₦airaland Forum

Ihedinobi: Shoot, bro. As long as I'm where I am currently, I'm good for them. I should be here till maybe Monday. So quick, please.

By the way, I finally listened to the NT Wright/James White exchange. It was...well, the word I used on the thread you started on it was "dynamite". I'm still subconsciously processing the whole thing but I was with Tom almost from his first word.

Mean to read the thread again and try to get more detailed material on the subject.

Here's one for you. By Frank Perreti


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLw6MlfIosc

I've been looking for some Michael Ramsden sermon series titled God Of Love: World of Suffering but I think they've been deleted. I'll find some more messages sha.

ooman: I know what hell is about; its a place in your retarded puny brain.

There is nothing interesting about genocide, infanticide and human sacrifice.

are you sure you are on the right thread?

Kay 17: ^^
Lying to save the life of a person

Killing to save a country:

Lying and killing are frowned at and seen as immoral, however in the context they are in, everything changes. They seem right at the moment.

But then context is not the same thing as perception. Objective moral principles did not change.

Let me give you an illustration.
If you cut an orange in half, you have half an orange but if you cut a person in half you don't have half a person you still have one person. Does this mean that mathematics is no longer objective? No it doesn't, it has only been applied in two different contexts.

I spoke a bit more about something like this here: https://www.nairaland.com/1294489/basis-human-morality/7#15884362

Read it and tell me what you think

mazaje: Can you give us an example of an objective moral?. . .

Here's an example for you: A person ought to keep his promises

mazaje: What is objective morality anony?. . .

I have answered this question so many times it is now tiring.

Objective morality means that the rightness or wrongness of actions are grounded in reality independent from individual or societal bias.

Ihedinobi: This video is incredible. A number of discussions I have been involved in were touched on in it, including what heaven and hell are, the purpose of salvation and Christian behavior.

It's an amazing video and it has awoken me to things that I was losing sensitivity to. I hope it does you good.

It's about what follows salvation, about what we Christians are about and the purpose of life as a whole. For my atheist and other unbelieving friends, I think you might find some interesting stuff in it, not least what really hell is about. I know that most of you are particularly hung up on that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukyNU51OcnA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Come o, you now have enough bandwidth to play videos?

If you do, I have some for you

Kay 17: One word: Perception. Percerption varies hence morality itself must vary.

I strongly disagree with you. How a thing is percieved does not change the true nature of the thing. What you have just said is equivalent to saying that "truth is whatever you make it"

Deep Sight: Now, Pastor, Anony -

I take this quote from one of Pastor's comments in that thread 4 years ago -



Let me make my self perfectly clear: that post (you can read it in the link above) was utterly masterful and brilliant. It was in many ways so so true. However, take a look at the sentence I have extracted above. With that sentence alone, Pastor renders it impossible for anybody to make a moral judgment on anything or any situation whatsoever.

Absolutely and permanently impossible.

He also renders it permanently and absolutely impossible to know anything whatsoever (Descartes) even and including knowing anything about your own life, and the people and situations you interact with. For this reason, it is purposeless debating anything with Pastor because the eternal escapist response is that nobody can know anything. All discussions are thus futile with him, and such discussions may even be useless as we do not know that we are even having a discussion: it may well just be our imagination playing with itself.

There you go: Its out rightly nihilistic.

I've read the first 2 pages of that thread; it gave me a few chuckles. In a weird way, the thread actually made me like AIO a bit more.

If you ask me, statements like "We cannot know anything" are the easiest kind of statements to refute because all you have to do is ask "How do you know that to be true?" and the statement immediately crumbles. ditto those that say morality is subjective. Nobody truly believes that morality is subjective. All you have to do is insult them or lie against them and immediately, they start telling you why your actions are wrong. They conveniently forget at that moment that you might just be observing your own private moral principles.

Deep Sight: [size=20pt]! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

EUREKA! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ![/size]

Lol, why my you dey shout? What have you found?

Pastor AIO: Other acts of war are not necessarily a systematic destruction of a people in whole or in part. You can wage war against their army with the intention of subjugating them but not wiping them out. You can put people under siege, another act of war, with the intention of subjugating them but not wiping them out. The Israelite invasion of Canaan according to the bible was done with the intention of wiping them out.

I "strongly believe" that it was not. Care to examine scripture with me?

Pastor AIO: What do you mean Suddenly adopt that stance? I'm terribly sorry if I said anything previously that contradicted that stance. Please show me where I did so so that I can make amends.

I have not said that you contradicted yourself at all. I am only wondering why you would bother going through a long argument on morality if in the end you'll say that we don't and cannot know anything.

If we don't and cannot know anything, how do you know that it is true that we don't and cannot know anything? Shouldn't you rather be saying that you believe strongly that we cannot know anything? To which anyone can simply reply with "I know that you do in fact know some things" . . .and you can't really respond because you cannot know that he knows that you know some things. You can only "believe strongly" that he doesn't.

You see the problem is that you have led yourself into an absurd position just so that you can escape bearing the burden of the question of whether objective morality really exists or not

mazaje: As long as you are killing a group of people with the intention to kill them all and wipe them off. . .My definition says systematic destruction in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. . .

Good, the bold is what genocide is. 1,3 and 4 do not fit that description but that's by the way. I think the question before us now is: Did the Israelites attack the Canaanites with the intention of killing them all and wiping them off? I don't think so.

Let us look at the bible now shall we? We'll start with your favorite character of recent times: Moses. I'll let you pick a war and then we'll examine it together to see if it was indeed genocide

wiegraf: Abeg... I'll come back and read it properly.... I'm serious.. You know how it is, with my concentration..... I'll try to see what your point is....

ok

Pastor AIO: I stop at morality, for now, cos to apply the same argument to the existence of mind would be retrogression. Why? Cos that is where the entire argument started in the first place. In fact that is where modern european philosophy started. I talking about one guy like that called Rene Descartes. The subject is called Epistemology which also overlaps with Ontology.

To put it short Descartes concluded that we cannot know anything for sure. All we can know is that there is someone who thinks he knows but is not sure he knows. So whatever is real or not, even if it is all a delusion at least we can be sure that there is someone who is experiencing the delusion. So to Conclude, Cogito Ergo Sum. Translation into original English: I think therefore I am. This is the beginning. Even if what you are thinking is rubbish, at least you can be sure that there is someone thinking the rubbish.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFGdA9PbLpY

Again, I'm not vouching for everything in this video, It just looks good as an introduction to Descartes.

I know about Descartes, but that's not what I am arguing about. What I have a problem with is why you would suddenly adopt that stance. It appears to me as an attempt to escape the topic rather than confront it.

wiegraf: I see, because you say so.

If you're asking that I accept this just because you say so, kindly SHARRAP!!! Really, do I look like sheeple? When you do find this logically absurd magical formula, do show it though. I suggest you start searching for it where you'll find the legendary 'divide by zero' , '6 foot dwarfs', santa, god etc.

Lol, you are still wrong sha.

You may not may me. What exactly? It's all been addressed before methinks. Get to your point if you will, good ser, then I'll clarify my stance.

Have you even read it at all?

mazaje: Yes, all for are genocides. . .For example the Ruwandan war is referred to as the Ruwandan genocide. . .

I'm sorry but you have just classified all war as genocide. This doesn't help us in any way.

would say that apart from No.2, all the rest are not genocide. Please read your definition again

Ihedinobi: Twin bro, atheists generally think it is o!

So on point, twin bro. Now for sitting back and figuring out how to miss the points you have made: yeah, you're right, bro, that's what these unbelievable guys do it.

Lol, it is an ability that amazes me time and time again

mazaje: According to Wikipedia. . .Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group" A legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I will go with this definition. . .

I like that definition. Now how does it differ from other acts of war?

For example:
1. Was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WW2 an act of genocide?
2. Was the killing of the Tutsis by the Hutu tribes an act of genocide?
3. Were the activities of Stalin starving his own people to death acts of genocide?
4. Was the Biafran war an act of genocide against Ibos?

I have asked the above questions so that I can have a better understanding of how you differentiate genocide from other acts of war. You can just answer with a yes or a no to the 4 questions

wiegraf: Yes. Hence no universal immoral

Then you are wrong

About what part exactly, if you will?

The whole thing if you may

mazaje: Like stepping on an electric cable, it will electricute you immediately you step on it not after. . .Fighting and getting beaten up in the process, you could fight with some one and get beat up in the process, engaging in wars and battles and being killed in the process.Drunk driving and having accidents in the process. . .Many actions have immediate consequence. . .Even if the consequence comes later, it still comes up in the this life. . .Not in the life after. . .People still or commit murder run away, get caught after some time and still go to prison or face justice in this same life. . .Some people commit crimes and pay for it decades later. . .

Actually the cable won't shock you until after you have placed your foot on it, you won't die in a fight until after you enter the fight etc etc

Some people get away with evil while most don't unless if they live in a lawless society, if you live in a lawful society like the one i live in then its very difficult to get away with crime. . .In a lawless society like Nigeria its easy getting away with crime that is why crime is rampant and every where, in the society where I live crime is very low because its not easy getting away with crime. . .

Actually, I was not talking about crime, I was talking about good and evil. A society can choose to legalize an evil deed and everyone will get away with it. Please don't confuse legality and morality. You haven't provided anything that is enough to convince me that most people suffer the consequence of their evil deeds while alive.

I don't need another life to compare with this life, looking at this life alone is enough, some people are born blind while others are born with their sight intact, some and born crippled while others are not, some commit crime and get away with it and others do not, some worj hard and get rewarded others work hard and have nothing to show for it. . .I must not know that another life exist because the fact that people do not have it equally here in this life despite putting in the same effort is enough for me to know that life is not fair. All i need is to comepare the lives of individuals and that is enough to ake my conclusion. . .You keep beging the question in an absurd way. . .

You missed the point of the question which is: where does your sense that things ought to be fair come from? Why is life supposed to be fair?
Surely you know that the fact that some people are healthy and some sick is not proof that they are all supposed to be healthy.

Even if we are to go by your life after death hypothesis it still isn't just because I gave you an example of a mass murderer like Moses who went about killing, raping, and looting, but according to you and your religion he is some where in heaven while his mass mudderer mate Moa is some where in hell. . .

This is a red herring constructed to derail the argument. My argument is simple: If there is no life after death, why shouldn't I live my life exactly as I like since in the end we all die?

That is why i said life is not fair. . .But generally, with the system we have in place in societies that chose to adhere to the systems in placem people suffer for the consequnce of their actions. . .

I hope you know that by saying life is not fair, you are rendering null the argument that people generally face the consequences of their actions in this life. Secondly even the "system" that you are talking about still has it's many faults and besides it is people punishing other people based solely on their opinion of right and wrong

You are just showing how selfish you are since everything about your argument is all about you and you alone. To you a person should help others only if he stands to gain something in return, if that is not a sick and absurd reasoning then please tell me what it is. Why should you help others only because you stand to gain something from it?. . .

And why shouldn't I be selfish here. The people you are asking me to help were'nt born with me neither will they die with me. I was born alone and I will die ALONE. Now tell me exactly why I have to live for the benefit of others.

Even if we are to go buy your selfish reasoning, if I help 20 poor men out of poverty, there is a high tendency that tomorrow they will also help me or mine when i need help or when any one from me needs help from them and that is enough reason to help them, because no man is an island we all need help and favours during ourlife time. . .Helping others means that they will help you and yours in return and that is reason enough to help people. If a person goes around causing people pain and hurting people, the same will be done to such a person, people will like to cause him pain as well. . .

Why should I hope someone will help me when I can just as easily rob him and still have friends who will love me for what they expect to get from me?

By the way you are not accountable to yourself alone, you are accountable to your, family, friends and society at large, that is why you MUST obey the laws of the land in which you find yourself in. . .If you disobey you suffer the consequence of disobeying or violating the laws. . .

What's the worst the land can do if not to kill me. I can even work my way to the top make the laws so that the land is now accountable to me and then proceed to killing millions of people. In the end, the worst thing that will happen is that I will die. If I am lucky, I might just die in my sleep on my golden bed at the ripe old age of 90.

The bottomline here is that if there is no afterlife, there is no real justice.

Demanding that you live your life in what way?. . .

You are demanding that I live my life according to your idea of morality

mazaje: Sure as long as you also agree that Hitler did not also commit genocide against the Jews. . .

I don't want to derail this thread but I'll ask you: What is genocide and how is it different from other acts of war?

If you like, we can handle it in another thread

Pastor AIO: Oh! Maybe you're making a distinction between our sense of Morality, Morality per se (in se, or even sen se millia).

Okay if we grant that there is a Morality which is objective, how can we be aware of it? is it not with our Sense of morality? How can we be sure that the sense of morality is accurate? We can't? It is the whole epistemology/ontology question. How can you Know that something exists? The Truth is that all that is available to us is not knowledge but beliefs, Beliefs with varying measures of certainty.

Bottom line is that Sense of morality is subject to change. We are limited to what we can sense and the only thing that we can meaningfully talk about its our sense of morality. I Sense morality therefore I am Moral. lol


So to answer the above I say that I am not equipped to make any pronouncement on Mala in Se but I can make pronouncements on my sense of Mala.

This reply strikes me as a bit weird. You have resorted to the kind of argument a person makes when he seeks to escape an argument rather than reason it through.

Why stop at morality? let's apply the same thing to the existence your mind. You only have a sense of your mind, you don't really know whether you truly have a mind or not. You also don't know that other people have minds. Consequently, you also do not have a sense of logic and a sense of mathematics. You don't know what is logical or that 2+2=4, you only believe it to a "high degree of certainty"(whatever that means because I wonder how one can talk of degrees of certainty if he claims that there is no knowledge).
By your logic, you can never know anything at all to be real because all you have are your senses. In your bid to evade the argument, I am afraid you have managed to saw off the branch that you were hanging by.

You can only discuss 'Mala in Se' with people from the same wider cultural milieu as yourself.

Not true. When you really think about it, everyone goes by the same moral principles

People say that genocide is wrong is wrong is wrong. Tell that to the Israelites that invaded Canaan. It wasn't just during the invasion. But for centuries afterwards is was an issue of pride. Reading the bible there is nowhere at any point that you get any sense of remorse and the bible spans centuries. So for centuries we have an act of genocide that not only were the perpetrators not ashamed of, but furthermore it was actually a matter of pride for them.

Go and tell them about Mala in Se.

This is a red herring, but I'll argue that 1. The Israelites did not commit genocide and 2. The Israelites did not have a different sense of morality

mazaje: This is very false, consequnces of some actions come during the actions. . .Many of the things we do have immediate consequences. . .The shame of being caught stealing and the prison sentence and many other things associated with it is what stops many people from stealing. . .The penalty for violating many laws has immediate consequence. . .

but you haven't showed a consequence that doesn't come after the act. Prison, and being caught usually come AFTER the action. "Immediately after" is not the same thing as "simultaneously"

Sure, some escape it and most don't. . .Nigeria is generally a lawless society where its leaders get away with crime. . .In developed societies how ever even the leaders are held accountable and its a different thing altogether. . .Life is not fair, after all we are told that war criminals and murderers like Moses in the bible are enjying in heaven because they just happen to be amoungs your god's chosen men despite all their killings, rampage and lootings. . .There is an exception to everything. . .But generally when it comes to life most of our actions have immediate consequence. . .

You still haven't shown that most of our actions have immediate consequences you have only asserted it. Secondly, I would challenge your claim that most people don't get away with evil because many do including and especially the ones who make and twist the laws.

Again I wonder how you can say that life is not fair. What other life are you comparing it to? In order to know that life is not fair, you must know what a fair life looks like. You cannot say that a line is crooked if you don't know what a straight line looks like.

Sure there is, most of the people in prisons are there as a result of their actions, that is the consequence of their actions. . .Many are not in prison but they are still suffering a lot for their actions in one way or the other. . .If you do good to people they will do good to you, if you do bad to them they will do bad to you. . .

What about those who are innocent yet they are in prison. Are they reaping the consequence of their actions too? How about those who have lied and cheated and even killed their way to riches, yet they have an entourage of people always kissing their feet, are they also reaping the consequences of their actions?

I think you are a sick person. . .And am serious. . .People living in poverty and lack is a bad thing, and if you have more than enough you should help them because doing so is the right thing because you don't want to see people living in misery. . .There is a consequnce for helping the poor, you add value to their lives and the society as a whole and that is a good thing. So because you will die means that you shouldn't help others?. . .You are truly a sick person. . .You keep asking sick questions. . .

ad hominem again. "I think you are sick therefore you are sick and your argument is sick" is not a valid argument.

I have not presented you with an argument that is in anyway absurd. You have not told me exactly why I should make someone else's life better especeially when it doesn't benefit me. Remember I only have one life and there is no existence or judgment after death so why should I inconvenience my life in any way? after all, I am accountable to no one but myself.

Since you are demanding that I live my life a certain way, I have every right to ask you why.

Deep Sight: THAT distinction is most important: and the fact that he had to say "in broad day light" is extremely telling. But of course, he, and those others here on this thread who refuse to see that which is beneath their noses, will continue in their refusal to cognize the obvious.

In my experience, I have found that many people here have the ability to look directly at a point then seat back and carefully and deliberately work out how best to miss it.

wiegraf: Neither and both, along with other reasons. Basically though it would be immoral because chances are someone would deem it so, simple. It would also be moral to some. What you want to ask is "is the act inherently immoral?". No.

Are you really saying that it is only immoral as long as someone deems it so?

Note this says nothing about whether it's illegal.

noted

Random: And flexibility is a good thing, loudly endorsing it is a good thing as well, despite what some fear. Unless you think say living as if it were 1400 years ago today, as our good muslims with their objective moral code for all the ages do, is a good idea. You know how many atrocities have been committed through history by people who thought they had arrived at an objective good? With infallibly good god on their side? How many objectively 'good' deeds did the god himself do in the OT sef? People need to negotiate, discourse and see the other side before making judgements. To hone their reason.

If there is an objective moral code, someone should present this magical, logically absurd formula which can somehow quantify or objectify personal values, which of course are primarily determined by personal feelings. Replace 'personal' with 'societal' and you'd still get the same results. Until then talk about this mysterious objective moral code is just that; talk.

Read my comment on what objective moral principles are in the case of Mr DeepSight vs Madam WitchKiller here:
[url] https://www.nairaland.com/1294489/basis-human-morality/7#15884362[/url]

Tell me what you think.

mazaje: It doesn't make any sense. . .

"I think it is absurd therefore it is absurd" is not a valid argument

And consequnce for action can only be found in life after death?

The consequence for an action can only come after the action. Don't you think so? Shouldn't it follow that the consequence for a life has to come after the life has been lived?

. . .There is consequence(both for good and for bad) to be found in this life. . .What exactly are you on about?

Really, how did Stalin, Chairman Mao and Kim Jun Il manage to escape this consequence? After oppressing and torturing his people, Mao dies of a heart attack at the ripe old age of 83 like many people his age.
How about Babangida? He is currently enjoying the consequence of all his years of looting Nigeria as we speak. . . . .as well as many other prominent Nigerian criminals who have killed and robbed yet they will enjoy a better quality of life together with their children and grandchildren.

Tell me again that there is a consequence for good and evil in this life.

Nope. you can gain many sensual pleasure and still make this world a better place. . .A lot of celebrities do that. . .They give millions of dollars to the funding and research for finding cure for cancer for example and the alleviation of poverty in many underdeveloped nations(making the world a better place) but they still go about squeezing sensual enjoymet(partying, drugs, booze etc). . .

The question is why should you bother helping the poor? It will add nothing to your life. There is no consequence for helping the poor. You will all die one day why should you care about the quality of another person's life?

[quote author=Atheist:-D]

He is coming... he has ben coming for 2000+ years. Knowing Gods eternal timing He will most likely not make it before another 2000 years passes [/quote] Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage—right up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot, people were eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, building; but on the day Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be the same on the day the Son of Man is revealed.

Luke 17:26-30

mazaje: Why do you keep asking these silly questions. . .

You haven't showed that the question is silly, you merely state it.

Why must he not try to make this world a better place?. . .

If there is no consequence for an action, there is no obligation to do or not to do it. The same applies to life. If there is no consequence for how one lives his/her life, then there is no obligation to live life in any particular manner.

You can squeeze out every bit of sensual enjoyment and still make this world a better place. . .

Really, how so? ....because the above sounds to me like you are saying that one can eat his cake and have it.

cyrexx: Sensual enjoyment?

There's something fishy about you always claiming that religion is what's keeping from immorality and sexxual (or sensual) irresponsibility. It speaks volumes about the kind of person you really are.

ad hominem fallacy

Uyi Iredia: Won't watch it. I'm browsing on a capped BBCWEEK plan. Please state relevant points here.

Wow, that's gonna be a very long explanation and I don't know if it is something I have the time to do. Also, I don't think soundbites will cut it. I'll browse around and see if I an find articles where I talked about Trinity before

Uyi Iredia: There is no clear, indubitable evidence that heaven exists. However, the thought of dying without ever living again is saddens me, sometimes to the point of depression.

“The Christian says, 'Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel se[color=#000000]xu[/color]al desire: well, there is such a thing as se[color=#000000]x[/color]. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing. If that is so, I must take care, on the one hand, never to despise, or to be unthankful for, these earthly blessings, and on the other, never to mistake them for the something else of which they are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage. I must keep alive in myself the desire for my true country, which I shall not find till after death; I must never let it get snowed under or turned aside; I must make it the main object of life to press on to that country and to help others to do the same. . . .

. . . .A man's physical hunger does not prove that man will get any bread; he may die of starvation on a raft in the Atlantic. But surely a man's hunger does prove that he comes of a race which repairs its body by eating and inhabits a world where eatable substances exist. In the same way, though I do not believe (I wish I did) that my desire for Paradise proves that I shall enjoy it, I think it a pretty good indication that such a thing exists and that some men will.”

-C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

manmustwac: ^^^Please explain to me how you can use your five senses to determine what happens after death? Can you you use the same five senses to say what was happening 100 years before you existed? Or why you happened to be born into a Nigerian family that happens to practice christianity instead of a sunni damily that practices islam in Iraq or an Indian family that practices HindU in India or a Thai family that practices Buddhism in Thailand or a Danish family that happens to be atheists in Denmaek?

The false assumption that your 5 senses are your only means of accessing consciousness.