₦airaland Forum

EDIT ballsed up copy and paste!

cyrexx: cyrexx:

you mean the cannibalism of when Jesus says his followers should eat his flesh and drink his blood

and genocide of when the bloodthirsty Yahweh orders his followers to murder everyone in the whole town including all children and women.

Oh, basis for moral indeed!


you mean the "genocide" of when the bloodthirsty Yahweh orders his followers to murder everyone in the whole town including all children and women.

It was right in those days but wrong in these days, abi?

basis for objective morality indeed!

^^^ If you are trying to get my attention, I ignored that previously because it is simply juvenile.

And I am not insulting you, just stating a fact. I think even honest and objective atheists will tell you the same.

Kay 17: It would be distasteful to say cannibalism is not universally immoral

Kay 17: The inconsistency in Christianity

You are being silly and you (should) know it. The inconsistency is with your atheism and holding cannibalism to be "universally immoral". The two are incompatible as I have shown you before; and as atheist "intellectuals" like Nietszche, Sartre etc acknowledged as I have also pointed out to you previously.

mkmyers45: Yes, it is as general acceptance of right and wrong is tantamount to change with time....

Therefore:

- cannibalism can be moral as it has been at some places and times.

- genocide can be moral as it has been at some places and times.

What then is your problem with "God" again?

mkmyers45: As of 13:35pm today It is universally immoral as even cultures wherein they were accepted are relaxed towards negate such acts.....

First of all, I am not sure you are right as there are probably still cannibalistic societies out there.

More importantly in any event, you are saying cannibalism was moral yesterday but it is not today.

Genocide was moral in Rwanda only a few years ago but maybe it is not moral there anymore.

So "morality" to you is basically dependent on place and time!

mkmyers45: Hint: Basis are influenced by some many factors....Can you kindly answer the question?

If you mean your own question, my answer is that "morality" is not possible without an objective reference point which may possibly be what you mean by an "authoritative source".

I have placed "morality" in quotes very deliberately because another issue would be whether you regard "morality", as you are using it, as universal or relative/local/individual etc.

For example, the logic that many atheists have presented here is that cannibalism is not immoral insofar as it is acceptable in a/the particular society where it is practised.

Can we say cannibalism is always and universally immoral?

^^^ It is the same question that I asked in a different way: what is the basis of anything being moral or immoral?

And I gave the examples of cannibalism and genocide.

Exactamundo!

I no know whether the guyman na atheist, as if him na atheist then e go be say hin just dey practise him own religion of evangelical atheism.

As one of them boffins talk am:

Evangelical atheists who want to convert the world to unbelief are copying religion at its dogmatic worst. They think human life would be vastly improved if only everyone believed as they do, when a little history shows that trying to get everyone to believe the same thing is a recipe for unending conflict.

lol I suspected so you know!

Enuwe, roughly e mean say person wen dey chop bad thing, e dey find person to join am.

buzugee: [b]I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ARE FIGHTING THE ISSUE SEF. YOU DONT BELIEVE IN IT. YOU THINK ITS ALL CRAP. THEN STICK TO YOUR ATHEISM. WHY IS IT SUCH A SORE POINT OF CONTENTION WITH YOU ? [/b]its like me fighting about what i dont believe in. does that make sense to you ? you dont believe in it. understandable enough. then leave it alone. lol are you schizophrenic by any chance ?

@Buzugee, I believe I've seen you write in Yoruba and I hope you can understand the following.

A jẹ egbodo o n'wa ẹni kun'ra.

Elephant in the room: what is the basis of anything being "moral" or "immoral"?

Afterall cannibalism is "moral"; even genocide is "moral"!

[quote author=Mr_Anony]. . . .

You have no proof that the bible was composed rather than compiled at the time of Constantine. .. . . .[/quote]The claim is rubbish as usual (whether of 'composed' or even of "compiled" ).

Old Testament canon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon

New Testament canon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

[quote author=Mr_Anony]. . . . Now as to why Jesus must have existed,
To say that He didn't would mean that you will have to question the existence of his disciples and that of Paul and consequently tracing down the history of the church would be a futile attempt.. . . . .[/quote]Per Pliny the Younger as Governor writing and reporting to his Emperor -

They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.

Kay 17: I don't know.

No problem, Kay; it seems we are actually in agreement more than discord on this.

^^^ In hindsight perhaps the above question is not even necessary since you said it is a hope and that mankind might not even live long enough to be able to understand the "world".

Kay 17: that the world in its entirety will be understood by man. Yes by necessary implication, but its a hope. Humanity has to survive long enough for that to happen.

When do you expect humanity to be able to travel to Neptune, to Pluto etc before talking of understanding the environment etc at the place(s)?

Kay17

Just one point -- you say:

Kay 17: I don't think this is true, rather its a fundamental principle by Science that humans are capable of perceiving and comprehending their surroundings/reality.

But you have overlooked an important word in the statement you are challenging; Cf again:

There's nothing in science that says the world can be finally understood by the human mind

And . . .

If Darwin's theory of evolution is even roughly right, humans aren't built to understand how the universe works. The human brain evolved under the pressures of the struggle for life.

Through science humans can lift themselves beyond the view of things that's forced on them by day-to-day existence. They can't overcome the fact that they remain animals, with minds that aren't equipped to see into the nature of things.

Darwin's theory is unlikely to be the final truth. It may be just a rough account of how life has developed in our part of the cosmos. Even so, the clear implication of the theory of evolution is that human knowledge is by its nature limited.

It's been said that the universe is a queerer place than we can possibly imagine, and I'm sure that's right. However rapidly our knowledge increases, we'll always be surrounded by the unknowable.

Science hasn't enabled us to dispense with myths. Instead it has become a vehicle for myths - chief among them, the myth of salvation through science. Many of the people who scoff at religion are sublimely confident that, by using science, humanity can march onwards to a better world.

But "humanity" isn't marching anywhere. Humanity doesn't exist, there are only human beings, each of them ruled by passions and illusions that conflict with one another and within themselves.

Science has given us many vital benefits, so many that they would be hard to sum up. But it can't save the human species from itself.

Because it's a human invention, science - just like religion - will always be used for all kinds of purposes, good and bad. Unbelievers in religion who think science can save the world are possessed by a fantasy that's far more childish than any myth. The idea that humans will rise from the dead may be incredible, but no more so than the notion that "humanity" can use science to remake the world.

A propos 'myth'; per John Gray --

. . . . . Even science isn't the attempt to frame true beliefs that it's commonly supposed to be. Scientific inquiry is the best method we have for finding out how the world works, and we know a lot more today than we did in the past. That doesn't mean we have to believe the latest scientific consensus. If we know anything, it's that our current theories will turn out to be riddled with errors. Yet we go on using them until we can come up with something better.

Science isn't actually about belief - any more than religion is about belief. If science produces theories that we can use without believing them, religion is a repository of myth.

Myths aren't relics of childish thinking that humanity leaves behind as it marches towards a more grown-up view of things. They're stories that tell us something about ourselves that can't be captured in scientific theories.

Just as you don't have to believe that a scientific theory is true in order to use it, you don't have to believe a story for it to give meaning to your life.

Myths can't be verified or falsified in the way theories can be. But they can be more or less truthful to human experience, and I've no doubt that some of the ancient myths we inherit from religion are far more truthful than the stories the modern world tells about itself.

The idea that science can enable us to live without myths is one of these silly modern stories. There's nothing in science that says the world can be finally understood by the human mind.

buzugee: whats your beef ? stroganoff ?

Naah; bourguignon!

InesQor: . . . . However what does "Christian" really mean, if not a life fashioned/patterned after the life and teachings of Jesus Christ? In the entire Bible, his teachings are the final word, to me.. . . . .

Colossians 2 (NLT)

2 I want them to be encouraged and knit together by strong ties of love. I want them to have complete confidence that they understand God’s mysterious plan, which is Christ himself. 3 In him lie hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

And by the way, the mere fact of the dismissal of this suit, without more, is a wholly unfair basis to level allegations of bribery/corruption against the judge.

Now that the thread has cooled down somewhat, here is something that it is worth everyone bearing in mind.

The action that has been dismissed is the action by the particular lawyer concerned with no indication that the girl who was the poor victim of the intemperate slap was involved.

If the victim herself was to come forward and get a competent lawyer to represent her, then it will be a different ball game altogether.

izenco2005: I have read that Russian scientists have drilled a deep hole in the Earth's crust and heard human voices screaming in agony below with super sensitive microphones. Also there was a bat like creature coming up out of that hole. •www.snopes.com/religion/wellhell.asp

But did you read the link in your own post?

davidylan: 1. I have nothing against the "god particle". I think it is a worthwhile investment.

2. There are many scientists who are still unsure that what was discovered is actually the Higgs Boson as theorized.

3. HOW does the "god particle" explain or justify the big b[i]a[/i]ng theory? Please explain to us in clear terms.

Re the bolded

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Will-the-Real-Higgs-Boson-Please-Stand-Up-75596.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171611/Is-God-particle-impostor-Scientists-claim-signal-Large-Hadron-Collider-Higgs-all.html

Of course you have no answer to the substantive points. NID

All the best.

frosbel: Yes , One physical throne, end of story

OK one throne no problem.

frosbel: Did he, never saw it, must have explained in greek.

You are all puffed up when you should be ashamed of yourself for not even reading what you have been responding to -- afterall you once quoted and replied to this earlier post of Olaadegbu.

OLAADEGBU: The verse here in Daniel says ONE throne. Let's discuss it further if you will.

"I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garments was white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool: His throne was like a fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire . . .(Daniel 7:9b).

We see One throne which God the Father (Ancient of Days) sat on.

If you continue to read until verse 13 you will discover that someone else was brought to the Ancient of Days, who is he? Let us read verse 13 to find out.

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought Him near before Him (Daniel 7: 13).

Who do you think was the Son of man that came with the clouds of heaven that came to the Ancient of days who was sitted on His throne? Remember that I agreed that it is one throne, so you now have no reason to evade this kweshun.

I posit that it was Jesus Christ, the Second Person in trinity that was brought near the Ancient of days sitted on the throne. What saith thou?

frosbel: Anyway , yes, one physical throne and one GOD sat on it.

Ah, do you want to explain how an infinite God can "sit" on a physical throne. Do you want to tell us the dimensions of the throne --- e.g. 4 feet by 4 feet etc? Does the throne have a back on which God rests His back?

davidylan: Mr. Okonkwo, many of us not just read science journals, we also author some of them. Most of them are as useless as the paper they are written on. One of the biggest problem pharma consistently encounters when it comes to science journals is the inability to replicate a vast majority of the "science" published today. Is okonkwo aware of this? I guess not.

This is one thing that many people do not know about academic writing and academic "papers". Quite a lot of it is tosh and/or fanciful nonsense.

frosbel: So tell me , how many thrones are there ?

OK, there is one throne.

So, tell me: is that one throne physical?

frosbel: No answer


I accept !!

You always had an answer; Olaadegbu told you a loooong time ago that there is one throne.

OK now you also have an answer from me: there is one throne.

Now you tell us: is that throne physical?

Let me help you further.

Ok we have Jesus seated at the right hand of the Father.

This means Jesus is on a "seat".

This "seat" has a footstool.

Is the seat on which Jesus sits physical?

Is the footstool of that seat physical?


Of course, you don't have to answer. This issue is far bigger than your own answers to the questions anyway.

^^^ Is the throne physical and does God physically sit on the throne?

Now let me help you!

Hebrews 10

12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool.

Is there one footstool and is the footstool physical?

^^ Do you believe there is one throne or that there are three thrones?

Is the one throne or are the three thrones physical?

frosbel: Okay , I get you point, you don't know.

thanks

Okay, I get your point too: you do NOT even know what you are talking about when you speak of "the throne of God".