₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight:
Noetic! How na?

I am cool. . .I have been reading/enjoying ur posts. u are one of those who make this forum worth enjoying.
how u dey?

Deep Sight:
Wow. All this just because the essentials of your religion are pointed out -

Viz:


SET 1. - Christianity

A. God Exists.

B. He has  Jewish Son

C. The Jewish Son was born by a woman who did not copulate prior to that

D. The Jewish son is God

E. The Jewish son was judicially sentenced and murdered by the Romans

F. That murder results in mankind being redeemed - if they will embrace the Jewish son

G. Those who do not embrace the Jewish son will go to a place of Torment called Hell

Looks silly, don't it?  

1. 1 corth 1:18 states that the gospel is silly to those who perish. . . . , the silliness of the above is not a new thing.

2. do u think that man and all that is in existence is in perfect harmony with  its creator? if yes. . why?.
if no. . . why not?

3. would I be wrong to trace your position (as to the silliness of the gospel) to your preconceived notions. perhaps u assumed that if the world needed redemption it should be by simple spiritual grace (at the discretion of the creator) without the need for a human sacrifice like Jesus. . . or perhaps u do not see the need for a human salvation at all.
what ever your preconceived notions are (that serve as a basis for your belief in the silliness of the xtian gospel) would it not totally contradict your ontological belief in God, to assume that u have a better idea than  God? since deism accepts the existence of God. . .how then do u explain your ability to have better plans than Him?

4. can u think of a seventh organ necessary for man to survive on this planet.   why do u think the creator did not create this organ?

is sonofallah abuzola in disguise? . . .Discuss.

toneyb:
To answer the question of morality these are some of the things we need to have in our minds.

1)Morality is not absolute rather it is relative because it is arrived at by way of trial and error over period of whole human existence by various human groups. Some moral values have changed with time that is what was moral between a group of people once upon a time in a place may not be moral at another time in a different place or amongst a different people.

The above is FALSE.
u are mixing norms with morals. that a particular act was the trend 500 years ago and the opposite is now the case, does not refer to evolving morality but norms. many years ago igbos abandoned twins in the forest cos they assumed they were evil. The act then was immoral (which prompted mary and others to change that trend) and it is still immoral today in 2010.

the act of throwing babies into an evil forest was a NORM and nor a reflection of moral values. morals are universal, norms and laws are subject to change.

2)Absolute morality was never a tribal concept rather it is a religious concept based upon belief in all knowing gods who revealed to people how they should conduct themselves. However, even religious people are not able to agree as to what is moral and what is not. Different religious people have different beliefs and laws etc.

how do u explain the universal nature of the human conscience and moral values? why do non-religious people also think it is bad to steal?

3)Morals that survive the test of the time may well become wide spread and one day may become universal when all groups of people find them equally useful.

and whats the basis of the above? can u establish the very beginning and demise of any moral value?

4)Just as we humans learned through exploring what we should eat or drink etc etc so we learned what rules were better for us to live than having no rules at all. Rules came about because people as individuals could not exist on their own and being interdependent creature we became organized in to groups and rules just came about all by themselves. That is because earlier humans were not that self conscious or self aware as we are today. For example, leave some kids on their own in a place where they have means to survive and watch them how they form into a group and each of them becomes aware of ones strengths and weaknesses relative to others and so they fall in to place.

Or this very forum is an example of how we became organized into a discussion group and see how the rules of this forum came about. Need is mother of invention. For example, a person ate something and died because it was poisonous so others became aware that they should not do this seeing what happened to the person who did that. Like a baby he puts his hand in the fire and when learns it burns he does not do that again because it hurts him. This baby then warns others not to do what he did.

while the above explains the existence of laws. . ot does not explain the existence of morality. how do u explain morality in a state of anarchy?

5)Some time when there is a debate between atheists and theists, theist always bring in question of morality that is how do atheists get their morals.

The simple answer is where do the religious get their morality from ie make it up as we go along through trial and error. No theist as yet managed to prove existence of his/her god. Moreover they too have laws of abrogation ie their gods changed laws with time just like us atheists.

atheists CANNOT explain the source of their morals simply because they have a conscience.

sonofallah:
Clearly, this is a made-up story which makes no sense absolutely, as you have just proven by your inability to profer a reason as to why they departed for Egypt. Just like anybody else, if you start weaving a web of lies, you will soon get caught in your own webs, just as we see Matthew getting caught in his own webs of lies. So much for the falsehood of the bible.

and by this singular dumb post. . .u have successfully discredited the accounts of mathew. congratulations

toneyb:
Let me give you a definition of morality as defined on Wikipedia. "Morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society." It goes on to say that "For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because they are thought to cause benefit or harm, but it is possible that many moral beliefs are based on prejudice, ignorance or even hatred.". Morality is simply that which distinguishes between right and wrong. Laws are also a form of moral code of conduct.
.

No they don't. Ever heard of moral laws?

here we go again. . . toneyb running round in circles.

Are morals not legally distinguished from laws?. . . . . . .
is it morally right to . . ,  . a. disqualify a person from running from president because he aint 40 years old in nigeria?
b. tell an employer the barest minimum he can pay a person?
c. limit competition in certain areas of the economy, thus creating monopolies?
d. refuse to give students free education?
e. practise communism?

which of the above a-e has any link to moral codes of right or wrong?. . .they are neither right or wrong, but are LAWS of certain countries. morality my dear DIFFERS on a large scale to LAWS.

FALSE because it's NOT every body that shares this belief.

Its not every land that has this law.

Killing as a means of self defense is allowed in some places. A lot of people believe that killing their enemies is the right thing to do.

u miss the point there. the point is that while the law of the land prescribes a punishment for an offence. . the punishment in itself is immoral by the standards of the land. would the land be better off enforcing its laws, or ignoring them for the sake of morality?. . .that was my simple poser to u.

Laws and moral values are the same. Stealing is a law and a moral value, Child abuse is also a law and a moral value same with despoil, extortion, drunk driving etc, But these moral values differ from place to place. Laws and moral values are the same. They can not be separated.

this is OUTRAGEOUSLY FALSE.

The laws of a country are reflected from the history of that country. the 25th amendment was as a result of Wilson's terminal illness. Nigeria's national assembly is debating a similar law as a result of the present scenarios in the country. this shows that laws are a product of necessity, they have a starting point and are repealable. This is quite unlike morals.
morals are universal codes of conduct embedded in the human conscience. morals date as far back as the first family on earth.
when abel was killed. . . .Cain knew he did wrong, yet there was no law prohibiting him from doing so. why then did cain feel guilty?

Morals are as old as man. Laws are man-made. They are therefore not the same.

VERY FALSE. Calling the name of Yahweh in vain is of no importance or meaning to a Hindu.

God's name does not have to be called. . .the question is. . .does the hindu have a conscience? who gave it to him/her?

Holiness and faith are of no use to a buddist or some other person whose religion does not share those attributes.

The laws of moses ARE the moral laws of God of the bible. Its funny that you are now trying to throw what the bible says under the bus. If the laws of moses are not the moral laws of Yahweh then what are they?

The same God that condemned the killing of Abel also urged his chosen men to kill others no? I don't really understand the point you are trying to make here.

Yahweh's moral values ARE the laws of moses.

I was careful to state that I was talking hypothetically and that morality is not objective, It varies from place to place as explained by mazaje.

Isn't it the same god that gave laws(moral values) on how people are to go about when selling their daughters into slavery?

1. my reference to holiness and faith is a justification of my point that laws do have a beginning.  otherwise by what standard was the pre-moses generation judged? by what laws?

2. The laws of moses are NOT the moral standard of God. The bible talks about the descendants of Esau (the edomites) as a people of God, who the children of Israel were forbidden to war against. how did these people become a people of God? since moses was not their prophet, did they have another intermediary to God? did this intermediary receive laws from God as moses did? how? when? why? if he did not recieve laws, how then were the edomites able to live by God's words to be called a people of God.

my dear your assertion in referring the laws of moses to the moral values of God is without any factual basis.

3. if u followed my primordial post, I did state clearly that laws are deduced from moral values. God telling the children of Israel how to deal with their slaves was God giving laws by virtue of His morality.

This section must be really boring . . yawns

Abuzola !:
U have answered it yourself. The verse was indpendant meaning does not relie on the pre and post the verse to it. Just like u said the chapter had many subject and cannibalism is one.

Abt jesus pillar, is jesus God if yes then he is the pillar, hope u get me

why did u allow david to embarrass mohammed like that

I laffed my butts out

sonofallah:
hahahaha - I knew it was gonna be too hard for you to understand from the verses. That is why you are not able to put your finger on the real reason they fled to Egypt.

since u know the "real" reasons. . .why dont u share it with us?. . . .or what are u afraid of?

toneyb:
I just don't get it when some Christians like davidylan ridiculously claim that their god is the source of all moral or some objective moral code of conduct. That argument is AWFUL. If objective morality exits(which it doesn't) then the god of the bible does not exists. When we appeal to our moral intuitions nowadays we all intuitively "know" and agree that things like despoil, slavery, child abuse etc are wrong. But this is exactly what makes davidlylan's case so absurd! Because davidylan's candidate for the source of morality is a character described in the bible. And yet the bible is FILLED with  the God of the bible producing acts and injunctions that strike many of us  and a great many christians included as being against our moral intuitions.

It's like saying we all agree that math is valid and objective so there must be a great mathematician from which math flows. And then saying "Hey, I've got the best candidate for who that mathematician might be, here he is described in this old book!" But the character in the book is found espousing all manner of wrong mathematics, like 2 +2 = 5. If you are appealing to the objectivity of mathematical formulations like 2 + 2 = 5 as a starting point for the existence of a great mathematician, it sure invalidates any candidate who isn't getting math right.

It's also ironic that people can go right to the bible and find God making commands of exactly the type we living in the west will all understand to be "moral abominations"  for instance child abuse and slavery are obvious moral wrongs in most western societies. We would call any parent who beat to death or stone to death his children for talking back to him a child abuser or a parent that sells his child into slavery a crazy person. Yet this is what God asks Jews to do in the old testament, directly violating our modern moral intuitions. This character is getting the "moral math" wrong and therefore can't be a candidate for the source of our modern day "objective" moral intuitions if anything like that were to exists.

1. your argument is fundamentally FLAWED simply because u choose to mix up morality and laws together.
morals differ greatly from laws. . .but laws are deduced from moral values. take for instance we all believe that it is morally wrong to kill/execute any man under any circumstance. . . . but the laws of the land states that prisoners of war or persons guilty of murder must be executed by firing squad.
does this execution violate moral codes and standards?. . .YES it does cos we all subconsciously adhere to "thou shall not kill".
would society be a better place if there are no laws? . . nope.
would society be a better place if the laws of the land are not implemented. . .nope.
Laws and moral values are different. . . .they differ and cannot be weighed on the same pedestal. This is to highlight the flaws in your notion that the bible God was morally debauched.

The (moral) values of God as depicted in the bible are very very universal and applicable to several generations. that explains the relevance of these values (depicted as holiness, faith, uprightness et all) in an age like ours. . . .an age that has outlived the antideluvian races around which the biblical years were formed.

The 613 laws of moses are NOT the moral values of God. they CANNOT be used as a measuring standard for God's moral inscription to man. The laws were deduced from the moral values of God. these moral values preceded the laws.
we saw God condemn the killing of Abel. . .was there any law forbidding such killings as of then?
we saw the likes of Abraham and Enoch called "upright" by God . . . . .was there any law by which their righteousness was measured?. . Nope.

Righteousness (moral values) of God preceded the laws of moses. . .u cannot call those laws the morality of God.

2. perhaps u need to clearly define what u mean by objective morality?
u must bear in my mind that "objectivity" itself is subject to some elements of sentiments. take for instance. . how would anyone decide that a moral value is objective?. .  . .especially when u consider the diversity of human beliefs and cultures which naturally influences norms (which are mistaken for human values).

3. the likes of slavery et all were proceeds of war. ,  just as oil fields and gold deposits are the proceeds of war in  this age.
with regards to slavery. . . God's acclaimed morality can be measured. God asks that (hebrew) slaves be released after 6 years (exodus 21). while there was also several laws given by God to protect slaves . . . . .prominent commandments/laws calls for peaceful co-existence amongst the people of God.

sonofallah:
Matthew 2: 13 - 23, records Jesus' family fleeing into Egypt. Why did the family flee into Egypt? Whose life was so in danger that they had to flee many hundreds of miles, on a perilous trip, into an unknown land? Why did they not stay put?

the same passage answers ur posers . . .

Thorns:
born wt a 6th finger means notin - can be mutation. The dada has bn linked 2 occult world Wt fears surroundin d death of d person if barbed , But if in doubt, may go 2 a COMPETENT minister 4 prayers be4, De dream is a sign dt sm dark forces are tryin 2 lay hold of her. She's a xtian - baptized? If not should be baptized in xtian way- baptism consecrates one to GOD ALONE and no other. Should go along & pray. If catholic see a priest.

a. who linked the dada to the occultic world? and on what authority/basis was it linked?

b. how did u deduce that what was holding her down was dark forces? could she not be held down by her own indecision, sin, lusts et all?

c. whats the connection between baptism and dreams? how will her baptism change the posers raised in the dream?

d. what stops her from praying herself? why go to prayer contractor?

. . , . .@ OP

Every dream has a peculiar meaning. there is no valid dream manual, simply because the dream was designed for the recipient and not for others. Ask the dude to pray for understanding. . . .the true meaning will be layed in her heart.

davidylan:
So nice to see noetic again. Welcome back!

thanks David. . .happy new year and congrats on ur award.

happy buffday Sir . . . .

Joagbaje:
The prayer is for babies, It is not for a born again mature man. It was taught to jewish people who were not born again. So I can say to a great extent it is not a Christian prayer. Even though it containts great principles . Using the phrase let you will be done is like saying "What will be will be" But what will be will not be until you do something about your faith.  The will of God is not suppposed to be a mysterious thing to you. You have the holyghost and you are supposed to know his will, not only that , you are responsible to make his will come to pass in your life. The will of God does not always come to pass until you cooperate with God .

John 16:13
    Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

1 Cor. 2:16
    For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Psalm 25:14
    The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.


John 15:15
    Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

As much as there is place of submission to Gods will but it should not be misunderstood as submitting fate.We are supposed to know his will.

Col. 1:9
    For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that[b] ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding[/b];

I am definitely not the only one who thinks the above is just RIDICULOUS.

1. kunleOshob is one of the coolest guys on this forum. . . .he must have been pushed to the very extreme before he could utter that.

2. there is no reason to call for anyone's ban. . . .worse things have been said.

3. I am yet to see any act of spiritual maturity on the path of anyone castigating kunleOshob.

4. kunleOshob should see the CEC onslaught as the sacrifice for preaching a sacrosanct message and revealing the inherent fraud prevalent in CEC and other xtian business centers.

5. kunle should for posterity sake withdraw his statement and continue to stick to issues like he has always done.

Amigoz:
Aww

Noet the Poet

Happy many years

Gd to c U

my lofly amigoz. . . .i missed u. . how haf u been?

toba:
Who cares? Uplawal is leaving sprinsterhood latest dis year,but not going 4 zola at all

I say a loud amen to that

viaro:
NOETIC!! Great to see you again!

thanks viaro . . . . .

Tudór:
Finally he's back. . . . e kabo noetic.

e se gan ni sir

OLAADEGBU:
So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

-- Genesis 12:4

howdy?

KunleOshob:
For the record the Copy right for "Open Heavens" belongs to Pastor Adeboye and not the RCCG this implies that all proceeds of the sales go into his private pocket and not the ministry as some people are trying to infer on this forum. Pastor Adeboye is simply profiteering from the gospel through merchadizing it.

me thinks that there is more than meets the eye in RCCG. . . .it is either Adeboye is not the main person in charge or he is simply a fraud.
his silence and indifference on several issues is largely disturbing.

KunleOshob:
Welcome back noetic!

thanks bro.

mazaje:
Nice to have you back noetic, You were truly missed. . . . . . .

thanks mazaje.

ilosiwaju:
Kaaa o noetiiiki. How have u been?

I am good. . .hope u are good too?

banom:
[s]I met Noetic and Uplawal in East London joyously in love[/s] ,

why are u inviting abuzola's trouble now. . . .lol

JeSoul:
Is this really Noetic or a ghost?

Dude you have been missed. DeepSight in particular has had a deep hole in his heart since you've been gone lol. Welcome back. How was the sabbatical?

lol . . . sabbatical was fun. and this is noetic for real.

Deep Sight:
[size=24pt]Hoooooooooorrrrraaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy! ! ! ! ! ![/size]

thanks deepsight . . .

Chrisbenogor:
Hello guys,
For those guys who do not believe in God, would you play along that you do just to get a favour like say a job opportunity ?

atheists are supposed to be decent honest people unashamed of their beliefs. . .right?

thanks for the wishes . . . how have u all been?

Pastor AIO:
May Odu divert all his suffering away. I will not begrudge a man his due companionship even if I do not agree with his practices.

and whats Odu?

keeptalkin:
After going through Abu Zola's meaningless posts i have to admit he thorougly deserves the award.

this is a 5 star rating.

Abu Zola:
May Allah have mercy on you,

has allah ever shown anyone mercy?

No2Atheism:


enlighten me please . . .or is there a particular way to spell Allah now . . .

not really. . .I just felt since u are aware that the korans allah is a demon. . .and also that Jehovah is linguistically called Allah, . .you would be better off spelling the former with a small "a" and the latter with a capital "A".

viaro:
This man noetic16. .  what's really biting you?  Please I don't have the time to shout, otherwise your complaining would have served me a good pastime. Anyhow, in brief and very quickly

No. Are you?

I read it; but if you reasoned out my reply carefully, you'd see that the whole body of my rejoinder was informed by the basic question you had asked, viz: "what plausible explanation do u have for your existence other than reproduction?" Did you miss my answer to that? Rather than get upset, you ought to have checked it out carefully before recycling the retired 'reproduction' argument - that is just simply a non-starter.

And your results are. . . ? Did you even place any Biblical assertion under scientific scrutiny? I didn't find where you did so; rather, you just plainly plastered the term 'empirical evidence' to a Biblical assertion - which is nothing more than 'just-say-so-and-that's-empirical-evidence'. That, my dear sir, is NOT science, nor does it even stand up to the dignity of pseudoscience. . . you're just in the middle of nowhere (a sort of nullibicity)!!

Your drivel is quite dumb, yes sir. Are you so far gone as to understand that reproduction does not explain the existence or the ORIGIN of Life? Is it by 'reproduction' that the Bible tells you things began to exist. . . or are you confusing these terms for pure comic relief?  I said plainly that CREATION explains existence, and 'reproduction' is only late in the scheme of things - it came AFTER the question of creation itself has been settled! If you have problems with that, please calm down and show me in the Bible that it is not creation but rather 'reproduction' that explains the ORIGIN of life.

1. the year is still very young, but ur posts on this thread are officially the dumbest and most ridiculous I have had the misfortune of reading this year.  

2. Dont u consider it ridiculously foolish on ur part that u are unable to decipher my simple construct between the thing lines of CREATIONISM (its inherent biblical assertions). . .REPRODUCTION (its inherent empirical evidences) against the confused concept of "anti-God did it", . .why is this simple statements so hard for this dude to understand?   this aint rocket science. . . . or is it?  

3. Did I attempt to produce conclusions from scrutinising biblical assertions? are u so dumb?   when did putting such under scrutiny imply making unchallengeable claims. . .wetin I no c for nairaland  

4. I did not in any way attempt to make a construct for u to understand my reproduction assertion. . . . I believe I made clear my position on reproduction in my last post. . if u had half a brain u should know that by now  

5. why are u afraid of educating me on the anomalies in question?  

What did the verse Genesis 2:7 call that being before it mentions 'soul'?

was it described as LIVING?   knowledge is expensive  

Said who?
This guy. . do you even understand E[/b]VOLUTION . . or you're just reacting to the '[b]E'-word??

Bro. . 'reproduction' and 'creation' are not the same things. Creation came first and settled the question of our existence BEFORE the talk of reproduction. That latter ('reproduction') is IMPOSSIBLE without the former ('creation'). This is as simply as I can put it for you.

Now, if you put on your thinking cap and still have the lights switched off upstairs, could I kindly caution that you look where you're going lest you summersault!

is this dude confused?   where did u imply that from my statement?

I didn't twist anything; but 'assertion' is NOT equal to 'empirical evidence'. Period.

I dont remember making such a claim.

What meaning did you get after checking? Please let me know, and then tell me what you would like me to share in that accord, and I shall oblige.

I checked from www.dictionary.com  . . . . .I eagerly await ur education  

I didn't even attribute that to you; but just so that my readers would not misread me, I noted that 'anomalies' in nature do not discredit God or Hos creation. If my making that point hurt no one else but you, tough luck.

ok  

JeSoul:
Kai! @Noetic, Viaro this is a call to arms oh! 

the poor dude is just confused.  

No2Atheism:
Allah is a demon . . . and not great . . .

Mohammed is a liar . . . murderer . . . maniac . . .

be careful how u spell allah. . . . .the one u spelt aint a demon.

debosky:
Most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read - your body spells Muhammad? You might as well believe people see the face of Jesus in pies and jars of marmite.

I bet you I can make your body spell bootylicious if I tried with some imagination.

Ablution water in the womb? Seriously?

GBAM!!!

Abu Zola:
Search for my email on NL, i wouldn't want to type it again cos of security breech, do you actually know that CIA mailed me cautioning me

I laugh in tongues

Lagosboy:
I havent called you an enemy of God, neither is anyone lynching you buddie and you will always be welcomed here, you do not need to make unneccassay hype or alarm. You made a suggestion and i only offered you an advice to practicalise your suggestions. Reinvention and renaissance of a 1.7 Billion muslims worldwide could be championed by you, A faith with thousands of converts every year in the west might perhaps need a another renaissance championed by you.

You talked abt sects sanctioning terror, perhaps reading a bit of history of various jewish sect and christian sects in the world might make you eat your words and submit in humilty to your mistakes.

Have u said anything the addresses the concerns of the OP?. . . .NO.

Instead of u to condemn the violence in islam and highlight measures at curbing u are busy trading blames and talking about the history of jewish and xtain sect. . , .is this not just pathetic?

Chapelle.S:
This is the problem with Islam. They want to exist in a vacuum. Anyone who is not a Muslim is deemed an enemy of God. Islam needs reinvention and renaissance. Any religion that any of its sects sanctions terror is evil and requires change.

@ moderator

Plz send this post back to religion,I am not a Muslim before they lynch me.

GBAM! GBAM!! GBAM!!!