₦airaland Forum

torchwave: Question, why did Pharaoh eventually let the Israelites go? Of course his heart was still hardened by God and he could have still refused even after the death of his child to show his actions had nothing to do with the exercise of freewill. Did God suddenly soften it? If God softened it then why did He harden it in the first place? At least it would have been easier to set the Israelites free by softening rather than hardening it. Again, whether He softened or hardened it, it suggests Pharaoh's freewill was not involved. Then why go through all the trouble?

You are confusing yourself. It is better you think with more clarity. There was an effect of hardening the Pharaoh's mind and that impacted on his decision-making. And the Bible said, God wanted to make a lesson out of him. In other words, God fooled with the Pharaoh's freewill.

@drummerboy

Don't you think it is actually your thoughts on the Bible NoT God's?! This is how you people make errors

LordReed: LoL! My assumptions are supported by the facts of our collective experience.

1. I never said men don't panic. Women are more emotional and panic more than men.

2. I never said women are not forward thinking, fact is men who tend to be more logical in thought process have an advantage over women who tend to think intuitively.

3. The biological default positions the male as the 'shock troopers', the ones designed to bear the brunt. Even in our thought processes the males are seen to tend towards logic. Leadership is first about plotting a course which is a logical process. If the male is defaulted biologically to think logically then it stands to reason the he will pursue leadership.

They are assumptions because you can not prove them. There is no thermometer to test if women are more panicky than men, at best stereotypes. So don't try to dress up your prejudice in logic or pragmatism.

LordReed: I didn't say women can't lead. I am asserting that default is the male. If a woman is stronger she will lead but that is not the norm. Strength is not about brute force but the ability to strike through confusion and drive the nail home. Men are ideally more suited to tasks that require forward thinking and breach situations. Women are emotional creatures and panic alot so are not quite suited for all hell breaking loose situations. A woman who does not fit this mold is a diamond.

Your grand untenable assumptions;

1. Men are not emotional creatures and dont panic a lot.

2. Women are not forward thinking

3. That there is a biological default that deprives women from having leadership qualities.

captivating: Well you aren't getting it right, there has to be a head and naturally, scientifically, and even spiritually, the man is that head. This is implied when you study the actions of a man and woman, when you go deep into biological and psychological science and when you study your Holy book, whichever. The rise of feminism will only bring about havoc because it isn't natural.

As per the bills payment, show me any woman who is willing to pay the bills of a family even before getting married. I doubt any woman takes that as her responsibility but men do and I know them, this is just how nature puts it. The best a woman can do is to be supportive but it may shock you that modern day women don't even want to be supportive financially, they want a man who has it all and so they won't need to work at all. So tell me, is it this same women you want to pay the bills of her family? ? lol he'll No!!

Even a lot of ladies and not just me will disagree with a woman being the head because it won't work out well.

Holy books are not relevant in this discussion, because with holy books the most monstrous evils can be justified and have been justified.

You are speaking from your experience and because of the class of women that surround you. Probably your mother and your sisters and your wife are the lily livered women which everyone despises and marches over, but it is unhealthy to overgeneralise and believe all the women in the entire world behave like your mother and sisters.

However for me, Angela Merkel, Golda Meir and Dilma Rousseff are not such women. They are models of leadership for everyone.

LordReed: The OP is just an unpleasant rant with no true conception of what leadership means or what the role of a man is. I believe it is born out of a juvenile intoxication fueled by infatuation and empathy. OP is correct in condemning abuse but fails woefully in connecting abuse to leadership/headship.

I posit that such people will be the first to bail out of a relationship at the first sign of trouble because they lack the balls to lead or even be strong and are looking for a cop out for their weaknesses. No wimp crying 'I don't want to be the head' will ever satisfy a woman. Women have and will always want men who are strong mentally and physically. They want both the security that comes from being protected and the one from being guided. If you can't provide that you will be junked no matter how liberated that woman is.

OP I sympathize with you and advice you to look for better role models and mentors among true men.

There isn't much a man can say about the bolded. That is not always the view of women. In the distant past, prior to the emergence of civilisations, when life was short and brutish the silverback men were much in demand however times have changed. Men today aren't the silverbacks of the past, and the few are reserved in the prisons.

Women today in the Information Age are equally matched to the men, and it makes little sense to relegate a woman of leadership traits to the background because she has a vagina when the men as much have vaginas.

torchwave: One thing is clear from that story - it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of God.

He created Pharaoh for the purpose of showing His greatness and ability to save. However, that does not nullify his freewill. If that was the case then God would have used Pharaoh's freewill to set the Israelites free without having to bother Moses.

Besides, who are you, O man, to talk back at God? Will the thing created ask its Creator why did you make me so? If you have the right to make one thing short or tall, why should you question God who made you for His pleasure?

Nevertheless, God would be unjust to monopolize the freewill of a person and still punish him for refusing him just as people ignorantly believe Judas had no freewill since he was destined to betray Jesus.

In the case of the both of them, they had already made their choice, and God sealed their choice to show the world that He is God and nothing, no king or emperor, nobody great or small can thwart His plan. That is what God proved in their case.

Moreover, His plans and purposes are intended for the welfare and good of His children. He will show His greatness when it comes to saving His people.

Read the Bible for yourself before categorizing my posts as silly excuses which ironically amounts to anything you tell God in judgment for refusing to accept Jesus into your life.

But there wouldn't be the need to harden the pharaoh's heart if he was bent on setting the Israelis free, right? So it turns your argument on its head. In your own dispensation, God sees you as a mere pawn (most likely worthless) and you accept such a malign purpose for your life that impacts on whatever free choice you supposedly have.

The truth is, the Pharaoh had no choice, no freewill and punished unfairly. It proves God is unjust. But thankfully there is no God, so it is Christianity that is unjust.

MrAnony1: 1. Please point out this misleading definition of murder that I used and be sure to tell us what the correct definition of murder is.

2. Show how this correct definition of murder that you have provided specifically excludes abortion in the general sense and killing in self-defence.

You cannot claim that someone is using a poor definition of a term if you don't provide the accurate definition

Sorry, I have been away.

If I indulge you in this quest, I'm very sure you would turn round and accuse me of derailing the thread OR Red herring arguments. I stand by strict legal definitions of both murder and abortion AND I am not going to depart from same.

You can go on with your true grouse against abortion.

Murder is unlawful premeditated killing.

Yet there are successful families anchored by strong women/mothers who can hold their own, not the typical weak minded, worthless and vain women on the streets today. Actually Africa prior to European intrusion, cultivated vibrant and powerful matriarchs who had corporate status and a say in the community.

coogar: you don't need to find out anything.
even if he's a man, he must have grown up in a broken home. a child that grew up in a house where the father "took charge" and performed his fatherly role will not come online and write such nonsense.

however, when the father is absent & the mother played the role of both parents, it's easy to figure out why anyone would feel men aren't the heads of their families. he's a product of his environment. he needs a father figure!

^^

You are right. The pharaoh's free will did not matter. Whose else matters?! Don't you think you are too much in the business of making excuses?

MrAnony1: 1. Please read all that I have written again and address the main issue which is that malice aforethought/premeditation can be shown in the case of an abortion but not in the case of self-defence. I refuse to chase the "self-defence" red herring.


2. You have not answered my question. I am here to discuss the issue of abortion with you and how it may or may not be murder. It seems that you are unwilling to do so judging by how you only selectively respond to the parts of my statement that are least related to the nature of the foetus and the morality of abortion.

If you want us to continue, please stay on topic.

You dragged us this far with a non legal and misleading definition of murder to unfortunately cover abortion and self defence. Didn't know you were in the Red Herring Yellers Club.

MrAnony1: The difference between self-defence/manslaughter and murder is that murder is premeditated while self-defence/manslaughter isn't.


I never said that there needs to be an "elaborate" plan.


This is an oversimplistic rendering of what malice aforethought is.

Here's a much richer definition.

"malice aforethought n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others. Thus, if a person uses a gun to hold up a bank and an innocent bystander is killed in a shoot-out with police, there is malice aforethought."

There is no malice aforethought in self-defence.


Not necessarily.


This is a misrepresentation of what self-defence is. If a person attacks you and you are fully able to stop him from harming you without killing him but you opt to kill him instead, then you have not killed in self-defence.

I'll give you a scenario, let's assume that you a a well trained marksman and someone is 100 yards away rushing at you with a knife and you are in your car and could have easily escaped him with your car or shot him in the leg to slow him down but instead you chose to shoot him in the head with the intent of killing him, you have not killed in self-defence, you have commited murder as malice aforethought/premeditation can be established here.

If on the other hand, you were walking down the street and someone jumped upon you with a knife but in the struggle, you managed to pull out your gun and shoot him dead, then you have acted in self defence as there is no evidence of premeditation or malice aforethought

Now in the case of abortion, when a mother chooses to go and kill her unborn child to further her own purposes; totally disregarding the value of another human life, this is killing with malice aforethought. She has committed murder by definition.


Lol, seriously so you are saying that unconscious people can consciously remember things and experience suffering? In what sense then are they unconscious if they are consciously aware? Or are you saying that you can recall past events without being consciously aware of recalling them? That's like saying that you can think without thinking. It is terribly self-contradictory.

Now to try and make some sense of what you are saying and also test if you can be consistent with your argument without going too far down the rabbit hole: You hold that as long as the brain is alive, your "qualities of personhood" are in play. Well, most fetuses develop a brain at week six. Would this be the point at which it becomes a human being? i.e. any abortion before week 6 of gestation is acceptable to you while you condemn any abortion after six weeks of gestation?

1. Read all what you have written and digest it. Then ask yourself if you ever indicated self defence was accidental and if not, ask yourself if you were confronted with an imminent danger on your life with limited options, do you at all conceive of an idea to meet such danger with similar force?

2. Medical experts and patients who have gone through a coma, explain that a brain activity effects trance, visions, dreams etc.

@italo

Thankfully you have dropped the universe out of nothing talk.

Isn't gravity a thoughtless process? Since there is no intelligent agent behind it, I can therefore say it is thoughtless. Same goes with mechanical processes.

For God to create the Universe from nothing (as I have endless repeated) is an absurd contradiction. It is similar to picking out a rabbit from an empty pocket.

There is another misconception from you and your ilk that reason/logic are inventions. Think about this deeply, can causality (as a principle) be invented? No. Same with reason.

italo: ?

I'm talking to you, not Wikipedia.

You say it is irrational to believe the universe came from God.

Where then do you believe the universe came from?

By reason, did reason and logic emerge from thoughtless randomness?

You are still too scared to attempt these questions.

When you confront these questions in your heart, you'll be on your way out of the confusion that is Atheism.

The issue stems from the assumptions you drag from Christianity into the scientific theory. In Christianity, God is classified as a necessary being while other entities are contingent. Therefore creation must come from only God. But the Big Ban.g theory doesn't have such assumptions and neither makes assertions about events prior to the Ban.g other than mention a singularity. If you are expecting the Big Ban.g to identify a necessary being or element, you wouldn't get it.

But all sins are equal in the eye of God.

MrAnony1: 1. Actually you are wrong, neither of them is a premeditated killing by definition.

The moment you take the time to plan to kill someone who has done you no wrong and then go ahead and do it, it neither falls into the category of manslaughter nor can it be called killing in self-defence.


2. If you can show me memory and the capability of suffering in an unconscious human being then please go right ahead and do so. Don't neglect to explain how he/she is able to remember stuff and experience suffering while unconscious.

1. Pls take the time to explain how self defence and manslaughter are different from murder. And cases for murder, there need not be an elaborate plan, just malice aforethought. Simply full knowledge of the consequences of your action. So if you point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger, you ought to have known the results. Same with cases of self defence, you already know the consequences of shooting a person, but achieving a lawful purpose.

2. People in temporary coma don't lose memory nor cease to suffer. As long as the brain isn't dead, these capabilities still work.

1. But in the case of self defence, the killing is premeditated and consciously executed but for a legitimate purpose. Isn't it therefore the same with murder. A worse case is putative self defence. Same with voluntary manslaughter.

2. Amongst all the qualities, you picked only consciousness and forgot the remainder.

italo: I see!

It only becomes rational when the entire universe pops out on its own...out of nothing. And somehow, that thoughtless and random process miraculously created logic and reason...

...yet 'miracles are "illogical."

grin grin

The confusion of Atheism!

*edited. So what do you believe the universe popped out from?

God?

But nowhere in the theory is there actually anything like that said. This is just another imagined misconception of yours.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Pls if you find any of such, let me know.

@mranony1

You can't play with legal terms and throw out their actual meaning in place for yours. There is hardly any sense in arguing abortion is murder when the law is very clear that is not. Same as asserting manslaughter and self defense and even putative self defence is murder whereas in law, they are not!

The idea behind protecting personhood is percisely to preserve those cherished qualities which are eventually responsible for human greatness, civilisation, etc. Now, an individual in a permanent coma can be deemed to have lost personhood. And steps taken to terminate the necessary medical support are not deemed murder.

Because of the Evil and insensible suffering going on in the world, people have this undying hope in a most perfect justice system where all the wrongs done to them is avenged, especially when they are too weak to avenge such wrongs.

@mranony1

Is abortion murder in Nigeria?

No, why because the two offences are separated and punished differently. The law in Nigeria does not consider a foetus a person in the legalistic definition of murder. Most countries which prohibit abortion follow the same path.

You on the other hand, have a completely different idea of how abortion apparently converges with murder, and have decided to believe that idea to be the true state of the law, whereas it is not!

So that's where you mislead the Nairaland audience that comes across your post.

A foetus is deemed a person at the stage it acquires the invaluable qualities of personhood such as consciousness, memory, capability to suffer etc.

italo: Let us then use reason to test the truthfulness of your idea or thought.

Going by reason, did human reason emerge from the thoughtless, random and meaningless universe and its evolution?

Aren't the rules for causality (cause and effect) mechanical?

italo: I see!

It only becomes rational when the entire universe pops out on its own...out of nothing. And somehow, that thoughtless and random process miraculously created logic and reason...

...yet 'miracles are "illogical."



The confusion of Atheism!

The problem with most of you, is you don't listen. The Big Ban.g thoery most atheists endorse does not postulate that the Universe arose from nothing.

MrAnony1: You are welcome to explain how.

You declàred that abortion is murder without directing your audience's mind to the entirely different context you interpreted it. Ordinarily, any one that comes across your misleading post, would have thought that indeed, in law, abortion was murder whereas it is not. Next time it is befitting you inform others of the exceptional circumstances in which you make such declarations.

Ethical issues relating to abortion revolve round the status and personhood of the foetus. The mother/woman is understandable human - a person - and her life is always deemed worthy of preservation. In cases where the mother's life is at risk, the foetus is easily forgone.

I believe abortion is always a question of personhood, when does the foetus become a person. Whenever the foetus can be considered a person, a Rubicon emerges.

AderibigbeAAA: My view of Abortion depend on the consequence that resulted in the pregnancy in the first place.

Let me put it simple and straight, if the pregnancy is as a result of rape, then I support abortion .

However, if the pregnancy is as a result of the enjoyment she had with her bf, sugar daddy or who so ever, then Abortion is a sin for her because she enjoyed and consented to the action that brought about the pregnancy in the first place...

My opinion

I kinda like your opinion, because you respect the woman's autonomy over her body. Ra.pe infringes on her body while consensual sex goes along with her wishes. However, the woman's intent in consensual sex can be only for the purpose of pleasure and relief and not for procreation. Hence the use of contraceptives. It is not a ridiculous idea to have sex only for fun, but the unexpected does happen. Given her autonomy, she can do as she desires.

^^
Which is viciously misleading.

MrAnony1: Abortion - in the broad sense of the word - is equivalent to murder

In which legal jurisdictions is it murder?

texanomaly: You have been fixated on faith lately. What's the draw? What are you fishing for exactly? What is it you are in search of where faith is concerned?

You've brought it up a few times lately in more than one thread. I would like to know what is driving you to ask about it. You obviously know the definition. You know it is a huge part of many religions. What exactly are you after that has not been said before?

Because it is pivotal to the religion. However faith cannot be a foundation.

BraveGuy: Although, I am taking a much more radical approach in my previous comments, but this may be what you are referring to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK7g5nz3tUc

Why do you approach knowledge strangely?

BraveGuy: @Weah96.
It seems to me that you're willing to believe anything or anyone that tries to discredit the Bible. That is a fruitless exercise. From disputing the fact that Moses wrote the Bible to him using psychedelic drugs.

And little Joseph, when he dreamed of his future? Or when he was imprisoned and the Pharaoh dreamed and he interpreting the dreams?

And Daniel, whose life was in danger when Nebuchadnezzar had a dream and forgot it, but demanded that his wise-men, magicians, astrologers should find out the dream and it's interpretation?

And John the apostle, who was in a prison camp on the Isle of Patmos?

Think about it yourself, does that makes sense?

Anyway, as I have always said before now, it's a choice YOU alone have to make.

@braveguy, the sum total of your argument on the thread is a Munchausen exercise. All through when questioned on the authority of the Bible, the interpretational rules, the authors; all you did was reach out into the Bible in order to support the Bible. It is strange!

It is like using the decking of a storied building as its foundation. Braveguy, we just have to step out of the Bible in order to properly "weigh" it. The validity of the Bible cannot come out of the Bible (Munchausen).

Because the Book of Daniel was titled after Daniel's name, does not mean Daniel wrote the book! Same goes to Job. By following common sense, Moses couldn't have written the Genesis, for the obvious reason the events preceded his birth by thousands of years.

God has not told us the criteria of the Word of God yet, so we cannot rely on what the Bible authors have said without a divine confirmation.

Thank you.

BraveGuy: In other words there are three levels of understanding in the comprehension of the Word of God; and if you have it at the back of your mind that there are three levels of understanding to the Scriptures, which is patterned according to the design of the temple, then you will do well.
#1. Intellectual Understanding
#2. Spiritual Understanding
#3. Fullness Understanding

"If you are not born again, you will never attain to the 2nd and 3rd levels. It doesn't matter if you are a professor of theology or preacher in a mega-church."

But without the interpretational rules, the bible can't be properly read.