₦airaland Forum

InesQor:
This OP borders on an aspect of metaphysics that I like very much: the ontology of ousia, also known as the nature of substances.

I suggest these wikipedia pages for more perspective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousia

Now to the OP: I think it is physically improbable that animal flesh can morph into paper, but I won't say it is altogether impossible. Bank notes, after all, are only paper, a processed form of cellulose pulp, i.e. plant matter. An adequate chemical reaction may yet be observed to carry out the transformation and cell restructuring at a micro-molecular level. My biology is rather weak, so I may not pursue this point. 

Edit: But where there will be a problem is the acclaimed incessant supply of bank notes from the corpse, a la Nollywood? That makes no sense because something cannot keep being spawned from nothing, I believe.

Maybe that is artistic exaggeration on the part Nollywood and the money actually stops flowing once the life is finished and "nothing" remains. My real problem would be how they deal with the issue of serial numbers and how such notes fare well in circulation considering that the participants are said to acquire abundant mundane things bought with such money. I mean, you can buy oranges for N50 and no one would notice a problem with your money. But if you went into a car mart in our cash country and attempted to pay N8m for a car with non-CBN certified original money you'd be singing aleluyah in Alagbon Close before you can say "ritual".

Thanks for those wiki links. Will check them later.

InesQor:
@MyJoe: Well I do not think your perspective covers all instances, and since there is no way to always tell the inaugural motives behind an abortion, I think you cannot afford to generalize.

Not sure where you got "generalize" from in my post since I mentioned the exceptions and used the word "usually" in my last sentence. I told you what I have personally observed. A single lawyer girl. An undergraduate. A banker. A bread hawker putting up with her aunty. A teacher. A shop assistant. I insist this applies to most cases. You, too, will if we get down to hard facts and not semantics. The "inaugural motive" you seem particularly interested in here, going by your op, is poverty. That is not a valid reason to go for abortion. Which reminds me of Lee Quan Yew's discredited policy at one time of sterilising poor women while giving incentives to rich women to do so "to improve the quality of Singaporeans". Very very poor women have been successfully raising kids since forever. Jesus Christ was born to a poor carpenter's wife. Mohammed was born to a poor mother. And so, I bet, are some of the participants in this thread.

InesQor:
@MyJoe: And what happens when you can't prove despoil, but it occurred?

Are we talking legally or morally in this thread?
Legally, I assume you have attended court trials. This is what courts exist for. You don't make legislations of the basis of "what if this can't be proved?" Morally, you know you have been r[i]a[/i]ped if you have been r[i]a[/i]ped, don't you?

^^^ Left to me, abortion would be legalised and made available. If you can prove r[i]a[/i]pe, especially child r[i]a[/i]pe, you go scot free. But where it is as it is with the vast majority of cases, you will be charged with murder and jailed for life.

A r[i]a[/i]pe victim clearly did not choose to engage in the act that brought about the pregnancy. Someone whose condom went burst clearly did. You either forgot to check expiry date or did not observe condom conventions, like you were impatient. The fault is yours. And so is the pikin.

Deep Sight:
@ My Joe: Have you considered that money is actually made from selling the human parts to ritualists and not from turning corpses straight into bank notes?

From the ancient Canaanites with their malevolent variants of Baal to the Aztecs who held the hearts of their enemies to the sun while it was still beating, from the muti killings in South Africa to the goodluck charm killings in Utter Pradesh, there are different forms of human sacrifices for different reasons. Selling of human parts and getting paid happens around here. But there is this particular variant where the dead body is said to vomit crisp notes. Clearly, that is the kind behind that magazine headline mentioned in op. That is, if the CBN releases, say, N5000 note today, the practitioners of this opaque craft will quickly get the specimen of the note, then procure humans and get cracking, so that N5000 notes will be generated. And that is kind I am interested in in this thread.

@op

InesQor:
Pro-life folk keep accusing pro-choice folk of neglect, apathy and inhumane worldviews but it struck me yesterday that pro-life folk may be guilty of the very same offences they accuse the pro-choice folk of!

If a Pro-lifer says a woman should not abort her child, then it will only make total sense if pro-lifers actively involved in supporting the financial and administrative management of orphanages, and they should be the most active adopters of those unwanted children.

Otherwise, pro-lifers are just empty barrels making awful noise.

What do you think?

I am struggling to see any sense in the above. It is a moral duty on all of us to care for the downtrodden and that includes children born to poor mothers as much as Aids orphans and former child soldiers. I have no special obligation to a particular group.

Refusing to care for the downtrodden is bad. And yes, the experience of the oppressed is the most relevant experience and should, for that reason, form the basis for analysis. But that is not the issue here or in most abortion dabtes. Anyone who is capable of consciously engaging in s[i]e[/i]x without taking protective measures because they want full enjoyment should be able to handle the result - take care of the child. I know people who have involved themselves in abortion. It is not for the reasons people like to cite - ra.pe, incest, can't take care of the child, and all that. It is usually so that they can hop onto the next bed to continue their promiscuous ways.

^^^ So in your world it is possible to defy "natural laws"?

^^^I hear you. And to me, it makes no sense at all. But this thing has been going on for ages in our society. Is it possible people continue to do it when those who did it previously did not get results? How about those guys who turned rich overnight and people point fingers at them and whisper, "He used his wife for money ritual"? Bizarre stuff, yeah.

You are thinking that I have been watching too much Nollywood… well, there is some Nollywood connection to this. I do not watch movies much, Nollywood or Hollywood, but someone just narrated the story of one starring a popular comedian.

In the movie, we heard, a group of friends see that one of them is entirely no use to the world and decide to salvage something out of the human mess by turning him into cash. Salivating on the pretty damsels that will be fighting themselves to be seen by their sides as they paint the town red in hummer jeeps, they parcel him up and deliver him to the witch doctor who has the devil’s cauldron waiting. But the ancient man takes a look at the wastrel and warns them that if they kill the man, money will come out but it will be counterfeit money! The guy’s tethers are promptly cut, and as he goes home, he can’t stop asking God how his person managed to come to such a waste that he cannot even produce good money like everyone else killed for ritual.

By now everyone listening to the story was bursting their side with laughter. But it took my mind back to a story in a magazine titled “1000 Naira Notes, Ritualists Go Wild”. Since we know people believe these rituals and have been performing them, is it possible that they are all “deluded”? Or can we assume you can mint money by stewing human parts in some arcane cauldron in this malevolent variant of Satanism? If so, how good are such currency notes vomited by these dead or dying bodies? How do they manage about such details as serial numbers and other CBN details?

Anyone here can throw light into this matter?

JeSoul:
Wahala dey okay, no problemo. And easy pelu volume oh, not all of us are wizards like Viaro  .

Yeah. This I can understand, not being anywhere near his 190 I Q. But I will take my omega H3 before embarking on the project to give me a fighting chance. You will measure up, no doubt. I never underestimate Fringe Scientists, even if I am high on weeds. 

^^^ I may beat you to it! There is one I have been planning for you and viaro about the Bible. Better be reading Genesis to Revelation now if you hope to survive because it gonna be ferocious!
Ed: Wasn't trying to get off. If you read my contributions you will see how solidly anchored on the Bible is the position I canvassed and how the Trinitarians have hardly addressed those scriptural points.

Hello again viaro,
I will leave it at that. As to believing, I'm sorry but I was only doing aproko here.  I mean I don't actually toe either line and just wanted to enliven your debate which was becoming one-sided at a point. Seriously, though, I cannot see that Christianity owes its Trinity doctrine to the Bible.

Hello mazaje. Trust you are doing great.

It can be argued that the fact that religious people are not necessarily more moral than the non-religious, including atheists, is paradoxical. Religions are supposed to be fountains from which spring moral instructions, hence the plainly misguided view that atheists who are perceived to be groping in the dark, as they lack this source of moral instruction, are necessarily immoral. The present situation in the word can be seen as an indictment, either of religious people or the religions of themselves.

Missy B:
Indifferent!!!

People have different reasons for doing certain things and sometimes,
One can't help but see reasons with the Culprit.
Abortion is not Right, so is Fornication, Stealing, Fraud and
some other deeds we see as Fun.

I do not see stealing and fraud as fun, and my whole point of making this post is that you should not. "Fornication" you would have to define.

RichyBlacK:
I'm liberal, actually I'm left of David Kucinich, however, I'm completely against abortion!

ALL the women I know who have committed the terrible sin of murder abortion:

* did not do it because of any complication to their health or that of the child;
* did not do it because they were ra.ped;
* did not do it because the doctor suggested it;
* did not do it because they were incapable of taking care of the child;

they did to:

* continue their whoring ways;
* get rid of the "loser" boyfriend - the same "loser" they stu.pidly opened their legs for, without a condom!
* deceive a future mugu who may be later labeled a "loser";
* appease the real loser boyfriend who never uses a condom and is okay to use abortion as a form of birth-control;

In my world, abortion will be free, legal and available, however, each case will be investigated as a possible murder. If the investigation reveals that the abortion was carried out for reasons beyond safety and health, the woman will be jailed for murder and the child sent to responsible relatives or a foster home. I will not deny any woman abortion, but they must be ready to see the judge after seeing the doctor!

Superlative, Doctorate, A++, Summa Cum Laude, First Class Honours. Thank you.

Image123:
[b]There's a witness party here already. [/b]What an adventure. Viaro na wa o, no vex na.
Karo93, no vex us now, quit 'living in denial'.your excuses are boring. Can you imagine your excuse for Matthew 1v18?" It is BABY not child per se". What's that all about. Now you'll come and say you've addressed issues.
1Timothy 3v16 says God was received up into glory. You just said that refers to Jesus, so what's your problem. Your excuses are laughable to me, but they're becoming annoying to others o! Take your time.
I want to ask you, if we follow your reasoning of Jesus/Spirit is messenger therefore God is referred to. The angels are messengers aren't they? Even you'll claim to be a messenger? All the prophets in scriptures are messengers. Why are they not referred to as God like Jesus is referred to and like the Holy Ghost is referred to?
Also, who do you know/think created the world?

Sir, you know it won't hurt to read people's posts properly and then write sensible ones instead of casting thoughtless aspersions on others. If you say there is a Witness party that creates another problem for you: you have to show what is wrong with a "Witness party".

[quote author=la_vivi link=topic=403867.msg5618665#msg5618665 date=1267608565]Hello friends,this topic is very interesting,but i must confess that am being swayed by Ijele's comments,he supported his claims with more clarified bible quotes better than others. karo made some good points but seems to be quitting or running out of ideas. Image and viaro is equally good but their supporting quotation is more deductive and seemed as to be derived than realistic(based on probablity). You guys has made me to stick close to my bible than ever. Am afraid am begining to think there's absolute nothing like Trinity. Can ijele pls speak more.[/quote]My observation is that when we believe something we will do anything to find proof or evidence for it. This is the normal human tendency, whereas the proper strategy is to try to refute it. One example that readily comes to my mind here is the Witness position on blood transfusion. There is biblical ground for it, but it is very very tenuous and far-fetched. Now try explaining this to a Witness, and see how he writhes and rigmaroles, reeling off accounts of people who did heartless surgery, standing his ground and letting people die for a man-made doctrine.

Hello viaro,
I trust you are doing good out there.

viaro:
Hello MyJoe,

I did not have the desire to go into detail on 1 Corinthians 15:28 and that was why I summarised all that could be said by noting two things: (1) that Scripture does not confuse between the Deity and Humanity of Christ; and (b) that both His Humanity and Deity are united in Him.

It is in that summary that I suppose all other arguments stand to either make sense or else not at all. Christ's subjection to the Father does not take anything away from His Deity. Even the Father refers to the Son as "God" as cited in Heb. 1:8 - "But unto [b]the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom".  It is in the essential nature of the Son that He is confessed as "God". Yet, His submission to the Father is not a matter of only the future - for He has shown that same submission to the Father in His vicarious work on the Cross, whereby He is called "Lord" (Phil. 2:8-11). Even at that, the Son is not said to lose His essential nature of Being in 1 Cor. 15:28, for that verse does not negate the fact that even in the future, He is still worshipped.[/b]

As I tried to make clear in my earlier post, and will do again presently, this is hardly in contention.

viaro: Further, it is clear that 1 Cor. 15:28 is not the first or only time that the Son is seen in such relationship to the Father or God. Both before His Incarnation and after His Resurrection and glorification, the Son is seen as the One through whom creation has to do with God. Not only that all things are reconciled to God in Him (Col. 1:20), but also: "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him" (Eph. 1:10). When this happens, shall the Son cease being worshipped? No, for even those who argue against His Deity (like karo93) still acknowledge that the Father and the Son are worshipped. Do you care to ask karo93 why he acknoweldges that fact?

I, too, acknowledged the above as a biblical position. What is in contention, as I understand it, are (1) Whether Jesus is equal with God (2) Whether the holy spirit is a person. 1 is what I have concerned myself with here. He is to be worshipped according to the Bible but not placed on the same level as the Almighty. This is the issue.

viaro: This gathering all things together in Christ is what 1 Cor. 15:28 also points to - it is in Christ that the full expression of Godhood (Deity/Divinity)  will be expressed - that is also the essential message you find in Col. 1:19 - "For it pleased the Father that in Him (Christ) should all fulness dwell". That "all fulness" are found in the Son still expresses the fact that God is "all in all". The verse in 1 Cor. 15 does not mean that the fullness would no longer be expressed in Christ at that time; rather, it affirms that all existence will find that thing fully expressed in the Son.

This is where the Trinity doctrine gets really murky. My uncle, also named Joe, used to tell me something when I was a kid. Chewing on a piece of kola-nut and emphasising his point with a finger, he would hold my shoulder and go, "You know, MyJoe, if anything is not clear to you, know that there is wayo in it."   Not saying there is wayo here, but just emphasising how muddy this business gets when someone tries to explain it as you do above.

viaro: I think you're mixing up issues here. Although you attempted to reconcile both diametric views, it still does not help to assume, that - (a) Christ was created by God at anytime; or that (b) worship could be rendered to a created being in the same way as the Father [John 5:23]. I still ask: why do those who argue against the Deity of Christ also acknowledge that He is to be worshipped? Does that even make sense to them in the body of all their arguments?

No, I am not mixing up issues. The issues are as I stated above. And the thread is about Trinity and the Bible.

viaro: If Christ is Deity and indeed to be worshipped, WHAT essentially has been their problem in yet arguing against that same thing?

I think their problem is that they refuse to accept that anyone is equal to God. In my earlier post I highlighted the fact that Christ is assigned a unique role in the scheme of things in the Bible. In that role, he qualifies for worship but is not equal to God, whom he himself also worships as his God. Let me try again:

Here is man in relation to Jesus: worship and adoration (though not the same given to the Almighty)
John 20:28 (NIV)
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

And here is Jesus in relation to the Father: unqualified worship and adoration
Mark 10:17-18 (NIV)
17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.
John 14:1 (NIV)
1"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God[a]; trust also in me.    (Note: God, then me. Two entities, one superior to the other.)
John 8:42 (NIV)
42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.
John 20:17 (NIV)
17Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "
Matthew 27:46 (NIV)
46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi,[a] lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Conclusion: Jesus is not equal to God

viaro: The OP has not shown a good grasp of his own arguments - he continues to evade simple issues that have been pointed out to him and only interested in feeding his own confused arguments. On that note, like I have said, I wish him good luck to keep pursuing whatever he already has made up his mind to believe. But he should ask himself why he still acknowledges that Christ is to be worshipped if He is not Deity?

See above.

@ Ibime
Thanks for your as always illuminating posts.

^^^  Yeah. God sent himself to die for men. Anyone who can't see this Great Truth has to be blind!

Good day viaro -

Your arguments on this thread do not add up. I will highlight just two.

viaro: Those are passages that do not affect the Deity of Christ one bit. I have tried to point out that there are two things that Scripture often presents to us about Christ: (a) His Deity; and (b) His Humanity.

We both know 1 Corinthians 15:28 does not present Christ's Humanity so you have not addressed karo93's point. Thanks.

viaro:
If Jesus was a mere Man or a created Being, why do you want to worship Him? Why not just worship the Father alone?

You have a serious problem here. Created Beings such as angels do not receive worship from any man. Any angel who seeks worship from man does not stand as a servant of God. Rather, we read that ALL the angels worship Christ the Son of God (Heb. 1:4) - because He also is their Creator (John 1:3).

The only reason that you would acknowledge worshipping the Son of God is because He is your Creator and God - otherwise your own argument that "the Father and the Son are worshipped" is completely useless! We are called to worship the Son even as we render divine honour to the Father, for that is what Jesus Christ Himself stated in John 5:23.

Please sort yourself out of your own conundrum. If Jesus Christ is not Deity Himself as stated in John 1:1, then you have no business acknowledging that He is also worshipped as the Father is worshipped. If you actually acknowledge that Jesus Christ is worshipped, what is your argument then?

You appear to be proceeding on the basis that one either accepts Jesus as Almighty God Yahweh or as a mere man. What I think your opponents are saying, which I believe is supported by the Bible, is that Christ's position is a unique one. He is in the image of God, the nearest to God, the first being created by God who then created everything else that exists. He is thus a divine being. This cannot be compared with prophets and doing so is either misguided or disingenuous. From this biblical position, he is thus eminently qualified to be worshiped. From that point also, I think your "Deity of Christ" can be said to be scriptural since you can hardly get more deity than this. The problem with the "Deity of Christ", though, is that its Trinitarian proponents take it to mean that Christ is the supreme Deity, the Almighty Yahweh himself, which is not scriptural.

Hello viaro -

I am bringing in this because you said in an earlier post that your beliefs in this matter are based on the Bible. So I guess we can skip Arius a bit. My view is that -

The divinity of Christ has biblical anchor.

The deity of Christ? Depends on what you mean.

The Trinity - Christ co-equal, co-existent, or co-eternal with God? This is not well grounded on scripture. In fact, the scriptures contradict it. Which is why I wonder what you think of the following scriptures:

Is Jesus God, according to the Bible?
Isaiah 9:6 (New International Version)
6 For to us a child is born,
       to us a son is given,
       and the government will be on his shoulders.
       And he will be called
       Wonderful Counselor, [a] Mighty God,
       Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

But so are others:
Psalm 82:1,2,6 (New International Version)
1 God presides in the great assembly;
       he gives judgment among the "gods":
2 "How long will you [a] defend the unjust
       and show partiality to the wicked?
       Selah
6 "I said, 'You are "gods";
       you are all sons of the Most High.'

2 Corinthians 4:4 (New International Version)
4[b]The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers[/b], so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Genesis 33:9-11 (New International Version)
10 "No, please!" said Jacob. "If I have found favor in your eyes, accept this gift from me. For to see your face is like seeing the face of God, now that you have received me favorably. 11 Please accept the present that was brought to you, for God has been gracious to me and I have all I need." And because Jacob insisted, Esau accepted it.

Is Jesus equal to God according to the Bible?
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (New International Version)
24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he "has put everything under his feet."[a] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28[b]When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him,[/b] so that God may be all in all.

Colossians 1:15-16 (New International Version)
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

John 14:28 (New International Version)
28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Deep Sight:
Excellently put. I can't get over the nature of Christian dogma: it appears to me synonymous with a severe form of dislocated derangement. The paganistic fallacies regarding the diety of christ being the most outlandish claims that supposed men of reason can be so bold as to embarrass themselves with.

[quote author=chi-baby link=topic=402496.msg5570227#msg5570227 date=1266944313]@topic
abortion in my opinion is not murder as a foetus is not really a human being yet. murder is defined as the unlawfull killin of a human being.[/quote]Can you distinguish between someone who is a human being and someone who is really a human being? Thanks.

@misthief89

michelin89:
Mischief ko, Misthief ni.

If a man wakes up and sees a fowl pursuing him, he better run o. You, go with your wahala!

@mischief89

michelin89:
When you get "pregnant" you'll know.

Just wait there for me. You need some thrashing.

michelin89:
When we create a thread for vasectomy, you can feel free to contribute. A man should not even put his mouth in matters like this in the first place.

Or are you a doctor?

When you read NL you will see that threads are s[i]e[/i]x specific, so thanks for your rare insight. And why would women be excluded from interlocutions about vasectomy, or can you not see it may eventually concern them even more? And when you are pregnant who do you rush off to tell first?

^^^ What have you written? ehn?

michelin89:
All of you shouting adoption: shebi una don experience childbirth before? I am sure carrying a 9 month pregnancy, labour and child bearing must be easy like chewing bubbles.

Afterall I pregnant today, give birth tomorrow and give the child out the following day. NO STRESS AT ALL.

You are all a bunch of hypocrites.

^^^ And what is your point? That abortion takes you home STRESS free? Have you experienced both (abortion and 9 months) to know which is more stressful? If yes, have you interviewed others to see if reactions and long term effects don't play out differently with individuals?

davidylan:
Neither does the atheist have any empirical evidence that God doesnt exist at all . . . infact the only argument the atheist has is that the theist has not provided God's home address to him.

That won't do. They'd want to shake hands.

Now, how such can qualify to be God in anyone's view beats me.

You mean to confirm that he was the one.

Yes. That only confirms what your opponents are saying. Why was that necessary in the first place. I mean why did the disciples not recognise him, necessitating for him to put on his old body just for the benefit of the doubting Thomas? Think.

Wait a minute. Are you really saying Jesus resurrected with that sword-pierced and bloodstaind body and took it to heaven?!