₦airaland Forum

Ihedinobi: Ahem, er, that was a conclusion rather than a claim. It was derived by observing the responses of atheists on this amazing thread.

davidylan: But of course we cannot substantiate this can we?

Deep Sight:

Bruv; what kind of update are you looking for? An update on your phone, by text message or an update on Nairaland? If you got such an update, surely u would conclude it was a human being, and not God, no?

[b]Every moment in time that passes, is an update from God.[/b]

Ihedinobi: Oh the greatness of the idiocy that is atheism.

TV01: A gay union is de facto infertile. No supposedly “in love” gay couple can procreate and be blessed with “one flesh“ offspring.
Gays simply cannot “go forth and multiply, or be “fruitful”. It’s an abomination to the divine creational order and undeniably against nature.

Speaking of procreation in a fuller sense viz; “the raising and nurture of children”; by its very nature, it pre-empts the possibility of a child being raised in a loving union of both natural parents and always means that one is missing. To knowingly deny a child the presence of either of its natural parents is simply cruel.

Key developmental indictors are triggered and behaviours catalysed by the presence and appropriate nurture of both – different gender - parents. Oddly enough, compromising this in some respects can often trigger gay inclinations.

Back to the point about being “in love”, three things; 1. No amount of being in love can change the divine creation or natural order. 2. Marriage is not primarily predicated on love, although for a joyous union it is essentially that love is mutually given.

I did say 3 things. Point 3 is worthy of its “own show”, hence I’ll hive it off. This is not actually about love, it’s about deviant sex, it’s about forcing – legally - those who rightly consider it unnatural and abhorrent to accept and endorse it. Activism – no matter how strenuous - does not alter divine, natural and obvious truth.

The blanket, uncompromising – and quite frankly deceitful - use of the word love is to disguise the above and shift focus away from the consequences of gay sex. What the Bible calls the penalty of their error.

I won’t go into the absolutely stomach turning detail about the ramifications of gay sex here, rather I would urge everyone too search it out for themselves via the net. Numerous studies detail all too graphically the resultant pathologies of the unnatural act of gay sex and the gay lifestyle. Read it for yourselves. I suggest you start with “Gay Bowel Syndrome”.

I don’t promote real discrimination against those with gay inclinations, neither do I condemn them. I simply don’t want the gay lifestyle promulgated in society or taught to my children as an equally valid and healthy alternative to the male & female union.

I would be the first to acknowledge that marriage as an institution has suffered terrible abuse at the hands of so called heterosexuals. However, the response to that is not to pervert it, but to re-affirm it, champion it and celebrate it in the proper form and context.

In many aspects it’s something that I would simply consider further evidence of mans continued post-fall descent and evidence of a turning away from their Creator and glorifying the creation (themselves and their desires).

However, in this case I simply cannot “waka pass”. Once promulgated legally by state fiat, it follows that it will be equally endorsed and championed by every state-sponsored or affiliated organisation and by extension their employees and citizens– whether they agree with it or not.

The gay lobby has done a good job of building a straw-man of “love” and falsely making it about civil rights. Of getting it de-listed as a psychiatric condition – which it was merely a generation ago and undeniably is, even if only in part. Of erasing any pejorative medical terms regarding the pathologies and keeping the epidemiological health studies quieted. Of stilling dissenting voices with accusations of bigotry. Of using the media and entertainment industries to make it appear normal and acceptable, whilst placing high profile gays in strategically sensitive and influencing positions. The truth holds sure. It is simply wrong, unnatural and against Divine order to act on, promote, celebrate or champion gay inclinations and lifestyle.

Biblically, both testaments portray homosexual activity as an abomination in the clearest and most emphatic terms. Romans 1 alone is unequivocal in terming it unnatural, unhealthy, a direct challenge to Gods glory and ultimately rejection of God himself. That is why its considered particularly profane. That is why it is, and should be, resisted with such fervour.

If one does not agree with the Bible fine, reject it. But please spare us the feeble attempts – especially by so called clergy - to re-interpret it to fit the times. I personally shake my head at all such efforts, no matter how seemingly heartfelt. Because like marriage , it’s not about what you feel, it’s about Gods intent, Gods design and Gods purpose.

“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out”

okeyxyz: Before I go on to address your issues, I'd like you to know that for every word or language we speak; there are two mindsets that recieve and interprete these words and form opinions whether positive or negative. One is the mindset of the worldly(ie: secular) which is held by 99% of people, even by those who claim to be spiritual(which is only a label, but their values and interpretations are just the same as every other secular person). Then there is the mindset of god which interprets words and languages in their perfect meanings. I take time to present these two opposing mindsets so that I can address some "negative" words(negative, in secular\human terms) you used above. ie: #non-apparent, #discrimination, #slavery

You say my opinions are based on non-apparent basis. How can that be? I am a believer in God and my christian doctrine understands that all of nature is an expression of god, therefore everything that is natural is good and of God and that whoever or whatever is unnatural cannot be of god. So you tell me how is it unapparent that heteros.exuality and homo\bi-s.exuality are opposites? How can you not tell that one is natural and the other is a deviation from nature behavior? People like you love to throw the argument that some people are born gay, that some animals exhibit homos.exuality..., So what? Is that not evident that something has gone wrong in how they repond to s.exual stimuli? thus a deviation from natural course? Oscar Pistorius was born without lower limps(not really but u get the point..), does that mean that's the way he's meant to develop from fetus to birth? or does it mean that something went wrong during the course of his biological development? I don't need to argue further as I believe my point is very APPARENT and if you cannot see it, then I cannot help you. Now I see homos.exuality as a disability, simple!!! A few are born this way while the rest develop this disability due to social and psychological disorders acquired during life. Yes, it doesn't sound politically correct but political correctness does not change truth, no matter how much you demonize it. And in case you are unaware, know that political correctness is a means of mind-control, but this is topic for another thread.

Next, we talk about #dicrimination; Discrimination simply means to choose\prefer. But the worldly mindset has corrupted this meaning and that is because the world itself is corrupt and evil, therefore it has no choice but to see evil in all things. So if you say I discriminate, then I accept it, not as the world interprets discrimination, but as it is used by people who are perfect(godly). I PERSONALLY don't see anything wrong with discrimination on the basis of my christian values which I choose to subject myself to. I have not forced another person\non-believer to adhere to. This is spirituality, not secularity. Homos.exuality is unchristian, therefore I choose to love(discriminate in favour of) heteros.exuality and hate homos.exuality on how and what I choose for myself, and I owe no apologies for these values. It is my christian mandate and not a mandate for unbelievers.

Lastly is about #Slavery. So what is slavery? Paul and the apostles in all their letters refer to themselves as slaves(bond-servants) of christ. Surely form their perspectives, slavery could not be a bad thing because their view is not as the world sees it. Because the world is corrupt, it follows naturally that they'd corrupt the whole concept of slavery. A slave is simply a person owned by another, therefore he does the will of his owner and in return is under the protection and wealth of the said owner. Slavery can only be practiced correctly by godly persons, not by corrupt worldly\secular systems. Slavery has a bad meaning today because evil people and systems abuse the practice of it. People cry about the abuse they suffer through slavery rather than the fact that they are slaves in itself. The hebrews who practice slavery had no idea what they were doing. They see a godly concept and try to imitate it but they would naturally misunderstand and ultimately abuse the system because their mindsets are evil by nature. This is why christian doctrine refers to the jewish laws and practices as shadows(without understanding) of god's laws. The jewish laws CANNOT be of God(even though it was allowed by god). If it was, then it wouldn't have been abolished by christ. They are simply human laws masquerading as god's laws.

Ihedinobi: If water is obligated to be a composition of hydrogen and oxygen, what else could it be that obligation prevents it from being? If a triangle is obliged to be three-sided, what else could it be that it could otherwise have been? If God is bound by obligation to love, what else could He do that obligation prevents?

A thing's nature does not oblige that thing to be what it is. It is what it is. If I felt obliged to be human, I'd be crazy. I am human. God is Love. That is why He loves. To oblige Him to love is to force Him to love. That is the absurdity.

Now, if it is true that God is Himself Love, it follows that we cannot appeal outside of Him, His very Nature, actions, inactions, words etc, for the true meaning and definition of Love. If this is true, then we can only judge God by God. We can only take for granted that everything He does or permits is as of Love. If we hinge morality on Love, then we will make moral judgments using His Nature as the Standard and Point of Reference.

So we cannot bring God to court and say He ought to love because He is Love. But we can go to Him and ask to be shown the meaning of Love since He is Love. God's Nature does not oblige God to love, it is the reason He loves. There is no force that can make God love or refrain from loving, so there is nothing to which He owes an obligation to love. He does not force Himself to love either. He just loves.

Edited.

@DeepSight. God being the creator does not owe love to his creation sentient or not. The fact that God loves is because He chooses to love and not because man merits love in any way whatsoever. This is the reason why God deserves worship. God doesn't have to love man. If God had no choice in the matter, then He wouldn't deserve worship because since He can't help but love you, there wouldn't be any need to be grateful for His love.

Now I will grant that because God loves, certain "moral expectations" come into play but these are resulting from His choice to love and not that it is compulsory for Him to love in the first place. It is a circular argument to say that "God ought to love because He is loving".

I really need you to follow your logical side on this one and not your emotional side that rejects the argument because you deem it "insensitive"

Ihedinobi: And moral laws are not possible without a moral authority whom/which they reference. Therefore their giver is always the yardstick for moral measurements. Since the laws only reflect the character of their giver, morality is defined only by this character therefore it is false to describe moral authorities as amoral. The very existence of their moral laws proves that they care about right and wrong.

JeSoul: To ensure we are actually talking about the same concept, I need to understand what/how you define love sir Kay. We are all familiar with Paul, Philemon & Onesimus and the slave-master relationship in a christian context. There was a plea for love & compassion in the context of 'slavery' - is this what you're asking?

Ubenedictus: simplicity doesnt exactly disturb me, but ur idea that it must be a "substance" make the whole stuff sound ridiculous.