₦airaland Forum

Ihedinobi: Sorry. "Whatever you say, lady".

You didn't answer the Q though

Ihedinobi: What would you say Love is?

I'm just watching/observing. Just make open your view in relation to the OP

Kunlecelica: I stand on the words of God given in Leviticus chapter 18.God condemned same sex marriage.Morally to me,its even repulsive.

Pls compare to Slavery.

Ihedinobi: Sure, whatever you say, man.

WHO told you I'm male??

^^^

A necessary consequence

^^ irrelevant !!

Ihedinobi: The above was your definition of self-sufficiency. You may stop wasting my time now.

PS: I'm getting off the merry-go-round, that's why I'm ignoring the rest of your post.

Edited

I was expanding my argument, I'm not contradicting myself

poopli: TRUE, so what is the first cause or who is it.

Probably a singularity?!

Deep Sight: Here is one example: he claimed that an experiment produced life and "living" molecules.

Sheer illiteracy.

If there is a discourse on the ORIGIN of Life, then life definitely has an inanimate parent.

Ihedinobi: Quite the gymnast, my friend, aren't you? It does get old at a point.

You obviously have a problem with my choosing self-sufficiency as the full definition of God. What exactly is this problem? You want me to give a full list of attributes ascribable to God? Very simply, self-sufficiency is a sufficient definition for God because that which is God is that which is completely satisfied in itself, it is that which owes its existence to nothing, it is that which finally explains existence and all questions associated with it. Whether or not it is a creator or conscious or whatever does not make it less or more self-sufficient. We may argue whether or not that which is self-sufficient must also be a creator or conscious or any other thing, but that is another issue altogether. Basically, that which is God is that without any need. Now, I have posited in the op that no worldview is completely devoid of an element of self-sufficiency, do you disagree?

And, self-suFficiency does imply a lack of need but not of want by which I mean desire.

Yet you can not subtract Consciousness and some form of freewill from God's character and leave him the same. There would be some substantial difference. God is a Person who consciously takes decisions and options.

Absolute self sufficieny eliminates all needs, wants and DESIRES, and leaves one with a sense of total satisfaction.

To your question, your OP was vague/ambiguous. Self sufficieny what?

Ubenedictus: d point is d creation link cannot continue ad infinitum, at a point we must have an uncreated creator, indistructible and pure energy with consciousness and will to create.

TRue! BUT the first cause must be be simplest and most basic substance.

I think both conflict as they both make metaphysical statements.

Science and Christianity/Islam, conflict along naturalism and supernatural lines.

Both conflict with what epistemological tools to be used

@jeSoul

Would you say the Biblical directives against homosexuality are the exceptions for the expression of Love?

And while leafing through Mosaic laws, I found that the institution of slavery was regulated. Probably to make it less inhuman, yet personhood was negotiable. And slavery was very rampant in the times of the apostles. Therefore, should themes like Love outweigh and be preconsidered while reading directives, or equal weights and literal reading?

Ihedinobi: Alright, how does self-sufficiency exclude creatorhood or consciousness?

And, why does your definition of God have to include consciousness and creatorhood?

It doesn't exclude or include creatorhood and consciousness either. So you ought to have added more attributes other than simply self sufficiency.

One more point on self sufficiency, it implies a lack of want and need.

^^^

In other words, God is Fuel??

And what do you understand by the multidimensions of space? Is that where you believe a connection btw the physical and spiritual exist?

Homosexuality is one of the most divisive issues within churches and across our country today. The issue has become, for some, a litmus test on fidelity to God and the scriptures. The divide is not just between the progressives and conservatives. It is also a generational divide, with younger Christians generally seeing this issue differently than older Christians.
I recently delivered the sermon for the National Prayer Service at the presidential inauguration. While in Washington I took my family to the Lincoln Memorial. This iconic structure stands as a reminder of America’s great dream of equality and President Lincoln’s role in the emancipation of America’s slaves and the abolition of slavery in America. The words to Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address are inscribed on the north wall of the memorial’s interior. In them Lincoln noted that at the center of the conflict over slavery were very different interpretations of the Bible. Lincoln said of the two sides in the war, “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other.”

Southern preachers and slave owners believed the many references in the Bible permitting and regulating slavery (well over 100 verses), in both the Old and the New Testaments, were clear evidence that the institution was a part of God’s social and moral order. Abolitionist preachers argued in their sermons that the verses related to slavery in the Bible were a reflection of the cultural context and times in which the Bible was written and did not reflect God’s endorsement of slavery. They argued that there were “weightier” scriptures on justice, mercy and love that superseded those on slavery. This was the position that Lincoln himself adopted.

At the center of the divide over homosexuality today is the Bible. Conservatives and progressives “read from the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other.”

There are a handful of Scriptures (five or eight depending upon how one counts) that specifically speak of same-sex intimacy as unacceptable to God. Conservatives or traditionalists see these as reflecting God’s timeless will for human relationships. Progressives look at these same scriptures in much the same way that progressives in the nineteenth century looked at the Bible’s teaching on slavery. They believe that these verses capture the cultural understandings and practices of sexuality in biblical times, but do not reflect God’s will for gay and lesbian people.

In my own life, it was both reading the Bible’s passages on same-sex intimacy in the same light as passages on slavery (and violence and the place of women) and coming to know gay and lesbian people that led me to see this issue differently, particularly children who grew up in my church who loved God and sought to serve Christ. As I listened to their stories I saw that they did not fit the stereotypes I had been taught about gay and lesbian people. The love they shared with others looked very much like the love I share with my wife --a deep friendship and companionship. And their faith was as authentic as that of anyone else in my congregation.

For many Christians today, particularly young adults, the handful of Bible verses related to same sex intimacy seem more like the 100 plus verses on slavery than they do the teachings of Jesus and his great commandments to love God and neighbor. Their gay and lesbian friends are people, just like them, in need of love and community. I believe that in the years ahead an increasing number of Christians, not only progressives, but also conservatives, will read the Bible’s passages regarding homosexuality as all Christians today read the Bible’s passages on slavery. And the sermons preached from America’s pulpits decrying the rights of homosexuals today will sound to future generations much like the pro-slavery sermons sound to us today.

Adam Hamilton is a United Methodist pastor and author of “When Christians Get it Wrong” (Abingdon, 2013)

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/on-homosexuality-many-christians-get-the-bible-wrong/2013/02/13/2443d062-761f-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_blog.html

Don't you guys get it?? If a Creator is always necessary, then the creator himself must be created.

Ihedinobi: Are you saying that a conscious being cannot be self-sufficient? Or that a creator cannot be self-sufficient? Or an object of morality and worship cannpt be self-sufficient?

By the way, I have responded on the other thread. Currently waiting on you.

You earlier defined God as just self sufficient, and I'm saying that God being only self sufficient, doesn't say if he is a creator or conscious, which are attributes you want to give to God.

davidylan: Its hard for you to believe that God can be causeless but you seamlessly and without question accept the idea that your very life and the existence of the earth is causeless? It takes greater faith to believe in a secular explanation for life than it takes to believe in God.

Where did I say that??

The Devil is probably your shadow.

davidylan: that makes no sense because it is empirically impossible. Your computer cannot assemble itself by accident.

BUT God from whom all things come from + the Universe, is causeless??

@iheindon

For this reason

Kay 17: Supernatural popped up in one of the definition, and as I said before, self sufficiency is inadequate, cos it doesnt address a conscious being, or attach any role of a Creator, or an object of worship or morality.

Whenever the religious vs infidel argument pops up, we forget the uniqueness and subjectivity of Faith, which is the ONLY wall between both sides. Talk on Faith and not Knowledge!

As to the theist vs atheist argument, I believe that another side to the Causeless cause argument, is that it reveals a bit, the possibility of causeless causes. That complex structures can come by without causes, BECAUSE there is at least one definite Causeless Cause.

viruz007: R u seriously saying this? Like really? Be careful of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as its the unforgivable sin... #NuffSaid

You have a foundational issue* don't you see it?!

Enigma: Maybe the below will begin to help you see your ignorance that I've been trying to point out to you!

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

In other words, the Bible is a random collection of provisional thoughts

If I was to concede again to your definition of Bible, upon what authority do additional books get added into the Bible?

Powerful reply tbaba.

^^ you asked the questions which obviously go against my position. You were to make authoritative statements! Like the Bible is provisional!

My position has always being the sum total of OT, Apocrypha and NT make up the Bible which is the foundational guide for Christianity. That without these books, the Christian experience can not be captured.

Hence it is difficult to imagine a provisional bible without any of Jesus' teachings or a narrative on his death!!

The two links were endless debates. I need to study right?! Looool!!

Mr davidlyan pls what do I have to prove as atheist

davidylan: Most of the theories you hang your hat on are unproven neither do you have the means to prove them... but you believe away anyway.

You didn't define blindness into your faith definition. So you should probably redefine it

Enigma: What book do you think the Christians who received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost were using?

What book do you think the Christians we read of in the Acts of the Apostles were using?

From which book do you think Old Testament Scriptures were quoted for reference by the authors of the books of the New Testament?

You ought to tell me that, because the conclusion drawn is that the Bible is a provisional book, that can be substracted and added without scruple.

Enigma: ^^^ And a "foundational guide" (in the sense you are using the phrase) of Christianity that was the first to be called "the Bible" is The Septuagint.

I wonder if you know what The Septuagint is and its role in the New Testament.

So you mean to say, Christians used the Septuagint as THE foundational guide till the Catholics came along??

davidylan: Faith is a word that merely denotes strong adherence to a point of view with strong conviction. Once you divorce it from the religious connotation you begin to see the facts... that atheists themselves put their blind faith in a lot of things...

Where is the blindness factor?