₦airaland Forum

davidylan: you're lying and even you know that. America is unabashedly a christian nation... religion did not fail europe, it simply moved to the background because things actually work there. I must say the reason religion is so prevalent in africa is because that is the opium for a population that is largely poor, destitute and in need of something to numb the pain of an existence of misery.

and why do you think religion should have minimized corruption in nigeria? What are the atheists doing?

It's also interesting to note that all the schools, the great bastions of education all over the world were built by churches. Not only schools, but hospitals. Yet, religion is anti-progress?

davidylan: is religion also the reason we cannot provide good roads, security, water and jobs for our citizens? Is religion the reason we have literally imported fraud to other countries? Lets get real and stop blaming religion for 100% of Nigeria's problems. As i said earlier, let the atheists stand up and show us how it would be different without religion then perhaps we can give it a try.

This is the exact point I have tried to make here on NL for so long. Religion is not Africa, or even Nigeria's issue. So many on here like to talk about the Greeks, did religion stop Greece from scientific progress? No, the Greeks were so religious that it used to be said that there were more gods in Athens than people. Did religion stop the advance of Western Europe? The bulk majority of the science that still influences western and Eastern life stemmed from the mind of Christians. It's time we Nigerians owned up to our failings and stop blaming religion.

mazaje: Which facts?. . Where does the bible support any of the things I mentioned that has made the western nations what they are today?. . .Where in the bible can separation of church and state advocated?. . .What about capitalism?. . .Democracy?. . .Secular education and naturalistic scientific inquiry?. . .What about equality of the sexes?. . .Freedom of speech and association?. . .

Ken Miller is a christian and christianity does not agree with his position that humans evolved from hominid apes. . .

You and I both know that I no matter what arguments I offered, we would simply keep going back and forth. If you want to, you can read Mr. Habermas' paper. At the very least, it should make you realize that it's not as black and white as you think.

It's interesting that the rise of abstract science in the western world is also attributed to monotheism in Judeo-Christianity. Alfred North Whitehead wrote a paper on it. You can read that as well.

mazaje: What am i to do with the opinion of a man that is clearly false? . . .What if I bring the writings of DR Ken Miller who is a christian that has written so much about human evolution and is an authority in the filed so much so that he was hired by scientist to challenge the religious right when they tried to introduce creationism masked as intelligent design to the public schools in the united states. . .If I bring his quotes on evolution will you agree that humans evolved from hominid apes because he is a christains and an authority in the filed of evolution?. .

You can start by showing me where the bible supports, separation of church and state, democracy, freedom of thought and expression, freedom of association, gender equality, capitalism, secular education and naturalistic scientific research. All principles that have made the west what it is today . .show me where the bible advocates for these principles I have mentioned. . .

It's not his opinion. It's based on his years of studying the facts. He's an atheist. If it was his opinion, you wouldn't expect him to come to the conclusions he did.

Second, the comparison to Dr. Miller is inaccurate. Dr. Miller's arguments for evolution reinforces his beliefs, Mr. Habermas' are contrary to his belief.

EvilBrain1: Yes, Galileo stood against the church and other scientists. The problem is that the church and their scientists were wrong and Galileo was right and he had the evidence to prove it. Had the church not been involved, he would have debated with the scientists, shown them his evidence and sensible people would have eventually sided with him. Instead, the argument went more like this:
Church: The earth is the centre of the universe!
Galileo: No its not, and I have clear evidence from my new telescope device.
Church: This evidence doesn't agree with the bible. Recant it or we'll fúckin burn you alive!!!
Galileo: Ha! Oga, abeg na lie o! I must have been confused when I was looking in the telescope. Please sir, don't burn me.
Church: Good, we've managed to dialogue with another heretic. And we didn't even have to torture him this time. Now BURN ALL HIS BOOKS!!! Lock him up FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE!!! Let's show these scientists what happens to anyone who contradicts the fairy tales that we use to make money!

The point I think you are missing is that the church wasn't against science. And actually, after the event with the church, Galileo spent the rest of his days living luxuriously in the private estates of friends. He was never tortured. And for as much as the church gets lambasted, you should note that Galileo had a reputation for being publicly vitriolic to those who disagreed with him.

mazaje: You are here again with your false claim. . .Secularism is what has made the western world to become what it is today. . .We all know the principles that made the west to become the giant that is is today, these principles are democracy(freedom to vote and be voted for, freedom of association, freedom of speech etc), capitalism, separation of such and state, capitalism, gender equality, and secular education that promotes naturalistic reasoning instead of superstition and mythology. . .NON of these principles is rooted in christianity, in fact a lot of them are anti christian principles. . .

This is revisionism. I've submitted this to you before. Again, these are the words of a methodological atheist (Jurgen Habermas) who is considered probably the best in his field and who has studied the facts. I think he might know what he's talking about.

Christianity has functioned for the normative self-understanding of modernity as more than a mere precursor or a catalyst. Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and social solidarity, of an antonomous conduct of life and emancipation, of the individual morality of conscience, human rights, and democracy, is the direct heir to the judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in the light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk.

macof: You probably know nothing about the medieval times of Europe when the church reigned supreme, only priests went to school, anyone found acting or propagating ideas against the tales and dogmas of the church were prosecuted, genocide, corruption, dictatorship, sexism, child molestation, slavery etc.

Secular phycology and movements have made Europe what it is today

This is an emotional argument. All the ills you've listed are applicable to any period of time since the beginning of time. We live in a more secular world, are these ills not present?

logicboy01: God, christianity, islam and judaism are all unscientific. Period.

Tell that to Newton or Kepler or Maxwell and a host of others.

logicboy01: Slavery backed with religion was the worst. The European/American slavery of blacks, the Arab slavery of blacks.

Europe was moving away from a lot of religious dogma during the enlightenment


And as usual, you twist history to sweeten your unscientific religion- Galileo was persecuted by the church and even worse, most scientists were at the time at the beck and call of the church- slaves to the church. You wonder why they never progressed.


Of course, the catholic church will lie that it didnt persecute Galileo. We all know how they twist history

This is why there is no point in arguing. It doesn't lead anywhere. There is no twisting going on here. It's a matter of fact that what set Galileo against the church AND other scientists of the day was his theory's opposition to the Aristotelian model. They disagreed over the science not about whether God was inhibiting the science.

I'm getting older and have no desire for pages worth of back and forth arguments. The only point I will keep making to you as I've always done is the error you make when trying to contrast God with science. That is a failed argument.

logicboy01: Your comment in bold is false
The enlightenment of Europe came with secular philosophy. Europe became more advanced as they left religion.


With religion, the church was persecuting scientists that had found things going against its dogma. Kings were claiming divine right to rule others instead of having democratic decisions.

Remember that when Europe was not secular, they were trading slaves and committing genocides. Maybe those are the effect of "judeo-chrstian" values

My comment isn't false no matter how much you may wish it so. Your comments are a total over-generalization.

The Galileo persecution (which is what you are referring to) has been revealed to be largely a myth. Please read up on it. He wasn't persecuted on religious grounds as he himself believed in God. He came at odds not only with the church but with other scientists because his theories went against the Aristotelian paradigm that dominated the scientific thinking of the day.

Secondly, the enlightenment as a movement was limited to a class of intellectuals (some of whom were believers in God by the way). That does not translate into a claim that Europe was secular.

As far as the point about slavery and genocide, humans have carried out both acts with or without God.

logicboy01: Religion has failed Nigeria. Our pastors are hypocrite adulterers, tithe scammers and frauds. Government had to order churches not to try ebola miracle healings. We have boko haram and Almajiris destroying the north. Religious preachers preaching ignorance from the pulpit. Politicians stealing and plundering, yet offered the front seat at churches.


Actually, Europe has progressed beyond God. When the European saw the Ebola, they made protocols to prevent an epidemic. Fools in Nigeria were busy praying and paying tithes until it spread from Liberia.


God is not self evident. The sun itself is self evident- no one argues that the sun doesnt exists.

I won't argue with you about a lot of scamming being carried out in the name of God in Nigeria. However, your argument is faulty when you make a comparison between Europe and Africa and blame God for the disparity in response to the Ebola outbreak. We Africans are reaping what we sow. The inability to fight corruption, the lack of serious conviction to improve society, our collective cowardice to initiate revolution, etc. That's the difference.

To address your other point about Europe moving beyond God. Yes, Europe is largely secular now, but Europe's situation today didn't happen today did it? As we all know, Europe was built on a Judeo-Christian foundation. Secularism cannot now take the credit and I hope you were not implying that. Moreover, when Europe wasn't secular, did that stop them from making advances that improved quality of life? The answer is No. In fact, in all areas of life, from art to music to medicine, etc, people were making advances as a result of their service and devotion to God.

DrummaBoy: Now let's not go there ra ra at all.

Before I proceed, let me refer you to our 58 days academic discussion on tithes. M4 did a sound analysis on tithe not being money. Weigh the arguments for and against and see that tithe being money was never and can never be scriptural:

www.nairaland.com/1548047/theological-discuss-tithing-rhymeyjohn-image123/6#20318249

No academic analysis needed. In today's economy, I am a laborer and I get paid money. That's my first fruits that go to God.

BabaGnoni: ^^^
Ah, so you too noticed that we've seemed to have gotten somewhere.

It is the same the biblical principle that negates tithing
Just as it sounds absurd bringing in animals to church come Sundays for burnt offering
so is tithing after what was done at Calvary (i.e. forget mentioning tithing, now, in the 21st century)
and to make it worse, tithing wasn't even done with money but we'll turn a blind eye to that aspect, for now.

Your comment "... the more you give, the more you receive... is a testament that tithing has outlived it's usefulness
and proves that free giving is supreme and superior

Please explain how the work on the Christ negates tithing? Again tithing is free giving.? Was Abraham under a law before he tithed?

DrummaBoy: Let's start from here. It's plain dishonesty to claim a dislike for argument but have no qualms responding to issues on nl. Whether argument or not, the aim is for the discussion to birth understanding.



I understood you then and understand you well enough now.



I agree with you. When I made those remarks I was responding to the general perspective on tithing and not necessarily yours here. True, you made no such remarks.



I do not get your point. Maybe I should rehearse my own point so you could get me.

My point is that the motive is what justifies the action. And my list was concerned with motives. I said that the motive behind circumcision is the reason the apostles jettisoned it. I also said I find the same motive behind tithing and thus the need to jettison it too. There is nothing wrong in doing a thing in religion that will benefit, my point is there everything wrong in tithing based on Jewish practices for blessing. I however made it clear in my last response that giving with no such strings attached (such strings being blessings as found in Malachi) is permissible. And going by Jesus admonitions in Luke 6, it is not wrong to give trusting God for a blessing but it certainly wrong to tithe, like the Jews did to get a blessing.



I am not sure about Abel tithing o, you may want to recheck that.

Abraham also carried out circumcision, burnt offerings and sacrifices, it doesn't it make them Christian practices.

As long as 1 and 5 on my list is still approved by you, my point is proven. You are tithing based on Malachi 3:8-10. A tithing that is [b]based on Jewish practice[/b]s and not on Christian giving.

Again, tithing predates the nation of Israel. I definitely tithe based on Malachi 3. I'd be foolish not to when God promises that he will bless those who do so.

DrummaBoy: ... perfected in Christ...

ehen, now we are getting each other.

Jesus has fulfilled the Law and perfected its requirement in us.

If there are principles to be learnt from the law, how can you not understand that the principle behind tithing was giving?

The principle behind the Jewish ordinance of tithing food cannot be tithing money now.

Abi!

Why not? We have a different economic system. One that's built entirely about money.

BabaGnoni: OK, Abraham tithed and circumcised
He did it out if a free heart to honor God and because he knew that God would bless Him in turn
The same thing for today's Christian: Tithing (or circumcision) is not about whether there is or isn't a law
Will a Christian be in danger of losing salvation because of not paying tithes?
No, but there are blessings associated with the tithe. The Christian will simply not receive those blessings.

OK but then, in the same vein as above,
Noah, Abraham and the Isralites did burnt offering (i.e. Gen. 8:20, Gen. 22:13, Exodus 10:25-26, Exodus 20:24, Exodus 24:5, Exodus 32:6)
He did it out if a free heart to honor God and because he knew that God would bless Him in turn
The same thing for today's Christian: burnt offering is not about whether there is or isn't a law
Will a Christian be in danger of losing salvation because of no burnt offering?
No, but there are blessings associated with burnt offering. The Christian will simply not receive those blessings.

Just like circumcision or tithing, burnt offerings predated the giving of the law
Christians don't have to do burnt offerings. It has nothing to do with salvation.
Yet, there are tremendous health benefits to doing burnt offerings
If you do it, you receive it. If you don't do it, you don't receive it.

It seems to me then that:
it's now time for Christians to start bringing sheep, goats and bulls to the next church service & offer them as burnt offerings
so Christians can simply start to receive those burnt offering blessings
and not miss out on burnt offering's blessings similar to those associated with tithing and circumcision

You and I know that a lot of the burnt offerings were required for atonement and consecration and the like. Which have been perfected in Christ.

That said, the biblical principle is that the more you give, the more you receive. So you don't have to bring animals to your church come Sunday, but why not bless the church and your fellow saints by identifying what is needed and supply it. Buy some candy and snacks for the kids. Buy or make a meal for the elders or the whole church. Some fried rice, egusi, etc. There is a blessing associated with that.

DrummaBoy: Apparently, you are also free to think what you wish. Gospel living should be based on sound biblical inferences and not sentiments, thoughts or needs.

As much as I wish to overlook this statement of yours since it is not directed at me, I find my mind returning to it over and over. So let's deal with it.

My grouse with your statement is your inability to see the link btw tithing and circumcision, as directed by trustman.

You say circumcision had health benefits, so we should do it, abi?

Why does Paul and the other apostles disagree with you?

Like tithing today, circumcision was viewed as a path to salvation and the apostles discouraged this: Acts15.

Like tithing today, circumcision was a Jewish practice that had the potential of blurring the significance of the New Testament covenant in the mind of those who practised it: Phillipians 3:3.

Like tithing today, the apostle Paul would have had the strongest rebuke for those who tithed like he had for those who practiced curcumcision: Galatians 5:4

Like tithing today, Paul saw no benefit in curcumcision save that it brought men into bondage.

I was born to a Muslim father who circumcised me. I circumcised my son. We both did based on accepted health and cultural norms, and not based on faith.

So we return to a salient point and that is the motive behind our actions. Paul who discouraged circumcision, circumcised Timothy for a reason: motive.

As long as your tithing is faith based, anchored on Jewish doctrines and practices, it is wrong. Or better stll, the motive is wrong. If, however, your tithing is a commitment to giving, as much as you could also give any other percentage of your income, then it is right. And that also justifies those who do not tithe but give bc their giving is also a proprtion of what they have. Rendering your motive for doing it right.

The motive for tithing is what most anti tither question. As long as tithing is for

1. Blessings

2. Based on the Jewish doctrine and practice

3. To be in right standing with God

4. To make heaven

5. To ward off devourer, etc,

You are tithing with wrong motives.

Only one motive makes tithing right: a commitment to giving with no strings attached.

I do not practice arguing with Christians. It undermines the mission to which we are called. So my rebuttal will be brief and I will ask that you reread my post as I feel that I have been very clear. Tithing as well as circumcision are not commandments to non-Jews. I believe I was pretty clear in stating that.

You are mistaken in your interpretation of Paul's actions. Paul was against circumcision because the Jewish part if the church was making it a requirement for salvation and for being a true believer. You will find I have made no such remarks. In fact I have stated the contrary.

I believe you might want to rethink your list. If you are saying that taking an action because you know there are benefits associated with it somehow nullifies the action, then I wonder how you interpret a majority of scripture. Using the circumcision example, if my motive for doing it is because I know the health benefits, how is that wrong? If I tithe because I know God will bless me for doing so, how is that wrong? If I show mercy because I know God will show mercy, how is that wrong? If I forgive knowing that God will also forgive, well you get the point?

Scripture is filled with doing things knowing that they please God. Nothing wrong with acting in accordance with that motive. The tithe is not compulsory but it is pleasing to God and there are benefits associated with it. The benefits are in the list you made excepting 2,3, and 4. Abel and Abraham tithed before the giving of the law. Tithing won't put you right standing with God and won't take you to heaven.

trustman: 1. Was circumcision a 'big deal' to God? Did he make it a 'big deal' for the church?
2. Can you show where this 'powerful biblical principle' was prescribed for THE CHURCH?
3. IF tithing is still applicable, how does God's Word say it should be done?

Yes circumcision was a big deal to God. It signified his covenant with Abraham and the children of Israel. No, God didn't make it compulsory for the church but you are actually proving my point. The tithe and circumcision predate the giving of the law. Was Abraham under the law when he tithed? Or was he under duress? No. He did it out if a free heart to honor God and because he knew that God would bless Him in turn. The same thing for today's Christian: Tithing is not about whether there is or isn't a law.

Will a Christian be in danger of losing salvation because of not paying tithes? No, but there are blessings associated with the tithe. The Christian will simply not receive those blessings. Just like circumcision. Christians don't have to circumcise themselves. It has nothing to do with salvation. Yet, there are tremendous health benefits to circumcision. If you do it, you receive it. If you don't do it, you don't receive it.

frosbel: I think you pay your tithe for 2 reasons :

1. Avoid punishment.
2. Reap a million fold in $$$

You are free to think what you wish. For me, I don't think that the God who gave everything to redeem me will turn around and punish me because I didn't pay tithes. Tithing has nothing to do with salvation. I do believe that I will definitely be blessed (and I have been) as I tithe. And not all blessing is monetary. I pay tithes because I believe God is the owner of the first fruits of my labor and that the church he has built needs to be well resourced.

Much has been made about tithing here on NL. It is definitely true that many pastors have used the concept of tithing to intimidate their congregation into giving. That notwithstanding does not mean that Christians shouldn't tithe.

1) Tithing (Abraham) actually predates the giving of the Mosaic Laws and therefore cannot be said to have been done away with the advent of Christ. Jesus did actually say that the Pharisees ought to be paying tithes along with fulfilling the weightier matters of the law.

2) Tithing should be out of a free and willing heart. A heart that recognizes that God is worthy of the "first fruits" of one's labor. While Christians are not explicitly commanded to tithe, it is a biblical principle dating back to Cain and Abel, and one that those who claim to love and revere God should practice.

3) Why should we pay tithes? God makes it clear that it is for the purpose of those ministering in the temple, or nowadays in the church. A labourer is worthy of his hire and the church needs funds to cover its costs. Also, it is only with regards to the tithe that God says people have robbed Him and that man should test Him. Now, to the Jews, they were in breach of a commandment, but we see how big of a deal it is to God. So how much more will God bless Christians who tithe not out of commandment, but out of a willing and cheerful heart. Unless we don't believe that God will live up to his word.

Now regardless of how one feels about the tithe, there is a powerful biblical principle that runs straight through the Bible, from OT to NT. And that is that to gain, you must lose; to receive, you must give; to be blessed, you must bless. Many Christians complain about not being blessed but they are tight-fisted with what they have and even when the give, they give grudgingly. May God teach us all.

I pay my tithes at church because the church needs it to do the work of the ministry. Our leadership doesn't even get paid. Payment of tithe has nothing to do with salvation but I must wonder at the Christian who claims to appreciate God and who believes that the work of the ministry is important, yet makes a fuss about giving 10% to God.

DK Jaleel: the gospel and its other non-philosophical counterpart i believe is the main chain that's pegging us down as humans and as a race, simply cos it suppresses the true African in us.
I believe we can rid it, if we are determined to, and it will go a long way in solving more than three-quarters of our problems. It will open up our senses of logic and reasoning, at least for a start, enabling us to understand ourselves and our roles better and not feeling inferior to any race.

Please provide specifics to your argument. I don't see where the gospel tells you to not use logic or reasoning. It is not because of religion that the black people feel inferior wherever we go. Our feelings of inferiority are not only to whites, what about Asians? Have we accomplished what they have? Is it because of religion? After all, they didn't bring their religion to us.

macof: And what happened to these civilizations immediately they accepted foreign religion and Foreign Ideology of 'the right way to live'?

Which societies and foreign ideologies are you referring to?

macof: The first records of Yoruba having the need to write was by the influence of Arabs who were big trade partners in the 15th century. In fact the Portuguese got to know about West Africa through the Arabs.

You should also know now that the Latiums never actually had alphabets except using the Greek, The Romans developed the alphabets from Egypt- African

What is formal education? Education is Education. even if taught by your father or uncle in your clan quarters

Barbarian races you say? Barbarians who had superb architecture, strong weapons and well developed life style at least for the Scandinavians

You didn't answer my question and I suspect it is because you cannot find any evidence of we as Nigerians having a written language.

Roman's didn't develop their language from Egypt. The written language that permeated through to Greece and then to Rome was based on the Phoenician written language. Phoenicians are Mediterranean not African. Yes the Egyptians had the hieroglyphics and the Sumerians had cuneiform but other African peoples didn't have a written language.

None of this though is what this thread is about so we shouldn't waste time arguing about it.

Horus: The African masses must rebel against the lies and ignorance created by the European which keep the minds of African people imprisoned and their spiritual strength weak. To make it plainer, the only rebellion the African masses can win at this time is a mental revolution, which will put the African masses in mental power. Then they will have the power to do anything else that may be necessary for complete liberation and well being.

Can you be more specific? I'm not trying to be funny. This is a very good thread discussion.

PAGAN 9JA:
As though Rome was not civilized before christianity.

As though Rome did not spend loads on Education, Universities, Architeture, etc.


And it is wrong to call the Saxons as barbarians. Thats the same way the whites called us Africans barbarians.

The Saxons were able to migrate from mainland Europe by sea and conquer Aengland single-handedly despirte being persecuted by hordes of other tribes.

My using of the term "barbarian" was to accurately convey the perspective of that time. I of course would not refer to any body as a barbarian.

PAGAN 9JA:
^On point. let us not forget that Mathematics , Science, etc, all have roots in the Ancient Pagan schools of Rome, Alexandria, India, etc.

I think it is all about implementation and how to use it.

The way the christian brits implemented it is not right. It is condemnable.

You're making a completely different argument. No one is saying Christians invented Mathematics or Science. Even before Rome, Egyptians and Babylonians have been doing mathematics and science. That is not the point being discussed here. In fact you are proving the point I stated earlier. Did religious belief stop the Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, or Roman civilizations from progressing economically or scientifically? No it didn't. So therefore, we Africans have to look at ourselves as the source of why we are not progressing.

macof: Schools?? You think my ancestors didn't go to Traditional schools? You think my ancestors didn't know how to count to 1thousand? You think my ancestors didn't learn biology and pharmacy the traditional way? You think my ancestors couldn't write until Christians came? You think my ancestors didn't know anything before missionaries came in?

For your information, All the things you mentioned are benefits of being colonized by a better organized nation- The British were nothing before they gained experience from Rome.
Sadly As benefits come so do demerits and Christianity is one of those demerits which we must cut off

If we could write, where are our texts? More importantly, why then is the writing of our language romanized? Meaning, we use the same alphabets that originated from Rome.

Also, if you are talking about our ancestors having knowledge of spiritual things, knowledge of herbs and medicines, etc. That is true. But if you are talking about institutions of formal education/formal training (except those of artisans), then you are mistaken.

It is interesting that you mention Rome and its influence on Britain. I think you will find that much as been written about the effects of Christianity on Rome and its subsequent effects in civilizing the barbarian races (i.e. Britain, the scandinavian nations, etc). I don't want to derail this thread so I won't go on. It's information that is readily available.

You can't get rid of the gospel but even if you could, it wouldn't solve Africa's problems.

PAGAN 9JA:
KNowledge can be destructive.

Look around you and you will know what I mean. .


I stated the reality too.

Of course knowledge can be destructive. The same knowledge that is used to power cities in the western world is also the same knowledge that can be used to completely destroy the world. I'm speaking of course about Nuclear technology.

And that is precisely the point. Everything about man has the potential for good and evil. Usually though, evil wins out. That's probably a discussion for another thread.

PAGAN 9JA:
You are justifying foreign imperialism, slavery and the imposition of foreign ideology upon our people (the r.ape) by the trifles they threw at us (western schools, public offices, etc. (the compensation) .

We never asked for it. If this is a bargain, then we would never have opted for it.

Contentment and Peace is of much more importance than temporary satisfaction.


After all they did for us, do you think Nigerians are happy?

I think you misunderstood me. I am not justifying it, I am simply stating the reality. Also, I wouldn't call education, a unifying language, public education, etc. trifles. Knowledge is power as I'm sure you know.

PAGAN 9JA:
you did not, but that is what you implied.

How so?

PAGAN 9JA:
^So buy your logic, you can r.ape someone and then give them money as compensation to redeem yourself?

I don't think I made any statements along those lines.

thehomer: Still wrong. Viewing someone as being inferior doesn't deny them human rights. It is what you do based on that view that is the denial. And it in fact is the same issue with same sex marriage. If they aren't being viewed as inferior, why are they being denied the right to marry another adult they choose?



Marriage wasn't always blind to race. That is my point. You declare that the aim of marriage is sex and producing offspring and I disagree with that assertion. People marry for many other reasons other than sex or producing offspring besides, people don't have to be married to have sex or produce offspring. This of course means that it isn't implicit in the institution. It is about who you are to declare the aim of marriage because marriage hasn't been since the beginning of time. It isn't an anthropological or sociological truth.

What rule are you talking about? If the marriage isn't nullified due to the presence of a desire for children, then same-sex marriage too can be the exception that according to you, proves the rule. How can the biological potential be there in a couple where both parties have been sterilized?



It looks like you're just making things up now. Where does this mandate come from? Who says a widow or widower cannot raise a child? Having an absent parent is different from having two parents that are present.



Looks to me like you're merely making things up to suit your preconceived notions.



Are you seriously comparing a genocide to someone failing a class test?

I said according to the Bible, God's command that people commit genocide was good. You're trying to justify it as being a good judgement. I'm willing to show you that it isn't a good judgement for an omnipotent and omniscient God to make. If genocide is sometimes justifiable, then how do you know that any other genocide committed today can't be justified using that same argument?

Again, please read up on the anthropological and sociological understanding of marriage. I didn't invent the institution. It is what it is and has been essentially universally understood by countless generations in countless civilizations. In our time, we are simply trying to redefine it.

You appear to have misread by analogy about genocide and the class. Please reread it. I think it's quite clear.