₦airaland Forum

Eternal life/Life after death would be to live on in via your descendants.

"The king is dead/Long live the king" etc. etc.

lastmessenger:
I have said it before. You are foolish.
Anyway i don't expect much from a boy who started having sex from age seven.

Can you pinpoint what he said that is erroneous?

sinequanon:
You are responding to your sense of offence at the OP.

I hope many of us develop the humility to take a step back and face facts.

Prime Ministers Questions is a show for the public. At proper functional meetings, the British are far more disciplined than Nigerians. Sad but true. Being defensive is a disservice to your culture. There needs to be a root and branch change.

I stated facts.

You have responded with conjecture about a person you do not know.

I have issues with Nigerian society but the Brits are no example - you have to find your own way, which means doing what is best for your own society and not simply imitating northern Europeans. Sadly Nigerians often fail to understand this.


P.S.
The Chinese have pulled more people out of poverty in a 30 year period than any other society in history - surely they would make for a better reference point than a decayed empirical power.

sinequanon:
"Casual" allows that you consistently and faithfully adhere to some of the doctrines of a faith, but not others. It need have nothing to do with time or being part-time.

There is no need to evoke any slur to make your argument. It doesn't make it more logical.

My question is, are you saying that these "liars" are therefore atheists?

You seem to be the one evading the questions.

I did not call them atheists I called them liars.

I stick to that terminology.

You seem intent on putting words in the mouths of others.

Casually adhering to a religion is the same as being a part-time adherent - you pick and choose when you feel like following that religion. This would entail a large dose of dishonesty - on the one hand you claim that your religion was gifted to you by an all-knowing, all-seeing super-being but on the other hand you know better than the super-being.

Either you do not believe that the religion was sent by a god or you do not believe that there is indeed a god-being and follow (or pretend to follow) the religion to placate those around you.

What they can do relatively well in the UK (and they have a long tradition of doing so) is to sit round a table and have a discussion without making it into a fraught political and psychological game.

Hilarious.

Clearly you have never listened to Prime Ministers Questions.

The whole thing is a psychological game, usually with nothing of substance coming from it.

Enjoy your mythology.

Nothing but staged drama for the sheep.

Despicable.

sinequanon:
Let us debate genuinely. "Part-time" is a loaded and rhetorical word.

I am prepared to accept the word "casual" or "non devout".

Given that people can be, and often are, liars, is your point that Christians, Muslims and Jews who are not devout are atheists?

We aren't going to argue semantics just so you can avoid the issue.

I will substitute casual (defined as irregular or occasional) for "part time" (as if there is a difference).

My point remains - casual [religious group here] are liars.

sinequanon:
He has said that too much religion is no good. That does not imply that any amount of religion is bad.

You cannot be a part time xtian/muslim/jew/buddhist. To attempt to do so is to be a liar.

Religions tend to be all encompassing - the myths that shape societies (rightly or wrongly).

If your foundation is off base then the building itself is in danger.

I agree with much of what you said but to say that there is nothing wrong with being religious is erroneous in light of your initial premise.

You cannot suggest that religion is a source of backwardness then recommend that some religion is good.

Why is there no proof that a 'Jesus' character visited the Americas?

How do you feel about belonging to an organization that decided African Americans/Africans should not be allowed to be priests (until 1978)?

zyzxx:
mogbo sir

mogbo?

zyzxx:
we are born by sex agreed, do we eat or talk or walk by sex?
So how is everything about sex?

Without life as a result of sex none of us would be here - and thus we would not need (or be able) to "eat, talk or walk".

Sex is a major motivator in the animal kingdom - human beings are no different (for the most part).

zyzxx:
Is everything about sex sex sex !!!!! Ni

Without sex none of us would be here - so in a way everything is about sex.

I think you mean 'alms' and not 'arms'.

Threads like this is why I am convinced that democracy is a joke.

Clerverly:
No! Because for the past 6 years of jonathan's misrule, he did not provide a single job for them, rather he supervised the killing of their kindreds through the agency he created called Boko Haram, hence their yearn for change!!!

Oyoyo Buhari!!

I have issues with the political system but the notion that an Executive President should be responsible for creating jobs is farcical.

Local officials should create a framework in which individuals can create employment for themselves and others - what are the state and local government officials doing to earn their keep?

Besides, the public sector in Nigeria is bloated as it is. So many 'workers' yet such inefficiency.

How can 'Islam' burn anything?

"Enraged, irrational people burn a church over a magazine that most have never seen" - would be a more accurate heading.

"Most religions were pulled into the modern Enlightenment with their fingernails dug into the past"


Excerpted from "THE MORAL ARC"

Most people believe that moral progress has primarily been due to the guiding light of religious teachings, the activities of spiritual leaders, and the power of faith-based initiatives. In “The Moral Arc” I argue that this is not the case, and that most moral progress is the result of science, reason, and secular values developed during the Enlightenment. Once moral progress in a particular area is underway, most religions eventually get on board—as in the abolition of slavery in the 19th century, women’s rights in the 20th century, and gay rights in the 21st century—but this often happens after a shamefully protracted lag time. Why?

The rules that were dreamt up and enshrined by the various religions over the millennia did not have as their goal the expansion of the moral sphere to include other sentient beings. Moses did not come down from the mountain with a detailed list of the ways in which the Israelites could make life better for the Moabites, the Edomites, the Midianites, or for any other tribe of people that happened not to be them. One justification for this constricted sphere can be found in the Old Testament injunction to “Love thy neighbor,” who at that time was one’s immediate kin and kind, which was admittedly an evolutionary stratagem appropriate for the time. It would be suicidal to love thy neighbor as thyself when thy neighbor would like nothing better than to exterminate you, which was often the case for the Bronze Age peoples of the Old Testament. What good would have come of the Israelites loving, for example, the Midianites as themselves? The results would have been catastrophic given that the Midianites were allied with the Moabites in their desire to see the Israelites wiped off the face of the earth.

Today, of course, most Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe that moral principles are universal and apply to everyone, but this is because they have inculcated into their moral thinking the modern Enlightenment goal of broadening and redefining the parameters of moral consideration. But by their nature the world’s religions are tribal and xenophobic, serving to regulate moral rules within the community but not seeking to embrace humanity outside their circle. Religion, by definition, forms an identity of those like us, in sharp distinction from those not us, those heathens, those unbelievers. Most religions were pulled into the modern Enlightenment with their fingernails dug into the past. Change in religious beliefs and practices, when it happens at all, is slow and cumbersome, and it is almost always in response to the church or its leaders facing outside political or cultural forces.

The history of Mormonism is a case in point. In the 1830s the church’s founder, Joseph Smith, received a revelation from God to enact what he euphemistically called “celestial marriage,” more accurately described as “plural marriage”—the rest of the world calls it polygamy—just about the time he found a new love interest while married to another woman. Once Smith caught the Solomonic fever for multiple wives (King Solomon had 700), he couldn’t stop himself or his brethren from spreading their seed, along with the practice, which in 1852 was codified into Mormon law through its sacred “Doctrines and Covenants.” Until 1890, that is, when the people of Utah—desirous for their territory to become a state in the union—were told by the United States federal government that polygamy would not be tolerated.

Conveniently, God issued a new revelation to the Mormon leaders, instructing them that a plurality of wives was no longer a celestial blessing, and that instead monogamy was now the One True Way. As well, Mormon policy forbade African Americans to be priests in the church. The reason, Joseph Smith had decreed, was that they are not actually from Africa but instead are descendants of the evil Lamanites, whom God cursed by making their skin black after they lost the war against the good Nephites, both clans of which were descendants of two of the lost tribes of Israel. Naturally, since the evil Lamanites were prohibited from having sexual relations with the good Nephites, interracial marriage was also banned. This racist nonsense lasted a century and a half until it collided with the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Finally, in 1978, the Church head Spencer W. Kimball announced that he had received a new revelation from God instructing him to drop the racial restrictions and adopt a more inclusive attitude.

There are three reasons for the sclerotic nature of religion: (1) The foundation of the belief in an absolute morality is the belief in an absolute religion grounded in the One True God. This inexorably leads to the conclusion that anyone who believes differently has departed from this truth and thus is unprotected by our moral obligations. (2) Unlike science, religion has no systematic process and no empirical method to employ to determine the verisimilitude of its claims and beliefs, much less right and wrong. (3) The morality of holy books—most notably the Bible—is not the morality any of us would wish to live by, and thus it is not possible for the religious doctrines derived from holy books to be the catalyst for moral evolvement.

Many Jews and Christians say that they get their morality from the Bible, but this cannot be true because as holy books go the Bible is possibly the most unhelpful guide ever written for determining right from wrong. It’s chockfull of bizarre stories about dysfunctional families, advice about how to beat your slaves, how to kill your headstrong kids, how to sell your virgin daughters, and other clearly outdated practices that most cultures gave up centuries ago.

In order to make the Bible relevant, believers must pick and choose biblical passages that suit their needs; thus the game of cherry picking from the Bible generally works to the advantage of the pickers. In the Old Testament, the believer might find guidance in Deuteronomy 5:17, which says, explicitly, “Thou shalt not kill”; or in Exodus 22:21, a verse that delivers a straightforward and indisputable prohibition: “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

These verses seem to set a high moral bar, but the handful of positive moral commands in the Old Testament are desultory and scattered among a sea of violent stories of murder, rape, torture, slavery, and all manner of violence, including capital punishment for a variety of acts:

• Blaspheming or cursing of the Lord: “And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.” (Leviticus 24:13-16)

• Worshiping another God: “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” (Exodus 22:20)

• Witchcraft and wizardry: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” (Exodus 22:18)

• Female loss of virginity before marriage: “If any man take a wife [and find] her not a maid … Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die.” (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

• Homosexuality: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13)

• Working on the Sabbath: “Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.” (Exodus 35:2)

Most modern Christians, however, respond to arguments like this by saying that the Old Testament’s cruel and fortunately outdated laws have nothing to do with how they live their lives or the moral precepts that guide them today. The angry, vengeful God Yahweh of the Old Testament, they claim, was displaced by the kinder, gentler New Testament God in the form of Jesus, who two millennia ago introduced a new and improved moral code. Turning the other cheek, loving one’s enemies, forgiving sinners, and giving to the poor is a great leap forward from the capricious commands and copious capital punishment found in the Old Testament.

That may be, but nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus revoke God’s death sentences or ludicrous laws. In fact, quite the opposite (Matthew 5:17-30 passim): “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” He doesn’t even try to edit the commandments or soften them up: “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” In fact, if anything, Jesus’ morality is even more draconian than that of the Old Testament: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.”

In other words, even thinking about killing someone is a capital offense. In fact, Jesus elevated thought crimes to an Orwellian level (Matthew 9:28-29): “Ye have heard it was said by them of old time, Though shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” And if you don’t think you can control your sexual impulses Jesus has a practical solution: “If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”

As for Jesus’s own family values, he never married, never had children, and he turned away his own mother time and again. For example, at a wedding feast Jesus says to her (John 2:4): “Woman, what have I to do with you?” One biblical anecdote recounts the time that Mary waited patiently off to the side for Jesus to finish speaking so that she could have a moment with him, but Jesus told his disciples, “Send her away, you are my family now,” adding (Luke 14:26): “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.”

Even sincere Christians cannot agree on Jesus’ morality and the moral codes in the New Testament, holding legitimate differences of opinion on a number of moral issues that remain unresolved based on biblical scripture alone. These include dietary restrictions and the use of alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine; masturbation, pre-marital sex, contraception, and abortion; marriage, divorce, and sexuality; the role of women; capital punishment and voluntary euthanasia; gambling and other vices; international and civil wars; and many other matters of contention that were nowhere in sight when the Bible was written, such as stem-cell research, gay marriage, and the like. Indeed, the fact that Christians, as a community, keep arguing over their own contemporary question “WWJD” (What Would Jesus Do?) is evidence that the New Testament is silent on the answer.

If God really believes in equal rights for all of his people, one would think that He would have said something about them in his holy book. But such sentiments are nowhere to be found in the Bible. The closest thing to a modern moral value is in Galatians 3:28, when the apostle Paul says: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” That sounds ecumenical, but the surrounding verses demonstrate clearly what Paul is up to: (Galatians 3:1) “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?” And what is this truth, according to Paul? The truth is that “[T]he Jew in becoming a Christian did not need to become a Greek, nor the Greek a Jew. The slave might continue to serve his master, and “male” and “female” retained each its function in the ongoing stream of life.”

In other words, Paul is saying that you can carry on as you are. If you’re Greek, there’s no need to become a Jew—a significant dispensation, given that a man converting to Judaism often had to submit to adult circumcision, and this is just the kind of thing that puts a guy off the whole idea. Paul was not a revolutionary advocating violence, and he most assuredly wasn’t ghostwriting the U.S. Constitution. He was saying that if you’re a slave, you must keep on being a slave; if you’re a wife, must continue being regarded as property; no matter who you are, you can still worship Jesus Christ and be abused by your culture in whatever manner is customary for someone of your breeding and station. And in any case, slaves remained slaves for eighteen more centuries, and women remained little more than property for nineteen more centuries in Christian countries around the world. Clearly, even if Paul’s message were interpreted to mean that we’re all equal, no one took it seriously. But what Paul’s passage really meant was that anyone can go to heaven by accepting Jesus as the Christ (as instructed in John 3:16), and that’s the message of universalism—not equal treatment in this world, but in the next world.

Excerpted from “The Moral Arc” by Michael Shermer, published January 2015 by Henry Holt and Company, LLC. Copyright © 2015 by Michael Shermer. All rights reserved.

Berettas are Italian.

Nothing 'English' about them - not even the name.

cuteboy2:
Considering our rather short history as a nation (about 100 yrs old), that church was built at the dawn of Nigeria's birth.
It should not be destroyed. As a nation, we have to start from somewhere, by preserving things. Eventually, after hundreds of years, they will become ancient.

It is a terrible habit as a nation to raze old buildings, especially those with history behind them. Go and look at Brazilian quarters and Campos Street, in Isale Eko, Lagos Island, you will weep for how Nigeria allows her heritage and linkage with resettled slaves, and exquisitely designed Brazilian architecture are allowed to gradually decay.

In other climes, these will be money spinning tourist attraction.

The Lekki-Ikoyi link bridge built by Fashola in 2013 will become tourist attraction in 3013, that is if myopic people like you do not allow it to decay by 2020, like 3rd Mainland Bridge and then demand that it should be demolished!!!

There is no place on this planet that does not raze old buildings.

It does not make sense to try and preserve every building because it has been there for a long time - that will only get in the way of progress.

It is not about allowing buildings to decay and then razing them it is about razing old buildings when it is no longer practical to keep them.

99 years is hardly 'ancient'.

Old buildings are razed all the time for the purposes of urban renewal/development.

I like how you are arguing over how many sheep there are instead of figuring out which (if any of these religions) is founded upon truth.

Whatever the bible says the facts are that analytical data supports the stance of the Seventh Day Adventists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventist_Health_Studies

Which would suggest that bible is wrong (not for the first time).

...that really stresses the importance of good physical health by way of a healthy lifestyle?

Adventists believe the key to wellness lies in a life of balance and temperance. Nature creates a wealth of good things that lead to vibrant health. Pure water, fresh air and sunlight—when used appropriately—promote clean, healthy lives.

Exercise and avoidance of harmful substances such as tobacco, alcohol and mind-altering substances lead to clear minds and wise choices. A well-balanced vegetarian diet that avoids the consumption of meat coupled with intake of legumes, whole grains, nuts, fruits and vegetables, along with a source of vitamin B12, will promote vigorous health.

Is there any other denomination out there that emphasizes the need for a well balanced lifestyle?

italo:
They get restless, frustrated, scatter-brained at any mention of Jesus or his Church.

Your Jesus appears to have a lot of churches with a number of contradictory doctrines.

italo:
And we have been praying that prayer long long before the rest of Nigerians realized we were in distress.

Even your mythical Jesus reportedly asked why your merciful god abandoned him.

Doesn't that tell you something?

Maybe you should stop pleading with fairy tale characters.

Joshthefirst:
what? I meant that giving my child good welfare and real love is one of the highest advances of what I believe in. Looking at the behaviours of families who act on what they believe as I do will be looking at godly homes where children are brought up in an environment of peace and love for one another and for Jesus.

There are billions of people on this planet who are raised without any knowledge of Jesus.

Many of them turn out wonderfully.

The less mysticism that you fill a child's head with the better.

It's odd to grow up realizing that your parents force fed you a fairy tale. Sad even that said fairy tale could tear a family apart should one or all of the children choose to ask the hard questions about religious 'faith'.

italo:
Atheist, if there is no God, what makes you say it is wrong to abuse children or anyone else?

The above is the thought process of a morally bankrupt human being.

What is it so difficult about treating other human beings with love and consideration as a matter of principle?

Do you really need a fairy tale to inform you of the need to treat the next generation with love?

italo:
Atheist, why are you bothered?

If there is no God and we are all products of chance, why do you consider it bad to neglect children?

Because how children are treated (or mistreated) has a great bearing on the welfare of a nation. Abused people go on to abuse others.

If we only have one life we should make the best of it by doing right by each other in the here and now.

Joshthefirst:
The welfare of my child is one of the highest advances of what I believe in. So your question can make no sense in some belief circles.

And my child will be given the best welfare of all: he will know the truth. He will be blessed to bless others.

It makes perfect sense if you observe the behaviour within such families.

What 'truth' do you speak of? Is it not a 'faith' that you follow?

E.g. the numerous instances of child abuse uncovered within the Catholic church.

The cases of abuse found within Catholic schools, also Islamic schools and Jewish schools ( see here http:///RTbnN and here http:///XBaqia)

And the obvious cases of parental neglect within Nigeria that cause children to go to school without books but their parents are donating to the church. Or children being kept up all night at a 'church programme' and thus not being able to complete homework.

See here for more cases of parental neglect - http:///tRPY40.

Do religious people put their religion above the welfare of their children?

Are they so enamoured by whichever creed that they were indoctrinated into that they push the welfare of their own children into the background in pursuit of the drug that is the 'spiritual high'?

Are they so frightened by the religious bodies, the hierarchies within the religious institutions that they put their own children in harm's way?

Is their trust in religion and the religious institutions (and their representatives) such that they are blind to the potential abuse that may (and has often) arisen?