₦airaland Forum

I don't believe any of this

Better repent before it's too late. Many young men these days keep using sex to destroy themselves and will start wondering why nothing is working in their lives

MarioLope:
MacBook for sale as is
Comes with charger but no Wifi Card
Powers on and in working order
WhatsApp +234 816 800 1824

How much?

I'm sure it was a haarp weapon attack to subdue Turkey use them to set an example to all those refusing to support NATO

I don't know if this is true , but if it is ,then you're doomed to destruction

If God will forgive this generation of evil , then He will need to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah

gohf:
very well fine
A child doesn't know the value of what he is about to burn or is burning, so obviously there isn't a feeling of having done wrong in anyway. In fact such child would feel they are right to do whatever they wanted because they could do it, and justify doing it. That in no way makes it right

But an adult, or using your words, one of higher standard and understanding, who knows the value of those papers would know that that child has done wrong.

If God sets a standard and rule that values life is because he knows the value of it. The child like those sinners, did whatever they did out of their own understanding, pleasure or desire.

Morality cannot originate from an ignorant mind, is has to come from higher intelligent and one with high understanding and values.

The way that child sees that bag of paper and the way an adult sees it will always be different even though they are both living beings

What you're doing here is what is called The slothful induction fallacy

And people use the slothful induction fallacy when they ignore substantial evidence and make their claim based on a coincidence or something entirely irrelevant. With this kind of argument, there is research or evidence that clearly indicates that something is true. The person making their argument may choose or fail to acknowledge this.

Here is an example:

Person A: "I was excited to see that our onboarding process increased our employee retention rates. When I interviewed our employees last week, 98% of them said they are still with the company because of the support they got when they first started."

Person B: "I think the real reason everyone likes it here is that we allow dogs in the office."

From the above, your correlation of using a burning paper to counter my argument does not even make sense or have a relation to what is being discussed

jaephoenix:
Forgeries.
Those books were unashamedly forged. No wonder there was no mention of Jesus in mainstream History.

Abstract
The passage about Jesus Christ in Jewish historian Josephus’s writings has been debated for
centuries, as concerns its authenticity totally, partially or not at all. This brief “testimonium” is
proffered by Christian apologists as the “best evidence” for the historicity of Jesus, but it has
been declared many times to be a forgery in toto. A recent study by a renowned linguist confirms
this analysis of the entire passage as an interpolation by a Christian scribe, likely during the
fourth century or later.
Contents
Introduction
Narrative Anomaly
Christians or Chrēstiansς
Mutilation or Partial Interpolation?
Backgrounding and Foregrounding
Pilate Episodes
Piety, Not History
Crucifixion Blame
Time and Temporality
Emplotment and Gospels
Genre Difference
Nicene Creed
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
Over the centuries, a passage in the works of the ancient Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities
18.3.3/63) has been held up as one of the few “proofs” of the biblical story of Jesus Christέ
During this time, numerous theologians, historians and other scholars have provided many
reasons to suspect that the passage—called the Testimonium Flavianum or “TF”—is a forgery or
interpolation either in part or wholly.

I have the complete pdfs if you're interested in reading.

Josephus was a jew, not a Christian...so his writings couldn't have been in favor of any Christian doctrine because that would be heresy under Jewish law . Secondly , let's assume he were wrong ...and he was biased, but what about Tacticus and his accounts ...? Would you say he was biased too?

gohf:
oh but it does doesn't it or are you afraid to answer

You are afraid of what your true answer would mean

Please how does setting a paper bag on fire have any link to moral standards. Please answer

jaephoenix:
Lol. And I thought I was discoursing with a cerebral guy.
1. Which historians said Jesus existed? The only record of his existence were from Christian scholars who had no evidence.
2. And even if he existed, there was no evidence he died and resurrected. No such events exist in world history

Oga Jesus really existed and he was spoken about by non-christian historians who didn't have a bias towards the religion. Secondly, why would you say Jesus didn't rise from the dead when it's pretty obvious that more than 500 people who saw him and died on account of their testimony.

jaephoenix:
I didn’t say its a lie, i even showed in the article you where religious sources are used as law. But if you were attentive enough, you'll read in my post about the flaws in that notion. Before such laws were made, morals were created

Moral laws came from religion. That's a fact you cannot refute

jaephoenix:
You may be right. But if you say assumptions aren't facts, are anecdotes like the Bible facts?

Call it whatever you want , but I believe the bible because Jesus believed in it too. Besides that, Jesus really existed and historians actually have records of his existence.

Secondly, I have a personal policy of believing anything from anyone who dies and rises from grave after three days . In fact , I'll believe whatever he say ...but that's just me

jaephoenix:
This 'nonsense' basically said morals came by experimentation, not from any god. Thank You

Check history. You'll see that religion play a crucial role in establishing laws . So don't be ignorant

jaephoenix:
So why do you think its unverifiable

Those are scholarly works and they can't be counted as 100% accurate in terms of what they tell us about past civilizations...in fact , they are only making assumptions, and the last time I checked assumptions aren't facts

jaephoenix:
Did you bother to read any of my posts, kind sir?

I read all your post except that one that had some sort of lengthy gibberish that was completely unverifiable

jaephoenix:
Why

Just read the bible and you'll get your answers

jaephoenix:
The God factor is relative, depending on which god and which period, as same god can switch morality as a LovePeddler switches partners

So where does your sense of morality come from ? And dont tell me it's a default code that's embedded within your consciousness.

jaephoenix:
I hope know Yahweh approved infanticide. Was he right or wrong?

He was right to allow such and do you know why ?

Of all the ways to check out, she chose sniper ...just imagine. Secondly, she killing herself did change the fact that her boyfriend is still going to enjoy his life with or without her presence. This is just stupidity added to suicide , and that's the irritating thing about this story

gohf:
😏 if a child set on fire a bag of paper would you see it as wrong?

Now what if you see that paper is actually money being burnt? Is that child wrong?

Wrong analogy as usual .Try something else . And please stick to the issue of morality. Because the paper bag stuff doesn't correlate with the discussion on the origins of any kind of morality out there

jaephoenix:
Virtually every human society has some form of myth to explain the origin of morality. In the Louvre in Paris there is a black Babylonian column with a relief showing the sun god Shamash presenting the code of laws to Hammurabi (died c. 1750 BCE), known as the Code of Hammurabi. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) account of God’s giving the Ten Commandments to Moses (flourished 14th–13th century BCE) on Mount Sinai might be considered another example. In the dialogue Protagoras by Plato (428/427–348/347 BCE), there is an avowedly mythical account of how Zeus took pity on the hapless humans, who were physically no match for the other beasts. To make up for these deficiencies, Zeus gave humans a moral sense and the capacity for law and justice, so that they could live in larger communities and cooperate with one another.

That morality should be invested with all the mystery and power of divine origin is not surprising. Nothing else could provide such strong reasons for accepting the moral law. By attributing a divine origin to morality, the priesthood became its interpreter and guardian and thereby secured for itself a power that it would not readily relinquish. This link between morality and religion has been so firmly forged that it is still sometimes asserted that there can be no morality without religion. According to this view, ethics is not an independent field of study but rather a branch of theology (see moral theology).

There is some difficulty, already known to Plato, with the view that morality was created by a divine power. In his dialogue Euthyphro, Plato considered the suggestion that it is divine approval that makes an action good. Plato pointed out that, if this were the case, one could not say that the gods approve of such actions because they are good. Why then do they approve of them? Is their approval entirely arbitrary? Plato considered this impossible and so held that there must be some standards of right or wrong that are independent of the likes and dislikes of the gods. Modern philosophers have generally accepted Plato’s argument, because the alternative implies that if, for example, the gods had happened to approve of torturing children and to disapprove of helping one’s neighbours, then torture would have been good and neighbourliness bad.

Problems of divine origin
A modern theist (see theism) might say that, since God is good, God could not possibly approve of torturing children nor disapprove of helping neighbours. In saying this, however, the theist would have tacitly admitted that there is a standard of goodness that is independent of God. Without an independent standard, it would be pointless to say that God is good; this could mean only that God is approved of by God. It seems therefore that, even for those who believe in the existence of God, it is impossible to give a satisfactory account of the origin of morality in terms of divine creation. A different account is needed.


Source https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethics-philosophy

For a long time humans have done things differently. Around two million years ago the genus Homo emerged, with larger brains and new skills in making stone tools. Soon after, a global cooling and drying period led to a proliferation of terrestrial monkeys, which competed with Homo for many resources. Early humans needed new options. One alternative involved scavenging carcasses killed by other animals. But then, according to an account from anthropologist Mary C. Stiner of the University of Arizona, some early humans—the best guess is Homo heidelbergensis some 400,000 years ago—began obtaining most of their food through active collaboration in which individuals formed joint goals to work together in hunting and gathering. Indeed, the collaboration became obligate (compulsory) in that it was essential to their survival. Individuals became interdependent with one another in immediate and urgent ways to obtain their daily sustenance.
Many features of human morality could have grown out of simple reciprocal practices such as the mutual removal of parasites from awkward places. Suppose a person wanted to have the lice in his hair picked out and was willing in return to remove lice from someone else’s hair. The person must choose his partner carefully. If he helps everyone indiscriminately, he will find himself delousing others without getting his own lice removed. To avoid this, he must learn to distinguish between those who return favours and those who do not. In making this distinction, he would be separating reciprocators from nonreciprocators and, in the process, developing crude notions of fairness and of cheating. He will naturally strengthen his ties to those who reciprocate, and bonds of friendship and loyalty, with a consequent sense of obligation to assist, will result. Research in psychology and the neurosciences has thrown light on the role of specific parts of the brain in moral judgment and behaviour, suggesting that emotions are strongly involved in moral judgments, particularly those that are formed rapidly and intuitively.

Summarize this nonsense . Thank you

gohf:
doesn't everyone already have their own sense of right and wrong, called conscience

You're mistaking conscience for freewill

gohf:
Simple answer it is wrong to kill if you don't want to be killed nor treat anyone in a way they don't want to nor in a way you don't want to be treated.

So in other words you don't know why it's wrong to kill babies ...? No wahala sha. Peace

gohf:
I have answered you already

Why is it wrong to kill the innocent, when there is no justifiable or good reason to kill them. Would you be pleased if I killed you.

There are murderers, those filled with bloodlust, they don't even kill animals for the sake of food but as some form of sport or fun. They derive pleasure from other people's pain to them it's not wrong but to those who get killed for NO good or just reason isn't it wrong, don't they feel wronged.

If someone takes your life (snatches it forcefully from you), is that right or wrong, would you be glad or pleased.

Simple answer it is wrong to kill if you don't want to be killed nor treat anyone in a way they don't want to nor in a way you don't want to be treated.

You've not answered anything. So why is it wrong...why is it wrong to kill babies ? What justifies us not to kill babies and harm the innocent ? Secondly, whose standard of justice are you subscribing to ...and please dont tell me it's your own , because that would be stealing from God.

gohf:
not all the things I have learn or heard are true as much as they may be helpful.

Who says its wrong to kill babies, except you assume it is wrong irrespective of the reason.

Anyway it is wrong to kill the innocent, the righteous.

If a baby is in irreversible pain and dying, would it be wrong to kill it. If we are talking about the baby of a tiger that would grow up and kill people, why not kill it if there is no one to tame or train it.

So why is it wrong to kill the innocent or baby ? Please tell me

Dtruthspeaker:
There is really no his or her right or wrong only right and wrong, standing on their own and people exercising their power to do either of them as captured by this guy.

The truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do. The other part is the doing of it. (<My addition)

Norman Schwarzkopf

There is oga . Look at communist China . Look at how Mao slaughtered 1.2million of his own people yet, he saw nothing wrong with it. Or what about Cannanites who offer children to Baal and considered it righteousness...or how about Aboringin tribes in south America who considered it normal to cannibalize on their fellows thinking that by consuming the flesh of their dead enemies , they would also be consumkng the strength of that enemy, which they thought , would making them more powerful than before . So how do you condemn such people ?

See , each and everyone of us has his or her own sense of right and wrong, but what condemns one from another is a Standard that's above us . That's where the God factor comes to play

gohf:
it didn't I was taught and I learnt from what I read, heard and experienced

And you believe those things to be true ? Let me ask you another question : why is it wrong to kill babies ?

Dtruthspeaker:
We know good (morality) and evil (wrongness) thus we already possess the power of knowing morality and wrongness.

You don't have the power to do that sir . Because each and everyone of us would then have his or her own sense of right and wrong .

Bros , stand your ground and don't let any form of crocodile tears dissuade you from the decision you've taken.

In fact, start insisting and stressing them to return those children back to their rightful father , after all, he's still alive and you shouldn't be the one to bear the burden of raising children that don't belong to you.

gohf:
answer me this does it really matter?

Have you ever seen a child who already knows morals without being taught?

No child knows anything about morals without being taught . So back to my question: where did you get your sense of morality from ? Because I know it did not come as a default code in your head.

gohf:
Watch how children behave when they know no one is going to punish them. Who teaches them to misbehave or is it naturally or is because we set rules for behaviour.

Personally I don't care what you believe, be it God, Allah, Buddah, no god, science or whatever. What does your believe make you do.

If you feel hurting people be it physically, emotionally, mentally in whatever way just because you enjoy it is a good thing then you're sick and may not even know it. Because at the end you hurt people around you and yourself. You don't need a special hell somewhere you have created it.

if you don't believe in God and you don't behave better that those who claim to, how exactly do you feel at peace with yourself.

Someone who doesn't believe in God nor has heard of God but does good and right isn't really bother if God exists or not. If God exists fine, if God doesn't exist fine, it won't stop them from being nor doing good.

I have a question for you : where did you get this sense of morality from ...? Is it from religion or from your own personal reflection?