₦airaland Forum

Image123: The flood was not sent to wipe out evil, if you cannot take in that simple fact, good luck to you. You cannot force a primary purpose on another's action and then claim that the person failed. What you need to do is find out the purpose instead of baseless assumptions.



You said that it was pointless of God to punish the people with the flood seeing that they would not change. i simply threw it across to you as putting you in similar shoes/circumstances. You believe criminals should be punished, but you have a problem with God punishing criminals. Where is the consistency?




i'm not just saying that God is good as an attribute. Understand me perfectly, i am saying that God is what good is, God is the definition of good. i also have not said that good is relative, but that good acts are. What is good to do for this person A may not be good to do for person B. Whatever God does is good. What is moral reasoning, and who is in charge of its standard?




God's purpose for creating man is expressly revealed in the Bible. It is that man should have dominion, and that we should glorify Him. If you need scriptures that say that, i will show.




Well, you said that you had issues with one being rewarded for what the ancestors had done. Actually, that is the whole idea of an inheritance or next of kin. That all your fortunes, savings, pension and wealth be passed on to a particular person or group in case you died. Humans want that, and nature does that. You inherit what they call hereditary traits, you inherit nationality, wealth or poverty, a name, hiv etc. This is very much consistent with how God deals with humans. He rewards the children of the righteous with favour and blessing, like in the case of Abraham and David. He rewards the children of the unrighteous with punishment like in the case of Amalek and sinful Israelites before captivity. But He has a caveat which i have shown you. If the children/next generation change their ways, God changes what He planned to give them. i have shown you how Amalek consistently offended Israel and Israelites for different generations, INCLUDING the generation that received the punishment. The actions of others in the society and the leadership will definitely affect the rest in the society, that is reality anywhere and time. If you think the corruption and frivolity of current leadership has no effect or should have no effect on the masses, its high time you moved to Mars.




Is it okay for the old ones to be killed, i mean the old amalekites, older than 6month or whatever pity age you come up with?




Because His Word says so.
Heb 1:1 God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
God who spake by the prophets like Moses and Samuel has in these time spoken by His Son Jesus. His Son Jesus has told us to love everyone, including enemies. To pray for them, to be pitiful, to be courteous, to honour all men. He has told us that we are all one in Him and that there is no Jew or Gentile discrimination again, that He has broken the middle wall of partition, and died for us when we were enemies. He does not want anyone to perish but has offered humanity a new agreement/covenant.
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.







Your argument borders on God having no right to judge. It centred on yourself having equal right to do as He has done. that is why i had to remind you that there are things that a judge can do that others cannot do. The Judge is empowered to punish in a way that others cannot. God is just in every punishment He has given.

Very frail argument.

My attention was caught by your absurd concept of justice. Ordinarily wrongdoing deserves punishment, and the purpose of punishment is nominally to purify the wrongdoer, exemplified by the acceptance of guilt. Neither can there be a genuine punishment without both the presence of wrongdoing and guilt.

In the Flood story, God willingly separated Noah from the rest of the world, on the account of his righteousness and innocence. There is no better explanation for Noah's salvation, God seeing himself as a moral judge, capable of adjudicating and dish out punishment.

Also if Justice is centred round a wrongdoer, wouldn't the purpose be defeated without the wrongdoer? Of what benefit is it, to pass on the guilt to an innocent, thereby triggering a vicious cycle of justice

truthislight: What do you mean by "immoral" ?

What with self "preservation" ?

Who was preserving who ?

Where ?

Morality in God's subjective view, is the 10 commandments. Hence immoral is whatever goes against the commandments. Genocides fall under "thou shall not kill".

@eninn

You more or less agree with me, and in effect agree that women in the West have more rights than women in Islam by explaining the rationale behind the rules.

However women enjoy more rights and liberties in the West, and with the realities of this modern time, it is necessary. Hence with a surface judgement, the West is more preferable than what Islam has to offer to women.

@OP

The only question is what are the rights of a woman Islamic jurisprudence. What is clear from the OP is:

1. Right to inheritance, though not equal to the level received by men.

2. She clearly does not have equal employment opportunities

truthislight: you are ignoring your limitation to the drawing of certain conclusions even with hindsight.



^^^

your conclusion at best is a function of ignorance even at this point in time.

Just to mention an instance :

Haman that lived in the kingdom of king Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces: )" (Esther 1:1).

He was an Amalekites, and almost succeeded in terminating the nation of Israel that was in captivity in that kingdom, but for a last minute intervention that help the Israelites to survive and Haman killed an amalekite would have attained their live long Goal, > destroying the nation of Israel.

You guys have a lot to catch up on

In your words, you mean "immoral" acts can be justified with self preservation and justice?

truthislight: Dont miss the purpose of the reason why Yahweh was with the Israelites at the first place, it was to produce the messiah that will reconcile man back to God.

See the promise Yahweh made to Abraham:

"by means of your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because you have obeyed my voice." (Genesis 22:18).
........................

That ^ was the reason that Yahweh remained with the Israelite as to extract the seed that will bring blessing to all of mankind.

That is the reason that the other nations hated the Israelites since their God(satan) does not want the messiah to be produced.

The standard that man hence will relate with Yahweh after the reconciliation was to be given by this messiah, after Yahweh had abandoned mankind generally in the garden of eden after the fall.

But befor the coming of the messaiah, repeated effort were made to destroy the means of producing the messaiah > the 'nation of Israel', all Yahweh did was to ensure the survival of the Nation of Israel untill the messaiah was extracted and he hands off.



There will have been no "christian moral" if Yahweh had not ensured that the messaiah was extracted from the nation of Israel as promised to Abraham.

It was to ensure that mankind have what you call 'enduring christian morals' those actions were taken.

It is this Messaiah that exterblished christianity and gave the higher standard that you so talked about.

And the massaiah said that all he taught was given to him by Yahweh.

Satan had reasons to attempt the destruction of the messaiah, since the messaiah is to eventually destroy him:

"And the LORD God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, you are cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon your belly will you walk, and dust will you eat all the days of your life: And I will put enmity between your seed and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise you on the head, and you will bruise him in the heel. (Genesis 3:14-15).
......................

That ^ meant an eventual destruction to satan in the future and as such, he made effort to destroy the 'seed' > 'the messaiah' and prevent him from coming.

The whole story of the OT all centered around the coming of the messaiah and from which lineage.

However Saul's genocide had no moral connection to the preservation of the Messiah. If Saul had decided not to destroy the Amalekites, neither the Messiah nor his ancestors would have been in danger.

And what does this genocide say about Christian morality?

^^^

Yet what is the enduring Christian moral from the story? Retaliation or crude justice?

^^^
However the love for God is not the basis of morality, because morality is normative, dictates behaviour and sets out to enforce such rules.

Besides if you obey God's commands because of the love for him rather than fear, then inversely God ought to obey our commands if he loves us. And we can punish God for failing to obey us. Awkward, right?!

@OP

Yet, the Book of Job says something entirely different. Job, God's humble and faithful servant frequently offered sacrifices for himself and even on behalf of his sons and daughters and did good; suffered intensely and horribly. We get to understand God makes the evil old, fruitful and die in old age, that God is bigger than all the monsters and behemoths of this world, so also his ethical detachment. God is not mechanical nor a servant, he is Lord and his power rules.

All I'm trying to stress is that love is naturally selflessness along with other fantastic qualities, hence it is inconceiveable to have Love without selflessness. So all that "love with all your heart and strength" is still mere love.

However Love does not necessarily imply obedience to commands. Fear is the appropriate factor, not love.

The question is: can one love without all his heart and yet with all his strength?

Enigma:

Also deny morality any inherent value.

Enigma: In other words you agree with Uyi that God can do whatever He likes and is not bound by the same "morality" as human beings may be! And that He is still good, even though he is not bound by human morality!

So what is the problem then?

Exactly!!

However God cannot be described in moral terms.

Please answer my question in my last post


The patriotism example was to demonstrate how patriots love their nation despite the fact that the nation is abstract and not of real substance. I wasn't trying to say patriotism is better than love for God

Enigma: @Image123

You get time (and patience) sha!




1 Timothy 6:8 ---- "But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that."

Christianity was never a guarantee that one would be rich or have "everything" one wishes for. It is only corrupt versions of it such as the prosperity "gospel" that give this misleading impression. An example that I like to use is that of Philemon and Onesimus: both Christians, one a slave of the other!

Then let me also summarise one way of looking at things:

(a) there are some things that God has ordained must happen --- they will happen no matter what
(b) there are some things that God has ordained will not happen --- they will not happen no matter what
(c) there are some things that God has left to the "natural order" --- the happening or non-happening of these depends on many things: work ethic, opportunities and how one uses them, happenstance/fortune/luck etc etc etc

Thehomer has exposed a tragic fundamental flaw in Christian morality, that God is actually above morality and hence moral description are insufficient to describe him.

That the Divine in its purity can neither be said to be either good or bad, rather imposes morality on the basis of Strength. Hence for man to ascend divinity or its semblance, morality must be shoved aside.

With regard to thehomer's examples, genocide and the destruction of the weak, namely women, children and the innocent. God expressed his Strength to the extent of tearing down his own laws.

(a) there are some things that God has ordained must happen --- they will happen no matter what

This does not actually justify anything, because you didn't address God intentions behind this action. His intents are the real cause.

If I love God without any strength but with all my heart, is that Love?

^^
Patriotism, the love for one's nation (an abstract) is similar to loving God, cos the nation is abstractly conceived.

^^
Following te spirit of my two prior posts, the verse is making a storm out of a light rain. Love is always unconditional, made wholeheartedly, selfless, pure etc.

Hence the manner in which we prize/love God is the same with other humans.

^^
This is laughable!

And this fault goes deep into your concept of Love, which I believe is false and impure. Of what purity would Love have if it is not unconditional? None. If you believe love is possible halfheartedly, then you are looking a bad mirror!

iamswizz: The cardinal needs help..

The Bible is one great book, that explains everything happening today.

You are one hell of an opinionated cyclop.

Isn't Christianity being interpreted and governed by Science and its materialist dogma?

^^
The difference between us is that, you are able without shame to degenerate Love into unholy and impure fragments as romance, friendship, admiration. If I ask you what Love is, saying love is friendship does not adequate fit into our image of love. If you were to remove the quality of totality/unconditionality, there will be no love but a shell.

Rather define Love as a whole of parts.

oneda: When God finished His creation,He made man the king but, wait a moment! Something is missing! A crown! He made woman the crown of all creation, He covered her up with a leather-like membrane and wrote a contract- the contract of creation - on this wall. Therefore God regards any woman who gives away this contract to a man other than her husband as an harlot and the man that break a virgin shall not be innocent for he have the blood of covenant on his hands Exodus 22:16

But sex is a natural instinct without which Life dies. To oppose it, is to oppose Life.

^^ Spiritless atheism. No valid consistent ground to prop your cherrypicked morality.

BERNIMOORE: i know,

but you said that displaying or applying the love towards God and humans. (b) "apply harmoniously
and complementarily".

you have already painted a picture of simultaneous usage by using the word 'harmoniously' and even more;

com·ple·men·ta·ry
ˌkämplə
ˈment(ə)rē/

Adjective

1, forming a complement.
2,(of two or more different things) Combining in such a way as to enhance

In music, harmony is the use of simultaneous pitches

Harmonization usually sounds pleasant to the ear when there is a balance between the consonant and dissonant sounds simultaneously.

In simple words, that occurs when there is a balance between "tense" and "relaxed" moments simultaneously. while producing a sound but with different voices sounding at same time

see the image below;

Well obviously, if the two rules complement themselves, then obviously neither overrides the other because of the lack of conflict! Hence neither is superior to the other. And your definition and elaboration of the word buttresses my point.

BERNIMOORE: kindly;

1a, explain or state ways in details how you can apply the first command ; "love God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength".

to GOD


pls do that

Love God simple, don't show hatred towards him.

Truckpusher: And your copyright infringement amounts to what in a court of law?......and i clearly wrote "intellectual theft" i didn't say theft only........are you high

It is neither theft nor intellectual theft. Cos nothing is being stolen, neither is the creator of the work deprived of the work itself. Rather the creator's temporary right to a monpoly of the production/copy of the work is violated/infringed.

Theft is entirely different.

BERNIMOORE: you evade this question, and its popping up again

here is it;

answer this question, @kay17

[size=14pt] do you see 'an unrepentant sinner who feel that it is needless to seek redress and stop the sinfull act he engages worthy to lead Gods people as an exampler'?

pls answer that![/size]

For the first question, I have explained by myself sufficiently and more than twice. The commandments are both of love, towards God and humans.

As to the question quoted above: my opinion wouldn't be charming to you. Note that I'm not a christian.

BERNIMOORE: bolded above, you said both commands are (a)"Neither are reductive or subordinate to the other"

but you have earlier said before that both commands (b) "apply harmoniously and complementarily".

you contradict yourself sir, explain what you mean by (a) and (b) above!



again, you said below;



[size=18pt]another lie![/size] [size=14pt]you are only using the undeserved grace of our lord jesus as an excuse for loose conduct,[/size]

granted, jesus primary mission is to call sinners to repentance;

Mark 2:17

17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous,[size=14pt] but sinners, to repentance[/size].

[size=14pt]but then jesus CONDEMED UNREPENTANT SINNERS[/size]

Matthew 7:23
New King James Version (NKJV)
[size=18pt]23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness[/size]!’

This is unfortunate. BAD reasoning. The opposite of harmony is conflict not subordination.

Also, we are to accept that Mosaic law still susbsist, why aren't all the laws in leviticus observed??

BERNIMOORE: .

you agreed above that both commandments apply harmoniously,that is in agreement

but yet,[size=14pt] you striped the first commandment of completely when it comes to the application to humans, and yet you claimed that they apply harmoniously[/size]thats serious!, is that not double standard from you blowing cold and hot at the same time so as to avoid the truth?

lets see how the command relates to each other, but the first command is the overiding command, you have read it before but see it again;

mark 12:29-31,

30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

of which the second is dependent

31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.




if we are to love God with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our mind and with all our strength

then HOW DO WE LOVE GOD THAT WE DO NOT SEE?

below shed more light on that;

[size=14pt]Psalm 97:10


10 Let those who love the Lord. hate evil,[/size]

for he guards the lives of his faithful ones
and delivers them from the hand of the wicked.
[/size]

romans 1:32

.........[size=14pt]that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.[/size]



even they will be judged according to their homosexual act

(Rev 20:12).

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. [size=14pt]The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books[/size]

If you had read my post carefully, you have addressed the difference between the two commandments. One is a command to love God and the other to love humans. Both are not conflicting and they apply to different objects: namely God and humans respectively. Neither are reductive or subordinate to the other.

These two overthrow all of Mosaic law. Hence animal sacrifices are irrelevant, cos God's love is sufficient. And sinners aren't to be segregated or condemned, rather Jesus interacted freely with these individuals with love, though not approving the sins.

BERNIMOORE: [size=14pt]lie! you are lying here, stop it! if you must refer to any biblical incidence, pls quote the verses, it will restrict you not to add your own 'additions that twists'[/size]

lets see the incident;

Using the KJV this time, in John 8:1 - 11 scribes and Pharisees had caught a woman in the act of adultery (the woman commonly referred to as the prostitute) and told Jesus who was teaching in the temple that the Mosaic Law required she be stoned to death. Trying to make an opportunity of this to trick Jesus that they might accuse Him, they, with stones in hand, asked Jesus what He says about the Law. After Jesus tried to ignore their repeated questioning, He told them "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." One by one each man dropped his stone and walked away.

jesus was not arguing with the judgment. Nor was Jesus arguing the law nor the woman's guilt. Jesus was arguing with our right to execute the woman. Once all the men had dropped their stones Jesus confronted the woman and asked her if any of the men were still there to condemn her. When she answered "No man, Lord", Jesus told her that neither did He - He forgave her of her sin. He did not excuse the sin of adultery/prostitution, he forgave her of it.[/b]

All behavior and thought that is sinful before forgiveness is still sinful after forgiveness. Not only was Jesus not afraid to call a sin a sin, He was not afraid to call a sinner a sinner[b]. He even reminded her of the sin of adultery/prostitution by telling her "Go and sin no more."[/b]

we can judge, but righfully
John 7
24 Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”

Your above post blisters with wide eyed inconsistencies and contradictions.

"Stop judging by mere appearance but judge correctly" was exactly what the Jews did, the Mosaic law stated clearly that whoever was guilty of adultery, which the woman was, is punishable by death by stoning. If Jesus was to judge correctly the woman ought to be stoned. It is that simple.

Rather Jesus by means of forgiveness ignored the law. A law is fulfilled either by obedience or punishment, and by ignoring its compulsion for obedience, it is an uncompleted cycle.

Besides who has the right to condemn the sinner under Mosiac law?

Jesus was arguing with our right to execute the woman

.

I thoroughly read through your post and I intend to expose your errors.

1. Jesus had through the Gospels stood against Mosaic laws; he rescued the prostitute condemned to death by stoning, by stating they were not sinless and therefore had no standing to condemn others for sins they were vulnerable to. Note that Jesus treated all sins as of the same nature and substance.

2. Jesus postulated two laws that replace rigid unjust Mosaic law, which are: Love God with all your might AND love your neighbour as yourself. Both commandments are not contradictory or conflicting and they apply harmoniously and complementarily.

However they are directed to different persons, the first commandment is to God and the other to fellow humans. As to the question of homosexuality, the second commandment applies, because it relates to humans. And it overrides all Mosaic laws including the "An Eye for an Eye" rule.

3. It is important to be truthfully to one's self and call a spade a spade. Both commandments are altruistic, they are commandments of love for others other than one's self. They are not selfish commandments and therefore altruistic. Altrusim is not a strange alien philosophy propounded by aliens. I'm simply calling a spade a spade.

4. The most important question is: are the civil and political rights of homosexuals be nullified? Are they entitled to the privileges and benefits of civil unions or marriages? Do they deserve a right to life and freedom of expression?

Do you think consent can be expressed in a will at all?!

I know nothing about the maclatunji issue.