₦airaland Forum

Would be interesting to see what students of the history of christianity make of this one!

Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23786668-12377,00.html

FRANCE plunged into a heated debate about its marriage laws today after learning that a court had annulled the union of two Musli-ms because the husband said the wife was not the virgin she had claimed to be.

Politicians, feminists and human rights activists denounced the verdict, handed down last month but reported in the national press only on Thursday, as an affront to the legal equality of men and women and a violation of a woman's privacy.

The hoodwinked husband's lawyer responded just as forcibly that civil marriage was a legal contract. The court invalidated this one because the wife had lied about what French law calls an "essential quality" of a contracting party, he said.

Concerns about traditional Musli-m views creeping into secular French law hung over the debate, but the strictly legal basis of the verdict forced critics to ask how two principles - contract fraud and sexual equality - could be reconciled.

"It is profoundly shocking that, in our country, a marriage can be annulled on the basis of non-virginity before the marriage," Frederic Lefebvre, spokesman for President Nicolas Sarkozy's governing UMP party, said.

Prominent feminist Elisabeth Badinter said the courts should defend Musli-m women, not pressure them.

"The end result will be that some Musli-m girls will rush to hospitals to have their hymens sewn back together again," she told France Inter radio.

Musli-ms make up about eight per cent of the population in France, which has vigorously defended its secular system against their occasional religious demands by banning Islamic headscarves in the civil service and in state schools.

Xavier Labbee, the husband's lawyer, denied that religion had anything to do with the verdict.

"The law says that when there is an error concerning essential qualities of one of the spouses, an annulment can be sought," he said on LCI television.

The same clause has been used in French courts to annul marriages in which one person discovered only afterwards that the other had concealed a divorce or had a physical or mental disability that made a normal sexual life impossible.

The rector of a large mosque in the northern city of Lille, where the case was tried, also denied Islam played any role.

In Islam, Amar Lafsar said, "virginity is not a necessary condition for marriage". The religion preached chastity before marriage but Musli-ms could heed or ignore the message.

"They're free," he told RTL radio. "They're in a country of law and liberty. Each is free to respond or not to the message."

Badinter said the verdict ignored the fact some traditional Musli-m families shunned sexually active single daughters.

Recalling some young women were even murdered in so-called "honour killings", she said the wife in this case "did not have the freedom not to lie , she lied in self-defence."

Laurence Rossignol, women's rights spokeswoman for the opposition Socialist Party, called the verdict unconstitutional.

"If the civil code could produce such a decision, we have to change it urgently," she said.

Lefebvre suggested an appeals court review the verdict.

"We are certainly not going to ask the wife to appeal, because if the verdict is annulled and the marriage is validated, that would probably not be good news for her," he said.

elizabetta:
Are you a christian?

Why is this relevant?

It is usually said that love is the most important and basic of human emotions, and to use the cliche "love is blind" pretty much describes the overwhelming and indiscriminate nature of the drive for love. The drive for humans to express their love romantically and emotionally to other humans is a very strong and innate desire.

Given the foregoing, why is there some much opposition (amongst traditionalist) when someone finds romantic love with someone of the same gender? What is problems with such relationships when it is our basic desire for love that is being expressed and fulfilled in same-sex relationship as in heterogenous relationships?

That is why I posited the thought experiment. If "woman" is replaced with "African", would that be discrimination against Africans. If so, why is it discrimination in one case and not in another?

imhotep:
2) Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of Our ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) We declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
---- Pope John Paul II

3) "[The Church] holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church."
-- Pope Paul VI

4) "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination." --- Cathechism of the Catholic Church

=============
See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinatio_Sacerdotalis

Does this not smack of discrimination against women? If there was any other institution that treated other groups of people like that, could that institution be described as discriminatory?

imhotep:
Cardinal Arinze is an African + Nigerian, among many others.

https://www.osv.com/Portals/0/images/ARINZE.gif

Your thought experiment fails.

Oh my goodness! Did I say African could not be in that position?

OK, find me a woman in that position?

Consider the thought experiment:


VATICAN CITY - The Vatican is slamming the door on attempts by Africans to become priests in the Roman Catholic Church. It has strongly reiterated in a decree that anyone involved in ordination ceremonies is automatically excommunicated.
ADVERTISEMENT

A top Vatican official said in a statement Friday that the church acted following what it called "so-called ordinations" in various parts of the world.

Monsignor Angelo Amato of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says the Vatican also wants to provide bishops with a clear response on the issue.

The church has always banned the ordination of Africans, stating that the priesthood is reserved for non-Africans. The new decree is explicit in its reference to Africans.



If an institution held that belief, why would Africans want to belong in that institution?

imhotep:

The existence of God can be proved in five ways.


1.) The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.


2.) The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.


3.) The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.


4.) The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.


5.) The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

This is a case for his existence. My questions is about his identity. Can't you do better?

olabowale:
@Huxley:
I do not know Zeus, and i do not know Mithras. These are dead things. They have no power to take or give anything, truly. I am a M.u.sli.m and nothing else when it comes to religion. I think I have made myself very clear to you on this subject and related ones on this board. To ask me about Zeus or Mithras, is a more remote subject to me than you asking a city dweller to tell you the mind of a bush baby. I mean the animal called bush baby, not people living in the bushes.

You clear to not understand sarcasm and the rhetorical side of debating. Let me spell it out simply;

You have mad a claim that All.ah knows your heart 100%. How do you know that? If the Alla.h is your own cognitive sense, then yes. But if Alla.h is an independent being, then you have to show how he comes to know your heart.

In other words, if I postulate that Zeus or Mithras knows my heart 100%. What would you make of that claim? Are there any truth values to the claim? If NOT, how do you know that there are no truth values to the claims?

I hope that helps

imhotep:
You are both deluded and insecure.

One of the highest points of your analysis will be to conclude that homosexuality is fantastic. We have seen your type before.

You have a penchant for mis-directing threads, haven't you?

Anything that we know for sure about Jesus?

Any exegetical light to shine on this one?

imhotep:
2 billion Christians believe the bible, 1.5 billion M-uslims accept parts of the bible as true.

Stop wasting your time.

They are all deluded

Any answers?

olabowale:
@Huxley: My God Al.l.ah knows my heart. 100%

Is it in the same way that Zeus or Mithras knows your heart 100%?

Wonder what light could exegetical analysis throw on this?

This story, beloved for its revelation of God's mercy toward sinners, is found only in John. It was almost certainly not part of John's original Gospel. The NIV separates this passage off from the rest of the Gospel with the note, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53--8:11." That is, the earliest Greek manuscripts, the earliest translations and the earliest church fathers all lack reference to this story. Furthermore, some manuscripts place it at other points within John (after 7:36, 7:44 or 21:25), others include it in the Gospel of Luke (placing it after Luke 21:38), and many manuscripts have marks that indicate the scribes "were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials" (Metzger 1994:189). Furthermore, it contains many expressions that are more like those in the Synoptic Gospels than those in John.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=4&source=1&seq=i.50.7.7



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9j6SF38S3c&feature=related

4 Him:
more roundabout discourse saying nothing of substance. God was an integral part of the lifestyle of the men who drafted the US constitution and served as its founding leaders.

As for christian principles? Please read the bible.

Which of these from the Bible are christian principle?

1) Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death. Exodus 21: 17

2) Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD. (Leviticus 19:18, NIV)

3) Stone a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding day

4) Do not defend yourself against evil. Instead turn the other cheek (the one on your face, not the one on your bottom; in case your are a Catholic priest)

5) Make no plans for the morrow

Conversations With History - Bart D. Ehrman. Looks promising;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Trt1ZWR5PqQ&feature=related

Enjoy!

What are christian principles and where are they in US legislative documents?

Does god know what is in our hearts?

The book of Job explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5c8q_cJ0sU

Enjoy!

4 Him:
It is usually claimed by noise makers who pretend to be informed that the USA was not founded on christian PRINCIPLES (note that there is a big difference between a principle and a religion) . . . a cursory look at history tells us otherwise. A simple case in point is the motto of the USA - IN GOD WE TRUST.

It might interest Huxley to note that it smacks of poor scholarship to base American internal policy on a "treaty" signed with foreign powers (Tripoli) primarily to protect US shipping interests in what used to be moslem waters. The treaty was written in arabic (not a US language) and a careful reading of the above quote from article 11 of the treaty is clear evidence that this was written as a form of political appeasement.

What are Christian Principles? Are any such principles, such as may exist, enshrined in the US constitution, or in any principal legislative documents of the US?

What does it mean "to found a state on Christian Principles"?

If your thesis is correct, then no sooner had they founded the US on Christian principle than they embark on the following christian acts;

1) Enslave millions of African (Not condemned in the Christian text)
2) War civil against each other
3) Enslave and ethnically cleanse huge tracks of land of the native America just like their Christian forebears did to the Canaanites, Hittites, etc
4) Drive to near extinction some native animals
etc
etc

Admittedly, Americans have learnt from some of the mistakes of the past. But how could a country founded on so called christian principle immediately disintegrate into war and slavery?

Thank goodness for some of the leading lights of freedom like Thomas Paine, etc.

Could we trust the bible for factual accuracy?

4 Him:
Christianity has posed no danger to intellectualism, the irony of these is that those who actually brought us christianity (Europeans) are technologically the most advanced race on earth.

Israel is the birthplace of judaism and christianity . . . that nation has the most powerful airforce on earth, designed the very INTEL chip that powers the computers of many of us here, single-handedly designed and maintains its own nuclear missiles and has satellites in space.

America was founded in 1776 on christian principles . . . do i need to remind you they are the most powerful nation on earth?

It is usually claimed by the uninformed that the USA was founded on Christian principles. Nothing could be further from the truth. The TREATY OF TRIPOLI clearly states that the USA was NOT founded on Christian principles;

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Source: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

have u seen this? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112086.0.html

~Lady~:
tell me the origin of the term Africa and I will let you know

i don't know the origin.

Think this one deserves another look!

bro sam:
GK Chesterton said it well ''the tragedy in disbelieving in God is not that a person ends up in believing in nothing but alas, it is much worse, a person may end up in believing in anything''.I said this my dear, because firstly, you lack--yes i say lack--understanding of the bible. Christ would be contradicting himself when says if your right hand offend thee cut if off, and then afterwards says ''out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Of all the atheist, Syncretist, and the rest of those who disbelieve the Lord and his holy; you are the first--maybe i might be wrong--to interprete that passage of the scripture that way. What is your conviction of the causes of sin? If sin is caused from the brain, are you going to disect your own head to get rid of it? Is that what the bible is saying? Even Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Freud knows better. Dont just go propagating what fine minds--atheist included--can't speak on or better still, spoke of better than yourself. I m not defending the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. I can't neither can any one of us, The Lord can do all that because he only is the Supreme Lord and Master, the Great God. Dont stand there listening to all these fake stuffs from your professors at school. Get to know Jesus better and you ll see how your lives would look like. I challenge you, In your present state of mind have you experience peace, joy in what you believe is true? You d only get harden the more as you continue threading on dangerous ground. Rationalism takes no one near the truth. Get a copy of the bible, read with an open mind, if you not satisfied with what you read, then i m afraid we ve just have to be praying for you for God to illuminate your heart. The Lord is coming very soon and now is the accepted time for you to get right with your Maker. It will be on record that someone told you but you wouldnt listen. Science, Rationalism and all these cult data drives you, compels you to believe a lie. May Christ help you to know him before the clock ticks 12. Que Dieu vous Beni

This is complete rubbish! What truths are there in the bible?

Does it hold the truth on cosmology, geology, medicine, origins of life, etc. Wherever it has had the impudence to comment on these matters, it has got it catastrophically wrong. If you disagree, show evidence where the bible has been right on these matters.

any thoughts?

For the more philosophically minded amongst you!

Good time to look at these question again

Pastor AIO:
Wow! are this questions truly issues that are driving the progress of African Academic institutions? I've never liked nigerian universities, apart from a few cultural faculties in universities like Ife. They actually produce papers worth reading.

To be honest with you I don't think it is religion that is destroying the intellectual capacities of our intelligensia. A friend of my suggested that it is probably the ferocious heat of the Sun that cannot allow people to think straight. Anyway I've always found academics in africa to be dodgy. Even the manner in which we studied was worrying. There seemed to be little care as to whether we grasped concepts and were able to use those concepts to build arguments of our own. Rather we were subjected to rote learning. And till this day I can challenge anyone anywhere in the world that they don't have students who can cram information as well as someone who has had a nigerian education. Stop any nigerian student and ask him to quote textbook definitions on his subject of study. He will fire them out like a machinegun. 'democracy is government of the people by the people for the people', ratatatata just like that without a pause. But then on further questioning it becomes obvious that he hasn't actually considered the pro and cons, the effects and circumstances that are required for democracy.

It is my suspicion that academia in nigeria is so superficial because it had such a high status value. When something socially has a high status value while it might still attract sincere adherents it will also attract many who do not have an affinity for it but rather are only interested in the status that it can afford them.
I think in the days of colonialism the first few africans who went abroad to study came back speaking hifolootin' grammar and wearing their square hats. This impressed a lot of people who thought, 'wow! if only I could have a square hat like that, I'd be the envy of the whole village'. So people (our parents generation) pursued education not for a love of learning but so that they too could speak grammar and wear square hats.

So, to concluded, I've think that our institutions of higher education are in dire straits anyway and it does not require religion to mess it up. In fact the 'excess' (as you put it) of religion on campuses is probably a symptom and not a cause of what really is at ill in the institution.

I have been at work all day today and this is the only thing that has brought laughter to the cockles of my heart. Thankx for that. Was funny and correct, or at least I agree with you.

Additionally, I have no sympathy for a culture that fosters a climate of "believing on insufficient evidence". And I think, in the wrong hands, that is what religion does. For instance, if I were to ask any ordinary Nigerian about the efficacy of their local chi (deity), a great deal of them would say these deities manifest concrete powers. If you ask them to demonstrate it scientifically they certainly would not be able to. I can't speak much about Nigeria, not being a Nigerian. But next door, in Cameroon, reverence for the supernatural (African or otherwise) is a big deal.