₦airaland Forum

You still didn't explain your assumptions.

Alo, I don't really want to derail this thread however value is an abstract held some where in the transacting party's minds. Money is one of the medium thru which its expressed. Money is not the true measure of wealth, but "value" itself is. The nominal worth of money is worthless

Mr Anony has to also explain his assumption, that human rights is an award, and why awards have REAL value.

At least money's real value is what market/everyone says it is, not what a Central Bank says.

Yes, Christianity in its worst colour: intolerance. The religion has succeed in categorising nonadherents as opposition and demonized them.

Jesus sacrifice was human sacrifice also, the rationale behind most of these is for the wellbeing of the ppl, and that was their understanding of it. Christianity is a strange vile and foreign affair to Africa, we were never able to sychronise our true values with it.

@OP ATR is dead.

Avicenna: ^Ultimately, authority is derived from the people. That's what makes democracy so attractive.
In my first post, I disagreed with interfering with other countries business unless egregious crimes is going on. If you disagreed with it, I sincerely do not want to know the kind of person you are.
I do not need a divine authority to determine when people need to be protected. In places like North korea, you think the citizens will like to be suffering if they knew better?
You ask who gave us the right to help suffering people of other countries? We did.

But, you prefer it in a form of religion. You must know, history have repeatedly shown that people make up gods and using the 'authority' derived from such gods, they determine morality/rights themselves. They DID.

But, humanity is too advanced for that nonsense in this age.

We have rights. We determine the rights we have. This rights allow us to progress as a species and live in relative happiness. We determined these rights.

Finally, there will be differences in morality due to the peculiar environments of each countries. What I'm saying is a accepted general principle on how we treat each other. Do you get this?

Religion/needless cultural sensitivity are a stumbling block to humanity's progress.

Love this. Ultimately we recognize the authority prior to obedience, either through bare consent or some ceremonious form.

okeyxyz: Sorry., i don't get your point?

Is as much a difference as ethnicity or religion.

okeyxyz: Okay, so we are talking about gay-culture here again from the other thread?
Well, If gay people had a world of their own where they make their gay laws, then they can define their laws in whatever, however manner they wish. But this is not the case, we have a system now that was formed based on heterosexual values, nobody has said homose.xuality should be criminalized and i'll never support such, But for you to insist that all traditional heterosexuals must dismantle their beloved institutions and must redefine them to accommodate your g.ay desires is just simply wicked of you. Why do you want to usurp their institutions just because it doesn't pander to your wishes? Have they not made provisions for you, recorgnized by the law for your rights to exist and associate? But no, that is not enough, you insist you must asimilate theirs in totality, they must not continue in their ways, it's either your way or never?

Sexuality or Sexual Identity is JUST a difference.

Community defines morality. Human rights is appreciated more because we are becoming more conscious of a global community. We don't recognize conquests anymore, neither is absolute state sovereignty.

So we have a semblance of universal morality, thus invading Bosnia, Rwanda, Liberia; trying war criminals solely on morality just shows that the world is conscious of a new moral order.

Saudi Arabia itself is being bombarded regularly about the unjust system they live in, most women believe they are entitled to more basic rights, homosexuals are raising their voices, liberal advocates are discussing in the open etc. An armed revolution will be supported by the world, just as seen in the Arab Spring.

I believe the time just has to be right.

Probably cultural sensitivity

They are young ppl without counselling or advice on how to cope with pressure. To them failing WAEC crashes their world. Don't judge others on their own experiences

Manual transmission, compells u to drive with one hand

Switching songs on my phone, irresistible.

One way lunatics.

Reversing on a highway, after missing one's cut.

Sin is merely disobedience to God's Command.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]This was exactly what I predicted you will say.

The only time you can truly judge necessity is before an action and not after it has been done.

for instance you can say: is it necessary or me to have a nap so that I can feel refreshed? yes but you can also have a meal and feel refreshed. Both options are valid.

After you have chosen to eat a meal over having a nap, you may now say: was it necessary to eat the meal to feel refreshed? the answer is yes it was. (Note that at this time, you no longer have the option of a nap).

If I now ask why didn't you choose the nap instead, then I must tell you exactly why the nap is a better option and give valid reasons why it is now necessary to rewind time and go back to the time before you made the choice.

The sacrifice of Christ has already happened. It was necessary that it happened as it atones for sin and satisfies God's justice and mercy.

To rightfully question it's necessity, you must provide valid reasons why another course God should have taken is more valid than Christ's sacrifice.
You must detail this course of action and how it atones for sin and how it satisfies God's justice and mercy better and why it is necessary to rewind time to the point where God should make this "better choice".
You must also define on what basis your preferred solution is better than God's

Over to you.[/quote]You singlehandedly changed English Grammar.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]The choice is in the yielding. When one man puts the needs of another before his own needs to the detriment of himself, you have love. If a person chooses to suffer disadvantage so that another person can benefit. You have love.

In a system where morality emanates from the self, the best you can get is where both men suffer disadvantage in the hope of attaining future benefit or where one sacrifices one need so as to fulfill a mutual goal.
No man willfully suffers loss in a secular humanist worldview.



It is because I am a christian that I am telling you the truth. If I didn't love you, I will not tell you the truth. lol[/quote]Still the action word Love.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I said man is incapable of love on his own. Man is subject to love. Man falls in love. he does not create love, he yields to it.
The point I am making is that any time man loves, he must relinquish himself and surrender to something greater than him.

If you hold the secular humanist view, where everything emanates from man, then man must manufacture the 'love' that he shows and that is not love you can call it kindness at best but it is definitely not love.

Let me ask you this:
Can you tell me how you know that someone loves you?
Is love not best expressed by what your lover is willing to give up for your sake?
If you find out that your lover consciously makes herself to love you, will you consider it true love?
what about if you find out that your lover purposely made you to fall in love with her, will you still consider it true love?[/quote]Manufacture love? What does that mean? If you believe man fails love or subject to love still the same as man loving/ man loves.

Didn't you agree that Love was a choice??

I find it contradictory for the omnipotent God to be found without alternatives and bound by necessity.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]No, man is incapable of love on his own. To love, man must surrender to something beyond himself. Jesus is not an object you develop a liking for. Jesus is a person you commit yourself to.
Love is not an ability.We recognize love when we see it but it is not something that we can bring about. If love is manufactured, then it is not love.[/quote]1. You believe man is incapable of love.

2. Yet man loves Jesus

3. How was that possible?!! I ask you!!

OR is Love only towards Jesus??

[quote author=Mr_Anony]If man loves himself above all else, how then is it rational that he sacrifice himself for something other than himself.[/quote]Let's set this straight: man is perfectly capable of Love, right?

With this ability, he is able to Love Jesus. Not just Jesus but any object.

1. Reading yourself will help greatly as to detail and clarification.

2. Everyone operates within his nature, a perfect being can't be imperfect as its contradictory to its nature. You can't give what you don't have.

3. I'm not bound to post here for example, neither is there any underground motive. Jesus' sacrifice is what defines Christianity, but it would be compromised if it wasn't NECEssary for Jesus to die.

4. Maybe.

1. I never said Science was the only path to knowledge and you have a very limited understanding of how Science works. Science is not all about scientific formulae.

2. Same limited understanding. Read up on Karl Popper and Kuhn's works. It would help.

3. Given something can't come out of nothing, since God molded his creation from himself, and just as God can't fall into imperfection so also his Creation. Imperfection is the reflection of an imperfect creator. If the Devil is an imperfect creation, then he is God himself but imperfect.

4. I didn't go that far, I only asked "was God bound to sacrifice Jesus?"

5. Human sacrifice is still primitive and barbaric.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]It is within man's freewill yes, but within his nature no. For man to love, he must relinquish himself.[/quote]But man loves himself, right? If so then he is capable and naturally expected to love!!

I understand you. I don't claim that self-definition and selfishness are the same either.
All I have said is that to value love as highly moral is not the rational outcome of a self-defined morality.

For the humanist's axioms/ideals of community and unity, love is definitely a rational pursuit.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]You have only quoted half of the statement. The preceeding part which you omitted is Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.[/quote]This right here is a demand FROM man to LoVE!! Therefore Love is within man's nature and freewill

What is valid in humanism does not depend on what human beings are capable of. Human beings are also capable of fear. Is this also a valued in humanism?

The question is: How do you reconcile selfless love to a value system based on self-definition? Whether love is an emotion or not is not even relevant in this matter.

you still fail deliberately not to understand what I'm saying. Nobody said either that humanism praises all of what man is capable of.

Self definition isn't selfishness, as I have been repeating in this thread.

But I have found Jesus in the pages of the bible, instruct his followers to love thy neighbours as their selves!! Self is still a standard, but for a humanist, it extends to encompass all humanity.

Love is yea, a character etc, but its an emotion also. Since you admit humans are capable of love why doubt its validity in humanism.

^^^

1. Science is just the epistlemological tool, knowledge is the goal. I don't think knowledge is irrelevant in answering existential questions.

2. Science hasn't been useless in aesthetics either.

3. I don't understand where Evil cometh in a Creation perfectly aligned to the Creator's nature. Also take into consideration, that in Christian mythology God is the Origin of Existence.

4. Was God BOUND to sacrifice Jesus to himself??

5. In modern times, human sacrifice is barbaric, however the rationale is perfectly understood and sympathized with. Its associated with ignorance and desperation. Christianity is very much part of such system.

But love is simply an expression of emotion to another person/object or one's self and in Christianity, you believe that the first step is loving Jesus! Therefore it can be expressed towards any other person!

It might reveal an amazing cultural commentary, however don't expect further such as subscription to Islam without accepting Islamic presumptions.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]It appears you have missed the point of all I have been saying. I am not saying that the humanist or anyone else is incapable of love, what I am saying is that love does not fit within the rationale of secular humanism. You can talk about Tolerance yes, but Love no.[/quote][quote author=Mr_Anony]I think the following phrase describes what SNCOQ3 and I have been saying

....Having a form of godliness but denying it's power.... 2 Timothy 3:5[/quote]As you have implied, its within man's innate Nature to LOVE, therefore compatible with whatever philosophy man puts his heart to. Probably you believe godliness IS similar to love.

So first man loves Jesus. If man is capable of expressing/having such love for a person, why do you deny the possibility of love for other ppl.

^^

No one is claiming an alternative cosmological theory, rather the religious ones are unsatisfactory.

I have big issues with both anony and scon for believing morality is only through a Christian source.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]No it doesn't. It would have been if Christ's love was conditional on our loving Him back but it isn't. besides it is about loving other people so it is not like we are paying Christ back or doing Him a favor. Christ loves us anyway whether we choose to love other people or not. When we choose to love other people, we are exhibiting Christ's character.

It is not a duty, it is the very nature of being a follower of Christ[/quote]But a Christian is whoever adopts the nature of Christ and by virtue of that, entitled to the spoils of Heaven, right? There is a big catch in being a Christian.