₦airaland Forum

^^^

I don't think morality and natural order share the same rationale or contents, they are substantially different.

One can argue effectively that sex is not directed solely for reproduction, but also for pleasure and as a social tool. Therefore if such ends are in mind, its natural.

I would also define natural as what physical laws dictate/operation (ie gravity) and behaviour directly stimulated from innate impulses of living organisms.

I also think spirituality is an uneffective explanation for the unknown. Its a problem that lies in the failure of African scholarship (in the past) to understand metaphysics. As a result the elements of truth are taken for granted to an extent whereby the line between reality and fantasy is so thin and sometimes indistinguishable.

Modern science and Western philosophy have done a great deal of work in ascertaining/deciphering reality, which we still take for granted.

What is the difference btw God and the father?

^^^ Good Effort!

BUT assuming your God is omnipotent and he built all these from the NOTHING, WHY is there a design??

Enigma: I believe this was for you to explain your understanding of Jesus as "son of God"; perhaps you want to stick with the basic explanation you already gave. As for Christians, it is a given that He is the Son of God as I said earlier.

Christians believe that "everything" was made by or through Jesus. Jesus Himself is not created but is eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

But this is not what is meant by "fiduciary relationship" as such - though this is not a big issue.
No problemo.

EDIT Meanwhile, we never did settle how "us" is/are son/s of God!

Jesus not God is the creator of everything, while Jesus wasn't created by God, right?

Consequently, there three deities in Chirstianity. And we nor Jesus can't be Creations of God, since God didn't create anything.

Homosse.xuality could be demonic or unnatural, one thing clear, WE are culturally tuned to accept sexual identities: homose.xual and heterosexual. I don't think sexual drive is directed at any sex. Many cultures even African ones have found a role/duty for such ppl in the societies. The Greeks and Macedons would have thought differently.

For this discussion, "natural" doesn't have a clear meaning and its being mistaken for morality: "right and wrong". Most moral rules are against murder, violence, incest, yet they seem "natural".

FXKing2012: Glad I'm finally able to knock all them atheists out with my killer punch. Better wise up and turn to God!

I still don't understand what you mean by "spiritual" other what a MOG says. And what is God in a Christian context and why is truer than other Gods?? Do you have any comprehensive research on dreams?? How did you get to know that God/spiritual works thru dreams??

Sagamite: YOU are gay, come off it!

You are a person for saying I said morals form human rights. Homosexuality is not a human right.

Not so great dogma. Whatever makes u sleep at night

All I want to know is where did the freewill of the victims of Evil fly to??

Enigma: Christians of course accept Jesus to be the Son of God. Your post implied you did too and it would be nice to see you explain your own understanding.

We can proceed.

enigma: If you are still working with "claims of the Christian with scriptural confirmation" then you are wrong I'm afraid. Christians do not believe that Jesus is a "creation". You see now why it is important that you explain your own understanding?

Since God CREATED everything, everything comes after. God's creation can be categorically seen as his Sons/Son.

enigma: A father and son relationship does not ipso facto create a "fiduciary relationship"! Are you aware that the concept of "fiduciary relationship" is a particular concept in the common law system/family of laws?

as long as there is a son, there is the presence of a father which complements the relationship. Thus two separate persons at both ends, with rights, trust and duties in slope towards the Son.

enigma: The doctrine of "The Trinity" per se is not beyond human reason. Firstly, it is revealed in scripture; secondly, it has been articulated in logical forms over the years, indeed over centuries, by Christians.

However, the full nature of God's divinity or the interrelationships within The Trinity is indeed beyond human reason.

At least there is reason to discuss.

Sagamite: Of course it is not war.

I am well aware you are gay just based on your argument pattern.

This is not the first time I am debating with you. Other gay ones like you are all4naija and Eko Ile.

No matter the logic put forward to you, you will never accept any logic that proves homosexuality is not acceptable. You just love to waste peole's time by scraping at any distractive arguments when any of your moronic and numerously lame points is highlighted.

You are time waster since you are not here to hear an argument or be corrected. You are just here to justify your homosexuality.

LOL!!

You don't have to be a partisan to issues, one doesn't need to gay to defend same sex relationships, one doesn't need to be a woman to defend abortion rights, one doesn't need to be religious to defend rights to religion, thought and conscience.

Obama isnt gay for having favourable gay rights opinion, neither was Author Fugard black for being against racism and Apartheid.

As long as you can accept that people's consciences are sovereign, you would understand the concept of personal freedom.

The French and American Declarations recognized the equality and freedom of man, yet most believed that blacks and slaves were not inclusive in the wordings of the declarations. Today, we find that outrageous. Qualifying human rights based on moral bias will nullify thw whole rights. Other classes of ppl can freely be included till no right is left.

Same with gay rights, homosexuality is considered an abomination in most parts of Nigeria, however if human rights is NOT at the instance of society's approval.

You have also abandoned your grounds that morals form human rights and that personal freedom is NOT in the constitution! Because they were too ridiculous!!

Sagamite: You are a person!

Its not a war.

Sagamite: Can you fcking answer my questions and stop the moronic "what am I going to say next so it does not look like if I have lost"? DON'T WASTE MY TIME!

BUT it was you who claimed there were no personal freedom but morals and I clearly pointed out to you that its not the case and such claim was ridiculous!!!

Sagamite, you have NO points!!

Enigma: I'm not quite sure it's so clear, could you clarify a couple of things for me as below? Thanks.




1. How is Jesus "the son of God"?

2. How is "us" the son/s of God?

3. How is Jesus' sonship comparable with that of "us"?

4. What exactly do you mean by a "fiduciary relationship with God"?




Certain matters of divinity must ex necessitate be above reason. Having said that, there are logical and reasoned conceptions of divinity even within the Christian faith as you should know.

1. The frequent claims of the Christian with scriptural confirmation.

2.Working on an assumption that God created all that exists except himself, Jesus becomes a creation of his, just like we are.

3. Same creation.

4. In other words, father and son relationship.

For these matters beyond reason, does it include the trinity concept?

There is a sister thread somewhere else.

^^ No deepsight, Christianity sees man as dust modelled after God

Deep Sight: Surely this doesn't add up. If these gadgets are "atheistic", would we then call gadgets invented by religious people "christian" gadgets? Is the concept of refraction of light "Christian" for example? Please lets not fool around.

LMFAOO!!

Its so clear! That Jesus is the Son of God like us, thus a separate being different and connected by a fidiucary relationship with God!

Simple, except if matters of divinity is above reason.

remmyz: May Allah 4giv u

If you can believe babies can be born with qurans, why not bombs or needles or a report card.

Is faith equivalent to stupidity?!

Sagamite: Both!

Now answer my questions and stop dodging.

Good start.

The right to life, freedom of thought, privacy, liberty, property, association, religion don't sum up to personal freedom??

On the second gay rights are rooted to freedom of thought, privacy, personal liberty and religion.

Sagamite: Gay marriage is not personal freedom or human rights. If it is why is polygamy not? How come morals is used to ban polygamy?

Does the constitution give you a right to walk na[i]k[/i]ed on the streets? Why is the right to bear arms in the US constitution but not in other nations? Is that not based on their culture and morals?

You want to waste my time.

Which is it, gay marriage is not a consequence of personal freedom/willingness and right to associate with same sex OR that personal freedoms are not entrenched in the Constitution??!!

You must be CLEAR!

Ptolomeus: Exactly. Excellent contribution!
Jesus was never seen God. In the fourth century AD, the Nicene Council, organized by Constantine, decided by majority that "Jesus is God" and that there is a trilogy "father, son. Holy spirit."
Jesus never said he was God, never wanted to found a new church, but changes in the Jewish church (to which he belonged).
It was at the Council of Nicea that "invented" the new idea that Jesus was God. (Constantine political interests).

Nobody thought then, which created the great contradiction that a god was killed by humans in the most humiliating that existed at the time.

It is important to read history, not just read the Bible.
The books do not bite!

The Council of Nicaea overwhelmingly approved a separate divine Jesus from God the father. However the bishops were mostly foreigners: Greeks, Romans, Egyptians who had a different cultural background from Jesus and understood his message in their native context. The idea of two Gods, namely Jesus and God wasn't repugnant to them, in short they were very familiar with it.

Christianity in essence evolved. The Gentiles actually broken off Christianity from Judaism.

Sagamite: You just want to come with "what am I going to say next so it does not look like if I have lost"?

Societies come up with moral rule they find appropraite for it. What don't you understand about that? You want to waste my time?

I have never disagreed with anyone that morality is a product of society, but that personal freedom and human rights will always override morals. Morals lack a legitimacy unlike laws. Morals in Nigeria are a fragmented reflection of the motley of cultural differences and variations in the country.

However you raised a claim that the constitution is of a moral basis since its not possible for a country to make laws without moral content. Its left to you prove it by bringing examples!!

Sagamite: And your point is?

Just curious if there is any such moral!

I don't think reality cannot be broken into fragments. Its one.

Sagamite: I am making my stand! Ia m rubbishing your argument that building laws based on morality is dangerous!

EVERY SOCIETY DOES! THAT IS PART OF CREATING SANE SOCIETIES, NOT A DANGER!

That is EQUIVOCAL and CLEAR!

You know it but you are dodging the question because you know that and are so closed-minded and want to stick with you poor arguments.

Homosexual activities are not human rights, hence susceptible to morality laws.

Constitutions are normally influenced by and constructed based on MORAL laws!

Pls what moral rule is responsible for abortions, contraceptives, the freedom is to have sex with whoever u want

[quote author=Tayo-D]@Kay_17,

I don't know if you are deliberately misquoting me to win an argument or that you have basically misunderstood my position all along. I have said times without number that freedom of association is a right. What I do not subscribe to is saying that any association has a right to demand a license from the State. Remember my analogy with the Doctors and Herbalists?[/quote]We are in agreement as to the freedom to associate is a right. But the dispute is on the role of State marriage licences. But you HAD mentioned customary polygamous marriages which are legal enforceable, which misplaces marriage as a privilege from the State.

tayo d: I agree. Where we differ is you ascribing the issuance of a marriage licencse to rights! There is right to freely associate and sleep with whoemever or as many people as you want as long as it is consentual. What you don't have a right to is insist that the State grant you marriage status by issuing you a license when you do not meet the set criteria

State licences/certs is a formalization/regularization process which protects the other rights of others without damaging yours. Trade Union have a similar regularization/formalization process, but still preserves their rights to associate.

All contracts are instantly enforceable by law, same as marriage.

tayo d: The State does not recognize polygamy in Nigeria. I know people who wanted to remarry but had to divorce their spouses to do so. Traditionally, polygamy is accepted but not by law. Naija aside, are you saying that the US is trampling on the rights of polygamists by not issuing them licences?

Polygamy like every contract is enforceable. Most ppl marry under Marriage Act, which regularises marriage for those with the intention to marry one spouse. Also most ppl don't understand the law and confuse it as the only legitimate form of Marriage.

Deepsight, reality is caused?? Or causality is a principle of reality?!

Did you read what I posted at all??!! I made it clear that the Constitution will necessarily supercede over moral laws!! Check out Roe vs Wade, check out Nigerian case laws on the validity of customs over inheritance!

And you are not unequivocal and clear, make your stand and stick with it. Focus on the gay marriage, I never mentioned polygamy wasn't a right of association.

FXKing2012: Atheists! Make sense off this:

Have you ever dreamed and it later came to reality?
Have a ever had a feeling of deja vu?
Have u ever been overwhelmed by something way beyond your powers, be it in a dream or in some sort of subconscious state, and u were completely unable to do anything about it?

If u have ever experienced any of these - and we all have at one point or another - then you must be extremely stooopid to opine there is no spiritual realm.

I don't think every phenomenon is to be credited spiritual! There is a lot we just don't know

Sagamite: No.

Surely you are sensible enough to be able to judge if Obama would be willing to stand up in public for polygamy?

Secondly, your argument on the topic is that societies/nations are wrong for using morals or cultural views of the moment to dictate human rights is dangerous. Now I asked you which countries you know that does not use moral or cultural views to dictate human rights or make laws. You are dodging that question miserably. Is it really that dangerous to use cultural views to set laws? Or is your argument just weak? Or you are trying to fool people with lame arguments like majority of the pro-gay argument does?

Gay activities is not human rights, and definitely not universally recognized.

Like traffic laws?!!

Laws are sometimes made to cultural taste BUT human rights laws and the constitution prevail over all other laws. If a law with a moral basis is being made and its contrary to human rights or constitution, its loses effect.

For example, inheritance in most nigerian societies are unfavourable to women, which is contrary to their rights against discrimination and inequality. So they are set aside.

[quote author=Tayo-D]@kay_17,

Not only are you proving my point here, but you are also giving more ammunition to Sagamite.

1. You talk about agreement between the parties. This is basic and everyone has a right to freely associate. This agreement by the parties is based on their morals like Sagamite explained. I will not agree to marry another woman when I am still married to my wife. It is against my moral code.

2. Customary marriages are valid as far as that community is concerned. That validity does not necessarily carry over into another custom. For instance, polyandry is an aceptable custom in some parts of india. That marraige, though recognized by that custom does not carry over to other customs in India talkless of Nigeria.

3. Going by the above, it is clear that marriages can take any form that it pleases the parties, but it does not mean they have a right to a marriage licence by the State. For instance, there are Somalis here in the US who are married to more than one wife in keeping with their Islamic faith. The State does not recognize that relationship but their community does. They are not asking for the State to issue them licenses for those marriages because it does not meet the state requirements. Is their civil rights being trampled upon because of this? Please answer the question.[/quote]This wasn't your prior position, which was that marriage was the preserve of the State, consequently marriages without State approval are not marriages in effect.

Individuals make their decisions on account of so many reasons, moral consideration could be one. However that's not in issue. Morality of a community doesn't have superiority over human rights.

Polygamy is a right of a man upon securing the consents of the wives, and the State recognizes it as a right to association in Nigeria. As to a woman having many husbands, I feel it shares the same attributes with polygamy, BUT few men would want to share a wife despite having a right to do so.

tayo d: But there is nothing like human right to a state-issued marriage licence, or is there?

If we accept your assumption, why then should we be forced to issue licenses to people who through their own volition enter into a relationship?There are millions of people living together for the long term but have no State-isued marriage licenses. How does that detract from the relationship?

Who are the "we" in this context?