₦airaland Forum

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Mazaje, I'll say this because I don't want to go back into the same debate all over again, and also to give our argument some scope.
1.We are assuming that Jesus existed - we both agree on this already as a result, contradictions pertaining to his genealogy and when he was born or how he was born, infact everything before his birth is not relevant here since we both agree that he was born at some point.
2. We also agree that he died at least long before 70 AD when the first gospel was written - this puts Jesus within a particular time frame.
3. For the gospels not to be true within the bounds of this argument, you have to show - from the gospels - contradicting reports on Jesus' life.[/quote]I do not accept the premise of this argument. . .The gospels are not factual events, the gospels are religious documents NOT historical documents as such they do not agree with other historical accounts , so i do not accept your premise. .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I have asked you to cite some examples[/quote]You are doing a very poor job of explaining the contracticion in the two birth accounts in the gospels, your only excuse is "it could have been", "maybe it was like this or like that", etc. . .All mere speculations in essence you are saying the writers do not really mean what they are saying or saying something else. . .

We can start with the genealogies of Jesus. . . . The genealogies provided by Matthew and Luke don't line up.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]So you believe that Jesus existed however, you don't believe the stories about Him are true because the writers contradict each other. Please cite some examples of contradictions in the story of Jesus' life that make such events untrue.[/quote]From his brith story to his death story. . .Everything. . .Read the different accounts and see the endless contradiction in them. . .Some even got the geography of the place wrong etc. . .I believe that there is a man behind the legend just like Mohammed of the hadith and the koran and other legendary religious figures. . .There is also enough evidence to show that Jesus never really existed as well, but I personally believe that there is a man behind the legend. . .

tbaba1234: You have obviously not read through it, a few glances maybe, you have not given it much thought either... The evidence provided there does even begin to describe the Quran, but it is a start .... When i say blinded, i mean you have allowed arrogance and prejudice to define what you read.... Anyone who reads and reasons with an open mind would realise that this could not have been produced by a man, it is that simple really.... How many more excuses can you provide to explain it? It is difficult when you build up walls around yourself.

I presented just a few to your atheist brother and he was dumbfounded... And he is a very smart person...

Pls make your presentations here, I truly went through the entire thread(most of it) because I had little work to do in the office today and saw nothing that could not have been written by men therein. . .All i saw you do was hail the quran as the greatest book without really showing how.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I'll let this part pass because I won't have us arguing from silence and reading meaning into what has not been claimed at all. Besides, rejecting church tradition for lack of external evidence is like rejecting the history ancient Egypt because no one else other than ancient Egyptians recorded their history.




No one is arguing that the manuscripts we have of the gospels were written by unknown authors or whether Paul was an eyewitness, the argument is whether the gospels point to true events i.e. Did Jesus Christ exist? I have posited the possibility of them being copies of pre-existing text. We don't know, but it is not unlikely.

The gospel of Mark is estimated to be the first of the gospels written and the date is put at 70AD. Paul on the other hand, is said to have died in 67AD yet Paul in his letters, talks about the apostles as real people living in his time, he also talks about the resurrection of Christ as something that happened not very long ago. And also talks of scriptures and epistles existing at the same time as his letters.

I have said, that to say that Jesus Christ did not exist is to say the apostles also didn't exist and you can work your way down and so on and so forth. I have refuted your argument on the apostles not existing. I believe I have at least showed you that the likelihood of Jesus existing is far much more than him not existing.



As a matter of faith, it is of no relevance to me the order in which Christ appeared and to whom in particular. What is important is that Christ was born, lived, died, was buried, and on the third day He resurrected.[/quote]Am not arguing about the existence of Jesus, personally I believe that there is a man behind the legend. . .What am saying is that the stories were all made up because the source(writers) of the document all have no identity. . .They writers contradict each other so much that their account of events cancel each other out. . .

tbaba1234: ok... I can't help those who choose to be blind..

Blind?.....A christian will say the same about you for failing to "see" that the bible is the word of god. . .But really if that is your evidence to show that the quran is a miracle and could not be written by men then i can only shake my head. . .

The bible says that Jesus was born in a manger, koran which was written about 600 years later by the arabs say he was born in the desert. . .

tbaba1234: That does not even begin to describe how incredible this book is, it is just a taste, a tip of the iceberg....

Incredible?. . .I don't see it that way at all. . .I see very normal stuff that was written by normal human beings, but we will always disagree I know. . .

tbaba1234: Read through my thread: https://www.nairaland.com/972776/amazing-quran-pre-ramadan-study-interactive

It is only for the open-minded.... Read,think deeply and sincerely ask for guidance... Do not derail the thread though....

Is that your evidence to show that the quran can not be the work of man?. . .Interesting

Enigma: First of all, I am not sure you are right as there are probably still cannibalistic societies out there.

More importantly in any event, you are saying cannibalism was moral yesterday but it is not today.

Genocide was moral in Rwanda only a few years ago but maybe it is not moral there anymore.

So "morality" to you is basically dependent on place and time!

Morality is always dependant on place and time in history, when slavery was acceptable your god was its champion, he was even telling people how to sell their daughters into slavery and brand their slaves. . .When human sacrifice was acceptable your god ordered a whole city and his inhabitants to be killed and sacrificed to him as a burnt offering. . .Your god was once an advocate of genocide when it was accpetable. . .Morality depends on society that hs whi gay marriage is considered a good thing in Denmark but a fenoly in Nigeria. . .That is why polygamy is considered a good thing in some parts of Nigeria and a felony in England. . .

@ Topic. . .Morality always has an authoritative source and the source is always the society(religious leaders, politician, kings, queens, law makers. social and traditional leaders etc)

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Mazaje, you are contradicting yourself in the same post.
I'll quote, you claim:

But yet you prove yourself wrong with this quote:


Another fallacy you are commiting is the fallacy of arguing from silence: The fact that we don't have any record of Paul talking about Jesus' miracles or where he came from does not in any way prove that Paul didn't know about them. The same goes for your Who is John? and what's John's mother's name? questions. They are irrelevant.[/quote]I feel the silence is quite telling, he even refused to mention his mother's name just said Jesus was born of a woman. . .No virgin birth, nothing. . .I consider that to be very important but we will always disagree on than. . .

You say that the apostles and church tradition were probably made up well, that is a meaningless statement unless you can prove it to be definitely true.
For instance, I can tell you that by family tradition, my great grandfather was Okeke Nwankwo, whose father before him was Nwankwo Okafor and so on. Nwankwo Okafor once killed a lion and died by beheading in the great Arochukwu war and his tomb is in my village. The only record available to you on this is family tradition which we must assume to be true until we have evidence to absolutely disprove it. To simply say he probably didn't exist neither proves nor disproves anything.

There is no evidence to support anything the church says, based on that I disagree with the church narrative. . .

This brings me to your statement that the gospels were not written by the apostles. How do you know this for sure? Your answer, they were written in Greek. To which I ask; Is it absolutely impossible that that the gospels could have been copied from Aramaic originals for Greek christians who were majority at the time? This also raises the question: What resurrection of Christ according to scriptures could Paul be referring to if his writing was before the gospels as your claim seems to imply?

Because christian scholars that have looked into it also agree that the gospels started out as unknown documents, they documents were originally written in greek long after the disciples of Jesus died. . .The gospels were written in 2nd and 3rd person narrative, no where did the writer indicate his/her name. . .Non of the writer stated that he/she knows Jesus or has ever meet him. . .ALL scholars agree that the gospel authors remain UNKNOWN. . . .What i wrote about Paul was to indicate that he wasn't an eye witness, because he was also copying his narrative from another source which also remains unknown. . .Paul's letters predate the gospels go look it up. . .

Note: I am not suggesting these things as absolutely true events but I am just trying to show you how your claim that the disciples did not write scripture has no basis because you have not provided any proof. It is at best a "maybe"

The disciples did NOT write any of the gospels, church tradition asigned the names of the disciples to the documents to give them validity. . .Go look it up. .I have already eludidated my position on that. . .It is your own excuses that lies in the realm of maybe. . .No body knows who wrote any of those documents. . .The authors did not indicate who they were and all were written in 3rd person narrative in a foreign language long after the death of Jesus and his disciples. . .

As for the last part i.e. sequence of appearance, I decline to argue that because the bible isn't necessarily written strictly sequentially. And the point Paul is making in that verse isn't the sequence of appearances but the fact that Christ did indeed appear to people after He had resurrected.

He made it a point to state the sequence of appearance just as the gospels did and the two accounts to not match up at all. . .

tbaba1234: Recently I had a conversation with an atheist; It went like this (not exact words)



Tbaba1234: Now goes into how the Quran can not be a work of Man.... How it is beyond the capacity of men...

I keep asking you to show how the quran can not be work of men and you have failed to do that. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Really? please do tell what is this VERY BIG difference between Jesus of the gospels and Jesus of Paul?[/quote]Paul spoke about a spiritual Jesus, he did not speak about Jesus like some one that lived few years ago. . .He never mentioned his miracles, never mentioned where he was from, he mostly spoke about Jesus in a spiritual form. . .His account of events contradict that of the gospel account example is the account of resurrection. . . .The main point I was trying to make was that the gospels were NOT written by people that had ever meet Jesus or were together with him, all the gospels were written very long after Jesus died by very educated greek speaking christians not the alleged disciples of Jesus, church tradition is what determined the names the gospels. . .The authors of the gospels remain UNKNOWN . . . .No body knows who wrote them. . .

Please show absolute proof that church tradition was made up.

We are talking about documents written by people whose identity is unknown, documents whose accounts are so contradictory that they cancel each other out, yet you are asking me to provide proof the tradition was made up. . . .Who is John te disciple of Jesus?. . Wat is is mother's name? Do you know who his father was?. . .Any evidence outside church tradition that he suffered a violent death?. . .All these are made up tales because the gospel of John was NOT written by John the alleged disciple of Jesus, the gospel was written very long after Jesus died 70-100 years and could not have been written by John who must have been dead by that time. . .

My friend, don't contradict yourself, it is either you are saying the apostles existed or didn't exist. You can't have it both ways by saying they didn't exist and then arguing about why they were tortured.

They might have existed but they have noting to do with what was written aboout them in the gospels. . .The gospels were NOT written by any body that as ever meet Jesus or was together with him at any time. . .

Please point us to these claims.

Here is Paul's account. . .

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4[b]that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures[/b], 5[b]and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles[/b],8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Compare this to the account in the gospels. . . .Where in the gospel does it say that Jesus first appeared to Peter then to the 12 and after to 500 nameless individuals?. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Now as to why Jesus must have existed,
To say that He didn't would mean that you will have to question the existence of his disciples and that of Paul and consequently tracing down the history of the church would be a futile attempt.[/quote]Who exactly are his disciples? What do we know about them apart from what is written about them in the bible and church traditions?. . .The gospels were NOT written by the so called disciples of Jesus, they were written by very educated Greek speaking Christians long after Jesus and his alleged disciples all died. . .All the autors of the gospels were NOT eye witness to any of the things they reported in the gospels. . .There is a VERY big different btw the Jesus of the gospels and the Jesus of Paul. Paul did not write about Jesus like some one that lived a few years ago. . .He did not write anything about him like his miracles, etc. . .The funny thing is that Paul's letters all predate the gospels. . .

Alternatively, you can say that Jesus; His life, death and resurrection were made up stories by some 11 fishermen and quite a number of other people. The problem now arises because these first disciples were tortured and killed for their story but even as absurd and unbelievable as it sounded, they were willing to be die for it not one of them recanting their stance.

The story that the disciples of Jesus were tourtured is a church tradition that have no evidence to back it up any where. . .It was made up to strengthen the belief of new converts. . .Again the story of Jesus as we know it was NOT written down by any of his disciples, NON of the gospels was written down by any body who has ever meet Jesus. . . .Gospels were written 50-70 years after the alleged events by educated greek speaking christians not the aramiac disciples of Jesus who were already dead by that time. . .

It is highly unlikely that their story is untrue. It is unlikely that a group of people will allow themselves to be tortured and killed for a story that they made up. Unless of course they all believe it to be true beyond doubt.

The disciples of Jesus being torturted itself is another story. . .The excuse is a very tenous one, because many people allow themselves to be tourtured and killed over lies. . .

As for your issue with the Gospel of Mark, even if as you claim, the resurrection wasn't originally in it and it was written in 70AD. You would find it hard to explain away multiple references to the resurrection in Paul's letters. These will tell you that The resurrection of Jesus Christ was common knowledge amongst the first Christians.

Paul talks about Jesus dying and resurrecting according to the scriptures, his account of who Jesus appeared to after his resurrection is completely diffrent from what is written in the gospels. . . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]So according to your reality, cannibalism would be right if it was legal by Nigerian law? The only problem here is that what they are doing is illegal?

Sorry bro, this behaviour is always evil no matter who sanctions it......and that is reality.[/quote]Really?. . .When slavery was right your god was its advocate, and telling people how to enslave their daughters. . . when human sacrifice was right your god accepted it, no?. . .Remember Jephthah sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering unto your god because it was acceptable at that time. . .If cannibalism was legal by the Nigerian constitution then yes it will be right after all it was the right thing in so many parts of the world before it was changed. . . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Of course you would want to take a cheap shot. I'll answer you yet again: What they did goes against christianity even if they claimed to be soldiers of Jesus.

God isn't pleased with their actions, I am sure of this because God has made Himself manifest to us through Jesus Christ and what those people were doing does not in anyway portray the life of Christ.

What they have done is wrong.

Besides (...and here's me taking my own cheap shot) How do you know that what they have done is wrong? since according to you, morality is subjective depending on society and obviously in that society, cannibalism is good, not so?[/quote]Not according to me but according to the reality of the world we live in that is why polygamy and gay marriage for example are right in some societies and wrong in some. . .Reality supports my position not yours. . . .In Nigeria, killing of innocent people is wrong, it is also wrong to take the laws into your hands. . .Cannibalism is a criminal offence in Nigeria, so the people are wrong within the laws of the land in which they live. . . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]My God! I just saw the video. Disgusting! These people are not Christians at all. heck I even doubt they are human![/quote]Coming from someone that justifies r[i]a[/i]pe murder and slavery as divine punishment. . How did you know that it wasn't their god that told them to do it? After all he did it before and he never changes,no? .What does it take to be a christian?. . .They are even singing that they are soldiers of Jesus and they will never get tired in hausa. . . .What exactly is the difference tw these people and the BH?. . .

@Myjoe
They are singing that they are soldiers of Jesus and they will never get tired. . . .Thats the song they are singing in hausa.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Because not every law is a moral law.[/quote]What is a moral law?. . . .

Homosexuality itself is morally wrong and consequently "gay marriage" is wrong

Not in the world we live in, in the real world homosexuality is good in some places and bad in others. . . .

If their god is indeed the one true God and if their god actually told them to kill, then it can be argued that they are right.

Even under your god centred morality anything is permissible as long as it can be justified. . .

I answered your question, read my words in red.................oh sorry I just noticed that it was actually my red letters that you were replying to.

Answering the bolded again for the umpteenth time: What varies from society to society is not morality rather it is legality. Moral law is universal and binding. A community's legal system is only binding to it's subjects. This is why one can say a law is a good law or a bad law.

False, moral laws are NOT universal. . .From wikipedia. . ."Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior" is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong).". . . .

How is morality or moral law universal?. . .You just said that gay marriage is morally wrong, but when they is it not wrong universally?. . .Why do many people see it as a good thing?. . .Why about lying?. . .In islam there are cases where lying is permissible. So who determine what is right or what is wrong beside humans?. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Here you go: As human beings, we believe that certain rights and wrongs are universal and we expect it to be obvious to another person. If morality was not objective, there would be no justification for this expectation, Also fairness in law will not exist. The fact that we can generally agree that something is wrong even though the perpetrator doesn't think he is doing wrong tells us that morality cannot be a respecter of our individual whims[/quote]Why certain rights, why not all rights?. . .By the way it is false to say the certain rights and wrong are universal. . .In the world we live in there are NO universal right or universal wrong. . .Everything depends on the society. . .Is gay marriage a universal right or universal wrong?. . .So killing people for serving other gods is now a system of justice, eh?. . . . . .Do you then agree that muslims jihadist are right to kill people for not worshiping their own god?. . .After all its justice because their god dislikes the unbelievers, no?. . .I am not promoting any world view I am just stating the FACT as it is. . .You keep talking about morality being objective but you have falied to how how it is objective in the real world. . .How is morality objective when it varies from society to society and from period in history?. . You keep dodging the question. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]So according to you, it is possible to have two different and opposing truths? Is the truth subjective?


Objective morality doesn't mean that someone cannot decide to act against it. If r[i]a[/i]pe is bad, it doesn't stop one from being a rapist All it implies is that the rapist is a bad person.
Now to the second part of your comment, God never advocated r[i]a[/i]pe and slavery, he permitted them. Big difference. As I have told you earlier, there is a difference between legality and morality.

In the time of the old testament, God permitted some actions because of the hardness of the people's hearts. Case in point, Divorce

First it is clear that God hates divorce

“For the Lord God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one’s garment with violence,” Says the Lord of hosts. Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously.” Malachi 2:16

Yet He legalizes it?

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house,
when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife,
then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; Deutronomy 24:1-4

Jesus explains:

The Pharisees came and asked Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” testing Him.
And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her. ”
And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’
‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
In the house His disciples also asked Him again about the same matter. So He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Mark 10:2-12

God's nature remains the same.[/quote]So god in the bible dislikes divorce but still went ahead and approved it because of the people hardened heart, eh? Why doesn't your god allow people kill each other because of their hardened hearts?. . . I asked you a simple question and you reply with this?. . .If morality is objective then why was slavery accepted and championed by your god but considered an evil today?. . .Why is gay marriage a good thing in Denmark but considered an evil in Saudi Arabia?. . .Why is eating pork considered an evil in Iran but considered a good thing in China?. . .Why is child marriage acceptable in Yemen but considered an Evil in Poland?. . .You are yet to show that humans are not the ones that chose to label what is good or what is evil in the real world we are living in. . .How is morality objective when it varies from place to place and is always evolving. . .

@ Anony, you keep making bogus arguments and saying things nobody is even saying. . .

Example. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Why should any laws ensure safety especially since we don't have any way of knowing whether safety is good for us? Why should any individual deserve the right to life? In your worldview, every individual must also deserve the right to kill
.............Yeah I know you were stating your opinion but don't you see that your opinion contradicts your worldview? Don't you see the problems your worldview creates?[/quote]How can people not know weather saftey is good for them?. . .People deserve the right to life because people want to live. . .Killing is wrong because people have come to realize that they want to live in a less chaotic society. . .I have shown you so many times that even in your own bible under your so called god given morality people were allowed to kill others because they worshiped other gods. . .Pls read the nonsense you type and see if it makes sense to before you posting. them. . .

In the real world we are living in, morality varies from place to place and is dependent on men. . .Men chose what is moral or immoral. . .If you deny this FACT then show how it is false pls. . .Show how morality is objective in the real world and also show how humans are not the source of morality in the real world, you are just jumping from one place to another. . .I have shown you many times how reality supports my position, you are yet to show how reality supports yours so go ahead and show it now. . . . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]You are assuming that your reality is the same reality for me and that is wrong, I on the other hand am not assuming that we are looking at things from the same viewpoint, I am only pointing out to you the implications of your view on reality. I think we have danced round this issue long enough.
In your worldview, morality is meaningless because people choose to define it as whatever they like. You cannot show me anything that is definitely good or definitely evil.[/quote]In the world we live in nothing is actually good or bad in the real since until what humans tag as good or bad?. . . .I am not talking about my world view am talking about the REAL world. Polygamy is good in northern Nigeria because the people have decided to see it as a good thing it is considered an evil in Denmark because the people have decided to see it as such. . .If morality is objective in the real world then it will never vary from place to place, there will be universal moral right and moral wrong, the fact that there is NO such thing in the real world shows that morality is NOT objective. . .

In other words, no legal system on earth can ever valid because they are judging based on a lie, there is no good and no evil, therefore there can never be justice. It is an illusion. how can anyone justify crime and punishment?
You can never rightfully criticize anything or praise anything. In fact you will always be lying when you attach moral value to anything because moral value doesn't really exist.

They are not judging based on a lie, that is your own conclusion, they are judging based on what they consider to be their own truth. . .Every system is valid based on those that subscribe to it. . .Sharia law may not be a valid or system that offers justice to you but it is valid and offers justice to those that accept it and subscribe to it. . . .Moral values exist based only on what people chose to label and accept as moral or immoral. . .That is how the real world operates. . .

I am sorry but the "reality" you live in is much different from mine.
I live in a reality where some things are definitely good and other things are definitely evil. I live in a reality where I can honestly say that one person is better than the other morally.
I live in a reality where a judge can be fair or unfair, depending on his ruling and not personal my opinion.
I live in a reality where robbery, murder, rape etc are evil while love, mercy, kindness etc are good.

If morality is objective in the real world, then why is polygamy acceptable as a good thing in northern Nigeria and a crime in Denmark?. . .A judge can be fair or unfair baed on what the society choses to label as fair or unfair. . .But when r[i]a[/i]pe and slavery were right your god and his prophets were its advocates, no?. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]According to your argument;
Nelson Mandela would be evil because he lived in an apartheid society but was anti-apartheid, the same would go for Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr e.t.c.
Or perhaps they were evil then and only became good when the society changed it's mind.

In the same way Hitler was a saint and only became evil after Nazi Germany was defeated.
In fact if Nazi Germany had won the war, killing of Jews will be morally right.

I'm afraid but the morality you are advocating is very much like a chameleon.[/quote]Let me get something clear, I am not advocating any type of morality. . .I am just saying that in the real world morality is subjective and relative to the society. . .Yes Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by his society at that time, he was labelled a terrorist by his society and others that reason along the same line with his society accepted, remember his name was just recently removed from the USA terrorist list. . .In a society where slavery is accepted people that are against it will be considered evil. Back in the days child marriage was the norm. So you can not use our own standard to judge them for accepting child marriage. Child marriage is still acceptable in some parts of the world today. . .

You claim morality is objective and place god as its origin, all am saying is that reality negates your claim because in reality(real world we live in) morality is NOT objective, it varies from society to society and period in history, morality has man not any god as its origin. . .You keep saying that morality is objective without showing how true your statement is in the real world, i have shown you so many examples that show that morality is NOT objective in the real world. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]In other words, would you say that all societies are absolutely right concerning matters within their society? because if they are not, then they do not have the rights to define morals for their society.[/quote]I told you that in the real world we live in there are no moral absolutes, right and wrong are determined by the society. . .What ever they chose to be right will be right and what ever they chose to be label as wrong will be wrong. . .Some societies have chosen to make gay marriage a right thing, some have chosen to label it an evil. . .In the real world we live in, morality is not objective but relative. . .No true right and no true wrong in the real world unless what men chose to define as right or wrong. . .

In some societies polygamy is encouraged as the right thing to do, in others its a felony. . .How is morality objective in the real world when it varies from place to place?. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Here we go again, the question was which society is right? both of them cannot be right at the same time.
To say that something is whatever you choose to define it as is to say that the thing has no true identity.
Please answer the question.[/quote]Both of them don't have to be right at the same time, as i have stated many times, in the real world right and wrong are not absolutes, they are relative and contingent on the society. Right and wrong do not have real identities in the real world that is why gay marriage is good thing in some societies and a bad thing in others. . .How is morality objective in the real world we are living in when it varies from society to society and differs from period to period in history?. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Here we go again, the question was which society is right? both of them cannot be right at the same time.
To say that something is whatever you choose to define it as is to say that the thing has no true identity.
Please answer the question.[/quote]I will answer tomorrow, am going out now. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Let me help you a bit more by inserting your definitions in the sentence

Christians technically do not believe in any God. Yes such an argument can be made. Christians naturally believe in the existence of a God as they have their own God but they do not believe in any God towards other gods like thor, odin, zeus, allah etc.

Parallel statement: Mazage is a vegan, he doesn't eat meat. Yes such an argument can be made. Mazage naturally eats chicken but he is a vegan i.e. doesn't eat meat to beef, fish, pork e.t.c[/quote]. . . .I don't really know what you are on about but lets leave it here for today. . .I am going out to have fun. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]But obviously our societies are different, which of our societies is right?[/quote]That is why I said in the real world morality is NOT objective because it varies from place to place and is always evolving. . . That is why in a society like the one I live in, the law makers came together and decided that gay marriage is good but the law makers in Nigeria came together and declared it a felony. . .Nothing is right or wrong in the real world until when humans decide to label it as right or as wrong. In the real world morality is relative it is dependent on the society and period in history. . .I am always giving you an example with slavery, back in the days slavery used to be right because the people saw it as a good thing and when it was, your god was its champion. . . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Good now based on your definitions, does this statement make sense?[/quote]Yes it does based on the fact that as a christian you believe in the existence of ONLY one god and disbelieve in the existence of all the other gods like allah, vishnu etc. . . .Do you believe that vishnu exist as god on the same level with your christian god?. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Good, I don't really need your reasons so to speak.

In summary you say:

Gay marriage is good
Slavery is evil

Now for the sake of argument I say:

Gay marriage is evil
Slavery is good

How do you determine which of us is right?[/quote]I can only determine which of us is right based on what my society teaches me and how it has shaped my moral perception on the two issues. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]No I believe in one God.

1.Define an atheist.

2. Define a theist.[/quote]Atheist: A person that disbelieves in the existence of god(s)
Theist: A person that believes in the existence of one or more gods.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Yes I am.[/quote]Ok. . .Gay marriage is not bad because it is my understanding that you can not chose your sexuality. . .The behavior exist even in the animal kingdom and what two consenting adults do behind closed doors in no body's business. . .

Slavery is wrong because I believe that one human is not supposed to own another, each of our lives is our own and we have the inalienable right live as free human beings.