₦airaland Forum

ckkris: Every sincere observer must admit that countries founded on Christian Bible values, though more nascent than India, Babylon, China, and other ancient civilisations, are better organised, more prosperous, enjoy higher dignity and quality of human life, for men and women, rich and poor, aliens, and the under privileged, than countries that are founded on other values. The Good News of Jesus Christ is just too good to be ignored.

This is just more propaganda (unless you can back it up) for morality precedes religion.

Like Pazienza I also enjoyed every word of the article. I also appreciate the valid points raised by 9jafreak and 2good, I could not have worded it better myself and even recognise a few points made by ckkris concerning Christianity not being a product of Europe. I think point 8 in the article that states that Christianity was “hijacked” is a very key point to consider because I take exception to the term “white man’s religion”. I find the term to be a sorry misconception employed largely as a propagandist tool to make black/African Christians reevaluate their position in such faith.

Whilst I am aware of the “racial” politics in Christianity - at least that strongly took place in particular periods. And the dark history that haunts Christianity on other continents including Europe committed by men who at least claimed to be “Christians” but used Christianity as a tool - I still regard the term "white man’s religion” not only to be false but rather disrespectful to “black” believers whose own history and heritage intersected Christianity long before the faith took hold in Europe.

People like the Orthodox Ethiopians, Eritreans and the Coptics in Egypt have a longer history with Christianity than most Europeans/Caucasians yet the faith in which they observe gets popularly tagged as the “white man’s religion”.

I can even very well understand how the term came about due to those who propagated the faith in many parts of the globe (which is a key difference between the missionaries and the orthodox people because the orthodox do not evangelize). And also the popularly used yet controversial image of a “white Christ” but the biggest fallacy with the term even though trying to innocuously cause “black” Christians to review the founding of their faith and even reconsider the traditional beliefs actually donates ownership of the larger Christian body to the Caucasians which serves to eliminates other people’s standing in history (most especially some Africans) in relation to Christianity.

And whilst I perfectly understand and support that one should not accept that which appears to devalue another’s being whilst appreciating another (putting them in a superior position) should one reject or accept a philosophy/belief/science/idea solely based on the unfamiliarity of the courier and not the content?

I'm quite aware there are Africans who foolishly accept everything that has been presented to them solely because the giver was “white” but I also notice that some Africans discard anything presented to them by the “white” man and it should not be based on appearances alone although history teaches us to be cautious we should at least review the content of any message and it’s carriage of course before rejecting or accepting it.

I don’t believe black people who are Christians should reject Christianity because of its perceived “white” heritage...they should rather reject it only if they believe it to serve no purpose to them but never satisfying that stereotype of it being the “white man’s religion”.

I accept that in certain parts of Africa Christianity was indeed introduced and imported by the Caucasians but that does not nor should qualify the belief system as a “white man’s religion” just as I would not render the beliefs of my forefathers as a mere “black” man’s religion...even though I recognize the difference was that “race” became a player and a theme in the spread of the so called “white man’s religion” which unfortunately taints Christianity as a whole.

But I do believe that it is good and a responsibility for all believers of all belief systems including the traditional ones to review the intricacies of their belief system and faith but I don’t believe that “race” should be the main basis upon which one is to review their faith unless that was the main basis upon which one accepted/rejected a particular faith.


As to the topic of the article 9jafreak went on to cement it with his/her brilliant post that's coupled with Achebe’s quote. I cannot even think of anything else to add. Très bien.

[b]@OP[/b]Is there such a tree known as "knowledge of good and evil"...or such a tree known as "the tree of life" at least in our current reality?

Have you ever considered if the fruit was indeed a metaphor?

And if indeed some will persist that none of these accounts were figurative then surely we cannot know anyway what type of fruit was consumed as no such trees exist in our present world.

I dey ooo....how does Palm wine taste like?

@OP watch a comedy show with him.

[quote author=p_kasso]Play Russian Roulette with her! [/quote]My idea of fun

Feat.

Chima[b]man[/b]da

odumchi: Lol. Have you tried eating it with peanut butter and pepper? It masks the bitter taste.

Peanut butter? Lol I’ve never heard of that style before.

I actually rely on the bitterness because I take kola as a stimulant so I don’t really want to mask the flavour even though I don’t always like the bitter taste.
But sometimes I usually wash my kola down with ginger beer or I accompany it with alligator pepper...however my father and sister wash their kola nut in salt and when we have guests we support the kola nut with money lol.

Ptolomeus: I have read it wrong? Or the article says that the tail is used the kola nut in Catholic communion?
Please! Somebody answer me! Someone answer me that I misread!

Lol...Hi Plotomeus

It’s not used in the Catholic communion it’s just that one man compared the significance and ritual of the kola nut to that of the catholic communion.

Have you tried kola nut before?

I’ve always been of that conclusion myself...it is certainly something most if not all Nigerian ethnic groups have in common. How remarkable; something so small like kola seems to serve as a common denominator to a huge nation. Personally I love what the kola symbolises...now if only I could just reconcile with the taste...

Judek2: I dont think you are making sence.. What the OP has done is a clear contrast between, not just the two you are trying to put together but the rest of beliefs.. Theres no connection whatsoever in the vague way you put it..

What would be the Christians stance on the qualification of their belief system if “religion” had an outstanding rep today worldwide? Would Christians latch onto and highlight the similarities or still try to reinvent itself from the design that qualifies as “religion”?

tell him: e gbola chi

My night was good. So Chimezie where did you disappear to...how have you been?

We are all atheists or we all have a measure of scepticism?

***

In truth prayer has several functions but the main function of prayer is communication with one’s god. How the believer chooses to exact this communication or whatever subject the believer chooses to address is entirely up to them but of course the manner of the prayer is influenced by their mood and circumstance.
Some prayers are that of thanksgiving some are requests and some even serve to vent out feelings and frustrations – perhaps then it can be considered therapeutic for some.
I think it’s also to maintain a sense of connection with one’s god (or who one believes to be god). Without believers praying to their god they thus sever that link (and their god’s existence in their lives) so prayer is an important medium in maintaining the believer’s relationship with their god.

Personally I regard prayers as voiced out emotions/feelings directed at the authority that governs ones beliefs. Admittedly I deem the theatrical kind of prayers as mere drama but there are some who are sincere and moderate in their manner.

***

@OP Hmm interesting write up although I don’t regard all the observations that were made but I can understand what informed them.

Faith exhibited in a collective as opposed individually is an attempt to render the beliefs of a particular system more realness. It’s as if one of the aims in acquiring a significant number of "followers" for a belief system is to be accorded more legitimacy as do witnesses provide. More people declaring that a particular account is true will make others begin to consider the possibility of that actual account being true. However the problem with this is that if the stories from these “witnesses” differ and even contradict each other then people will of course question the validity and authenticity of this supposed “one” and “true” account. But of course there are some witnesses that rehearse their stories till it’s perfectly in tune with each other.


So I think it is religion and not faith that is a “coerced attempt to outwardly accept myths that do not resonate within an individual's inner mind or soul”. The number in these collectives are perhaps supposed to pose as a surety encouraging others to have faith in that particular deity as the more witnesses there is the more it may serve to validate a particular account. Faith was always meant to be an individual matter, religion just tries to have a monopoly on other individual’s faith under the guise of like mindedness, belief in the same god etc...but having a belief in the same god does not mean that faith will or should be identical or a group effort.
But the thing with maintaining a collective is that if one falls those adjacent are likely to be affected as well. Being in a collective allows for a hierarchy and thus inequality and even dependency. I suspect that people who are more susceptible to insecurity, gullibility, complacency and doubt may need an adhesive and support network i.e. religion to enable them to continue to peddle their supposed individual “faith”. If one begins to doubt then their “brothers in faith” will be there to dispel those feelings and mollycoddle them back into 100% believing.

Reflect and share thoughts with him.

[quote author=D.pinaku]Neat[/quote]Peat.

Nasarawa

oseiwe: my mama na frm delta, i was born in delta, i join abi?

Of course na...Deltan pikin welcome.

azpekuliar: Wonyo?

Me yo.

Souldust has already said it all...but I will add on top of that.

I find it rather interesting that when the traditional belief systems in Africa were demonized and marginalized in favour for the popularly perceived “civilized” Abrahamic Faiths these native beliefs were branded as mere superstition not even qualifying or considered as a “religion”.
Now today the connotations of “religion” is no more favourable it seems that Christians now wants to disassociate from the stigma by insisting that Christianity is not a religion although the format is strikingly similar to what is deemed as religion.
I also see it as a lame attempt to make Christianity appear unique and divorce it from its past handlers who were religion mongers that blackened its image. Whilst Christianity may distance itself from the tag “religion” sadly for the belief system it can never distance itself from the atrocities that have and were committed exclusively under the name of Christianity.

Funnily enough suddenly the traditional belief systems qualify as “religions” now that the term has been soiled beyond repair by the “civilized” Abrahamic Faiths...what a turn around.

It just goes to show that one man’s faith is another man’s superstition.

P.S. it seems to me that Nigerian Christians are more invested in the positive PR they could generate for Christianity than any other nationals...at least that I know of, even though the opposite desired effect seems to be taking hold.

@OP the answer to your question is simply no. Yes, many believers accord the authority governing their belief by the same title - “God” - but all these entities and various interpretations called “God” are not of the same personality neither are they in harmony with each other i.e. Muslims do not adhere to the trinity although the authority they address and submit to has the same title as the Christian “God”.
Religious people believe in a "God" not necessarily the same "God".
It’s similar to the word “Dad”. Children have different dads but address their fathers with the same general title although they and their fathers recognize who is being called. These fathers although playing the same role - "D[/i]ad" - have different personalities and more importantly different children.
However even [i]some believers of the same belief system adhere to different interpretations of “God”.

Goshen360: ^
It is NOT God, some improper translation are due to not getting accurate word from the Greek and Hebrew into English. Its from men. What am saying is for us to be careful because a word missing or not giving the right concept can mean different thing entirely. I strongly advice that we stick to Kjv while we compare or read other translations for better clarification and understanding. Even the Kjv, there are counterfeit because of greedy/ungodly men and piracy/imitation. A lot is going on out there, just for us to be careful is my message. I read other version and quote from them where necessary but stick to the kjv and Nkjv

The bible with its various versions definitely have different flavours – I too prefer the KJV solely because I’m a fan of archaic English however all these various translations that renders different meanings put’s the legitimacy of the bible at stake. But even if there was little to no mistranslations in the book, a literary article is still open to various interpretations and as such could be misinterpreted. A medium such as a book is not secure from tampering thus I wonder why would god allow the legitimacy of “his” word and truth to be at stake by exclusively containing it in a fallible medium such as a book that was written by others? As you have rightly inferred...”this is serious”.

Thanks muami for posting that I actually gained a few things from the survey.
trent9002 I concur.

@OP Do you believe a book is sufficient enough to guide many in faith?

Is it plausible that a brilliant god would put the infallible truth in a book that is fallible to various kinds of tampering?

Yes you are indeed right concerning the true background of the “immaculate conception”...I even viewed the painting recently and read the accompanying description yet still confused the "virgin birth" with that of the “immaculate conception”.
So in the whole time of me posting on this thread when I refer to the “immaculate conception” I thus mean the “virgin birth”. Pardon me for the mix up.

Some of you are so eager to get on nairaland and spew trash on when you should just listen and learn.

It goes both ways.

[quote author=Ejiné]Why do you Nairalanders always have this innate urge to annex other people's ethnic groups just because they're not as 'populous' as you are?

I hope, for your sake, this isn't how you all reason in reality. Because if it is, then that is one seriously dangerous way of life [/quote]Exactly, it's as if they view the smaller ones as jara (smh).

First of all which “God” was the subject of the discussion would be my first question. There are many personalities of that in which one calls “God” and if we are to attach much realness on a specific “God” what criteria is that based on?

It appears that the “God” under discussion was the one the bible alludes to due to certain references that was made i.e. perfect, likeness of God etc...
But then one may even argue that maybe this biblical “God” is a counterfeit, a ruse...or perhaps “God” isn’t even "perfect" etc...and if there was a one true “God” this entity may not even be the biblical one.

Also there is also another angle to this question...”Does God exist?...Well Vivly, the fact that we are even discussing the concept already renders “God” some existence if not literal.

However I think you shouldn’t worry about it too much just enjoy your classes lol. I think your lecturer only wanted to expand your minds as to what you’ve been introduced to and get you and your peers to start asking questions which isn’t a bad thing in itself.

As per the question...I think you shouldn’t allow another to answer that question for you...we are all going to give differing answers so how will that alleviate your confusion? I believe the conclusion is for you alone to make. Don’t grant another the ownership over what you should believe or don't believe in else you may end up dependent on the one who determines what your conclusion should be.

Gag him

Beat.

Meal.

Lol strap him to the bed

Veil

Punk'D

Vain.