atheist I’m just curious.

even though late on this thread, and some of my thoughts already expressed, I see a need to make my position clear.

Thanks for expressing your thoughts all the same.

maclatunji: Awwww, do I detect a slight tone of hurt there? Ok, I am truly sorry but trust me, Houri's aren't objects and are happy with what God has created them to be. I know that you are somebody I can always argue with without it degenerating so I don't want you to feel offended. I have an article that we might all find helpful. I will post soon.

Haha I’m not a fan of assumptions but worse things have been directed at me on this site. I know you mean no harm so I’m never offended when in dialogue with you even when we may disagree...no need for apologies I just hope I haven’t offended you during the course of our discussion sha.

Interesting...however I never knew that the Igbo language was ever in danger of being extinct...

I no know o...you fit narrate am for me?

@OP mud fight

Sino I appreciate your response, thanks.

maclatunji: ^emofine2 is suffering from the effects of western indoctrination. It is the classic case of believing that men and women must always be treated the same- which is a very popular farce, I have given examples before of how this is a big fat lie but she cannot kick the idea out of her head.

Amusing...Whilst your basking in the effects of Islamic indoctrination?
Maclatunji do you think I don’t know that women and men have differences?....even any two men or two women cannot really be treated identical...however our differences should be equally respected. Being created to be a man or a woman’s trophy is demeaning and objectifying hence my line of questioning because that is how I perceived the houris to be. And like I said in my opening post, the same question still applies if there are male versions reserved for any female believers.

And no you haven't given me (maybe you're mistaking me with someone else) any examples of how this is a big fat lie so I don't understand where you derived your last conclusion from.

A woman that enters paradise will have all that she desires and will not have time to be worried about whether men have Houris or not.

That's good for her but I was specifically discussing the nature and purpose of the houris not the other female cast.

There are many things she cannot understand. For example, does she know that angels never take the form of a female whether human or animal?
I guess she would find that offensive too.

offensive too? Do you think that I was inspired to ask my earlier questions because I was offended on behalf of the houris?

Actually I'm not offended that angels supposedly take the male form it just makes me wonder why it must be gender specific...

In the real world equity is the ideal not equality- for all intent and purposes we are not the same although a man is not inferior to a woman and vice versa.

Maclatunji some of your conclusions about me is premature because I am of the same opinion regarding what you have written above.

LagosShia: is it only men that enjoy $ex?

i think God have made us both enjoying our nature.i do not think there is any subservience in that.

*sigh*

I reiterate again, my emphasis was not on sex and my previous reply which you responded to betrayed nothing of the sort.
The purpose of the houris being created and whether they are being objectified was what I was focusing on.

^^
no be me o...na for religion corner I don take refuge sotey

jamace: Emofain, I dey hail o. How area na? For my side here, no shaking o.

I dey o nufin spoil for my side...

@OP inform him that I no be village girl o

...then nod my head politely, pretending to pay attention to all the latest hip hop update

...again u dey miss


gunnerz + M.C. Pow.Wow

bukatyne: i m splendid too.

al these stuff u typed in ur prev post, were u taught in church, by ur parents or is it wat u read in ur Bible? i mean wat is/was the source of ur beliefs?

Concerning our “god-given” roles?

I don’t go to church but when I used to attend such was a highlighted theme and the disparity is pretty visible in the bible. However if we are to regard the book we have to consider the bible in relation to its context at the time; studying the dynamics of the society it was written in. Religion of course is a product of culture and culture is indeed a factor that has affected/determined social policies.

Play "cowboys and Indians" with him

P.S.

tbaba1234: No one will be subservient in paradise;

So if paradise is a perfect abode...so in a perfect habitat no woman will be subservient to a man?

maclatunji: At the moment, your world may not revolve around a man. However, if by your middle age, your husband and kids are not the locus of your world- you do have a problem.

Why does it seem that the goal post seems to be changing?

That is only if I choose to have a husband and child(ren)...if I don’t I wouldn’t be redundant as I exist in my own right. If such was to happen then yes they would be my priority of course. My focus would have shifted and they would be thus another reason for me to live to see each new day but still they would not be the purpose for my existence which is what I’ve been highlighting over and over again. I exist in my own right unlike a houri - which is what I was saying all along.
I can decide not to marry, not to have a companion etc but houris don’t have that choice...because they were made for such, the basis for their existence thus they are mere provision.

I know, but seriously you will at least have to find a man that you would choose because of his gender or don't you want to get married?

I knew you were referring to marriage I was just waiting for you to come out and say it.
In the case of marriage then of course each partner will look for such quality in an individual before considering such person as a spouse but if one hasn’t married yet or even decides not to get married then whoever may assume that role doesn’t have to be gender specific. Admittedly marriage is not a personal ambition of mine.

The women I say I respect aren't all Muslims. Femininity oozes from ladies that have it, one can tell. My purported definition of femininity may not match a Houri because there is variation in earthly living and paradise. Women on earth have to earn paradise. Houris are a part of paradise.

Yes I gathered that the women you respect aren’t necessarily Muslim but those that unsurprisingly have “issues that have no contradictions to Islamic injunctions” ...if it was the opposite would you still render those women as the epitome of “femininity” and respect them as such?

Is there only one role one has to cater to in Paradise – that role being to be a companion?

Houris are meant to be loved now. Which do you prefer to be loved or lusted over.

Hhmm they sound like objects to be lusted over .

maclatunji: Now, this particular bolded comment proves that you have not yet fully embraced your femininity.

Declaring that the purpose of my existence does not revolve around satisfying men means I haven’t embraced my femininity? Are the houris the epitome of femininity?

It doesn't matter what you achieve as a woman, if you like become President/Queen of the world. You would not have fulfilled your full potential if you don't have a man you look up to for support and whom you would be willing to give-up virtually everything for.

Is the person that I by all accounts have to look up to for support and one I’m willing to sacrifice everything for have to be a man? Soley because they are from the opposite sex? So I’m not complete without allowing a man to assume that role?
Maclatunji, if justifiable I can very well look up to a man but not because that person happened to be male...it would be due to the calibre of such person’s character/role and not due to the person’s gender.

A good-enough example is the Queen of England, despite the hype that surrounds her, she has remained level-headed and respectful of her husband. Going by what you are subtly inferring, she probably would have had him kicked-out after some years and could easily have had her way- isn't she the British monarch?

What am I subtly inferring? It’s exactly because she’s the British monarch she’s deliberate in her actions (I’m not saying that’s bad per se) but everything she does is considered and as already mentioned such marriage (which were even often arranged at least back then) are marriages of convenience. So I can guarantee you that she remaining with her husband is not largely because she’s “respectful of her husband”.

I am not married, but there are ladies whom if they told me to "do this" or "not to do that" on issues that have no contradictions to Islamic injunctions, I would find it difficult to say "No", some are much older, some are my mates- I hold their opinions and views in high esteem not because they seek to be "Amazons" but because they have truly embraced what it is to be a woman and my God! It does bring them much distinction in my view.

So basically you find ladies that have views in line with Islam to be ones that have embraced their womanhood?

Femininity is being true to yourself as a woman- this means being a 'good' daughter, sister, wife and mother. 'Good' in that definition means being a source of joy, inspiration, support. In addition, it means being a care-giver, an adviser, a partner, a friend, a stabilizing influence and so much more.

Surely, emofine. You don't expect me to teach you how to be a woman.

You see all that you have described here is not pertaining to an exclusive role... there is so much any man and woman can fulfil here on earth ...and both are not necessarily or only inter-dependent on another but even with those of the same gender....
The irony is all that you have purported femininity to be doesn’t really summarise a houri....who does she inspire in her sole role?

Anyway you skipped my question...are houris to be loved or lusted?

LagosShia: in religion,the emphasis of the purpose of creation is to serve God in many ways possible.

animals on earth are created for what purpose? is it as a "consolation prize"? are they created to satisfy man? and what about them being in God's plan?

your very own "lord and saviour" who was a man and the supposed "begotten son of God",what is his role on earth and why did God send him for? was it not to replace rams being slaughtered and take the role of animal sacrifice,according to christianity and become a "human sacrifice",that christians believe is the only way to salvation?so someone who has a "lord and saviour" taking the role of a sacrificial animal and died to save animals from being slaughtered,should find it easy if women have certain roles in society or even in paradise which include to take care of their husbands and satisfy their needs as companions.after all the very bible says that a woman's head is the crown of her husband's glory.

a woman has the role of companionship to play.her role in society is clear or she may have many roles to play.

Are you mistaking me for someone else on this thread? I don’t remember telling you that Jesus was my lord and saviour.

tbaba1234: Your family is a provision from the creator; If you hold them in such high esteem then you should hold the one who has given you your family in even greater esteem. you do not make the choice to be born or what kind of family to be born into...

I think your problem is the fixation with the word 'prizes'... With that mentality, you family is also a prize because you do not make a conscious decision to be part of that family. You are a prize to them as they are to you.

Why? because the decision to belong to a family is independent of you or them.... We own nothing... Not even our families...

Everything is a provision... Everything is a prize (using your terminology).

Even though we're both using the same term “prize” I think in our minds we may have a different definition.

Prize is not the same as gift. A gift is freely given, a prize is won thus is conditional. I don’t regard my family as a prize.

The Houris are a creation; they were created to be companions of the pious...

Hence my point. If no male believers were to make it to Paradise they are thus redundant.

Perpetual virgins?? where did you get that from? I would suggest you learn about Islam from Islamic sources... The only thing said about the houris is that

a. creatures with large, dark eyes
b. Neither Men or Jinn have touched them.

Where does perpetual virgin come from ??

The earth is imperfect, Paradise will be perfect, The houris shall perform what they were created for and would be happy. Just like everyone in paradise.

Ok, pardon me. I was informed that their virginity doesn't expire even after being deflowered...but yeah I agree with you I should study all this first hand.

No one will be subservient in paradise;

So houris and other females are not subordinate to men in Paradise?

tbaba1234: Look at it this way, every thing you have is a prize or a provision, Even on the earth... Everything you have is a gift, Does that objectify your wife or kids which have been given to you as gifts from your lord?

I guess that’s where we differ in perspectives. I don’t view my family as “prizes” I view them as priceless.

maclatunji: women were created to be companions of men and you lot are objects of our desire and sources of pleasure for us here on earth.

Now can you tell me why man was created?

Does the bolded prevent you from being all you want to be and from positively impacting on the world?

No but what you have asserted in bold has defined all that a houri is to be...I’m not a houri - the purpose of my existence is not to satiate another man...I have no obligation to men.
Which makes me ponder....do the “pious” men lust or love these houris?

Don't shy away from your femininity, embrace it. Islam accords women a place of esteem and honour at all times and that includes Houris as well.

Please define femininity? What makes you think I shy away from it?

sino: @ emofine2 Many are times we conclude that our spouses are God's gift

Yes, some people do use expressions such as “God’s gift” to describe their significant other but that doesn’t establish the purpose of the existence of any partner here on earth.

@sino + tbaba

The companions of paradise are indeed rewards to the pious, they are solely created for the believers to play so many roles which might not be known to us.

Just as the houris are a provision for you, you are also a provision for them.... It is both ways.... By your definition, you are also being objectified for them....
Your provide companionship for them as they do for you.

Houris and not the “pious” are the “rewards”. Some people keep on stressing that houris will be a recipient of pleasure from their companion as much as they provide their companion with pleasure but that does not subtract from the detail that the houris are the prize and the believer thus the winner of such prizes. Or can one say that the believers are also as “prize” to the Houris?

What constitutes as a prize? What are prizes made for? An incentive? Without any wiling participants a prize's value will thus depreciate. If there was no participants there’ll be no use for prizes. If there were no male believers in Paradise would Houris still exist?...What will be their value?

The fact that houris are said to be perpetual virgins (correct me if I’m wrong) will always make me think twice about the alleged remark about equivalent pleasure.

For the most part...On Earth women unlike houris have a choice. We can decide if we want male companions unlike houris who are obligated in their “roles” which serves as a reward for another.

Which leads me to ask...will females be subservient to men in Paradise?

sixty

Ask him if I can take a sip from his Zobo drink...the name sounds sweet sha