₦airaland Forum

As to the first question: why is the West involved?
The second. As living laws there interpretation should vary with time

If there is polygamy in the West? I answered/asked, why is the West involved?

@justcool

if a man is found dead, the default position is not the most likely option. Its nothing and starts with whoever asserts. This is entirely a misunderstanding of burden of proof.

@deepsight

The burden of proof shifted from the Church to Galileo. The Church's position was not the default one, it had already "proved" its point. The default position will always be nothing assumed.

As to the issue of causality, man is aware he is able to create complex systems not that intelligence is the only way of doing so.

^^ And you think societal acceptability should be the limit for freedom?

Homosexuality is neither a guaranteed right in the West, so why are u using the West?

You dont seem interested in understanding the issue, just want flare out hatred.

Mormons are allowed to marry beyond a spouse. But you are still using the standard of disgust.

The default position is an empty table without presumptions and assumptions. So the burden of proof still rests on who asserts

@sagamite

Constitutional and international laws are living laws not dead ones, they apply to fit into modern situation. Also, societal or cultural acceptability cant override fundamental human rights. Its a mockery of human rights if they do. Only categorical imperative.

Your standard of disgust is not good enough, it can be interpreted wide enough to preclude even right to life.

Yes God.

@Uyi

But the author of biological life forms is within the contemplation of science right?

@Uyi u dont believe new species can emerge from mutation, Right?

^^ I'm sorry to say this; but you are daft man

C'mon

I'm aware of 'such' reputation. Make stands on intuition and emotions. Then be too dumbfounded to respond

Pls could u at least refute what i said?

@Sagamite

Most of your reasons and terms 'stink' of subjectivity. Whats disgust? Or sanity? Or normalcy?

Humans are unique and different in their ways, its not the society's job to create a conformists but regulate relations and safety. Each individual defines himself or herself, society just provides the bond btw individuals.

Thus minorities, by the fact of their culture, racial background, sexual preferences ought to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

@amtired

Jesus has the free will to make heaven gay free

Seriously?!

Then Muslims, Catholics, Hindus too are atheists

@tobi they ve d right

The koran simply subscribed to the bible, cos it came later than the bible. So how do we know the Bible is not lying or its not simply the view of some ancient men

^^they ve a right to life, privacy, association and sexual preference. They are of no harm to the society but a section, a minority; a target of a hate campaign by a hate religion. They are humans and are qualified to rights to sexual preference.

If the bible says Jesus is the Son of God, how well can we trust the Bible?

I hope the national assembly can for one more time, interfere with private life by making laws on sex styles, like ban all others except missionary.

Also the National Assembly can be thanked in its effort to convert multicultural and diverse Nigeria into an ant colony for convention.

@enigma

If my definition is not adequate, point out the weakness, whether its too narrow or too broad.

Its an objective test of imperfection. Or are you denying that there is no evil in our world?

Thelstan:
@Kay 17

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7

If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?
Amos 3:6

We are "below the plains of evaluation of good and evil". BUT in the real sense, only someone who sees the entire picture at once can TELL if an event is good or evil. And that person is God.

Anybody can call an act of God good or evil as they wish. After all, none of us can see the ABSOLUTELY complete picture as he does, so in our myopic views we will call it good or evil.

From the statement above, you 'd made it clear that humans can not perceive and decide whats good and evil. Also that God is responsible for evil.

@enigma

Definition of terms: evil has been defined too many times already. Good is antithetical to evil, its suitability and adequacy for an end. What enhances full development of human potential. God is either the Christian one or the Muslim one

Thelstan:
@Kay 17

We are not on the same frequency but I believe God is perfect in his purposes.

The following verses tell accounts in an anthropocentric sense. From a human perspective (even when God is speaking)

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create EVIL: I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7

If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?
Amos 3:6

Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?
Lamentations 3:38

We are below the plains of evaluation of good and evil. So we observe and say "Oh this is evil" or "This is good", depending on how it suits us. e.g. is it good for the US to wage war / oppress a country in the Middle East and cart off their oil? We could say it's good for the US economy and evil for that country. BUT in the real sense, only someone who sees the ENTIRE PICTURE at once can TELL if an event is good or evil. And that PERSON IS GOD

Anybody can call an act of God good or evil as they wish. After all, none of us can see the ABSOLUTELY complete picture as he does, so in our myopic views we will call it good or evil.

I believe God is perfect in his purposes, and that's all.

We are definitely not on the same frequency then, for you do not even believe God exists, let alone believe he is perfect in his purposes.

Or how can one be perfect in purpose who is not perfect in existence?

You clearly mentioned that only God can perceive good and evil, since he is the only being capable of seeing the whole picture. The idea of humans being unable to perceive good and evil is ridiculously and we cant claim God is all good if its an unknowable. Thus its a useless title.

You claim he created evil, thus created imperfection, and being imperfect himself.
Also i never agreed wit u that God was perfect.

@thelstan

Can humans perceive good and evil? Is God's creation perfect?

@enigma

the writer saw morality as a command from a commander. I doubt if thats true, because it goes beyond a command, it is goes beyond religion. Its more like a societal conscience, a societal ATTEMPT at good. At good is an inherent value of an act not of the agent

@thelstan

Can humans perceive good and evil? Is God's creation perfect?

@enigma

the writer saw morality as a command from a commander. I doubt if thats true, because it goes beyond a command, it is goes beyond religion. Its more like a societal conscience, a societal ATTEMPT at good. At good is an inherent value of an act not of the agent

There are thousands of interpretation of the words and works of Muhammed, and the divergent views all integrate the character Muhammed with their doctrines. A moderate does not have a better claim than fundamentalist to Islam. If ppl, muslims kill others in the name of Muhammed, their depiction of the prophet is an opinion that can be criticized

@thelstan

We on the same frequency, good and evil both entail degrees of perfection. Thus God in his primary role, primary purpose As a CREATOR. The question Is he evil and is he perfect are the same

Why Is Jesus The Son Of God?

I want to give Christianity a chance and with an open mind, i ask how do we know Jesus is the Son of God?