₦airaland Forum

Logicboy's quote

That ability to change one's mind is crucial to consent

Consent is the prequisite for consensual sex, and your quote above also affirms that the ability to change one's mind is EXTERNAL to consent. It is an extra and remotely relevant.

As to your drugged girl example, if she expressly consents to sex while being drugged, that wouldn't be rape. But the peculiar thing with sex is that; the people involved don't sign letters or agreement with detailed conditions and all, rather it is one of conduct, if a male has to force his way through in order to penetrate his partner or female, the reluctance by the partner is deemed non consensual.

In fact, it is irrelevant as to whether or not you can withdraw your consent to an agreement, in fact you bound not to without liability. Sex is seen as an object of an agreement.

@logicboy

Consent to sex can be given at an advanced stage, yet be withdrawn at the point prior to intercourse. That I believe is a luxury unaffordable by a deceased. However prior to giving his consent via a will, the deceased is aware of the limitations and finality of his decision. And as a result still a consent.

Logicboy, making very things simple; wills are the intentions and desires of the deceased, and especially at the death of the testator, become sacred.

As long as the will does not violate any law or custom, it is a perfect form of consent. And the testator can dispose his property and his body as he wishes. The gravest issues are dealt with via wills.

Theistic religion might die out, probably not religion. Religion is a thought subculture, an ideological driven way of life.

^^
You must be new on Nairaland/Religion. However I will find a biblical overriding passage over all others:

Love your neighbour as your self. In other words altruism. If altruism is the only morality in Christianity, then is condemning and depriving homosexuals civil and political rights altruistic??

^^
The simple question is WHAT is the justification and foundation of these "values" ?!

I wonder how muslims will react to laws that ban mosques, restrict public worship and ban burqas

BERNIMOORE: foolish question! are you with your christian senses you have contracted a virus disturbing your system! cant you use the bible again? allude your question to what the holy scripture approves! maybe you need to know why sodom and gomorah was destroyed because of men laying with men, which hurt God.

remember that those doing Gods will only will be saved, so you need to"disown yourself"and follow God way of life!

1. You fail to properly define what really is "natural". You leave doubt as to whether what is natural is what's common or what is consequentially possible. If a penis fits into a palm, and as a consequence the reward of pleasure is derived, then masturbation can be said to be natural. On the other hand, if what's natural is whatever is common, then we are faced with denying as natural relationships btw causes and effects which are rare.

2. Assuming we agree on what is natural, then we should be aware that whatever is natural is not necessarily moral. The standards of morality is distinct from that of Nature. The fact that we walk, does not imply that walking is moral and anything contrary to that is immoral. So to trace the natural by virtue of being natural to morals is absurd.

3. It is not everything that is natural that is beneficial. Predators in the wild, viruses being natural are not beneficial to our survival.

My conclusion: even if homosexuality is unnatural (which I don't concede to), it is not immoral by virtue of that.

truthislight: Well, not when 'Justice' is said to be one of his cardinal attribute.

If God is discretional towards morality, what justification is there for him to be just??

If God isn't morally bound what justification is there for him to be just??

^^
What kind of covenant is involuntary?! If the parties don't consciously bind themselves, then there is no agreement or covenant.

The OP is deservedly trash.

truthislight: someone once argued this.

maybe this argument will make sense to you.

Humans that owns properties are entitled to do whatever they wishes with their personal properties.

But humans dont own or create nor give 'life' to any human, and all humans are entitled to 'life' and as such cannot take another persons life, hence it is illegal to take another persons life at will under normal Condition.

But as it is said:
"God is the giver of life". As such, life becomes his property.

If that ^ is true, the question of 'morality' concerning taking of life and giving of life changes were 'GOD' is concern from that of human, since humans are his properties and he can "do with his property the way he wishes" and is entitled to.

If that ^ is true, the demand and questioning of the 'taking of life' by any entity becomes an ethically wrong question and as such, null and void since it will take away the right of God to do with his property as he so wishes.

If then, human cannot question him for giving the 'life' at the first place, you cannot question him for taking it also.

Any question to that end is ill informed.

However, he does not abuse this absolutes of his.

The Amalikite reaped what they sowed.

Peace

Yes God can do whatever he wishes with us and it is a demomstration of his Strength. However, if you claim God has an absolute discretion over human lives to an extent that such discretion is beyond ethical questioning, then whatever the Amalekites did is irrelevant.

Also it is weak for God to seek moral justifications and approval before every action.

profstar: nATURALLY:The male organ and female organ are certainly constructed for male-female intercourse. When one try to find alternatives to that, then one is against nature(contradicting nature)
When we talk about what is normal, we are talking about what is in accordance with the norm; what is common. When we talk about what is natural, we are talking about what is inaccordance with nature.

First of all, what "constructed" the male and female parts for intercourse and to what purpose? Reproduction or Pleasure?

profstar: It should be clearly stated out that Culturally, it is wrong, Naturally, it's not the way it ought to be, Morally, it is disappointing, Mentally, it's insane, Physically, it is disgusting, Spiritually, it's a taboo, communitically, it's an exileable act, Personally, it's totally irritating, Sexually, it's a degrade on the opposite sex's pride.

This is highly subjective. You have not pooled together the multitude moralities and cultures in our world and carefully pointed out the universal abhorrence of homosexuality.

I don't know what standard you use to judge the natural, and culture and morality go hand in hand.

^^^ Look at it as an addiction, as a struggle. Hence the gay individual is appealing to God's grace for deliverance and redemption. The sinner recognises his burden and has a change of heart but still struggles to leave sin.

However whether it is a sin or not, does not and should not affect the civil and political rights of the gay person.

truthislight: Yeah! The Amalikite were atheist i forgot.

Just like the egyptians.

This is entirely untrue.

momomomo: what becomes of an atheist on the day of judgement. he is but cast away as one that denied every opportunity to know the truth talk much of asking for the truth or even ready to know the truth. how can you believe except you are told and how can you be told except one talks about it to you. today is your day of knowing the truth and this truth is that God loves you and wants to know you so he can become your lord and father.yes this is the truth and the only truth needed for you to believe in him. just know this truth and believe it, all other things will become clearer to you.

Faith is non communicative. If you allude to the truth, only the standard of critical thinking suffices. Otherwise we are delving in error.

Also, it runs counter to the idea of an all powerful onipotent being such as God that he is dependent on love.

momomomo: God does not embrace evil. Evil to God is knowing what is not good so that you can stay clear of it."And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil
Gen 2:9 (KJV)". it was when man knew the opposite of good (which is evil, man now desired that aspect more than the good of itself. God is the only good God. He is all knowing because he knows every thought , desire and expectation of man. Every thing God does is good, not evil.Like i said before, to the good, his ways are good but to the wicked, he is wicked to them. HE RENDERS THE WICKEDNESS OF THE WICKED ON THEIR OWN HEAD. God is a good God.Evil is a conscious act of MAN not God.

What you failed to notice is; Evil exists and God is the only Cause of any existence. To deny God has a evil subconscious at least, is to deny God's omnipotence and his role as the Creator. Also note that the Tree of Knowledge which is evil was at the centre of Eden. And obviously created by someone!

Truckpusher: This is what i call INTELLECTUAL THEFT.....OP was so engrossed in dissing Nigeria that he forgot that his masterpiece was actually a stolen intellectual property....continue your stealing spree at least those drivers are still better than you.After all, they didn't steal the cars they're driving.

It is not theft, it is a copyright infringement.

Kessythegeek: A true church is one that is founded and built around Christ...

is this definition sufficient?

^^^

What is a true church?

Consent is a legal criteria, not necessarily a moral one. Its important we have that in mind. Some cultures condone it even in the absence of consent of the deceased.

The book of Job is the perfect authority for this question. the book is centred on the power of God, the prevalence of evil and suffering among the faithful and Righteous. Job cries out for "justice", and God directly addresses it.

God informs us in the book of Job, that he sees it fit to render the ostrich stupid, harsh to its young, and yet faster than horses. that he is responsible for the strengths and survival of predators and preys alike. That his power extends further than that of the Behemoth and its likes; whom he created.

The clear picture arises; God is beyond good and evil, he is beyond "Justice" and not trapped by its mechancial patterns. Job's reaction to God's response to him was that of submission and the realization he is shortsighted.

Although we are confronted with the traumas and horrors of the Rwandan Genocide, the Holocaust, the lack of social justice in the modern world; yet "we" have to accept that God's omnipotence and omniscience embraces Evil, without which God isnt encompassing and all knowing. Evil is a conscious act of God.

I think the civil and political rights of muslims ought to be respected.

How should homosexuality affect their political and civil rights?! That's a more important question.

The beauty about this episode is the stark hypocrisy shown the religious conservatives. And that their real fear was the fear of the future.

superior1: Kay, you need to study your bible more, I will give you atleast 3 places,

Rev. 22:16
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Acts 9:4-5
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Acts 1:7-9
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. 9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

The entire books of the New Testament was all about Jesus.

the verses you selected are merely recollections of a Christian, for the revelations verse, we are drawn into John's subjective world of visions and images. Lots of characters fill it. As to Acts 1:7, it is a prequel to the main events in Acts. A reminder of their foundation and founder of their mission

While Acts 9 is the beginning of the ratification of Paul's mission and journey. I will agree Jesus speaks here, but the verse is an aside considering the main gist of Acts.

And as I said earlier, you can't claim Jesus is the New Testament prior to his death or resurrection. If you exclude these themes, there wld be no New Testament.

@Ola

Are good people in hell burning and suffering too, because they did not accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour?

superior1: Kay, when you are sure of the point you are trying to make, come back and do with relevant scriptures backing it.

Jesus never said a word in the whole of Acts and the rest of the NT.

@superior1

Pls reference the bible passage where Jesus mentioned he was sending the Holy Spirit in Acts. Same to Revelations.

superior1: I don't understand the point you are driving at
Read the verses below

Matthew 26, 27_-28
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Jesus is the New Testament, He is the head of the Church, believers in His ministry are called Christians.

Articulate any argument you have against this with scriptural backing, ok?

You have not touched on the other books in the New Testament namely Acts to Revelation. And is it possible for those books to be cut out of the New Testament, the NT remains the same?! Also note that the Gospels as they are, are third party testimonies (despite being Christians) of Jesus' life. Hence not far from my belief that the NT is a record of the Christian Faith and Experience.

EDITED

^^
What if we omit the adventures and trials of Paul or Peter or philip's encounter with the Ethiopian? Or John's revelations, Paul's intricate "jurisprudence" of Christianity as it has presently become? Or the Apostles encounter with the Holy Spirit?

My answer is no, for we will not have any New Testament. Jesus being the first Christian, was the starting point of the New testament, starting point for all Christianity.

Furthermore, the Gospels got completed upon the death of Jesus and Resurrection of Jesus, therefore the disciples and Jesus' outer circle of followers did not have a full Gospel nor a completed New Testament while Jesus was alive!

EDITED

Lots of sociologists in the house tonight.