₦airaland Forum

toba:
Fighting? an old young man like myself fight on a forum? Not at all. Uyi composed a very 'nice' poem for the only troublesome poster here, backed up with some very nice toons, which got my ribs cracked . All of a sudden, our posts disappeared, which led to my enquiry above.

Lol. Old man for whia? young fresh stunner like yourself . Perhaps the mod who deleted the pics/poem thought it wasn't appropriate - you know they don't delete for fun now

Merry xmas to you too my nairaland dearest. Coming to this part for the holiday?

Thank you oh my dear. I wish I were coming . . . its been a long long time. Are you having christmas party you're inviting me to?

Hey wassup Toba, merry christmas in advance.

I didn't delete 'em. Maybe my fellows? were you guys fighting?

^^ Lol . . . and when I call you trouble-maker you deny it

Don't let me shoot your unmentionables with my unclothed gun *shout out to Obinna here*

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-69799.1440.html#msg7241555

mukina2:
errrr Electoral chairman . .can i nominate for my friend? she cant come online right now

 
   me too oh. I have 2, erhm I mean 3 friends whose internet connekshion is kinda slow right now and they can't vote before the deadline . . . can I cast for them? Thank you for saying yes in advance 

@SemiD and Dayo - naughty agbaya boys. Lol.

Jarus:
No, it's not our (we NL INEC) DDC machines that were stolen.

Siddon. SemiD has contacts and connexions. He can make the very nose on your face vanish. SemiD, na lie? 

^Lol. Fear dey catch you? you no wan chop small ban?
this also means you're confessing to all of us that you're really V - jnr? Vescucci can cement his senior-ness by showing us his skills . . . just give him a short minute.

Bypass am. Make we examine your skills

Lol. I think it'll be the expendables - going by the last 'vote' tally Obinna had going.

I'm glad you're well jare. Yeah it has been a while . . . Bawo's passing made it hard to come on NL, and when here, to even post at all. But we try and move on knowing life is just the introduction - the real thing dey wait for us all .

So I'm sure you've been doing your job well, causing trouble all over the place abi? na lie?

^Obinna will soon start with his choice don't worry.

Btw, V3, how are you doing? how body?

^Obinna it don't matter dude. The regulars know when a review is going down and will pop in. Besides once the topic stays atop the 1st page, chances are it'll be easy to know its current.

Oga JK has abandoned ship, since you're Vice President abeg take over jare.

I first wondered when I saw his name . . . then reading the article above shows he changed it lol. More grease to your elbow dude . . . although it looks like the guy is no longer 'nigerian' if you know what I mean.

^lol, thank you. Though I was never really 'gone'. Palin is in Haiti now . . . she doesn't have time for moose hunting at the moment, but I'll be joining her soon enough. She says you're welcome to join anytime

There are some leaders, they have a presence about them, they command authority and have "stage presence". Obama while gifted in the art of oratory, does not seem to be one of such. Though I don't support him most of the time, I certainly wish that as my president he was more of a commanding figure than he is.

MandingoII:
Fugg clinton

he got rid of Welfare and put more black men in jail.

fuc.k him!!!

(which is why the current refugees from africa are struggling)

What kind of comment is this? Did Clinton force black men to commit the crimes they went to jail for? Is it the govt's responsibility to provide food for you or anyone else? isn't that your own responsibility? This is a regrettable comment to say the least.

^lol

I don't think anyone can beat out the footies oh! even with aggressive campaign tactics . . . unless say we go steal our own Inec DDC machines

and by the way, all these yeye teams that are so-called "streaking" . . . *insert hiss here*  isn't that how New Orleans started the year, what happened since then? We shall see who can really keep this up and maintain their level of play. At the end of the day we know we will still see the usual faces at the ECF/WCF.

^A-40 has come again . . . lol.

Both the LA and Boston teams from last years finals were pretty much evenly matched - which is why it went all the way to 7 games in the first place. It all comes down to who can execute the game-plan better at crunch time and it happened to be the Lakers (courtesy of being at home) as indeed the Celtics were up earlier in the game and let it slip away.

So 40-dude, it is by no means a given that a healthy Gasol and Bynum renders the Lakers unbeatable - for whia?

---

Now slowly able to think about Bball on NL again since Bawo. Anytime I hear Bulls or Bears or Chicago the thing just pain me too much. Mehn I miss that Rose groupie

This is tough still . . . so many quality posters & so many are my very good friends.

I'll have to go for:

MyJoe - for his honest, un-biased contributions. He knows how to make a point and concede a point - a rare thing in the religion section. In a section characterized by verbal/grammatical gymnastics, MyJoe's simple approah is one I appreciate very much. And also for his cool, easy-going personality. Never seen him in an e-fight, never had any trouble with the mods/admin.

Aletheia - for the distinct quality with which he surgically dissects and presents his posts/points. He has shown his vast knowledge and is able to communicate them in a refreshing manner. Aside that, he has a fantastic sense of humor, never takes things more seriously than it ought to be. He has an awesome personality and is well liked by all.

Very Honorable Mention: MNwankwo - for the ease with which he communicates deep thoughts. He seldom makes an appearance, but when he does, its full of life and quality. He is the most respectful poster I know. He speaks to everyone the same and is never condescending - a trait I love so much. He doesn't seek/relish in the praise or audience of the resident academics, but is happy to respond to the simple joe. I imagine he is well loved wherever he goes and in whatever he does because of this. To me, he is the wisest man on NL.

wow, SemiD, Muki and Alta thanks for the heads-up  I no even think say ppl notice say there is an nba/nfl thread/s lol. This board is owned by football to the core lol.

I vote Bawo     for being the life of those threads with his outrageous and hilarious comments that made us all laugh all the time.

Honorable mention to my dude A-40, for solid all around analysis, unrelenting humor and amiable personality.

Whata darn shame. Such a hallowed thread buried on page 2.

Obinna, you were supposed to go ahead with your movie now

lol@e36991's last post.

lagerwhenindoubt:
The part of his story that interests me is not that God extended the years of his life but the events that transpired during those years.

Lol. I guess our interests are reversed. I was actually trying to focus on morality from the context of both man and God - using Hezekiah's illness and recovery and subsequent fall as a mini-case study. Not to put you on the spot but if you (or anyone else actually - Vesc hello? Image hello?) would like to take a stab at these particular questions -

JeSoul:
- was it immoral/wrong for God to have told Hezekiah he was going to die?
- was it wrong for God to have listend to Hezekiah's prayer and healed him? knowing that allowing him to live would result in a terrible tragedy for his whole family and the entire nation?
- would it have been better if Hezekiah had simply died?
- Hezekiah's standing with God was relatively good until the last 15yrs, was his eternal standing compromised by God saving his life earlier?

-Today, would it be considered 'wrong' for God not to act to save a life?
  Indeed it has.

Grazie tanto.

Enigma:
Back on topic: actually the point that both Jesoul and aletheia made is ultimately the same if with distinguishable shades of emphases and I agree with both.

Firstly, one must not only believe in loving God and neighbour, one must also do it; secondly 'doing it' involves sacrifices especially taking up one's cross to follow Jesus. In Matthew 12:50, Jesus said 'whoever does the will of my father in heaven is my brother, sister and mother'; earlier in Matthew 7:21 he said "Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." To complement that, the apostle James, the Lord's brother, also said in James 1:22 "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." And he is of course famous for requiring believers to show their faith through their works.

These kind of passages help us to contextualise "saving faith"; of course the first thing is that Christians believe in the One God through faith in Jesus Christ and His redeeming work; but the point is that it is a faith that is genuine and anchored on obedience and followership of "the word" and the Word, of Jesus Himself and of Jesus' teaching. For us Christians, we have it relatively easy and educated Christians with the right heart and right reasons for believing have it easier still. For then, really if the heart truly understands Jesus' teachings, it will be easier to spot false and misleading doctrine; it also places a big responsibility on the well informed Christian to educate others, in fact it is a clear biblical duty, so as to help them not to be led astray.

The second point, one must take up his cross; Jesus never promised that following Him in the course of our earthly lives would be easy; none of the apostles ever promised that being a Christian would be a bed of roses; Jesus never promised that being a Christian will lead one to material/financial prosperity (indeed it could do the reverse to you; remember the chap told to go and sell all he had before even coming to follow Jesus?); the apostles did not promise financial/material prosperity; Jesus did not promise literal houses etc on earth (and I'm aware of 'no one who has left houses, mother, brother etc')

Now, I touch on a point slightly more controversial: I think even some ostensible non Christians are covered in the foregoing i.e. people who believe in God, love God and neighbour and try to live their lives in accordance with the principles flowing therefrom because they believe in and love God[/i] perhaps not having heard of Christ or perhaps genuinely not knowing that Christ is God. We may borrow a phrase and refer to them as being part of the "invisible church"; in this connection I'm usually reminded of Jesus saying -
One more slightly controversial point, I believe that anyone who takes time to understand what Jesus taught would be wary of the prosperity gospel, would be wary of "easy believism", would be wary of "decisionism", would be wary of the pop gospel" which is all around us. It is the duty of the better informed Christians to keep educating others and to keep challenging the doctrine of the false teachers. However, we need to learn to be far far more wary regarding strategy for combatting false doctrine; we need to heed the extremely astute words "be gentle like doves and wise as serpents". My realisation is that we need to choose more carefully when to go on the offensive in defending the gospel; perhaps we should do it less but without fear or mincing words when we need to do it; but more importantly perhaps the gentle as doves bit requires us to be more patient when explaining to genuine seekers (mockers don't necessarily command that patience),

I just wanted to say a very firm and loud Amen to all of the above in its entirety.

Question: what is left to move beyond just not being far from the kingdom of God and to actually reach/see it?

If belief is the first step, then perhaps all that's left is to actually do it? That is prove your belief by putting it into action?

Cap28's extreme dislike for any and all things "white power" is  . The guy is smart sha, he has some good points, but sometimes they get buried in his extreme antagonistic emotions.

And I agree with him on this point - the British people need to move with their fellow humans into the 21st century. Which self-respecting group of people still have "queens" and "princes" and "royal families" lording it over them? using their 'birth-right' (not hardwork or accomplishment) to collect a luxurious share of the national cake, baked with the sweat of the working man. And yet the masses willingly bow and submit to them as though they were truly superior humans, and faun over them as "royalty" as if we were still in the dark ages.

Sometimes "tradition" is a prison, of which the worst is when the prisoners are the ones holding the keys - and don't even realize it.

You're welcome Lagersir.

I'd also like to hear your thoughts/answers (whether they are objective, subjective, non-jective etc ) on the Hezekiah story. Thanks!

eyzhvntsn:
Hiya JeSoul. Hope u're well.

My sista I dey jare. How you dey now?

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=563647.msg7327041#msg7327041 date=1292258384]^^^J-babe where 'is' u been? well sha Compliments of the 'ceasing' . Me doesnt think the idea of restricting threads to certain people is gbadued, this is a public forum better still a market-square. You should rather campaign a section for christians afterall 'em muslim bros had theirs. . .got me feeling if they are superior. [/quote]This boy never ceases to make me smile . Thanks oh. I have been around, keeping very close eye on your most recent, very intriguing thread too. And how is my sista too by the way?

Me self I have 'clamored' for a christian section in the past due to this very problem of thread-jacking by trouble-makers.
Who Else Thinks The Atheists On Nl Need Their Own Seperate Section?  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-256119.0.html

It is a public forum, marketplace of ideas - but this is assumining eveybody plays nice. There are people who simply go about looking for trouble and gate-crashing (especially christian) threads. If its brought to our attention (because we obviously don't see every thread) we will delete off-topic derailers. So I want to re-assure every religion section poster (not just christians) to post as they wish without fear of derailment. We got your backs.

^Jenwitemi, kudos for that.

@ALL,
My fellow christians, feel free to open any topic and specify that it is for christians only (I myself have done that several times). If any one disrupts or gate-crashes just notify me, and I'll clean it up. That's what I'm (supposed to be) here for.

At atheists, same goes for you. If you want exclusivity, simply say so in the OP and others will keep out.

I want everyone to have the liberty and freedom to open whatever they want and to be assured any trouble-makers will be dealt with.

^Lager, sorry for my abbreviated appearances. Nice input from everyone from Joagbaje to Image.
Vesc no be trick question now, lol. Just one that I was hoping would direct us down the right yellow brick road.

lagerwhenindoubt:
@JeSoul
I am in agreement with that; naturally our moral scale is different in character but similar in nature to God's and yes God has sanctioned morally wrong actions (now that is unsettling) Why would he? It is difficult to fathom the purpose behind his behavior so i cannot in all honesty give you an objective answer on that[/b]. but see quote below on why it is a problem for me.

Chronicles 21:15
"And God sent an angle into Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the Lord beheld, and HE REPENTED HIM OF THE EVIL, and said to the angel that destroyed, "It is enough, stay now thine hand." And the angel of the Lord stood by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite."

If I can accept a God of Absolutes then he cannot be seen to be hesitant in his disposition to Right and Wrong, If he is Relative then his ways are not Unchanging. which will negate the concept of his Eternalness. I understand much has changed since the Jesus Souls Repurchase arrangement.

Hmm . . . I would counter that it wasn't so much hesitation as it was mercy. We see many instances of God "changing his mind" after He is prayed to or pleaded with. Showing mercy I would say wouldn't necessarily reflect negatively on His immutability. But that's just by the way . . . I'm interested in pursuing the bolded bit -

to me, I think that is the real problem - for us humans. Vesc and others have rightly noted that our understanding of morality is constantly evolving (and even in some cases as you noted, de-volving). And if God is God - then He does not have this problem. So while our 'morality-measurement-scale' is constantly being adjusted and re-calibrated depending on the time/culture/circumstance, God is still constant. 

- And this is what people of the christian faith stand on.

Recall e36991 said:

e36991:
that the crux of the whole matter had nothing to do with the moral but rather with faith (i.e. belief)

faith that if God is indeed good, then nothing He does or sanctions can be truly 'immoral' from His perspective (even though we may not understand it)- and what is 'immoral' anyways? You familiar with the story of King Hezekiah? He was a very good man by godly standards. He fell ill and God told him "get your house in order because you're going to die". Hezekiah prayed and pleaded with God to save his life. God answered his prayer and told him he'd live for 15 more yrs. But the real catch is this, the 15 more years Hezekiah spent on earth directly resulted in a terrible tragedy for both his family and the nation he ruled over so -

- was it immoral/wrong for God to have told Hezekiah he was going to die?
- was it wrong for God to have listend to Hezekiah's prayer and healed him? knowing that allowing him to live would result in a terrible tragedy for his whole family and the entire nation?
- would it have been better if Hezekiah had simply died?
- Hezekiah's standing with God was relatively good until the last 15yrs, was his eternal standing compromised by God saving his life earlier?

-Today, would it be considered 'wrong' for God not to act to save a life?
 

Interesting, this brings a new perspective to my initial thoughts on the issue. God's Commandments represent His Moral Standards (his WILL is LAW) and if we are to live according to his will, we must uphold them totally (no slacking or slouching). After the Fall of Man, it became a daunting task to uphold his WILL perfectly thus the natural instinctive attraction to building personal (individual) and social morals (code of ethics and belief systems). I guess we can mostly agree that this has failed (woefully).
It brings me back to my moral dilemma, God's Law has not enhanced Man's morals when Man does not (apparently) have the liver to uphold it. How do we get past this impediment.

Indeed it has.
I think we understand from the New Testament that it was always impossible to uphold all of God's Laws - it was never really about us having enough 'liver' or testicular fortitude to be able to keep the commandments. e36991 said "the law is a means to an end". The purpose of the Law was simply to point us in the right direction Heb 10:1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.
You rightly said "God's Law has not enhanced man's morals" - we are sinful. And the way we get past this dilemma was completely solved in the person of Jesus Christ - for past, present and future generations - because His sacrifice defies our perception of time. By showing us a salvation (way to God) not based on how efficient we are in keeping (the latest) moral codes/laws - but rather one that is based on faith. A faith that expresses itself (inspite of its shortcomings) by showing its love for God and fellow man.

---

Disclaimer, pls non-theists and others that take exception to God/bible/faith etc I no get power to tussle over real/not real/why should we believe in your bible etc so don't vex if I don't respond. Gracias.

lagerwhenindoubt:
Well, actions at the start can be seen as Morally Right but subsequently proven as Morally Wrong, (I think it becomes suspect if actions are proven as Morally Wrong only to be later re-proven as Morally Right) but IMHO I think there is a difference between what is Morally Right (Like do not willfully take another man's life) and what is Morally Acceptable (Take another man's life in times of war)

But to address your question specifically, i will draw on an experience i had in my teen years when 2LiveCrew release unabashedly immoral (they raised sexually explicit rap lyrics to a new level of nastiness) songs with appropriately lewd lyrics. it ultimately caused an outrage to the point that "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" was soooo profane and obscene that Courts in some states ruled against selling the album and actually arrested owners record stores that did.

Fast-forward 20 years and HipHop "Artistes" are doing far worse with profanity, sexually explicitly explicit (as-in real-deal explicit obscene) and are winning awards and recording enormous sales worldwide. The same society that Banned such music is now comfortable enough to see it as Morally Acceptable (Not Morally Right). The Content, Meaning and Value of the songs have not changed one bit from 20 years ago, but most people are no longer shocked and actually listen to it without prejudice. Once an action is considered Morally Wrong, it can come to general Moral Acceptance later but it still does not change the fact that it is Morally Wrong.

Morally Wrong actions can become the norm if it is supported by  (God's or Society's) Law or the absence of it. Morally Right actions tend to be established through knowledge and enlightenment.

You must forgive me, I just read through my post and it is not a neat knit (black and white) but there you have it.

Thanks Lager. In a general sense, I think you're on the money.

The bolded point is of utmost interest to me. I'm not thoroughly convinced that the moral classification of a particular action can defy time, circumstance and culture - because the 'definition' or should I say perception of what is moral, I think, is not truly universal. And you rightly noted, morality is constantly evolving with the acquisition of knowledge. However, I do readily agree, for the majority of issues, we all agree on what's right & wrong.

Which brings me to my second question for you. In your opinion (and feel free to speculate as well) -
Can an action be considered morally wrong by us humans, but from God's perspective, not? or is there is a middle ground? or in other words, is our moral scale also the same as God's? Can God sanction a morally wrong action? if yes, why would He? would it then be justified because the order came from God? Parts of the Law/commandments/OT present us with these problems.

^did you follow the instructions to mail the admin to unban you?

The spambot is finnicky and bans at random. It even banned me few weeks ago after blocking one post.

---

MMW, I didn't lock it either. Probably Mukina, and she probably had good reason to.

toneyb:
Where is the said stone? I will love to see god's hand writing.

Oga, you'll have to check with the archeaologists, I no know which side dem keep am

lagerwhenindoubt:
Thanks guys for offering at least one point of agreement from two perspectives. Humans are inherently Moral or Immoral and this is learned from experience, whether God has a hand in it or not, our Sense of Morality originates from us individually or as a Society Consensus. (Man-made Principles Doctrines, Laws etc)

I like the way you put that.

The issue of Morality troubles me on a personal level for the fact that some conflicting (with Human morals i.e) God-given instructions from Holy Books over a thousand years old still hold sway in present-day society where Man has outgrown common misconceptions of tradition that established the moral values in the ancient past. (specifically Christian and Islamic injunctions) From available History, Man took the FIRST Step towards Morality and perhaps through painful experiments in human nature, established Golden Moral Values we see today.

I'd like to comment on the above, but before that, might I ask a question or two. Suppose a particular action was considered moral 1000yrs ago, but is now considered immoral today - could both perspectives have been right? apt and proper for their circumstance? depending on the time/culture/available knowledge/dispensation?

This is not a trick or trap question, I'm just really seeking your thoughts on that. Thanks.

^Lol.

Re: Whose Cops are More Racist, America’s or the Brits'?

I think it depends on the city you're in - and therefore the racial make-up of both the police force and population. You will not have the same glaring distribution when comparing Wales with the very diverse New York over lets say Boston or Aspen Colorado or Manchester New Hampshire or Atlanta etc.