₦airaland Forum

gensteejay:
Your argument is rather pointless, I'm uninterested about your terms in Government; whether US is a secular State or not. My view on this issue is not pedagogical, but pragmatic and ethical. There is a clear dichotomy between good and evil, marriage, as institutionalised by God, is a union between man and woman. Anything other than this is evil and an aberration.

The Supreme Court of the US, does not owe allegiance to God rather to the Constitution. These technical points are indispensable. Yes there is a clear dichotomy of good and evil to linear thinkers like you (no offence intended) forgetting that morals themselves are built into value systems like Christianity, secularity etc. For seculars, who believe tolerance is outward projection of love, evil will be your own good. But that aside, the decision is a legal one and should be discussed as such.

gensteejay:
And you are not smart enough to know that there are several Muslims and Christians in the US. I've only made my views known here as a Nigerian, I am neither an American nor do I live in US.
And don't quote me if you've nothing sensible to say.

Because there are Christians in a country makes the State a theocratic State?!

ogaprime:
“No court, no law, no rule, and no words will
change the simple truth that marriage is the union
of one man and one woman,”

Marriage is an institution backed up by law and morals. Imagine marriages lacked the backing from the law. The husband can abandon his wife and suffer no legal and moral consequences. If there is no coercion how would the marriage work? It just can not. God does not come down himself to enforce marriages.

gensteejay:
Well, it appears you are one of the advocates of LGBT marriage. This evil practice is condemned, in strongest terms, by God in both the Qur'an and the Bible. So I can't be and don't have to be God's spokesman to know a sinful action and condemn it, since I can read God's laws in His holy Books. We all know what's right and what's wrong, this distinction is not difficult to make most times. But some people have chosen to remain blind and deaf to the evils committed by their fellow men, simply because such actions don't affect the prices of foods in the markets; as if they came to this world just to eat.
There is a saying in Yorubaland: 'ti ara ile eyan ba n je kokoro, wurun ere e koni je a gbadun ti o ba ya', meaning 'if your neighbour has the habit of committing wrongful acts, by the time he faces the consequences of his actions you will not be spared'.

This is an exercise similar to pointlessness. The USA is a secular state, of what relevance is there to attach religious values such as Islamic and Christian ones to it. This is how discussions break down because people like you lack the understanding for the basics.

johnydon22:
Its not an ailment just like under secretion of pituitary gland (shortness) is not an ailment. . .

About reversing this, am not sure hormonal defects can be corrected after it has taken its effects.

But i think just like cases of albinism can be corrected shortly after birth, this can also be corrected if detected on time

What if it can be corrected like albinism, would you give them countless rights based on a curable ailment?

johnydon22:
People consider it abnormal because many are ignorant of the causes. . . .I for one as a hetero hate anything homosexual but you have to first understand the plight of others before you condemn them or tag them abnormal.

Its caused by over secretion or under secretion of testosterone in both male and female children..

Just like short people are short because of under secretion of pituitary gland. . . Unless you consider this hormonal defect abnormal then yes homosexuality is abnormal but if you don't then there you have it.

If there is an over secretion of testosterone in women and under secretion in males, is there a possible medical correction? If there is, wouldn't that be sufficient treatment of such an ailment?

johnydon22:
It is like saying you should hospitalize blacks because they have an excessive secretion of melanin..

But we don't consider blacks or whites to be abnormal for their melanin. We don't consider it as a deformity. But on the other hand, you are saying homosexuals' hormones malfunction.

pasol4real:
The devil is really taking over America.
With buhari becoming their ally i fear for nija .
So i have decided to form a squad called "gay hunters " Our mission? To hunt down all gays in nija n burn them alive .

What if you are the first victim of a poor execution of your plan? Are you willing to pay such a price for such a drastic action?

johnydon22:
First of all homosexuals are born, it is a defect when a male child has under secretion of testosterone or when a female has a much more percentage of the same hormone...

So if your or my child turns out gay, there is nothing you can do it him/her. . . she/he was born that way. there is nothing you can do to change them or make them like the opposite sex, it is what they are tho they are some cases who weren't born that way

You can only try to talk to him/her but yet the path he/she choose to live life still remains his/her choice and his/hers alone not mine. . .

For me personally i would do nothing because there is nothing to do, but for a country Nigeria with anti-gay bills they should respect the constitution or face the constitution

be happy you weren't born gay and hope your child doesn't turn out so too


now let me boomerang that question;

what would you do?

But if homosexuality is some form of deformity ( in the sense that the right hormones are not realised in the right quantities ) then we should be hospitalizing them rather than create a legal avenue to worsen the condition. Don't you think?

There is an excerpt I have from Gay Science, that people often moralize against ideas and behaviours they find strange. Given the strangeness we find in homosexuality, it is not unusal for us to moralize against it.

In other words, God did not need attention, love etc. Why then does he need it now?

Sagamite:
For how long?

This is why I have been telling many foools on NL who like to pride themselves with "Live and let live" and "I don't support homosexuality but whatever anyone does in private does not bother me" so lets not criminalise homosexual acts, that once you decriminalise it, YOU HAVE NO GROUNDS TO STOP ANYTHING.

They immediately have an argument:

- To marry.
- To adopt.
- To procreate through IVF.
- To show public affection anywhere.
- To be on your TV.
- To dance like freaks on your streets for Pride Day.
- To request your kids are indoctrinated positively about them.
- To set up pressure groups.
- To put companies and people in calumny for not supporting them.
- To sue anyone that publicly objects to them in commercial or religious setting.
- And more.

And there is no gaddam thing you can do about it.

In 1 year, they would be marrying in churches that are supportive.
In 5 years, the courts would be deciding to force unsupportive churches to conduct their marriage ceremony in a landmark discrimination case. And they will win.
In 10 years, the courts would be in fire deciding to force mosques to conduct their marriage ceremony based on the previous case. And some few homosexuals would just be killed for starting that war. They would win the court case, but not one single homosexual would dare exercise that right after the win and seeing that the people that brought the case are dead.

You can't stop them now.

True, there is a public side to these so called privacy rights. It is indeed a paradox.

kgr8mike:
America where is your soul? Where is your identity? You were made to stand tall and be a light to the nations but now your light, you light has gone deem. You are no longer too far from Sodom, very close are you to that which God detest. My association with you oh America will henceforth be from a distance. Oh America, can this be you?

Legalize everything. Legalize gay marriage and legalize terrorism also since you want everyone to be himself. If everybody becomes himself- that is absolute freedom- freedom without restrictions- freedom without dos and don'ts. Such freedom is destruction. America, oh America where is your soul. I weep.

The US is a secular state, do not judge it as a theocratic one. If you would create an absurdity.

Audray:
i dont think gay people force other people to be gay. Gay people have existed for thousands of years now and i dont see how tht has affected worldwide human population .gay people have been getting married in the USA , this ruling only officially legalised it,giving gay people who are also human beings their God given rights. And i dont see why this should be ur headache. That ur hateful comment here garnered a thousand likes and shares will not change a thing. You sir,are a victim of institutionalised homophobia. Why not jump off that retarded, unprogressive bandwagon and see that there is more to life than hating and judging people for who they love.

God given rights?! That is painful oxymoronic. God granting the homosexuals a right to perpetuate a scheme in direct opposition to his divine vision.

Sagamite:
Surprisingly, despite this amendment, the same US makes polygamy illegal and jailable.

What pure hypocrisy.

A literal reading of legal texts is hardly helpful nor healthy.

Orunto:
Ques:-How do you please God? Story:-God cares for us more than we know of Him and obey. Ans:-Never turn your back on God. He loves attention, obedience and worship. He gives all these to us and loves reciprocal relationship with these attributes. Only God is Good and He values us, made in His image, to be as good as Him!!!!

Before God created everything, did he need attention? How wouldnt atheists make fun of your God?

If you do not leave God, are you guaranteed God will not leave you?

^^

If Evil does not exist, why it is real?!

If I commit a positive act like hacking your mother to death, is it a negative act of not doing good?!

Are you evil for doing no good at all?! I doubt you do a good thing every minute of your life, therefore each minute you do not do good, you automatically do evil??

DeepSight:
You really and truly don't know anything.

Really and truly.

It was a justified question! But you are refusing the opportunity to set things right.

UyiIredia:
In the argument from order in the universe I infer God from order in the universe. One can base this on the fact that intelligent agents work with order.

In the argument from life, I note that genetic codes which almost all life is based isn't explainable by natural processes based on how they codes don't follow natural laws. I state how codes are usually made by conscious effort (ostensibly by humans) and so on this note I deduce that A conscious God made lifeforms.

Arguing from consciousness, I note how it is inexplicable from a purely materialistic viewpoint. Chemical reactions and physical events at various levels have material effects alone. In brains, materialists face a dilemma where the effects are not only not material, but have a unique property: a mental property which can't be defined in purely material terms. This is a good reason to conclude that a God exists.

"Codes do not follow natural law" how do you establish that?!

Why are we to believe that codes which are found in nature and exist prior to man's existence on earth without an extrapolation with human intelligence and divine intelligence?

Why does THC a chemical compound have an altering effect on human consciousness?

Given human understanding of the memory and its location in the brain, how do you reconcile the immaterial functions of the brain with its physical presence in the brain.

UyiIredia:
Why not ? I think it does. I think one must go further because no natural process at the moment is capable of even making a coin and is certainly incapable of making a code.

I agree with you that no coin nor a car nor a ship has naturally occurred but you deliberately ignoring trees, planets, galaxies, supernovas; which are more superior and complex to a coin.

Here is a bind you are in. Every example you have of a code is in nature, and you would be laying a contradictory foundation that the code found in nature is not naturally occurring. And then build on this foundation your proof that such code is made by a divine intelligence.

DeepSight:
What do you understand about quantuum physics that enables you so so glibly attribute any phenomena that you do not understand to quantum effects?

I want you to answer me very specifically on this question.

I say this because: and I want you to take this point most seriously and be honest about it:

1. Is it not true that quantum physics is as yet an emerging field barely understood at all - and even hardly properly defined in terms of implications as yet?

2. If (1) above is true, then do you not agree that you are committing the exact same sin you accuse religionists of when they attribute phenomena they cannot understand to God - "God did it"?

For is it not true that you do not know if things like thoughts are carried at all in any quantum way - and yet, for all phenomena you do not understand, you are happy to simply interpolate a field of study of which next to nothing is known as yet?

Is this not exactly what you are doing?

How is this different from the God-did-it fellows, tell me?

For, in answer to any possible question I may throw you, and for which you do not know the answer but wish to deny a spiritual or Divine answer, you would of course simply say - "The Quantum Arena Did it!"

The same quantum arena of which you know exactly nothing.

Diddly Squat. Jack. Zilch. Nada.

Clearly we do not possess doctoral and postdoctoral degrees in quantum sciences, what is important is the fundamentals and the questions and conclusions we can gather from it. Science unlike religions, supposes provisional truths, that is the truth is always the limits of our knowledge. As our knowledge grows, so also our image of truth changes. This is fundamental in understanding science and hence science can tolerate contradictions. It can shapeshift successfully to accept new truths.

This is not the same with monotheist religions, a contradiction is intolerable. The truths in these religions are absolute.

Mind is not a waveform. Mind emits and transmits through waves.

Only the physical manifestations of mind can be so assessed.
Unless of course you will extend the definition of science into the meta-physical.

And that is tenable for there are meta-physical sciences, which I zm not sure you would admit of, but which are real sciences too.

Mind is metaphysical.

Is this self evident? No! Can you prove this given that the mind is metaphysical? NO! So what bearing are you coming from?! Besides what makes metaphysical sciences science?

DeepSight:
All of this I long know to be true of your views and who you are and that is fine, save that the statement in red in the above is terribly wrong because science deals with the physical, whereas non physical things, elements and planes do exist.

In addition, you do not need to reflect carefully to see that that statement of yours is an omniscient statement. It is a statement that can only be made by one who is omniscient. I therefore today christen you Plaetton the omniscient.

In the blue bold, you have actually touched upon a little of that which you are here to do in this earthlife before proceeding to the next. But we shall discuss that much later when you awaken a little.

Also, you need to stop comparing the theo-philosophical question of the existence of God to toothfairies. It makes you appear unserious or simply illiterate in philosophical matters.

Or worse, just shallow.
And you are not shallow, Plaetton.

Your attempt in creating a dichotomy between the physical and nonphysical AND then alluding the physical to science is disingenuous. Of course you would go along and define the physical to mean "that which is restricted within time and space" while leaving out information, ideas, behaviours outside the realm of physical. Besides Plaetton and I do not accept this dichotomy.

Kay17:
This statement above is one created out of experience. It is observed from human interaction with the environment. It then extrapolated to apply to the Universe. Don't you see this as a limit and a flaw in your theistic arguments?

UyiIredia:
It is. No arguments doesn't have its flaws.

Then why do we have to go further and continue with GODdidIT?! The fundamental premise you rely on, is inductive and incapable of applying to the Universe.

seedgreen:
one out of the numerous, I don't get sick as a result of the 'superHuman life' that I have.

But you vulnerable to death and misfortune. Besides other Christians still fall ill, and some secularists hardly fall sick as well. Yet we being humans are subjected to the same frailties of human life. Christianity does not have that much practical benefits.

seedgreen:
this is the highest level of spiritual ignorance I have seen on NL. 2cor5vs17 says if any man be in Christ he is a new creation! The word 'new creation' there is from the greek work SOKIBAHA meaning new breed, a different kind of specie, a supernatural Human. That u are not yet experiencing those things u stated in ur christian life do sent mean mine is a scam. I live in the supernatural everyday. What I have is Zoe, it's the very nature of God. That very thing that made God who he's Is what I have. Glorry to God

These are vague statements to very clear questions. I don't see how you have touched on each point I raised. What are the practical consequences of being a new creation? are you superhuman?

seedgreen:
The Beauty Of Christianity.
For it has pleased God to tell his people that the riches and glory of Christ are for you Gentiles, too. For this is the secret: Christ lives in you... (Colossians 1:27 NLT).

Christianity is the living, pulsating life of God in a human person; it's Christ at home in you. Christianity is divinity at work and alive in and through you; it's the relationship between a human being and a living God.

Christianity isn't a religion at all. Religion is man's work towards God; his ways and efforts to reach out to God. Christianity, on the other hand, is God's work in man. It's a call to oneness with Divinity; a walk with God in righteousness; a call to the transcendent life of glory and love. Colossians 1:27 says Christ in you, the hope of glory. That's Christianity: Christ alive in you.

Someone once said, "I'm now very religious, since I became a Christian"; no! That's a complete misunderstanding of who a Christian is. A Christian is one in whom God dwells; a partaker of the divine nature - an associate of the God-kind. This makes Christianity so sublime! God wasn't satisfied to merely be with or live amongst us, He chose rather to take up His abode in the quarters of our hearts! That's the beauty and glory of Christianity! It's the life of God lived out through you. It's the unveiling of the Living Word in a human life!

Until and unless this becomes your understanding of Christianity, all you have will be mere religion. The essence of Christianity, the reason we go to church, pray, preach the Gospel and do the things we do as Christians isn't because we've embraced a religion, but because we've received God's nature - His life. That's what Jesus brought to us. He made it possible for us to receive eternal life - the indomitable, impregnable, "uninfectable" life of God: "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life" (1 John 5:11-12).

What are the practical results of these?! Does the fact God has entered into you in a spiritual form make you superhuman? or able to walk on water or create miracles OR make you humble or wealthier?! Has the 2000 year experience of Christianity made the world a better place?

UyiIredia:
Intelligent beings can and do create order out of chaos. The same could apply to the universe.

This statement above is one created out of experience. It is observed from human interaction with the environment. It then extrapolated to apply to the Universe. Don't you see this as a limit and a flaw in your theistic arguments?

And I was really excited to see where MrAnony1's points would have ended.

I don't see the point of trying to guess the intentions of another poster and then attempt to castigate and in turn derail the thread. Please try to avoid that imputing false intentions on other posters, it is provocative.

MrAnony1:
I am not trying to "establish" God's existence. My claim is that God is as obvious as reality. However, reality is something which you don't seem to properly understand what it means and I am trying to help you grasp it (though it seems that you don't even want to grasp it either).

Both arguments arrive at the same destination. As soon as you show how obvious God is to reality, you have more or less proven his existence.

Unnamed premises you say? I thought I clearly stated the premise. Anyway, if you know of any other thing that is capable of authoring information apart from a mind, you are more than welcome to share.

Is the premise "all information is from a mind"?

Lady, I have had this sort of conversations with you for so long so I can tell when dishonesty comes in. The reason you are reluctant to answer is because you want to define reality as subject to the five senses and then proceed to claim that God is outside the detection of the five senses and therefore cannot be said to be obviously real.

Couldn't God as well reside in the ultimate reality and still be real?!!

It was for this reason that you tried so hard to argue that the ultimate reality is an alternate undetectable reality even after you had been clearly shown that that is not how it is defined. Knowing the truth you insisted on arguing for a lie.

My presentation of your mind (and I know you have a mind because you are reading and comprehending this message) to you makes it difficult for you to define reality based only on what can be tested by your five physical senses because you have no way of testing your mind with your five senses and yet you cannot deny its reality because to do so would be to deny your own very existence. Once again knowing the truth, you choose not to readily embrace it.

Within the meaning herein https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mind, yes I do.

MrAnony1:
The premise is that information such as is the category in which your very question falls is produced by a mind


I didn't say that, rather I said that reality is not limited to what you can detect with your five physical senses. Do you agree or do you disagree?

And I asked you a question which you have tried to dodge away from i.e. Seeing that you cannot detect your mind with any of your five physical senses. Is your mind real?

Please answer my question. Thank you.

Mranony,

Right now, I am very eager to see how you intend to establish God's existence which to you, is as obvious as reality. In your endeavor in doing so, you have talked about making logical deductions from unnamed premises in order to prove the mind and God. Now I ask what are these premises?! The premises cannot be information from the mind, the mind you are trying to prove with the deductions!

In respect to the five senses which all (most) of humanity has, I have already stated my position. The senses are limited to our reality and they are not conclusive of what reality holds for us. I mentioned an ultimate reality which is possible and can be beyond our senses. Since humans are capable of introspection, we can find a rational capacity within ourselves. Is that a mind? Maybe. Does that exist in other humans? I can assume so because of my empathetic capacity. Just the same way, I assume a beggar or a wounded person is in pain, a pain I can not but due to empathy, I can imagine it.

MrAnony1:
Not necessarily, the material/physical is not the only aspect of reality that exists and hence sticking to strict empiricism (i.e. trusting only your five physical senses) doesn't give you a wholesome understanding of reality.

For instance, I know that your mind exists in reality not because I have empirically tested it with any of my 5 senses but because I have made logical deductions.

....Or is it the case that your mind does not really exist?

Deductions from what premise?! So you think God is beyond the five and associated senses of the human, right?!