₦airaland Forum

striktlymi: Members of terror groups like ISIS, Bokoharam, the Taliban and Alqaeda cannot be regarded as true Muslims. Simple truth a lot of us shy away from.

simplex2: I've now realized that religion is man-made way of explaining his understanding of God. The concept of God is something too complex for human mind to comprehend. As an agnostic, I don't border reasoning along the religious or atheist view of God's (in)existence.

If there's a God; its either he doesn't want us to know him, or we're knowing him the wrong way. The bible, quoran, torah or whatever religious book out there that claims to be holy is man-made and full of errors.

Free your mind from the bondage of religion. Be good and do good. If there's a god out there, he'll reward you, if there's no god, you'll have the satisfaction of having led an upright life.

Liveair: Like someone earlier said, life's purpose is what you make it.
That's what you'll be remembered for. Afterall, what you are remembered for is all that matters when you are gone.

emmyskies: Our purpose here on earth is to keep the commandments of GOD and serve Him in truth and spirit, that we will inherit His kingdom for ever in eternity in His presence in the new heaven and new earth

valmunich: Good morning Nairalanders, So I've been wondering lately, why is it that I barely have interest in the things of God I.e worshipping God/living a true Christian life, could there be something behind this It all started after I graduated from high school, a Seminary school precisely, I came to discover that I have little or no interest in the things of God. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not an atheist, I strongly believe in the existence of God but I don't pick interest in church activities. As I'm writing now, everybody at home is out for church and I'm still in bed while I'm the only person that attended a Seminary school in the family.

Moreover, I attribute the whole of this 'non-interest' to the manner I was trained in school. They took this whole 'church' thing so darn serious that we worship at least four times daily and then like five times on Sundays and woe to you if you dare miss any service. The training there was very high handed that I started to think I was living in bondage hoping to be set free after six years.
Furthermore, The way they also took tithing there was so strict that you're not graduating from the school if you didn't pay up to an expected amount.

Fast forward to six years, I graduated and entered college, I felt the fresh air of freedom, since then i lost interest in attending church services and some of these churches too don't seem to be helping issues the way they preach the gospel, they seem to focus more on giving in church at the expense of salvation

Conclusively, I don't know if there's any other person out there that can relate to this and also if you've gat solutions to this, feel free to drop it, you might be helping a brother. Thanks! In advance. Your criticisms are always welcome though

FrancisTony: Genesis 1:26, Let us create Man in our own image.

He wanted to create man in his image.

That's the purpose of us on earth.

MrAnony1: I wouldn't use the word "dichotomy" but I think there is a difference. Yes

MrAnony1: I understood you perfectly. My contention is that being incapable of consistently choosing right over wrong does not imply being incapable knowing right from wrong. If you think it does, please explain how so.

ihedinobi2: Alright. I'll be back later for it.

ihedinobi2: Do you know what an accusation is?

I don't care what an article says, Kay17. Articulate your own arguments. Or are you incapable of original thought?

MrAnony1: Exactly. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That is why we need a Saviour to rescue us from the condemnation of sin. If we were morally upright people, we wouldn't need a Saviour but alas we are not (even you agree that there is no one who hasn't done something bad).

It is actually that simple.

Unless you are saying that there is no condemnation for sin that warrants a saviour. In which case I must point out to you that if there isn't any punishment for sin, then there is no reason to strive for moral uprightness especially if one can derive pleasure from doing evil.

MrAnony1: No, the two questions are not the same. That's like saying that 2=30 because 30 is 15 instances of 2. Something being several instances of another does not make them the same.

Well, technically that's true but practically it isn't. (it is flawed in a similar way as Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise) But that's beside the point.

To bring us back to the point, let me remind you of what you said:


1. For man to be morally upright, man ought to always choose right repeatedly for the entire duration of his life.
2. For man not to be morally upright, man needs to choose wrong at least once.

Notice that in both cases man can choose and hence can be judged for his choice.

An amoral being cannot choose between right and wrong and hence is in an entirely different category.

[quote]Christianity teaches that man on his own without the grace of God cannot be morally upright i.e he would choose sin at least once.

All you now have to do to justify your accusation is to show from the bible that Christianity teaches that man is an amoral being (i.e incapable of choosing between right and wrong)

Where you fail to do this, I will take it as yet another of your many dishonest episodes.

ihedinobi2: Good. S/he was. It's Kay17's MO. There're few others as adept at muddying waters as s/he is.

The question I asked was simple. What made Kay17 think what s/he thought? And s/he directed me straight to a Wikipedia article. What I asked for was an argument, some cogent explanation for his/her persuasion. You do not answer that with an appeal to authority. That move is nonsense except to people who aren't given to argument. An authority does not explain why anybody thinks what they think. It only provides information people can use to form their own opinions. An appeal to authority when one is asked to explain one's opinion is tantamount to saying that one does not think for one's own self.

But it is also a slick move. If the opponent does not accept the authority, they appear obstinate and unwilling to be corrected. And that is all a dishonest debater needs to sway a sympathetic audience. The appearance is all that matters. But was there anything being corrected just then?

Now I asked Kay what I was supposed to do with the authority? Was it supposed to tell me what Kay really thinks? Kay immediately attempts obfuscation by making it seem exactly like I'm being obstinate by asking if I was satisfied that religions are superstitions?

Why would I be indeed? I had just asked him/her to tell me why s/he thinks that they are and he had given no answer. So I asked if s/he would be satisfied if I did the same? A simple question that demands a simple answer. Kay attempts another underhanded move by asking me to go on and provide an authority. Why should I? The question was essentially why an authority was useful in answering my question in the first place.

So, all Kay has done is mess around and try to muddy up everything. It does good to try to remember that when you discuss across philosophical persuasions, people's intentions are not necessarily honest or praiseworthy. Jesus warned us to remember that we are being sent into the world as sheep among wolves. Assuming that every unbeliever is merely a lost soul who does not know the love of God has wrecked and is wrecking many a believer even right here on Nairaland. That sympathy many of us are dousing ourselves with in bucketfuls has continued to result in many of us breaking the Scriptures.

What good has it done us? How many of these "lost souls" we feel so much pity for has turned to Christ because of our pity and our speed to defend them against "overzealous" Christians? Have we not found ourselves increasingly questioning the Scriptures and finally denying them altogether? Has our sympathy not tended to result in more of us leaving Christ rather than bringing lost sheep in? Not meaning to sermonize to you, Tex, this is just something that's been weighing on me and that I have finally found expression for.

Let Kay17 come and show exactly why religions are superstitious beyond what wikipedia says. After all, I doubt very much that s/he would consider the Bible's own authority as equally compelling.

ihedinobi2: Why would I be? If I provided an authority that said that religions are not would you be satisfied that they're not?

ihedinobi2: To avoid splitting hairs I won't talk about whether I accused you of anything or not. Rather, let's go straight to the heart of the matter.

I asked you in a straightforward manner what made you say what you said. You promptly provided an authority. What exactly was the provision of an authority supposed to accomplish?

I was asking exactly why you held an opinion and you essentially told me "because this here dude says..." Am I supposed to ask the dude to defend your opinion after that? Or are you expecting me to be cowed by the dude and end my questioning because you called him?

ihedinobi2: Surely you have a reasoned argument of your own, right?

texanomaly: What is your story? Do you have a deconversion story? You never give anything away, which makes me want to hear the story even more. Hmmm

ihedinobi2: Hmm

Sounds to me like you just made a whole bunch of assumptions. What makes you say that religion is a form of superstition?

ihedinobi2: I saw the beginning of this story and I don't know if this is the end. I doubt that it is.

Paul saw a vision of Jesus Christ glorified. But was that what saved him? I think it was what forced him to really consider if he had not been wrong the whole time. If there was no room for doubt then Paul could never have become a Christian.

As it is, even today, people are making excuses for Paul that he could have made based on his wide knowledge. He may have had a seizure. Perhaps he was struck by lightning and subsequently hallucinated. The human capacity for imagination is difficult to overestimate. Why did Paul believe that it was Jesus Christ he saw?

Why does anybody believe that they have been born again as children of God and saved from sin? Why do we believe at all?

If it is because we have weird experiences then just about anything that accommodates weird experiences is true. But as far as I know Christians are Christians because they believe that the God that the Bible talks about is not a liar.

OLAADEGBU: Evil has it's consequence, the absence of God.

OLAADEGBU: Rather, where free will exists, responsibilities exist and as a result there are consequences.

MrAnony1: Lol...fallacy of equivocation. I hope you do realize that being morally upright is different from being able to choose between right and wrong.

Christianity DOES NOT teach that man is incapable of choosing between right and wrong. It teaches that no man is capable of choosing the right all the time and never choosing wrong.

Surely you can understand that distinction but to help you understand it I will ask you two questions

1. Are you capable of choosing between right and wrong?

2. Have you always chosen right over wrong?

You are free to pretend not to understand the difference between the two questions if you like.

tbaba12345: You have rambled through a lot of topics but failed to address the issue of the subjective inner consciousness and why it falls outside the scientific process

i. Even the world's best neuroscientist can not tell where consciousness came from or explain the inner subjective states, yet you can? They call it a hard problem for a reason. Those questions lie outside the scientific process.

ii. Have you ever asked yourself where that 'single cell organism' came from? How its consciousness came about?

iii. I do not think, you know that much about the induction process or the philosophy of science. If you did, you will know that an induction process can never give you certainty. The induction process involves making conclusions from the particular to the general and hence can never give you certainty.

iv. . Science is a limited method of study with its own scope and sphere.That is why things like subjective consciousness lie outside that scope.

v. The philosophy of science brings to light a whole range of issues and problems concerning the theory and study of knowledge (epistemology).

vi. The philosophy of science – most of the time – doesn’t produce certain knowledge. The philosophy of science, when applied to evolution, exposes it as not reaching the level of certainty.

vii. Many of the truths we hold on to are not via empirical testing.

viii. I have a much higher degree of certainty in my beliefs via pure deductive reasoning

viii. If the premises of deduction is true, then you can reach certainty

e.g Boys are male

Adam is a boy

so Adam is male.

ix. For instance, i can make the following claims

1. A miracle is an event that lies outside of the productive capacity of nature

2. The Qur’an’s literary form lies outside of the productive capacity of nature

3. Therefore, the Qur’an is a miracle.

There is an overwhelming body of evidence for each premise so i can arrive at certainty about this. Plus, i have studied the Qur'an relatively in depth.

tbaba12345: We both had a conversation on it before.




Again, i can't see this loophole. God is perfect.

tbaba12345: What loophole??