₦airaland Forum

luvinhubby:
How much am i buying now with queue?

Then how was your answer a solution when it would lead us back to this point. No proper business man will buy refined oil with the exchange rate of 320N to the dollar and sell at 86 or 100N. And most can't resist the temptation to hoard to sell higher. It's capitalism at its finest.

.....

Aviero:
Their songs don't have any importance, yet they keep getting awards. Wizkid's Ojuelegba was the 12th biggest song the world over last year. Doesn't that spell hard work?

Stop hating, and appreciate the work of these guys.

Fake wealth, you say? Which one is real, which one is fake? Bakin ciki

Is it because it's the biggest song, hence there must be hardwork behind it OR

Hard work made it the biggest song?

luvinhubby:
Deregulate fuel importation, anyone who can source forex should sell the fuel he is importing at a price profitable to him. Is that rocket science?

Would you buy petrol for up to 400 naira a litre?

luvinhubby:
Buhari is aloof !

NNPC only is importing fuel now as only them is getting forex at official price. Buhari is insisting on N86 per liter & no importer will buy forex at N320 per $1 & sell at 86, is Buhari not confused?

What do you want him to do? Devalue the naira to match with open market? Or subside the oil importers' costs to meet 86 naira?

Which poison do you suggest?

luvinhubby:
No other proof of Buhari's insensitive aloofness & irresponsibility than this 2 months old crippling fuel scarcity.

Nigeria welcome to the mega scam called APC's change.

The country is defective enough to import all its required refined oil entirely. That has been a long term crisis on its own. Added to it, is a sinking currency which has always been a Nigerian problem thanks to our import appetite. Furthermore the govt with its priced gold laying goose thinner, can not afford to subsidise any problem.

The problems aren't failings of this govt. It is worse to draw the wrong conclusions from the facts. If not today, at least tomorrow the crisis will resurface.

KingEbukasBlog:
There is no such thing as necessary evil in the obvious sense you are looking at it . The writer called it a necessary evil but I explained what he meant by that

Your explanation that the divinely inspired Judaism is worse than Christianity, shows relativity of morals; that God can switch from Judaic morals to a softer lenient Christian morals. But that aside, yet it seems the Israelites were ready to do anything and everything for God.

Especially when God is not subject to moral restraints likewise his agents on earth are not.

KingEbukasBlog:
Go back in history , people fought wars and took spoils of wars . It was part of what the life then . Nowadays , in this dispensation , such is not obtainable . The writer obviously noted that such is seen as improper now but it was the shii then .

Same way non-virgins and adulterous people were stoned in the past but Christ changed that . Such is not condoned in Christianity and is unacceptable - horrendous , heinous in fact .

So I didn't concede in the first place .

concede
kənˈsiːd/Submit
verb
1.
admit or agree that something is true after first denying or resisting it.

Where was the denial to start with

You are accepting or rejecting necessary evils?

KingEbukasBlog:
"Necessary evils" . How did I concede to that . Where in my response to his question did I do that

Your link with which was supposed to assist your explanation.
https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/why-were-only-virgins-left-alive-among-midianites

Some may object that the Israelites then married the virgins, the daughters of those whom they had killed and that this would be a horrible thing for the virgins. Perhaps it was a horrible thing for them. But, their lives were spared. Also, in that culture at that time, warfare and plunder was a necessary evil. The reality of taking women as wives was unfortunate but true.

thehomer:
Again, you didn't answer my question. Which line in that wasted post answers this particular question.

Please tell me, do you think a man marrying someone he raped is punishment?

You never said whether or not you thought it was punishment fitting the crime.

Which line or lines answer the follow up questions.

Do you think the person who was raped would be happy living with her rapist? Do you think women living in those times were better off than women today?

Would the victim be happy to remain with the rapist? Were women back then better off than today? These are plain and simple questions that you just find so difficult answering. Please answer what was asked rather than posting a long and irrelevant response to someone else. You declared you had answered them. Please actually answer them.

He has already conceded to the existence of necessary evils.

Joshthefirst:
No. The idea, was to suggest to you that in your hopeless and depraved state of moral relativity you have no relevant standard to condemn anything, especially your personal standards, which are insignificant in the evolutionary scheme of things, unless you have power to make your personal standards law.

Do you endorse necessary evils? Like Jesus's sacrifice?

PastorAIO:
Where I think I differ from you is that I make a distinction between Morality and Empathy.

For me, Empathy is the ability to feel the joy and pain of others while Morality is a system of Values with which we esteem the world.

Empathy can be highly esteemed in a moral system, or it can be given low esteem. But Morality is not based on Empathy.

Empathy is inherently irrational and emotional. It could be false in the sense that you imagine the pain you think another person is going through whereas they aren't.

I agree morality is attached to values, but what is indeed a value is decided by self reflection. If you read Socrates' arguments on morals, you would find him dissecting traditional values and replacing them with others or in other cases, elevating them, with reasoning and self reflection. If it is necessary values are as systematic as possible.

There is this famous Hindu or Vidas passage on duty. A nobleman is on the battlefield, anticipating a battle with his kinsmen and family. And I think Krishna disguises himself as his charioteer, and advises him on the importance of duty. Krishna acts as a conscience, as an inner mouthpiece. At the end of the day, the nobleman satisfied with his inner debate, acts.

I can not remember the names of these characters. Or reference the particular passage.

Can a system of values be created without self consciousness? I doubt it.

I think morality requires self reflection. The golden rule works when a man ponders the consequences of his actions to others as well as theirs to him. And that man restrains himself from certain actions. Restraint imposed by self reflection is morality not free will or obedience.

Abraham's story comes to mind. God instructs him to sacrifice his only son in order to receive continuing divine favours.

Abraham goes ahead blindly to the actual point of killing Isaac. There was no self reflection about the deed other than "God can provide another son". Abraham didn't bother to confirm if it's the Devil misleading him or his mind was muddled in confusion.

In his mind, the act was done. Of course God intervenes timely and praises absolute obedience. Note that Abraham might agree with Zizek that with his God all things are permitted.

DeepSight:
It is quite amusing to see Messrs Plaetton and Homer refer to self evident evil and the like, after such a long and tiresome insistence on moral subjectivity.

If morality is relative and subjective, I really don't know on what ground Yahweh can be condemned for even the most seemingly heinous acts. Nothing can be condemned, frankly, with such a worldview. In fact, words such as "evil", " bad" and "wrong" should not even exist.

However I expect these folk - Messrs Homer, AIO, Plaetton, Wiegraf and co - to continue chasing their tails in this matter ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

We can judge Yahweh upon his own standards. At least we can prove a hypocrisy.

Joshthefirst:
The death of Jesus wasn't an immoral event, it was God's righteous judgement on iniquity. The innocent man became the substitute of us all and became guilty of all sin, and was punished accordingly. And as he took upon himself our sin and God's wrath, we took upon ourselves his innocence and God's favor. Salvation

Although Jesus was innocent and was punished undeservedly, it was to serve God's greater purpose. Thus a bit of injustice is used to serve a greater good, isn't it?

Joshthefirst:
I think that God has chosen his character as a just judge.

Yet he orchestrated the death of an innocent man -- Jesus, which was unjust by his standards.

Joshthefirst:
Any moral action is a choice of God wrt his creation.

With what you have said, do you think all is permitted with God?

Joshthefirst:
No, subjective is about mine and yours, while objective is about truth.

And truth is self-evident. When you see a boy being bullied because of his stature or colour, you know within yourself that it is wrong, you know that humans have worth and should be treated with dignity and respect irrespective of stature or colour, even the bully knows, but he ignores this truth and chooses to follow his own base, erroneous, subjective subscriptions.

If the truth was that clear, we wouldn't be debating on NL..

For you the moral truth is what the bible says, for Socrates its reason, for Rousseau it's nature.

But the good news is your stand is an objective standard propped by God. Which leads my question: is God bound or restrained by morality?

Joshthefirst:
Their naturalist morality was subjectively superior.

It is also concluded that a naturalist morality is socially destructive, even though popular belief treats naturalism with high esteem.

Neither a subjective nor objective standard say much about moral content. They are just a formulaic statement on validity. Subjective says my morality is valid while yours is as well regardless of the difference. Whilst objective says mine is valid and yours isn't.

Joshthefirst:
I agree with the bolded.

The opinion of the Nazi's that the millions of jews they killed were less than human was subjective. The opinion that they were superior to other peoples was subjective.

It is an objective truth that leads you to realize that they were wrong

I don't think the Nazis supported subjective standard of morality, rather a naturalist morality proving their racial superiority against other races like Jews. Their naturalist morality was supposed objective otherwise it fell apart.

So what an objective standard entails can still differ depending on the respective perspectives.

Joshthefirst:
So you have yet to understand your position on the nature of morality?

Not necessarily.

Joshthefirst:
An objective standard is unchanging. It remains the same irrespective of what we think or say or do.

A subjective standard is only made up for convenience of its proponent.

To my understanding, objective standard is self evident and present independent of any agent. Whilst a subjective standard is dependent on an agent not necessarily for it's convenience.

Joshthefirst:
Are you a moral relativist?

Morality is like the elephant which was examined by the blind men.

KingEbukasBlog:
The bible condemns false doctrine .

The same bible subject to thousands of interpretations?! What else is false doctrine other than the "other" interpretation.

KingEbukasBlog:
Different interpretations sometimes can be used as tools by certain groups to promote their lifestyle or justify it .

Which does not make their view less valid.

Joshthefirst:
And an objective standard cannot stand without its source and enforcer.

What is the difference between the objective standard and subjective standard?

Joshthefirst:
What do you mean by moral restraint?

By what basis do you see those deeds as heinous and evil?

It is difficult to say.

Yet we know morality exercises restraint. That not all acts are permitted. The standard of restraint might be on basis of excess or harm principle or self overcoming.

Joshthefirst:
Answer mine in lucid terms then and stop being Ambiguous.

My God doesn't slaughter the innocent. Only once for a sacrifice of redemption did he do that.


So answer me then: By what standard do you judge one to be reasonable and another to be unreasonable?

Jesus's death was an act of injustice which is refined as one of redemption. Seemingly an evil acts on behalf of a greater good because God deems it so?

Joshthefirst:
The deciphering of good and evil takes us to many places, but without an objective standard, we all become hypocrite lawless animals.

What us wrong in my wiping out half of earth's population for the greater good of our planet?

An objective standard can stand without God, can't it? Otherwise it is not objective.

PastorAIO's biblical verse on the Midianite massacre touches exactly on what Zizek says. That religious groups tend to see themselves as agents and tools of God through whom all their deeds regardless how heinous are ratified and justified!

It can work the other way in the case of atheistic communists who see themselves as instruments of historical necessity or supreme justice or in the case of the French Revolution -- equality. They can act without moral restraint.

KingEbukasBlog:
Yup . And by drawing close to God . He helps you understand His word cos its His duurrh ! But on a serious note , I struggled to understand a few things but I sought , knocked , asked and it was revealed through different means .

I was trying to say it is a circular argument. And not practical. The truth you Christians do not have a formal mode of interpretation. Every Christian group does as they please.

Hence the rich and diverse interpretation of the bible.

KingEbukasBlog:
John 14 : 26

But the Comforter, who is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Amen sister !

I see you becoming a Christian soon . You seem to flounder with some concepts - this led to having a myriad of misconceptions about God . APPARENTLY .. but you can mention me in case you need any help

v

Strangely enough this method is within the bible! And the bible is understood by the interpretational methods contained in the bible! So to understand these methods, you have to understand the bible and to understand the methods etc.