^^

So it's cool when you believe crazy stuff abi? But when others bring their own u go dey laff dem. U no believe say virgin born pikin wey dey do magic?

noetic16:

i cannot forgive u because u are lying on the devil

haha. All your blessings are now officially blocked. My home boy Lucifer will show you pepper. U go see mummy u go call am daddy

Chei!! My street no dey lie sha.

Real Madrid get Adebayor on loan

http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/1330038271823/noticia/Noticia/Adebayor_to_play_for_Real_Madrid.htm

Word on the streets is that Adebayor is headed to Madrid. Possibly play by the weekend sef.

noetic16:

This thread displays a shallow understanding of God.
God is love but God did NOT forgive the devil or fallen angels. . . .neither did He forgive the Nephilim for their existence.

many times forgiveness is impossible because it has no basis. mr A wrongs and inflicts evil on mr B. mr A feels wronged and offended, yet he turns the other cheek and refuses to pay back evil for evil but cannot bring himself to relate to mr b. Mr B on the other hand cannot be bothered by the pains suffered due to the evil he did to mr A so he simply moves on to his next victim.

Mr B has not sought forgiveness and as such CANNOT get it. mr A has however moved on, committing all to God and loving his enemy by not avenging. there is nothing to forgive if the offender does not acknowledge their wrong. however as the offended, u should learn to turn the other cheek, leave vengeance to God and move on.

God is love, He is also a consuming fire and a God of judgement.

Noetic16 is a deluded and confused olodo of a tolotolo 


Oya please forgive me nah. . Na devil push me . Abi u sef na consuming fire? 

thehomer:

This is a redefinition of the word faith which actually means something else. Also, if one were to simply go by the teachings of Jesus, such a person would still be making wrong conclusions.

I think the word faith refers to a committed trusting attitude towards something, someone, an idea, concept, etc. How the object of the faith is understood IMO depends on the individual. What do u mean when you use the word "faith"? If you want to limit the use of the word to describe a specific brand of Christian belief please state what that is so I understand what you mean. But from my understanding of religion, different groups and even sub-groups have different declarations of faith, so putting them all under one umbrella may just be a distortion of reality.

thehomer:

It can be about inspiration but inspiration is not faith. Faith already means something else.

Faith can be inspiring, and is a lot of the time. In fact I think it's safe to say that a lot of Christian people are inspired, to live lives of compassion and sacrifice, by their Christian faith - trying to be like Jesus. Mother Theresa, and MLK come to mind. Please don't ask me for more examples cause I'll have to google it But I hope u get the point I'm trying to make and I think it's a valid one.

thehomer:

What I'm getting at is that when people point at the Bible as their source of morality, they are simply picking and choosing based on some other factors and not the Bible.

If someone points at the Bible and says that is his/her source of morality, it IMO should not necessarily mean that they do only things the bible endorses. Some people do that, and others don't. Some people read and apply the bible with historical and contextual sensitivity, others don't. Some will post a thread and ask if something is biblical before they do it, other's don't. People read and work things out in their own heads, and do what they feel works for them, often based on their own understanding of the requirements of their belief system. Like i have maintained it boils down to the individuals and how their religious sentiment compels them to behave.

thehomer:

If it's not about beliefs and claims especially incredible ones, then he is not speaking about faith. He might as well have said he gets inspiration from the teachings rather than redefine faith to be something else.

The word faith is not limited to belief in incredible claims. Like I said someone can read the bible, or Koran or other religious texts, with historical and contextual sensitivity, and have faith in whatever moral or spiritual message that resonates with him/her, without believing every claim about every event in the texts is historically accurate. I have met many such people.

thehomer:

People's motivations are wide and varied and I think dogma plays a large part in sustaining it.

Possibly . . . for some people.

Dulcet7:

1. Orthodoxy and heresy began to be defined late 2nd century. Prior, religion was personal and defined by intuitive practice.

I think debates about "right belief" started much earlier. The church just wasn't yet at a point where it had much real consequences. Christians were still an obscure small sect and they were really just small internal struggles. . Orthodoxy didn't get defined till much later, but the debates/conflicts had started earlier. . 

1n 1st john 4 , most likely written between 90-115 CE   for example

1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

If you read thru the later books of the New Testament one starts to notice a sort of push back against certain kinds of thought. Some forms of Greek philosophy taught that matter/flesh was evil and only Spirit was good. AN early form of christian gnostism, docetism,  believed that Jesus was purely divine and not human because flesh was evil.  These groups, ironically, used some of the ideas expressed in the Gospel of John to justify their claims and some of the later writings push back against them . . in some cases referfing to them as the antichrist.

Dulcet7:

2. The gospel of John is almost definitely not historical, but rather a calculated refuttal of the gospel of Thomas. To cap it, Thomas was also ridiculed in John.

I'm pretty sure John is not historical. Whether it's main purpose was to refute the gospel of Thomas is another matter. It deals with a lot that have nothing to do with the Gospel of Thomas so it's hard to make the argument that it's purpose was to refute the Gospel of Thomas (which is really just a collection of sayings).  The available version of the gospel of Thomas isn't believed to have been the original form so it's really hard to say anything conclusively about that IMO. But I do know in it's current form it is a gnostic text, and the gospel of John and other later New Testament writings push back against gnostic belief that Jesus was not human. SO maybe it was some sort of refutation . . .

Jen33:

Seems a plausible sequence of events I'd say. 

haha. My thought exactly.

The black plague had a similar effect but not quite as extreme. But yeah. . . seems quite plausible

thehomer:

Why should the Bible be consistently held in higher esteem than other books on morals by Christians?

Maybe because the Bible is the identity document of their belief system.

I think from Nairaland threads alone we can see that Christians do not necessarily believe the same things, or interpret their scripture the same way. SO like I said different people hold the bible in high esteem for different reasons. It'll boil down to the individual, and while some may see the bible as the literal word of God and the final word on all moral issues, others won't, but still hold it in high esteem.

thehomer:

Hmm. I think one needs to note the subtle shift made by the author which amounts to an equivocation on the word faith because faith as it is used in religions is called on when incredible events are supposed to be accepted. This is shifted to a sort of trust in just the teachings of Jesus which of course include the religious faith that the author is trying to avoid.

WHat exactly is the author trying to avoid? He said this

Faith then is not belief in a certain doctrine about Jesus, but a trust in using him as an example of what it looks like to live a God-centered life. Through the stories in the Gospels (whether or not the details are historical are irrelevant), we can understand the nature of God's presence within the world and what a God-centered life looks like: a life of humility, compassion, love without boundaries, a life which experiences suffering and doubt, but a life that ultimately participates in the eternal power of God that transcends death.

Some people believe that they have felt the presence of God on earth through the life and teachings of Jesus. That if God was a person, that is what he would be like.  This belief is expressed differently by different people in ways that depend partly on how they have interpreted the accounts of his life that are available.

Before and during the life of Jesus religion was not about belief. Orthodoxy did not really exist in religion. The idea of having a "right belief" is something that was unique to Christianity and didn't come about till it was becoming a real institution, close to a century after Jesus' death,  Religion was about practice. Doing certain things to appease the God/the gods to help maintain order here on earth. Jesus didn't teach about a set of beliefs (except in the gospel of John where that is pretty much all he does, and most scholars agree is not a historical account) ; he wasn't going around telling people to believe certain things about his identity or else they were doomed to burn forever. He taught about a compassionate egalitarian way of life and a coming Kingdom of God.  I'm just trying to point out that IMO Christianity can be about being inspired into action by the life and teachings of Jesus, and not necessarily in believing certain claims about his identity  and purpose, which bible research have shown that he most likely never made himself. So I don't think the blogger is trying to avoid anything. . . He is just stating what faith, Christian faith, means to him as an individual.

thehomer:

Apart from the fact that the cruelty is quite staggering, the acts of goodwill were neither new nor unique at the times of the writings. This deity, it must be noted had no better information than that of the people he was guiding.

The cruelty was not new either. Genocide did not begin with the Jewish God.

The acts of goodwill do not have to be new and unique to be inspiring. Why must a source of inspiration be both new and unique for it to resonate? I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at

thehomer:

The degree of faith I think depends on how the individual wishes to rank the external authority figure. i.e the higher the person ranks the authority figure, the more likely the person is to be deceived.

I think it depends on how people understand the bible. A lot of people read the bible but they don't read about the bible. If you believe the bible is the word of God and you take everything in there literally, believe there is a guy up there waiting to dump you in a fiery pit for eternity, you might decide to not use your head and just do as he says. But there is more than enough evidence for one to reasonably conclude that the bible is not the literal word of a perfect deity, and if people decide to ignore all of it in the name of faith, I think that's unfortunate.

thehomer:

Yes it may not mean the same thing but we are living in the present. It is in part due to the understanding that cultures and religions evolve that makes it less likely for someone critically examining religions to believe them.

The blogger mentions faith isn't about belief in certain claims about individuals, which is what the expression of Christianity you seem to have a problem with is all about. One does not necessarily have to believe that Jesus is the biological Son of God to be inspired to live a life like he is believed to have lived. SOme do believe he is the son of God, but like I said that is not what all Christians believe. The blogger is speaking for himself.

thehomer:

Dogma may not be necessary for the existence of a religion but for it to thrive, I think it is necessary unless you can provide examples of religions without dogma.

Pretty much all major religions have some sort of dogma.  I just don't think it's what motivates people to be religious.

I define religion as belief in an unseen order and that supreme good lies in aligning oneself to it. Dogma seeks to symbolically articulate truths about an order that can not be apprehended by the senses. When these symbolic expressions (e.g. the trinity, or the cross) become the central object of focus, then I think we have a problem. Many people IMO, though they sometimes get caught up in all these petty debates about technicality, are more inspired by other elements of religion. .  like the moral values, identity with a community etc

Dulcet7:

Hello Krayola. I agree with this.

Hello Dulcet7. I agree with that too

thehomer:

If one wanted morals, then the Bible is simply not the best place to turn to. There are several books both older and younger than the Bible that present moral values that are just as good or better than the Bible. So, why hold it in such high esteem over and above these other books?

WHat the best source of morals is, is debatable. ANd even if it's not the best, it may still be a great place for some to turn to for morals.

Different books are held in high esteem by different people for different reasons. ALso, the bible means different things to different people.  

thehomer:

I hope you do realize that from what you're saying, a great majority of religious people are thus deluded because many of them believe the Biblical stories and stories in their sacred texts as being true.

Yes. That is pretty much what I am saying. A large number of religious people believe these stories are 100% historically accurate (and that their usefulness depends on that one fact) . . .  Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I think the writer of the blog is saying this doesn't have to be the case.

thehomer:

This use of faith is then in this case not quite religious and if it is applied to the sacred texts of the major religions, is misplaced.

I think the use of "faith" in this case is religious, It just isn't superstitious.

thehomer:

I say this because the acts commanded or supported by the major deity are quite despicable and would make us blush with shame if we personally knew a person who condoned or performed such acts.

IMO no deity commanded any events. The deity is also depicted to have ordered many acts of goodwill and kindness amongst other virtues which almost never seem to make it to the atheist's critique. . . .

I'm not trying to defend majority of religionists. I'm just trying to point out that being religious should not necessarily mean burying one's head in the sand and believing crazy stuff in the name of faith. Faithful should not mean gullible

thehomer:

One doesn't have to be a fundamentalist or a literalist, but such a person must believe some basic tenets. Can a person be considered a Christian who does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God?

Yes a person can be a Christian without thinking God impregnated a woman. Jesus's early followers most likely did not believe Mary was impregnated by a ghost. The earliest accounts available do not show that believed any such things. Paul does not mention such neither does the gospel of Mark which is believed to have been the 1st.

King David and  Caeser were also referred to as son of God. Even though they were believed to be fully human. They have birth myths about them. . even though in the case of Caeser we actually have info about his actual birth that would have been available to his contemporaries, they still preferred to tell mythical stories. It's just the way things were done then.  IMO Son of God did not mean the same things then that it means now.

thehomer:

By dogma I mean a code of beliefs accepted as being true without regards to evidence. Religions in general have such beliefs made and accepted based on authority.

Dogma is IMO not necessary for religion to exist and thrive

JeSoul:

 I think his ultimate point was whether or not biblical accounts can be proven to be historical is irrelevant - because the stories and accounts we read, are powerful in and of themselves.

gbam!

thehomer:

In conclusion, I don't think the veracity of books on which one bases their worldview can be accepted as being false yet the person continues the belief. This will lead to a cognitive dissonance that will have to be resolved for progress in such a person's worldview.

How then do you explain the fact that most religious scholars are devout religionists, and are the ones primarily responsible for most of what we know about the veracity or lack of veracity of the stories we have. And when u say veracity I think u mean literal interpretations. . .  What if the accounts were not intended to be taken so literally?

thehomer:

I found the article quite curious. According to this blogger, the veracity of the Bible is irrelevant. What then differentiates this person's type of belief from that of e.g a deist? If the Bible is not historically accurate, then why believe that Jesus was the Son of God? If he wasn't, then why worship him?

I think the point is that the "moral of the story" is more important than the story itself. For example one can learn about the benefits of patience and perseverance from the story about the arrogant hare racing the humble tortoise, and losing. Getting caught up on whether or not forest animals can talk or organize sporting events is missing the point/plot altogether.

Now if, for example, someone questions the historicity of this race taking place between the animals, and the storyteller insists on it being a historical event, despite all the evidence we have that animals do not speak (like virgins do not have babies); and also insists that the benefit of the story is not in the deeper truth it attempts to communicate, but in the belief in it's historicity, then we may just have a deluded "not-so-smart" person on our hands.  . I think faith in his opinion  is not belief in a set of facts, but trusting that the lessons these stories attempt to teach are good for the world when put in practice, and acting accordingly.

thehomer:

This looks to me like a deist who still believes in some highly modified remnant of Christianity.

I think you are assuming that all Christians are, and have always been, literalists or even fundamentalists. Christianity like most other religions is not monolithic. There have always been different expressions. I think his views are what Christianity informed by academia, and critical reasoning, can look like. Being comfortable with the "spirit" of the stories enough to let them have an impact on ones life, while still acknowledging that the stories were not intended to communicate accurate accounts of historical events.

thehomer:

The above are a redefinition of the word "faith" as used in religious discussions. I wonder what this fellow was driving at because religion requires dogma otherwise chaos will reign if each person decides to receive their own revelations on what their faith should be.

I don't think religion necessarily requires dogma. Can you please explain what you mean?

JeSoul:

Krayo Happy New 2011 oh I hope this year brings you all that your heart desires.

Happy New Year to U too. I Hope enjoyment just dey chase you up and down. 

JeSoul:

I may be talking in circles, but inevitably, this "trust" factor is borne from some kind of belief in the first place. In other words you cannot have trust without belief . . . but this is just a minor note. His point (and a very solid one) is that shallow belief alone in doctrine void of a tangible change (like Jesus) in how a 'believer' lives, is empty.

Yeah,  But I think he also makes a point about not ignoring the evidence. We should let what we know thru academia inform our belief systems. Most religious people I encounter are more interested in defending the historicity of some of the more spectacular claims of their faiths, even though there is overwhelming evidence that many of the claims are, with virtual certainty, not historical events.

I think what is more important is the positive impact our world-views can have on our lives and the lives of others. Faith in this context is trusting that living a certain kind life is in line with the will of God, whatever you conceive God to be. . .  and not believing in the certainty of claims about events which mounting evidence suggest never happened. Faith IMO should not be in conflict with science and other academic disciplines. It should be informed by them, and should evolve accordingly.

I just read a blog that I thought was kinda interesting. Just want to know what you guys think. Agree? DIsagree? why or why not? Besides some of the claims about "God" which though I don't exactly disagree with, I have some reservations about, I think he makes a lot of sense.

Are you a believer?

Have you ever been asked this question before? Did the question and your search for an answer make you uncomfortable? Did you wonder to yourself what does this question really mean? For me, the answer to all these questions is "yes."

When I was growing up, I often heard the popular refrain in Christianity that to be "saved" all one needed was to have "faith." When asked what "having faith" meant, the reply was typically "believing that Jesus is the son of God." In other words, all we are required to do in order to have eternal life is to believe a certain set of facts about events that occurred over 2,000 years ago, and whatever else we do in our lives (cheating, stealing, murder, etc.) is irrelevant.

I struggled with this issue because logically it didn't make sense to me. Why would an all-powerful God, who created all of existence, care about a single belief we held? Anthropologists would say that for the vast majority of us, our beliefs are culturally conditioned. Is the Hindu raised in India with little exposure to Christianity who lives an exemplary life going to hell because she does not believe what an American who grows up in the Bible-belt is taught from a young age? What happens when an article of faith (for example, that God created the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago) contradicts what we know from other disciplines like science, history, and archaeology?

The more I thought about this issue, the more it seemed that the formula of "believe in the doctrine of XYZ" and "you will be saved" was little more than a carrot and stick approach to encourage people to conform to the doctrine of whatever authority was making the proclamation. The history of politics has shown that this exact strategy has been employed countless times (often to terrible results) by authoritarian regimes to compel conformity and thus solidify the power of the institution.

The modern view of believing in Jesus in order to be saved has its roots in Martin Luther's Reformation which responded to the Catholic practice of selling indulgences (paying the church for salvation) by substituting the doctrine of Justification by Faith as outlined by St. Paul. According to this doctrine, we cannot be saved by our good works because at heart we are all imperfect sinners -- our works will never be good enough for God. We are only saved through our faith in Jesus.

However, as Luther's doctrine has evolved over the centuries, it has been distorted so that "faith" has become synonymous with "belief." What has happened is that a new requirement has been substituted for good works. Making belief a requirement for salvation is just replacing another kind of work -- the mental work of belief in something -- as a condition to salvation. It is trying to bring in through the back door the type of human action and interference in God's salvation that Luther objected to with the Catholic church selling indulgences.

So what is the meaning of Luther's justification by faith? This means simply that we are already saved. We don't have to do anything for our salvation, and this includes believing in a specific doctrine. When we combine this theory with the conception of God (which I have outlined in earlier posts) as the creative power behind all of existence (instead of a supernatural being who judges our actions like Zeus from the top of Olympus), we can begin to understand how we are already part of the infinite and eternal power of being. The "Kingdom of God" is already present and real because it is the basis that underlies all reality. However, we do not realize that we are already saved -- we do not experience this salvation in our day-to-day lives. We live lives in which our egos dominate us and in which we live apart from the ground of reality that is God. Using an analogy from science, we experience only one side of reality -- our bodies and the spaces around us -- but if we were to look at reality at the molecular level, reality looks very different -- what appears solid is actually made up mostly of space and the empty space around us is filled with particles.

The path to salvation thus becomes more like an awakening, an understanding, and an experience of what is already here but we cannot see. The spiritual path (prayer, meditation, fasting, worship, etc.) becomes a mechanism to peal back the onion layers of who we are and what we think the world around us is, so that we can examine the power of God within ourselves, within others, and within existence itself. Salvation is an opening of our eyes and hearts, a new way of seeing the universe.

Faith then is not belief in a certain doctrine about Jesus, but a trust in using him as an example of what it looks like to live a God-centered life. Through the stories in the Gospels (whether or not the details are historical are irrelevant), we can understand the nature of God's presence within the world and what a God-centered life looks like: a life of humility, compassion, love without boundaries, a life which experiences suffering and doubt, but a life that ultimately participates in the eternal power of God that transcends death.

We've all heard the expression "Try it on faith." This doesn't mean, "Believe me" but rather "Trust me, and experience it for yourself." Faith is about testing, questioning, and doubting. In science these qualities lead to greater truths, why shouldn't the same apply to religion? For me, religion is about embracing the unknown and the difficult -- a journey of exploration that never really gets there because ultimately I am finite. Faith is about being comfortable with my doubts because doubt is part of my search for truth. Faith is not a closing of my eyes and mind to the real world, to science, to modern knowledge, or to experience, but it is the opposite: an opening up and a new way of seeing.

Understanding evolves and changes with information; it is open and dynamic. The history of science shows us that whatever our beliefs and theories are today, they will probably be proved wrong over time, and we will then adapt our theories to the new information. Yet in religion we often hold onto cherished beliefs in the face of contrary facts. I think we should borrow from the model of science and allow our religious beliefs to evolve with time as well. But we should be cognizant of the difference between scientific knowledge and understanding through faith and religious experience. I view faith as another form of knowledge that is based more on insight and wisdom. It is using intuition as a way of understanding versus pure reason. But it should not be in conflict with reason, science, and experience. Therefore when I pose the question at the top of my blog "What do you believe?", I do so as an invitation to explore your beliefs, to question them, and to engage in a deeper search for meaning that may mean confronting uncomfortable facts and evolving your views.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-small/faith-is-not-a-synonym-fo_b_810458.html

Betis wan wound us o Dem dey shi us like say na us be 2nd division team. We no even fit keep possession.

whoa!! This is deep!! 

Just so you know tho the design of the Jewish temples was borrowed from pagan religions. And the temples in your diagram, that is identical to temples used to worship baal and other "lesser gods"   , have nada to do with christianity as practiced after it became official religion in the empire.  Na so so animal sacrifices and stuff dey happen inside the temple before. SO please fit that into your theory as well.

Shabbat Shalom: How was the Jewish temple different from the other temples of the same era?

Davidson: Out- wardly, as archae- ologists have veri- fied, the Jewish temple resembled other ancient Near Eastern temples in many respects, both in physi- cal layout and furnishings and in rituals. But I see at least two distinct differences
that point up fundamental theo- logical divergences. In the an- cient Near Eastern temple floor plans, the presence of benches in the Holy Place in full view of the Holy of Holies seems to in- dicate that the worshipers were permitted to come into the very presence of the deity. There was apparently no deep sense of the sinfulness of humanity and the utter holiness of the god or god- dess which would prevent the worshiper from entering their direct presence. This reflects the nature of the pantheistic religion of Israel’s neighbors. By contrast, in the Jewish temple only the High Priest could pass behind the second veil into the Holy of Holies, and that only once a year, with special sacrifices and after the cloud of incense had covered the mercy seat from sight (Leviti- cus 16). Thus the Jewish temple worship upheld the transcendent holiness of God, the sinfulness of humanity, and the need of a me- diator between God and man. Second, in both pagan sanctuaries and the Jewish temple there was the offering of sacrifices. The re- cord of pagan rituals seems to make clear that the major purpose of those sacrifices was for humans to appease the wrath of the god.  In the Jewish temple rituals the divine wrath was also appeased. But, in contrast to the pagan rites, God Himself provided the sacrifice to appease His own wrath! Leviticus 17:11 reads: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I HAVE GIVEN IT to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls.” Thus I find that the pagan sanc- tuary layouts and rituals distorted crucial aspects of the character of God that affected one’s whole concept of wor- ship and salvation. The Jewish sanctuary/temple, as described in the Hebrew Bible, counteracts these distorted perspectives.

http://www.andrews.edu/~davidson/Publications/Sanctuary/Sanctuary_065G.pdf I used a source from a Christian pastor who happens to be an old testament scholar just so u won't come hit me with some "biased non-christian" bull$hit. 

Now, just so you know the religion, Judaism,  that used the temples in your diagram does not believe the same stuff Christians do. They did not believe in heaven and hell, and they believed in the sacredness of the human body. Hence the belief amongst some Jews in the resurrection of the body. The concepts of a transcendent spirit that exists after, and outside of the body are Greek and didn't come into contact with Judaism till the romans came around centuries later. I think this is a case of some clever pastor/author/entrepreneur making up some jagbajantis and dressing it up in elaborate prose and "technical" looking diagram to bamboozle gullible folk into buying his book/spiritual guide/spiritual handbook.

I gotta admit I bow for the creativity of these pastors/authors/business men. Them no dey look Uche face. 

bgees:

sorry people, this picture really cracked me up , just had to share it.

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/3553/teveth.jpg

LMAO!! That was the funniest $hit i've seen in a long time.

shithapuns:

this thread shud be renamed

HOW I BECAME A FOOL!!!

i wonder with all u see all around u.u still doubt the existence of a supreme being?

what if they just doubt the existence of a supreme being that gives a damn about most of the people on earth, since most of what they see around them suggests that if such a supreme being exists, he doesn't give a damn. . . . Would they still be fools?

haha. Omo Leicester City played some fantastic ball that day I no go lie.

They will chop their beating when they come to manchester tho.

Just saw the whole video. Does a pretty good job of summarizing the first chapter or so. . . .But y'all should really read the book. That's like 1/10th of the whole story in the video.

I remember one debate i had with Noetic a while ago abut the Genesis creation stories when I made this same argument. Spent a whole day working on that post and it just got dismissed like everything else.


People like simple answers. . . They disregard context. . . . They demonize the most respected of scholars, people that dedicate their whole lives to studying this stuff, and trust pastors out for a buck. This whole religion thing don tire me I swear. I don't even bother anymore. The white man brought us a magical dream and we're hooked on it. We won't even think anymore.

haha. I have the book. Read it while in school. Pretty solid book. U guys should read it. But then again Y'll like to believe in magical stuff so it's probably not for u.

haha U guys wan kill person. I swear na time dey kill me. I honestly just no get time to debate otherwise this debate would have gone very differently. I have responses that will deal will all your concerns very well but it'll just take too long to try to express all of it and I just don't have that kinda time these days. U don forget say all those days wey i dey siddon here all day I still be student 4 unifasity so na efiko dey worry me.  Now I'm on the grind tryna make that $$.  My mind is just in a different place right now. Abeg make una no vex.

@justcool ABout the earthquake map I think I was responding to a specific post u made about earthquakes in california, and not the post I quoted in my previous post. Here are more with other natural disasters. I still don't see a direct correlation with technology.

I also think that judging the world by European standards is not the way to go. That kinda thought is responsible for the eradication of lots of cultures across the globe and was used to justify colonialism and slavery. The idea that there is something noble about goin, unprovoked, into a society, conquering it and imposing one's own way of life, religion, etc on them is one i find nauseating.  I don't think we, or latin america are better off because of the white man. There are people living in traditional societies, even in the amazon jungle, or deserts that live happier more fulfilled lives than us with our laptops and fancy stuff. Different societies value different things and no one way is superior to others. That kinda thought na im dem dey call cultural imperialism, or as fela talk, kolomentality. "Things Fall Apart" by Achebe comes to mind right about now.

The way that we interact and do things in our everyday lives seems "natural" to us.  We are unaware of our culture because we are so close to it and know it so well.  For most people, it is as if their learned behavior was biologically inherited.  It is usually only when they come into contact with people from another culture that they become aware that their patterns of behavior are not universal.

The common response in all societies to other cultures is to judge them in terms of the values and customs of their own familiar culture.  This is ethnocentrism  .  Being fond of your own way of life and condescending or even hostile toward other cultures is normal for all people.  Alien culture traits are often viewed as being not just different but inferior, less sensible, and even "unnatural."  For example, European cultures strongly condemn other societies that practice polygamy and the eating of dogs--behavior that Europeans generally consider to be immoral and offensive.  Likewise, many people in conservative Muslim societies, such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, consider European women highly immodest and immoral for going out in public without being chaperoned by a male relative and without their bodies covered from head to toe so as to prevent men from looking at them.  Ethnocentrism is not characteristic only of complex modern societies.  People in small, relatively isolated societies are also ethnocentric in their views about outsiders.
Our ethnocentrism causes us to be shocked and even disgusted at attitudes about other animals in different cultures.  This North American woman
considers her dog to be a close friend and essentially a member of her own family.  In the Muslim world, dogs are generally considered to be dirty animals that
are likely to be kicked if they get in the way.  In some areas of Southeast Asia, dogs have multiple functions, including being a source of food for people.
Our ethnocentrism can prevent us from understanding and appreciating another culture.  When anthropologists study other societies, they need to suspend their own ethnocentric judgments and adopt a cultural relativity approach.  That is, they try to learn about and interpret the various aspects of the culture they are studying in reference to that culture rather than to the anthropologist's own culture.  This provides an understanding of how such practices as polygamy can function and even support other cultural traditions.  Without taking a cultural relativity approach, it would otherwise be difficult, for example, to comprehend why women among the Masai   cattle herding people of Kenya might prefer to be one of several co-wives rather than have a monogamous   marriage.
Taking a cultural relativity approach is not only useful for anthropologists.  It is a very useful tool for diplomats, businessmen, doctors, and any one else who needs to interact with people from other societies and even other subcultures within their own society.  However, it can be emotionally difficult and uncomfortable at first to suspend one's own cultural values in these situations.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/culture/culture_2.htm




@deepsight Na person wey u go kill u dey find. I go respond as soon as I can. I know this Nairaland fit suck person in and I'm tryin to avoid getting sucked back in. . . . . Just so u know that french guy's theory is not taught as a valid theory. . . just used to communicate a chronology of thought on the issue from past times till present. Just wanna clear that up so u don't think it's valid cause it's in someone's lecture notes. I just posted the source for transparency reasons.

Here are some links to some papers please read em if u get time. They deal with some of the issues u raised. Very interesting  and educative. U know me I only deal with reputable academic sources so u know it ain't bull$hit. God bless. http://faculty.ucc.edu/egh-damerow/renaissance.htm   http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/657/2/Technology.pdf  
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i9007.pdf 

OK,   i no do again. o da bo.

haha Na wa o. See as una dey make me out to be devil. anyways. . .  I really can't debate much cause it's too hectic and time consuming so this'll likely be the last one 

justcool:
Look at countries where there are a more dangers of natural disasters; these countries are the most technically advanced countries today; as opposed to Nigeria where nature is always gentle, and hence the people are lazy and don’t have good work ethics. Compare California, where there are always earthquakes with Nigeria. Three days ago a huge tree fell and destroyed the power lines here in California, within minutes Edison(Electricity Power supply company) was already there fixing it; I remember in Nigerian if such a thing happens, you have to go beg and bribe NEPA before they will show up, and they usually show up after days or weeks. The constant danger of natural disasters has caused the western world to learn to always be ready, to advance in technology and etc.

To summarize  Justcool's claims --> Countries with more dangers of natural disasters are the most technologically advanced. Nature is gentle to Nigeria hence the people are lazy and don't have good work ethic. i.e Nigerians are lazy because nature is kind to us and we don't have natural disasters.

I then proceeded to give a map that illustrates occurrence of earthquakes in the last century to check how valid this claim was. If I could find one that went further back in history I would have provided it.

Chile, Peru, Nicaragua, India, Mexico, Algeria all have more earthquakes than USA and all of western Europe except Italy.  Even Papau New Guinea is on par with the USA as far as earthquakes go. My map was dismissed as not going far back enough in history.

Where is this link between Natural disasters and technological advancement? Let's leave that for now.

Now. . . .  about climate and work ethic. My opponents have suggested a direct link between climate and character.


Some 18th century  French philosopher,  by the name of Montesquieu came up with a theory, variations of which have appeared in all types of places. Just to give u some insight into his belief system

Human nature, the philosophers believed, is as well ordered as the physical universe. In The Spirit of the Laws (1748), the French philosopher Montesquieu wrote: "The material world has its laws, the intelligences superior to man have their laws, the beasts their laws, and man his laws." Montesquieu thought that a science of human nature was possible, and he became one of the first philosophers to try to formulate the basic uniformities of all human behaviour.

https://www.msu.edu/course/atl/125/fernandez/smedley.htm 

^^ I'm sure that kinda stuff sounds familiar to some of us. Laws govern everything, even human behavior. . . I beg to differ. Anyways, moving on

This is his theory.

Montesquieu’s story:
Warm climate => laziness => poverty and despotism
Geography determines “human attitudes”
Human attitudes determine both economic performance and political system.
Institutions potentially influenced by the determinants of income.

“The heat of the climate can be so excessive that the body there will be absolutely without strength. So, prostration will pass even to the spirit; no curiosity, no noble enterprise, no generous sentiment; inclinations will all be passive there; laziness there will be happiness,”
"People are ,  more vigorous in cold climates. The inhabitants of warm countries are, like old men, timorous; the people in cold countries are, like young men, brave".

Moreover, Montesquieu argues that lazy people tend to be governed by despots, while vigorous people could be governed in democracies; thus hot climates are conducive to authoritarianism and despotism.

From lecture notes of an economics prof at MIT  www.mit.edu/files/1064">http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/1064


For the record Montesquieu argued against slavery, except in some cases where he thought it was ok. .  (I suspect it was sarcasm tho. . .don't know his writing style well enough to be sure)

7.--Another Origin of the Right of Slavery

There is another origin of the right of slavery, and even of the most cruel slavery which is to be seen among men.
There are countries where the excess of heat enervates the body, and renders men so slothful and dispirited that nothing but the fear of chastisement can oblige them to perform any laborious duty: slavery is there more reconcilable to reason; and the master being as lazy with respect to his sovereign as his slave is with regard to him, this adds a political to a civil slavery.
Aristotle endeavors to prove that there are natural slaves; but what he says is far from proving it. If there be any such, I believe they are those of whom I have been speaking.
But as all men are born equal, slavery must be accounted unnatural, though in some countries it be founded on natural reason; and a wide difference ought to be made between such countries, and those in which even natural reason rejects it, as in Europe, where it has been so happily abolished.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s4.html

Now. . . besides these quotes and comments on montesquieu, a philosopher, not a biologist, nor anthropologist, I can't find any academic sources linking  climate to work ethics. I am not convinced. My experience of Africa does not agree with that. You guys can decide for yourselves if you are convinced or not.

Moving on to the most contentious of the issues being discussed, climate and technological ingenuity.

By technological ingenuity I mean an impulse to invent new stuff. Not adopt existing technologies, but coming up with new stuff that was not there before. A lot of places are developed, but that does not mean they are all full of great inventors. Some places just adopt technologies from other places. UAE has lots of stuff but i doubt they invented much. Just trying to make a point and distinction here. Let's not confuse being developed with being ingenious. When I say a culture of technological ingenuity i mean a culture where people are just coming up with new stuff like no man's business. SO when u show me a map and tell me look at developed nations, that doesn't speak to what i'm talking about.

So I'm not saying no one elsewhere ever invented anything, I'm talking about societies where inventions become a part of their identity. I think this is where I messed up before because i didn't really explain what i meant. Ancient China had this culture at some point and then lost it. Though the inventions were not coming as fast as they were when Europe had their awakening, compared to anything else at the time they were no doubt the champions of technological ingenuity. The point I'm trying to make is that without a change in climate, this impulse appears and disappears in cultures. I think it's obvious there are other factors at play besides climate.

so when I read  the responses justcool and deepsight are giving, they are not speaking to what i'm talking about. They seem to be talking about some general overarching influence that climate has on pretty much every living thing. That's a lil too convenient for this debate IMO.

At some point after the dark ages, Europe comes to life. they just start pumping out all kinds of stuff.

My opponents say it was necessity, like the need for heat. OK. If this necessity was present in western europe, it was present in the east, north, china and everywhere else with cold climate. they all need heat, they all need food, they all need to get work done more efficiently, the all want to excel, i imagine, and they all have the same climate. We do not see the same technological creative impulse across the board. Why are these spurts of creativity seen only at certain locations at certain times, while climate is a constant. Until you can answer that, all you have is an abstract theory with no empirical data to back it up. And like I said without the specifics, I'm deaf.

I think Europe saw technology as something that could be exploited in a way that no one else did, whether for profit, for conquest, or just for creativity's sake. . . But i just don't see how one can put it on climate.



I want to apologize to Justcool because when i started this debate i was really just goofing around. I really wasn't getting in a serious debate. Na Christmas time, and i was just in one of those mischievous moods and was just talking my own so i wasn't really clear about anything I was saying and maybe I was a little rude. but my intention was not to be a jackass. . ok maybe it was but I really wasn't trying to offend anyone.

I'm out . . . I'm working on my mixtape and all this intellectual $hit is killing my creativity.  God bless y'all.

Deep Sight:

This thing does not happen over-night. It is an influence that moulds the direction of imperative needs over generations. The influence of climate in this regard is simply and utterly undeniable. Climate is the first determinant of most cultural practices, certainly determines the diet available in an environment and accordingly influences even the health of a community and its susceptibility to specific dieseases. All of these factors are directly relevant to what needs, what imperative necessities any given community will have and imperative necessities are the clear and certain drivers of invention. Through this obvious causative chain each people will be driven over the course of time towards the developments of the improvements which have been made imperative by the limitations or abundance of their environment.

In colder parts of the world the imperative for heat and warmth is a great motivating factor that leads to such activities as set the tone and the pace for later industrial development. You are very unlikely for example to find a hot part of the world where coal mining historically thrived: it is most natural that people seek natural fuels such as coal more ardently when they live in a punishingly cold climate and have greater need to burn such fuels more consistently.

Now you need to understand that each of these needs and its fulfillment has a ripple effect. In particular the pursuit of mining and such other activities is a great industrial spur: people will develop blacksmithing furnaces at a greater pace: that will in turn lead to ironworks in larger numbers: these would trigger developments in armaments, utensils, the list is endless: and you will find that the spur for a society that becomes increasingly driven by original heat-based technologies is very very great indeed: such societies cannot but be impelled gradually over time to industrial development in a fashion that nature would simply not impel a society that has been living in a hot part of the world, who have very little need to explore ever new and continuous sources of heat generation.

This is so simple, and can be observed in such diverse and manifold instances that I am still surprised that the point could be contested. I could cite a zillion different manifestations of this obvious fact, but I hope you catch my drift. If you look again at that map in post #229, the fact is glaring and undeniable: the richer cultural and technological advancements in the world have occured within the temperate zones, and virtually to an inch, the non-temperate warmer climes have been so significantly behind in this respect that the co-relation between climate and development should not be missed.

I already provided many links to scientific stuidies in this regard in my posts above. I emphasize again particularly that the imperative of heat-generation is a huge spur for the gradual development of industrial tendencies.

There is nothing simple about explaining human behavior. We are very complex and dynamic and besides the basic need to eat, drink, be happy and stuff like that, one size fits all theories usually fail to explain human behavior. There are too many factors that shape human life and experience.

Let me try to give a simple example. It might not be the best example but maybe it'll help me get a point across. If you wake up one morning and there is light, for once, you might be able to iron your clothes and not have to wear rough clothing. You day starts off well and you are in a good mood. YOu open the fridge and discover your roommate finished the milk and so you can't have breakfast. downs your mood. you look outside and it is raining, and that might affect your wardrobe choice. It might be a reason to use that nice waterproof jacket your girlfriend got u and u haven't yet had a chance to wear which might lift your spirits, or you might not have a coat, and had left your umbrella in your friend's car the previous day which might further dampen your spirits. YOu go to work and u win new accounts for your company, that sexy secretary invited you for lunch. YOu get off work and on your way home some okada guy scratches your car which messes up your mood again, and so on and so forth. If someone else had to evaluate your day, how much info would they need to have a complete picture of how your day went? If allshe know is that there was no light and it was raining it may be reasonable for her to conclude that your day went horribly. But the more she starts to get info about the specifics, the more accurate an assessment she may be able to make.

Same applies to human culture. We are social creatures and our lives do not take place in a vacuum. To formulate a theory about human behavior, we need to take a holistic approach or we won't be saying much. When we zone in on one variable, without considering others, we get an incomplete, even distorted picture. We need to know the climate, the geography, the type of government, the kinds of policies, the kinds of religion, the dominant worldview of the population. the cultures of their neighbors and trading partners, the size of their army and their security concerns. The temperament of their leaders, their approach to problem solving, and so on and so forth. . .  and understand how these shape the cultures. it is an interaction of all these that determine how the cultures will evolve.

Two countries can have similar geography, similar climate, but different types of government and different policies and ideologies etc, and as a result turn out to be different over time. Imagine we were having this debate in the European dark ages. How would you explain the innovation of the Muslims living right beside them, and the European's own stagnation. Climate? Geography? I doubt it.  One will need to understand the religion, the type of government and what their priorities were, the response of the people, etc. Any theory that does not go that deep, is just playing games. It isn't really serious about gaining insight into these cultures. IMO it will be superficial nonsense. It might be well written, it might have the most brilliant presentation. . . but like i stated earlier, a theory, especially about human behavior and culture, is worthless without the empirical studies that flush it out. Human behavior is too complex to just make broad generalizations like that. We need to know the specific condition, the details, the who, whats when and how. .  before we can say anything that can be taken seriously by the critical mind. That's my opinion, and I think it is a well informed one.

Think Ghana and Nigeria. Think 20-30 years ago, and think about 2010. Ghana now on the upswing, Naija spiraling into the bottomless abyss. . . Climate? Geography? How can you explain this? Now think about the debate we have been having and try to put these things in context. Can you honestly say one can narrow down the differences amongst all these civilizations over such extended periods of time to their climate? Who ruled China during their ancient times of prominence, what had changed during their decline, did they come under totalitarian rule, did the Arabs have a policy that encouraged interaction between people of different cultures and religions and did they put intellectual endeavors high on their  agenda? What about the Greeks during their times of conquest. . . why was their civilization so successful and dominant that even after their decline the Romans adopted their ways rather than try to erase them? Was it due to their policy of tolerance and freedom of thought and expression, or was it because they had cold winters. Without that kind of data, we are not really saying anything. Looking at a map and saying that because developed countries seem to be in a certain region means the climate is responsible for it is IMO a very superficial type of assessment, and I honestly can't take such seriously.

Pastor AIO:


I think that what Krayola is trying to say is that everywhere in the world there are periods of technological advancement and periods of stagnation and that these have nothing to do with changes in climate or natural disasters.  The Romans were great engineers but when Rome fell the german and gothic tribes that took over Western Europe were backward.  Same climate, different level of technological brilliance.  Europe was in the dark ages.  The Dark ages only subsided after the christians pushed the Moors out of Spain and unearthed all their knowledge, and when they invaded palestine during the crusades.  This close encounter with Islamic culture is what triggered the quest for learning and technological advancement in europe again.  

The Arabs themselves have always been in temperate zones yet they were not technologically advanced beyond anyone else until they started empire building and they invaded Egypt (the city of Alexandria) and other Greek cities from which they learnt of Aristotle and ancient greek philosophers.  It is the adoption of this tradition that triggered the advance in Arab civilisation.  

Thank you sir.

Without understanding the specific histories of these societies, and having info on as many of the relevant variables as possible, how can we theorize? How can one say something about decline in ancient chinese civilization  without understanding Qin Shihuang conquered six chinese kingdoms and created a totalitarian empire, and centralized control? A people once ruled by philosopher kings in a dynamic and vibrant society that inspired creativity and free thought were brought to a stand still. It wasn't the climate. How can we speak of the changes in western Europe without understanding how the black plague led people to question and doubt the church's power, the rise of an aristocratic merchant class that placed high value on intellectual achievement, the influx of classical knowledge that had been lost plus the knowledge the Arabs had accumulated. .  all flowing into a once closed and backward society that had just freed itself from the clutches of the catholic church which kept their minds in shackles.

I think a lot of people think history of societies is like the sciences or math, where you can have a theory and formula, and just plug it into any problem and voila. . . u have the answer. Human behavior and culture does not work like that. No specifics= no plausible theory. At least that is what I think.

Haha justcool I was just joking my broda. U didn't have to explain.

The abdrushin comment was just a friendly jab at deepsight. Kinda like he does on almost every Christian thread about superstition.

It seems everyone here lost their sense of humor or sumtin.

I just read thru this whole exchange of ours again because your last couple of posts made me realize u don't even understand what exactly I'm trying to say and where I'm coming from. It's all my fault really. I haven't been clear about what I mean and like idehn tried to communicate, I need to define some of the terms I'm using so u know exactly what I mean. I thought u guys were just being difficult but now I realize my posts just weren't clear. I just assumed u would know exactly what I meant.

I'll have to start all over and make things clear cause we're not on the same page at all and continuing could just lead to further confusion. At this rate we go soon start to dey throw blow sef.

I did not "attack" abdrushin. U are makin stuff up now. And that's a fact. This is defamation of character. Show me where I attacked abdrushin

Wow!! U are highlighting imported technologies. I already said earlier trade and exchange of ideas and technologies was necessary for civilization, and part of what explains the development or most of europe. That countrie learned and borrowed From and copied from their more successful neighbors. I'm talking about new technologies. Cultures isolated from all this are the ones that had to play catch up. Some successfully, some failed woefully.


My battery on my phone is running low so I probably won't post till later. Ciao

Jesu kristi!! U still dont get it. Do u?

The point I'm making isn't about location. . I'm trying to get u to see that people living in the same locations over very extended periods of time, go thru periods where they are very innovative and creative. China excelled over a period of thousands of years and suddenly stopped. The Islamic empires excelled for a shorter period, very close, in fact, right beside western Europe, and were very innovative and creative. Then a sudden decline. Meanwhile western Europe was burning scholars and anti development (that's why it's called the dark ages). All of a sudden Europe gets very creative. Climate did not change, but obviously something triggered these changes in these societies. What factors caused this drastic change in culture since there were no sudden changes in climate. ThatS what I'm getting at.

My point is that we have to look deeper if we want to answer these questions. It's very superficial IMO to just say it's because of the climate the got creative. They had been in the same location for millennia without that creative impulse. There was a cultural revolution that was triggered by certain factors. That's what I'm asking you to consider. And also consider what happened to china and Arabia that caused them to stop being to innovative.

I think just insisting that climate triggers a creative impulse, while not addressing these issues is both superfial, and to some extent intellectually dishonest. That's just my opinion on the matter. I'm not questioning your integrity. I know u are a very open minded and intelligent individual. I'm just trying to get u to take a holistic approach when considering cultural phenomena. U shouldn't IMO  isolate individual factors and just attribute a change in culture to them while ignoring everything else.

One more thing I want to mention. . Early anthropology worked based on a certain premise. That western culture of innovation and conquest was the ideal, and everything else was inferior. A lot of these theories reinforcing the idea that people from a certain part of the world are intellectually and morally superior to others originated in this period and were used to further imperial agendas. If u look on the previous page u will see a post deepsight made about a book review from a book written in 1924. . Claiming that climate can account for lazyness and stupidity etc etc. Those theories have been shown to be biased and not based on fair, objective methods. I'll elaborate later. I'm on my phone now and citing sources and stuff is a little difficult but I promise to back all this up later.

Im just trying to get u to consider other factors u seem to be overlooking. Cheers.

You guys just keep postin and avoid the issues raised.

Why was western Europe not involved in the development of new technology till the 15th century?
Why did china stop being a hub for technological innovation?
Why are countries like Mongolia and Siberia not involved in this tech craze?

U have not shown any link between winters and development of new technology. None. And that is indisputable. The rest na story.

Where did deepsight show this? That winters make man develop technology. Una just dey concoct stuff we no dey

Whatever u say mehn. . God bless u.