₦airaland Forum

You need to STUDY the Bible not just what you heard from religions claiming Christians!🙂

From the days of Adam till the time of Israelites in Egypt there was no single person given the power to perform any miracle.

WHY?

Because God has not chosen a nation as His own worshipers but by the time He wanted to establish Israelites as His own people God began using Moses to perform miracles.

From that time God never used someone from any other nation except Israelites to perform miracles because He wanted people from other nations to know that He is the only true God.

People from all other nations were worshiping demons so God wanted to prove that He is the only true God that is why He restricted miracles to only that nation.

The last miracles God used humans to perform was in the first century when Jesus' disciples started the work God gave all His those willing to worship Him.

So after the death of Jesus' first century disciples miracles through humans ended.

WHY?

Because the nation of Israel rejected God's only begotten Son despite all His loyalty to that nation.

Today if anyone wants to know for sure whether that same God is still working among His worshipers all you need to do is ask for what He promised not just making demands.

I thought we have passed this stage nah!🙂

kayjordan:
The issue with "Defenders of Christianity" is the inability to separate spiritual context from physical context.
If I ask a physical question - I get an abstract response that doesn't relate to current societies. How can 21st Century people work with biblical knowledge of ancient times that are too "supermanish" for a physical and secular world that has never seen any of the magic that took place in the biblical stories?

kayjordan:
Who are the richest JW members in 2026 and state their networth in dollars or naira?

And what has this got to do with your thread?🙂

Interesting insight!

Practically, miracles were reserved for the "chosen ones" in Israel - and seized to exist after Jesus's rejection - Hmm!

The Golden Question is why they rejected him?

*Was Jesus rejected because he was a fake magician?
*Was Jesus rejected because the people were not blind?
*Was Jesus rejected because he was a public nuisance?

If one ask a true believer for a miracle from God and doesn't "demand" - and God promises to show his miracles through such believer or - better still, by Himself - what magical stunt could God possibly pull off in 21century that since last happened in 1st century?

And please don't mention people's daily physical experiences and testimonies as your God's miracles...

MaxInDHouse:
You need to STUDY the Bible not just what you heard from religions claiming Christians!🙂

From the days of Adam till the time of Israelites in Egypt there was no single person given the power to perform any miracle.

WHY?

Because God has not chosen a nation as His own worshipers but by the time He wanted to establish Israelites as His own people God began using Moses to perform miracles.

From that time God never used someone from any other nation except Israelites to perform miracles because He wanted people from other nations to know that He is the only true God.

People from all other nations were worshiping demons so God wanted to prove that He is the only true God that is why He restricted miracles to only that nation.

The last miracles God used humans to perform was in the first century when Jesus' disciples started the work God gave all His those willing to worship Him.

So after the death of Jesus' first century disciples miracles through humans ended.

WHY?

Because the nation of Israel rejected God's only begotten Son despite all His loyalty to that nation.

Today if anyone wants to know for sure whether that same God is still working among His worshipers all you need to do is ask for what He promised not just making demands.

I thought we have passed this stage nah!🙂

I want to know if you keep records of your faith the same way writers in the bible kept records of Christianity - that's by the way.

The question here:

If man achieves wealth through HARD-WORK - can such man use his "Hard Earned" wealth to help the needy?

If so,

What will be the reward of the "Hard-working" wealthy man for his kind gesture?

MaxInDHouse:
And what has this got to do with your thread?🙂

kayjordan:
Interesting insight!
Practically, miracles were reserved for the "chosen ones" in Israel - and seized to exist after Jesus's rejection - Hmm!
The Golden Question is why they rejected him?

*Was Jesus rejected because he was a fake magician?
*Was Jesus rejected because the people were not blind?
*Was Jesus rejected because he was a public nuisance?

The Jews as a nation rejected Jesus due to their long awaited expectations that Jesus didn't fulfill in their eyes.
God promised that the Christ will conquer all the nations {Daniel 2:44} and make them subjects to the Jews in Jerusalem where King David ruled {Isaiah 2:3; 9:6-7} so when they saw that Jesus was performing miracles like Moses prophesied the Christ will do {Deuteronomy 18:18-19} they decided to make him their king by force {John 6:15} but he rejected it because there is still lots of works to be done before God hand over the nations to the Jews.
They have to learn humility from Jesus so they can go out to other nations and declare the message of God's Kingdom {Matthew 10:6; 24:14; 28:18-20} if not the destruction of other nations can't be justified since they don't know God's program so it's after the Jews have accepted Jesus' wise counsel and move to all the nations with the kingdom message that destruction of disobedient people could be justified. In fact God said in the last days His true worshipers will be all over the earth each person discussing with his neighbor about how to please the true God and the names of those participating in this program will be written before God in heaven {Malachi 3:16} so that by the time Jesus and his heavenly armies come to destroy evildoers it's the names found in that book that will serve as means of escape for those who studied God's word with God's servants in the last days! Revelations 20:15
But the Jews were impatient they want it to happen immediately as Jesus has proved to be the Christ, even his own disciples were affected with the Jewish impatience but they were willing to do whatever it will take for them to rule with Christ when his government begins! Act 1:6-8
That is why 99.9% of first century Jews rejected Jesus leaving just few Jews to do the work Jesus assigned to all Jews. Today Jehovah's Witnesses preaching and teaching throughout the world are just fulfilling a prophecy in the Bible that millions will support those few Jews by assisting them to complete the huge task of preaching around the globe! Zechariah 8:23

kayjordan:
If one ask a true believer for a miracle from God and doesn't "demand" - and God promises to show his miracles through such believer or - better still, by Himself - what magical stunt could God possibly pull off in 21century that since last happened in 1st century?
And please don't mention people's daily physical experiences and testimonies as your God's miracles...

God never promised such a thing it started and ended with faithful servants of God in the land of Israel.

kayjordan:
I want to know if you keep records of your faith the same way writers in the bible kept records of Christianity - that's by the way.

There was no point in time when God's servants listed the names of wealthy ones and their net worth among them.
However we keep all records of things we've been doing since the time Jesus returned as a spirit king until today!🙂

kayjordan:
The question here:
If man achieves wealth through HARD-WORK - can such man use his "Hard Earned" wealth to help the needy?
If so,
What will be the reward of the "Hard-working" wealthy man for his kind gesture?

The needy in God's word refers to individuals who wants to support God's work but are financially incapable not beggars in the streets that is why you can never ever see where a servant of God gave any beggar a dime in the Bible. If any of us becomes rich in this system of things his riches will be useful to help those who are willing to support the preaching and teaching work Jesus assigned to his faithful disciples so such funds are gathered to build Kingdom Halls, print Bibles and literatures and other things requiring money. Today if anyone wants to study the Bible the printed publications will be given to him/her freely it's whatever he/she has that will be taken as donations if he/she also wants to support financially because our God doesn't view people as important due to their riches rather what they are at heart! Luke 21:1-4 compare to 2Corinthians 9:7🙂

Christianity in the B.C period, is just like politics where the people expect so much from leaders and get disappointed.

By the way, I'm curious to know Jesus. I want to know why he was so slow to impress the people - is it because he was 100% human with limitations and not a superman at all?

You just mentioned here, that God wanted to show his miracles because some worshipped demons - that's why I'm asking what miracles can God or his anointed men possibly do - or is God and His anointed persons in the bible physically inclined with zero spiritual powers?

I want to be clear on whether people worship a 100% theorical God - or a 50% theorical/50% superpower God.

.

MaxInDHouse:
The Jews as a nation rejected Jesus due to their long awaited expectations that Jesus didn't fulfill in their eyes.
God promised that the Christ will conquer all the nations {Daniel 2:44} and make them subjects to the Jews in Jerusalem where King David ruled {Isaiah 2:3; 9:6-7} so when they saw that Jesus was performing miracles like Moses prophesied the Christ will do {Deuteronomy 18:18-19} they decided to make him their king by force {John 6:15} but he rejected it because there is still lots of works to be done before God hand over the nations to the Jews.
They have to learn humility from Jesus so they can go out to other nations and declare the message of God's Kingdom {Matthew 10:6; 24:14; 28:18-20} if not the destruction of other nations can't be justified since they don't know God's program so it's after the Jews have accepted Jesus' wise counsel and move to all the nations with the kingdom message that destruction of disobedient people could be justified. In fact God said in the last days His true worshipers will be all over the earth each person discussing with his neighbor about how to please the true God and the names of those participating in this program will be written before God in heaven {Malachi 3:16} so that by the time Jesus and his heavenly armies come to destroy evildoers it's the names found in that book that will serve as means of escape for those who studied God's word with God's servants in the last days! Revelations 20:15
But the Jews were impatient they want it to happen immediately as Jesus has proved to be the Christ, even his own disciples were affected with the Jewish impatience but they were willing to do whatever it will take for them to rule with Christ when his government begins! Act 1:6-8
That is why 99.9% of first century Jews rejected Jesus leaving just few Jews to do the work Jesus assigned to all Jews. Today Jehovah's Witnesses preaching and teaching throughout the world are just fulfilling a prophecy in the Bible that millions will support those few Jews by assisting them to complete the huge task of preaching around the globe! Zechariah 8:23


God never promised such a thing it started and ended with faithful servants of God in the land of Israel.

Does a spiritual Jesus exist? - where is he now?

Interesting philosophy on riches and service of the people to God. I can't argue with your philosophy, for it's true to you.

What I would argue with is telling stories of spirits that are so detached from a highly physical world. You go out everyday and you don't see brooms or pots flying high in the sky.

I want to seek proof that your religion is natural as the earth in "all" ways - and not in a way that a common man would think you're insane.

MaxInDHouse:
There was no point in time when God's servants listed the names of wealthy ones and their net worth among them.
However we keep all records of things we've been doing since the time Jesus returned as a spirit king until today!🙂


The needy in God's word refers to individuals who wants to support God's work but are financially incapable not beggars in the streets that is why you can never ever see where a servant of God gave any beggar a dime in the Bible. If any of us becomes rich in this system of things his riches will be useful to help those who are willing to support the preaching and teaching work Jesus assigned to his faithful disciples so such funds are gathered to build Kingdom Halls, print Bibles and literatures and other things requiring money. Today if anyone wants to study the Bible the printed publications will be given to him/her freely it's whatever he/she has that will be taken as donations if he/she also wants to support financially because our God doesn't view people as important due to their riches rather what they are at heart! Luke 21:1-4 compare to 2Corinthians 9:7🙂

Now you are going in circus because i've answered this question in my previous posts!🙂

kayjordan:
Christianity in the B.C period, is just like politics where the people expect so much from leaders and get disappointed. By the way, I'm curious to know Jesus. I want to know why he was so slow to impress the people - is it because he was 100% human with limitations and not a superman at all? You just mentioned here, that God wanted to show his miracles because some worshipped demons - that's why I'm asking what miracles can God or his anointed men possibly do - or is God and His anointed persons in the bible physically inclined with zero spiritual powers?
I want to be clear on whether people worship a 100% theorical God - or a 50% theorical/50% superpower God.

Probably I have read it and missed the point.

Nevertheless, I'm safe to assume, Jesus Christ of Nazareth was 100% "no different" from a current pastor of today or a current magician on stage today.

Therefore, people should realize that they worship a "man".

MaxInDHouse:
Now you are going in circus because i've answered this question in my previous posts!🙂

kayjordan:
Does a spiritual Jesus exist? - where is he now?

Jesus wasn't a human when God created him but a spirit (angel) so when he came as human everything he is coming to do was listed, he has no choice than to live by what God wanted him to do.
After his death he resurrected the third day not as human again but as a powerful SPIRIT {1Corinthans 15:45} from that time he started showing himself only to his faithful friends until the day he departed left the planet and an angel told his disciples who were eagerly looking into the sky where Jesus was taken away from them:

“Men of Galʹi·lee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus who was taken up from you into the sky will come in the same manner as you have seen him going into the sky.” Act 1:11

So Jesus will never ever appear physical again we just have to watch out for things he promised regarding his presence in our midst.

He said when he returns there will be signs globally that a powerful spirit king is around! Matthew 24:3-14

Most are anticipating a flying man from the sky but have they seen Jesus before?

So it's by the signs that we will know Jesus is around not seeing him physically!🙂

kayjordan:
Probably I have read it and missed the point.
Nevertheless, I'm safe to assume, Jesus Christ of Nazareth was 100% "no different" from a current pastor of today or a current magician on stage today.
Therefore, people should realize that they worship a "man".

Jesus wasn't like the usual pastors you know in your streets because he will not make a noise for people to hear his voice disturbing them {Matthew 12:19} neither does he call people to come and watch his supernatural acts the miracles occured out of pity for his people.

His disciples never see him as their God in fact he told them they are his brothers while himself and all his disciples have the same father and God! John 20:17

So once again that is another evidence most religions claiming Christians are FAKE!

So let me re-interpret this with my scientific mind in lay-man terms:

"Jesus came into this world in human form but was "assumed" a spirit possessed by a human body - After he died, his followers "dreamed" of him appearing to them at night high above the sky and he promised them he will come again in a dream to them".

This my interpretation above is more realistic.

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus wasn't a human when God created him but a spirit (angel) so when he came as human everything he is coming to do was listed, he has no choice than to live by what God wanted him to do.
After his death he resurrected the third day not as human again but as a powerful SPIRIT {1Corinthans 15:45} from that time he started showing himself only to his faithful friends until the day he departed left the planet and an angel told his disciples who were eagerly looking into the sky where Jesus was taken away from them:

“Men of Galʹi·lee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus who was taken up from you into the sky will come in the same manner as you have seen him going into the sky.” Act 1:11

So Jesus will never ever appear physical again we just have to watch out for things he promised regarding his presence in our midst.

He said when he returns there will be signs globally that a powerful spirit king is around! Matthew 24:3-14

Most are anticipating a flying man from the sky but have they seen Jesus before?

So it's by the signs that we will know Jesus is around not seeing him physically!🙂

Would I be correct to say Jesus was just an influential man in the Biblical days - and not necessarily a son of God - but rather the "son of God" statement was just a title exaggerative people gave him just to please him (they knew he wasn't) - and people began believing for real that he's a son of God when it's physically and universally not realistic?

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus wasn't like the usual pastors you know in your streets because he will not make a noise for people to hear his voice disturbing them {Matthew 12:19} neither does he call people to come and watch his supernatural acts the miracles occured out of pity for his people.

His disciples never see him as their God in fact he told them they are his brothers while himself and all his disciples have the same father and God! John 20:17

So once again that is another evidence most religions claiming Christians are FAKE!

Whatever you choose!🙂

kayjordan:
So let me re-interpret this with my scientific mind in lay-man terms:
"Jesus came into this world in human form but was "assumed" a spirit possessed by a human body - After he died, his followers "dreamed" of him appearing to them at night high above the sky and he promised them he will come again in a dream to them".
This my interpretation above is more realistic.

If that's what you choose.🙂

kayjordan:
Would I be correct to say Jesus was just an influential man in the Biblical days - and not necessarily a son of God - but rather the "son of God" statement was just a title exaggerative people gave him just to please him (they knew he wasn't) - and people began believing for real that he's a son of God when it's physically and universally not realistic?

Then I have validated my argument.

MaxInDHouse:
Whatever you choose!🙂

Then my article is validated.

MaxInDHouse:
If that's what you choose.🙂

kayjordan:
Then I have validated my argument.

kayjordan:
Then my article is validated.

Faith in itself is not a possession of all kinds of people {2Thessalonians 3:2} we don't know people by appearance or by things they do rather we reach their heart to know who they really are.
Everyone decides on what to do with the message of the Good News and you too must not be restricted from choosing your own path! Matthew 7:13-14
Farewell!🙂

.

The concept of free-will remains a balanced approach - where you don't lean too much to the left or too much to the right.

A perfect life is everyone's achievement - but the biggest lesson everybody gets at the end is IMPERFECTION.

Live life on your choices but don't expect so much!

Cheers!

###

MaxInDHouse:
Faith in itself is not a possession of all kinds of people {2Thessalonians 3:2} we don't know people by appearance or what they did rather we reach their heart to know who they really are.
Everyone decides on what to do with the message of the Good News and you too must not restricted from choosing your own path! Matthew 7:13-14
Farewell!🙂

Hello @Kayjordan,

I have read through your arguments about "Worshiping the devil" carefully . You have made some interesting points, some of which I want to address. However, before I do so, I want to state clearly that I am not here to defend Christianity or any religion . I am writing from a neutral perspective concerning the topic keeping in mind the universal values of trust, responsibility, self- mastery and the society we all want to live in.

First, let me acknowledge where we agree. I agree that an absolute "thou shalt not lie" is too rigid and difficult to practice in real life. It does not leave room for emergency exception, life or death situations, such as lying to a terrorist to save an Innocent life, or hiding someone from a murderous mob. I accept that preserving an Innocent life override a general rule, especially when that rule goes against our natural instinct to survive and protect others.

However, where we disagree is your use of this narrow emergency exception, lying to save an Innocent life, to justify a much wider range of behaviours some of which are everyday self-serving deception which you framed as "survival of the fittest".

Procreation does not require adultery. There are countless unmarried people seeking to procreate within committed, honest relationships. Adultery is not just about sex . It is the betrayal of trust, the lying, and the emotional harm inflicted on a spouse.

Policemen taking bribes and framing innocent people is not "survival of the fittest". It is corruption that destroys innocent lives. If everyone follow your logic, no one would be safe.

Lying to a boss about waking up late is not survival. It is avoiding a minor embarrassment. The honest path, apologising, builds character and long-term trust. Lying risks exposure and a damaged reputation .

I'm not saying I am perfect. Nobody is. My point is that we should not "worship the devil", that is , submit totally to our animal instincts or nature, and call that "honestly" while framing discipline or self- control (which religion tries to impose indirectly and rigidly through divine laws) as "deceit".

"He who sups with the devil should use a long spoon" is an old proverb. In the context of this discussion, this means that if you must deal with dangerous impulses, keep them at arms length. Anything less, and you risk becoming the devil yourself, someone nobody would want to do business with.


The fact that we can observe an impulse and choose not to act proves we are more than the impulse. We should not "worship" what we are larger than. To worship the "devil" makes us no different from a brute without self-control.


Finally, apart from the fact your philosophy is contradictory at its core, it offers no mechanism for self-restraint beyond external laws. It lacks the concept of internal mastery, the ability to say "no" to an impulse even when no one is watching and law to forbid it.

So my question to you is this: Can you provide a clear principle that distinguishes when lying or following an impulse is not acceptable versus when it is harmful, without saying "it's up to the individual".? Because without such a principle your view collapses into "anything goes" if one can find justification for it.

kayjordan:
I

That's why I mentioned earlier that - you can't change man's nature; you can only regulate it with constitutional laws and the enforcement agencies.

This is exactly what I meant when I said your philosophy offers no mechanism for internal mastery. If there is no law and no policeman watching, your "natural being" will steal , lie, and betray without hesitation. It means at the moment you're being restrained by fear or punishment.

You did not show here that man can choose to do good. You have only shown that man can be forced to behave.

So I ask again: Can you provide a clear principle that distinguishes acceptable impulse from harmful one, without relying on external laws or threats? Because without such a principle your view collapses into "anything goes when no one is watching"

Hello Triplechoice!

First: It's good to know you agree with me on some points and you don't agree on some points - and I will address what you don't agree on.

The world is a big ball of multiple personalities - and in a nutshell, these personalities create the need for "survival" - please take note.

Humans are higher animals with a nature that is thicker than water. You've cited a gap in the article which is: "not proffering a solution" - yes indeed, a solution wasn't suggested to address man's urges - because many readers are aware of discipline, punishment and other forms of control but many are not aware that what they call "sin" is actually a "natural instinct" - therefore, leading to heavy emphasis on the problem (Worship The Devil), than the solution.

Another point you raised is on adultery, corruption and lying - and you made it clear that they don't mean "survival". While you disagree on that, you should know that morality is not the absolute benchmark of this world. Adultery is completely normal in a lawless and less aware society - but when awareness arrives, it's considered "sin"- but the act of adultery is obedience in the eyes of nature - the difference now is that, humans have been preprogrammed to think away from that primitive thought even though it still happens in the modern day society.

Humans live in a complicated world where being modest, civil or morally right is not fully appreciated. Education has helped condition the human experience to some extent - where people are taught to do what's right. Nevertheless, we speak most of the time about our conscious interactions with the world whereas, 50% or more of the time, humans that try to be morally right in a conscious way actually, cheat, lie, bribe and fornicate "unconsciously".

Humans make daily improvements to live better lives through religious worship, therapy, fitness, meditation and self-restraint - which is essential if one wants a peaceful and civil society - but largely many improvements humans make, are "surface-improvements" which become temporary - allowing therefore, the true nature to continue showing regardless.

The nature of man is larger than man himself - if it were the opposite - then man would live forever. If humans feel an impulse to sin and control it - it still never removes the underlying impulse - for the impulse itself is "functional". For example: the preacher says "keep your body till your are one" - this is a restraining order not to sin before marriage - and you're capable of obeying the order - but deep down your soul, you know you're doing a huge injustice to yourself - you can feel it through "urges" and "desperation" - but you've chosen the path of obedience.

Many obedient fellows have defied the laws of medical science to obey scriptural laws - and for some - when they grow to a certain age, they begin to pay for it as a result of their rigid spiritual beliefs as you call it.

There's no life standard that hasn't got advantages and disadvantages.

Now to your moral question on lying:

"Lying is not acceptable" Versus "lying is harmful" = UNACCEPTABLE in all laws - however, the degree of a lie determines the situation of the "lie" - for example; If one lies against his best friend that's "unacceptable" - but if one lies to a point of criminal accusation - then that will obviously lead to "harm" - because that accused person may spend the rest of his/her life in jail.

The same above formula applies to impulse.

The article simply encourages what is realistically "good" for human living and tries to discourage going against your personal will as a human to live.

Note: Everything called "bad" in life isn't always "bad" for if everything is bad there will be always be problems - and if everything is "good", there will always be problems... it's a logic for you to solve!

triplechoice:
Hello @Kayjordan,

I have read through your arguments about "Worshiping the devil" carefully . You have made some interesting points, some of which I want to address. However, before I do so, I want to state clearly that I am not here to defend Christianity or any religion . I am writing from a neutral perspective concerning the topic keeping in mind the universal values of trust, responsibility, self- mastery and the society we all want to live in.

First, let me acknowledge where we agree. I agree that an absolute "thou shalt not lie" is too rigid and difficult to practice in real life. It does not leave room for emergency exception, life or death situations, such as lying to a terrorist to save an Innocent life, or hiding someone from a murderous mob. I accept that preserving an Innocent life override a general rule, especially when that rule goes against our natural instinct to survive and protect others.

However, where we disagree is your use of this narrow emergency exception, lying to save an Innocent life, to justify a much wider range of behaviours some of which are everyday self-serving deception which you framed as "survival of the fittest".

Procreation does not require adultery. There are countless unmarried people seeking to procreate within committed, honest relationships. Adultery is not just about sex . It is the betrayal of trust, the lying, and the emotional harm inflicted on a spouse.

Policemen taking bribes and framing innocent people is not "survival of the fittest". It is corruption that destroys innocent lives. If everyone follow your logic, no one would be safe.

Lying to a boss about waking up late is not survival. It is avoiding a minor embarrassment. The honest path, apologising, builds character and long-term trust. Lying risks exposure and a damaged reputation .

I'm not saying I am perfect. Nobody is. My point is that we should not "worship the devil", that is , submit totally to our animal instincts or nature, and call that "honestly" while framing discipline or self- control (which religion tries to impose indirectly and rigidly through divine laws) as "deceit".

"He who sups with the devil should use a long spoon" is an old proverb. In the context of this discussion, this means that if you must deal with dangerous impulses, keep them at arms length. Anything less, and you risk becoming the devil yourself, someone nobody would want to do business with.


The fact that we can observe an impulse and choose not to act proves we are more than the impulse. We should not "worship" what we are larger than. To worship the "devil" makes us no different from a brute without self-control.


Finally, apart from the fact your philosophy is contradictory at its core, it offers no mechanism for self-restraint beyond external laws. It lacks the concept of internal mastery, the ability to say "no" to an impulse even when no one is watching and law to forbid it.

So my question to you is this: Can you provide a clear principle that distinguishes when lying or following an impulse is not acceptable versus when it is harmful, without saying "it's up to the individual".? Because without such a principle your view collapses into "anything goes" if one can find justification for it.

The only policeman put in place to watch over human behavior is the law that science put in place - and not the religious laws man put in place.

Both types of law, try to fix society (GOOD THING!), but one is more realistic than the other.

triplechoice:
This is exactly what I meant when I said your philosophy offers no mechanism for internal mastery. If there is no law and no policeman watching, your "natural being" will steal , lie, and betray without hesitation. It means at the moment you're being restrained by fear or punishment.

You did not show here that man can choose to do good. You have only shown that man can be forced to behave.

So I ask again: Can you provide a clear principle that distinguishes acceptable impulse from harmful one, without relying on external laws or threats? Because without such a principle your view collapses into "anything goes when no one is watching"

Hello @ triplechoice!

Your two questions appear to use different standards.

First:

“What principle distinguishes what is not acceptable and what is harmful without saying it depends on the person?”

Then later:

“What distinguishes what is acceptable and what is harmful?”

Those are two different framings, so I’ll address both directly.

The distinction I’m making is this:

An act may be socially tolerated if it produces limited harm - while a harmful act is one that causes serious damage to individuals or society.

For example: flirting may be morally debated depending on context - but it is generally tolerated because it does not automatically produce serious harm

Another Example: fraud, abuse or violent acts are treated differently because they create measurable harm and threaten safety, rights or stability.

So the difference is not merely whether an act exists as an impulse - because many human impulses are "natural" - but whether the expression of that impulse becomes destructive to others - that is where morality, law, and social order intersect.

Upbringing, personality, culture, and environment strongly influence self-control and moral behavior - although no single factor completely determines human conduct.

This is also why constitutional law tends to produce more consistent behavioral control than religion alone.

Constitutional law operates through visible and immediate enforcement, while religious consequences are often delayed, interpretive or faith-based.

So in my view, the deeper principle underneath morality and law is "human nature" itself - because morality, religion, and legal systems only function through human behavior, interpretation, and enforcement.

That is the framework behind my argument.

If you disagree with any part of it, feel free to address it directly.

triplechoice:
Hello @Kayjordan,

I have read through your arguments about "Worshiping the devil" carefully . You have made some interesting points, some of which I want to address. However, before I do so, I want to state clearly that I am not here to defend Christianity or any religion . I am writing from a neutral perspective concerning the topic keeping in mind the universal values of trust, responsibility, self- mastery and the society we all want to live in.

First, let me acknowledge where we agree. I agree that an absolute "thou shalt not lie" is too rigid and difficult to practice in real life. It does not leave room for emergency exception, life or death situations, such as lying to a terrorist to save an Innocent life, or hiding someone from a murderous mob. I accept that preserving an Innocent life override a general rule, especially when that rule goes against our natural instinct to survive and protect others.

However, where we disagree is your use of this narrow emergency exception, lying to save an Innocent life, to justify a much wider range of behaviours some of which are everyday self-serving deception which you framed as "survival of the fittest".

Procreation does not require adultery. There are countless unmarried people seeking to procreate within committed, honest relationships. Adultery is not just about sex . It is the betrayal of trust, the lying, and the emotional harm inflicted on a spouse.

Policemen taking bribes and framing innocent people is not "survival of the fittest". It is corruption that destroys innocent lives. If everyone follow your logic, no one would be safe.

Lying to a boss about waking up late is not survival. It is avoiding a minor embarrassment. The honest path, apologising, builds character and long-term trust. Lying risks exposure and a damaged reputation .

I'm not saying I am perfect. Nobody is. My point is that we should not "worship the devil", that is , submit totally to our animal instincts or nature, and call that "honestly" while framing discipline or self- control (which religion tries to impose indirectly and rigidly through divine laws) as "deceit".

"He who sups with the devil should use a long spoon" is an old proverb. In the context of this discussion, this means that if you must deal with dangerous impulses, keep them at arms length. Anything less, and you risk becoming the devil yourself, someone nobody would want to do business with.


The fact that we can observe an impulse and choose not to act proves we are more than the impulse. We should not "worship" what we are larger than. To worship the "devil" makes us no different from a brute without self-control.


Finally, apart from the fact your philosophy is contradictory at its core, it offers no mechanism for self-restraint beyond external laws. It lacks the concept of internal mastery, the ability to say "no" to an impulse even when no one is watching and law to forbid it.

So my question to you is this: Can you provide a clear principle that distinguishes when lying or following an impulse is not acceptable versus when it is harmful, without saying "it's up to the individual".? Because without such a principle your view collapses into "anything goes" if one can find justification for it.

kayjordan:
Hello @ triplechoice!

Your two questions appear to use different standards.

First:

“What principle distinguishes what is not acceptable and what is harmful without saying it depends on the person?”

Then later:

“What distinguishes what is acceptable and what is harmful?”

Those are two different framings, so I’ll address both directly.

The distinction I’m making is this:

An act may be socially tolerated if it produces limited harm - while a harmful act is one that causes serious damage to individuals or society.

For example: flirting may be morally debated depending on context - but it is generally tolerated because it does not automatically produce serious harm

Another Example: fraud, abuse or violent acts are treated differently because they create measurable harm and threaten safety, rights or stability.

So the difference is not merely whether an act exists as an impulse - because many human impulses are "natural" - but whether the expression of that impulse becomes destructive to others - that is where morality, law, and social order intersect.

Upbringing, personality, culture, and environment strongly influence self-control and moral behavior - although no single factor completely determines human conduct.

This is also why constitutional law tends to produce more consistent behavioral control than religion alone.

Constitutional law operates through visible and immediate enforcement, while religious consequences are often delayed, interpretive or faith-based.

So in my view, the deeper principle underneath morality and law is "human nature" itself - because morality, religion, and legal systems only function through human behavior, interpretation, and enforcement.

That is the framework behind my argument.

If you disagree with any part of it, feel free to address it directly.

You have created a false inconsistency where none exists. You falsely claimed my two questions are not the same. They are the same. The second restated the first: What internal principle guides you when no one is watching and no laws threaten punishment?.

For instance,the guiding principle for members of the Rotary club is the. " Four way test": "is it true? Is it fair? will it build goodwill? Will it benefit all"?

Even witches, Wiccan members, have theirs. "An it harm none, do what ye will"

These are principles. They guide behaviour from within when the individual adopts them. They don't depend on police, courts of fear of getting caught

Your examples of "limited harm" which you struggled to define, " social tolerance" and "human nature", describe society's reactions, not any personal guiding principle. Flirting is not lying, neither is it adultery (cheating)

So I ask again. Give me a clear, consistent internal standard you would follow when no one can see you.

If you cannot, you admit your only restrain is fear of punishment, not conscience, integrity or internal commitment. Without a guiding principle, your philosophy justifies anything. I cannot trust someone whose only break is getting caught.I am not the only one who think this way.

I am going to collapse my last rebuttal to you and neutralize it.

I'm starting this argument from this specific rebuttal you've made.

Main Argument: In my honest opinion, there's no pre-existing principle guiding human behavior - thus, what people refer to as principles are ideological and not biological.

The perspective you see life from is - from the mid-level of "hierarchy of survival", rather than from the foundational level of the hierarchy.

As I have shared this idea with a critic before; I want you to know that in the animal kingdom - there's no good or bad - every animal including "humans", have one similar desire - "food".

The idea of good and bad is subjective - meaning: the Lion chasing the Deer believes she's doing a "good thing" (trying to get food) - and the Deer escaping believes she's also doing a "good thing" (saving her life).

The concept of "bad" becomes subjective when an animal becomes a prey - only the prey would hold onto that belief, not the predator.

It's true that some ideologies are birthed by the human nature such as trust, safety and responsibility - but still, they don't dismantle the foundational integrity for human existence which is - "survival".

If at all a universal principle must be identified - it would be "Nature".

The symptoms of nature which you describe as "reactions" - are therefore, the reason humans seek internal mastery as you stated earlier - and the reason why people create ideologies (principles) to make life, the complete opposite of the "wild".

Whilst laws are good for discipline - the foundation (nature) as mentioned, should always inform your moral question of "why are people evil?"

Are people evil because they want to - or because they just want to survive?

Why can't people do good things genuinely without first responding to fear or correction?

The universal principle (nature) - answers all!

To re-interate: laws are just applications; humans are the systems. If the system is bad - the application will equally be as bad - or be unsustainable.

Look at life from a computer system analogy - let's address the system before asking questions about "principles".

"Put the horse before the cart"...

triplechoice:
You have created a false inconsistency where none exists. You falsely claimed my two questions are not the same. They are the same. The second restated the first: What internal principle guides you when no one is watching and no laws threaten punishment?.

For instance,the guiding principle for members of the Rotary club is the. " Four way test": "is it true? Is it fair? will it build goodwill? Will it benefit all"?

Even witches, Wiccan members, have theirs. "An it harm none, do what ye will"

These are principles. They guide behaviour from within when the individual adopts them. They don't depend on police, courts of fear of getting caught

Your examples of "limited harm" which you struggled to define, " social tolerance" and "human nature", describe society's reactions, not any personal guiding principle. Flirting is not lying, neither is it adultery (cheating)

So I ask again. Give me a clear, consistent internal standard you would follow when no one can see you.

If you cannot, you admit your only restrain is fear of punishment, not conscience, integrity or internal commitment. Without a guiding principle, your philosophy justifies anything. I cannot trust someone whose only break is getting caught.I am not the only one who think this way.

kayjordan:
I am going to collapse my last rebuttal to you and neutralize it.

I'm starting this argument from this specific rebuttal you've made.

Main Argument: In my honest opinion, there's no pre-existing principle guiding human behavior - thus, what people refer to as principles are ideological and not biological.

You have straw- manned what I said. No where did I claim that guiding principles are biological. I said humans create guiding principles and adopt them to guide their behaviour to prevent unwise decisions.If you have no guiding principle then the only thing restraining you right now is fear of punishment.

And the question is not whether principles exist in nature. The question is , What principle have you personally adopted to restrain yourself when no one is watching? Instead of answering that you are now debating biology and ideology to dodge

The perspective you see life from is - from the mid-level of "hierarchy of survival", rather than from the foundational level of the hierarchy.

"Hierarchy of survival" is a vague phrase designed to make you sound profound. It explains nothing.

As I have shared this idea with a critic before; I want you to know that in the animal kingdom - there's no good or bad - every animal including "humans", have one similar desire - "food".

The idea of good and bad is subjective - meaning: the Lion chasing the Deer believes she's doing a "good thing" (trying to get food) - and the Deer escaping believes she's also doing a "good thing" (saving her life).

The concept of "bad" becomes subjective when an animal becomes a prey - only the prey would hold onto that belief, not the predator.

It's true that some ideologies are birthed by the human nature such as trust, safety and responsibility - but still, they don't dismantle the foundational integrity for human existence which is - "survival".

If at all a universal principle must be identified - it would be "Nature".

Your lion and prey analogy is inappropriate. You are projectiing human concepts of "good" and " bad" onto animals to justify avoiding moral responsibility for yourself.

A lion does not think it is doing "good" . It has no morai beliefs at all. It acts on instinct, not conscious choice. It is a carnivore driven by its biology to prey on other animals for survival. It must kill to eat. It has no choice.

But you are not a lion. You are a human being with the capacity for moral reasoning. When you lie, cheat or commit adultery, you are not following a biological necessity like a lion hurting. You are making a deliberate choice. And those choices can be evaluated because you have alternatives, you can choose honestly, integrity and fidelity..

In human society, we do not need to be the "prey" to recognise that betrayal, corruption,and dishonesty cause harm. We can see it objectively because we have empathy and reason.

So stop lying to yourself that you are the same as lower animals in the wild.

The symptoms of nature which you describe as "reactions" - are therefore, the reason humans seek internal mastery as you stated earlier - and the reason why people create ideologies (principles) to make life, the complete opposite of the "wild".

Whilst laws are good for discipline - the foundation (nature) as mentioned, should always inform your moral question of "why are people evil?"

Are people evil because they want to - or because they just want to survive?

Why can't people do good things genuinely without first responding to fear or correction?

The universal principle (nature) - answers all!

To re-interate: laws are just applications; humans are the systems. If the system is bad - the application will equally be as bad - or be unsustainable.

Look at life from a computer system analogy - let's address the system before asking questions about "principles".

"Put the horse before the cart"...

I never asked "why are people evil" nor did I describe " reactions" as "symptoms of nature" . You keep answering questions I never asked.

Your computer analogy fails because a human being is not a machine with fixed programming . We have consciousness, choice and the ability to adopt internal principles.

Put the horse before the cart ? Fine. But first give your principle, then we can discuss everything else.

On the contrary, I haven't dodged any question you raised. You may say - I answered them incorrectly or vaguely.

As a person, I have principles which I follow as a result of orientation - and not necessarily because I really want to abide by certain rules - there are many people like me.

If I propose a principle I should follow without waiting for corrections or being motivated by fear, that principle would be the "principle of conscience" - the feeling of knowing when you're wrong and knowing when to retreat from a bad or sinful act.

The concept of principles are results of our consciousness as you mentioned earlier  -  and you further stated we can't be compared to computers or lions - nevertheless, if a Lion doesn't have a choice than to kill to survive, then it is purely "survival" - which I've been stressing. The fact, humans have never been put in desperate situations, doesn't mean humans do not have "instincts" to kill, steal and compete regardless of conscience.

In a lighter situation - no one tells you to eat except your natural urge - but the law or your conscience, tells you to pay your taxes, rent and bills even if you don't want to.

As I earlier mentioned, good and bad is recognized and clearly differentiated by laws and principles. You are made "aware" of them because a system exist - not because the system of rules are innate.

We humans eat animals that have consciousness - and we kill them to "survive". If you say the animals "don't have consciousness", then you selfishly and subjectively justify your human actions.

The people of the world are preys to one another - and because humans are higher animals - they naturally "create" a need to be civil - therefore making societies more habitable - but the concept of principles, is a "secondary development" that has slightly improved the world - and it also, has not changed the world completely for better either - why? Simply because you can't master what you're not born with.

The reason why there are series of ongoing war, killings, stealing and religious blasphemy - is because the "core" of human nature is "raw" but consciously, coated with "refinement".

The world is already a "big ball" of numerous and complex principles from different schools of thoughts, religion and individuals - yet all these principles, still create confusion in the world today.

If you think humans can learn internal mastery of guiding principles - in order to make their world safe and peaceful - then what principles should guide the natural resources of the earth such as the mountains, rocks, water and the earth - to prevent them from creating earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes for peaceful existence of humans?

You seem too fixated on a "perfect world" without acknowledging the elements beyond human control.

This is the intent of my article - to reveal an IMPERFECT WORLD  - not the "beautiful dream-world" you think can be memorized in a classroom of perfection - all in the name of INTERNAL MASTERY...

Now that I have answered that my principle is conscience - are you ready to admit that your definition of morality is a social construct based on fear and consequences?  

triplechoice:
You have straw- manned what I said. No where did I claim that guiding principles are biological. I said humans create guiding principles and adopt them to guide their behaviour to prevent unwise decisions.If you have no guiding principle then the only thing restraining you right now is fear of punishment.

And the question is not whether principles exist in nature. The question is , What principle have you personally adopted to restrain yourself when no one is watching? Instead of answering that you are now debating biology and ideology to dodge


"Hierarchy of survival" is a vague phrase designed to make you sound profound. It explains nothing.


Your lion and prey analogy is inappropriate. You are projectiing human concepts of "good" and " bad" onto animals to justify avoiding moral responsibility for yourself.

A lion does not think it is doing "good" . It has no morai beliefs at all. It acts on instinct, not conscious choice. It is a carnivore driven by its biology to prey on other animals for survival. It must kill to eat. It has no choice.

But you are not a lion. You are a human being with the capacity for moral reasoning. When you lie, cheat or commit adultery, you are not following a biological necessity like a lion hurting. You are making a deliberate choice. And those choices can be evaluated because you have alternatives, you can choose honestly, integrity and fidelity..

In human society, we do not need to be the "prey" to recognise that betrayal, corruption,and dishonesty cause harm. We can see it objectively because we have empathy and reason.

So stop lying to yourself that you are the same as lower animals in the wild.



I never asked "why are people evil" nor did I describe " reactions" as "symptoms of nature" . You keep answering questions I never asked.

Your computer analogy fails because a human being is not a machine with fixed programming . We have consciousness, choice and the ability to adopt internal principles.

Put the horse before the cart ? Fine. But first give your principle, then we can discuss everything else.

kayjordan:
On the contrary, I haven't dodged any question you raised. You may say - I answered them incorrectly or vaguely.

Please don't try to gaslight me. You know you never answered correctly or clearly. Take responsibility for your deliberate obfuscation and don't shift the blame onto me.

As a person, I have principles which I follow as a result of orientation - and not necessarily because I really want to abide by certain rules - there are many people like me.

1. The question is not whether you like to follow rules. The question is whether you have any guiding principle that guides you when no one is watching. So far you have not stated one.

Guiding principles are not ruies. They are standards an individual promises to keep in their interactions with others. You follow them because they reflect who you choose to be , not because of fear of punishment. . For example "I will not betray trust" reveals character, not someone blindly following a rule because of fear.

2.Saying that there are others like you without a definite guiding principle does not make your position valid. Popularity is not proof of wisdom. Many people live recklessly without restrain simply because they refuse to take responsibility for their actions..

If I propose a principle I should follow without waiting for corrections or being motivated by fear, that principle would be the "principle of conscience" - the feeling of knowing when you're wrong and knowing when to retreat from a bad or sinful act.

Which principle again? Up there you said you already have principles you follow. Now you say "if I propose a principle" , as if you don't have one yet. My friend, you are contradicting yourself .

A guiding principle is not a vague feeling or a "conscience", that is just a label. Conscience can be ignored or rationalised away, exactly as you did with sleeping with other people's wives.You justified it as "procreation" to silence your conscience.

The concept of principles are results of our consciousness as you mentioned earlier  -  and you further stated we can't be compared to computers or lions - nevertheless, if a Lion doesn't have a choice than to kill to survive, then it is purely "survival" - which I've been stressing. The fact, humans have never been put in desperate situations, doesn't mean humans do not have "instincts" to kill, steal and compete regardless of conscience.

Stop comparing yourself to a lion. A lion has no choice but to kill to survive. You, however , do have a choice . You do not need to kill, steal , or cheat to survive. You have alternatives, honesty , integrity and respect for others. The lion acts on instinct, you act on decisions. So stop hiding behind animal behaviour to excuse your own choices.

In a lighter situation - no one tells you to eat except your natural urge - but the law or your conscience, tells you to pay your taxes, rent and bills even if you don't want to.

The law is not a substitute for conscience. The law is external, and its violation caries a penalty or punishment. Conscience is internal. You can ignore it , and no one punishes you except yourself for doing what you know is not right.

As I earlier mentioned, good and bad is recognized and clearly differentiated by laws and principles. You are made "aware" of them because a system exist - not because the system of rules are innate.

Your claim that "good" and " bad" are only recognised because a system makes us aware of them is not true.

Laws and principles do not create morality. They reflect it. Moreover, humans have the capacity to reason, to empathize, and to understand that stealing or betraying trust causes harm, long before any law is written. And that is why we create laws in the first place.

I think you are projecting your own lack of internal moral awareness onto everyone else. Just because you need an external system to tell you what is right does not mean the rest of us do.

We humans eat animals that have consciousness - and we kill them to "survive". If you say the animals "don't have consciousness", then you selfishly and subjectively justify your human actions.

I did not say animals have "no consciousness". You edited my words to make me say what you want. I said a lion has no moral consciousness, which is not the same as having no consciousness at all. There is a difference between sentience and moral reasoning. You are twisting my statement to avoid the real point.

The people of the world are preys to one another - and because humans are higher animals - they naturally "create" a need to be civil - therefore making societies more habitable - but the concept of principles, is a "secondary development" that has slightly improved the world - and it also, has not changed the world completely for better either - why? Simply because you can't master what you're not born with.

Your argument that since we are not "born with any principles we cannot master them is false.That is like saying since we are not born speaking a language, we cannot learn one and master it.

No one is born with a guiding principle. But we are born with the capacity to reason, to learn and to choose. Principles are tools we develop to live harmoniousy with others. Nature can be natured.


A child who has imbibed the virtue of honestly and truthfulness will find dishonesty difficult as an adult. If you struggle with honesty, blame your upbringing or your choices, not nature. And you can still change if you are determined

The reason why there are series of ongoing war, killings, stealing and religious blasphemy - is because the "core" of human nature is "raw" but consciously, coated with "refinement".

The world is already a "big ball" of numerous and complex principles from different schools of thoughts, religion and individuals - yet all these principles, still create confusion in the world today.

I don't agree with you that the "core of human nature is "raw " and that wars, killings and stealing come from that raw core "coated with thin refinement "

Our true nature is not raw and wicked. Our true nature is consciousness itself, capable of empathy, reason, and love. What you refer to as "raw " is the untrained mind, the ego running unchecked. When we lose connection to our deeper Seif and let the undisciplined mind drive our actions, chaos follows

The solution is not to worship that raw impulse as " nature". The solution is Seif -mastery, learning to control the mind from an early age so that refinement is not a thin coat but the very fabric of our character. It is still possible to control one's mind even as an adult and master it.

If you do not learn to control your mind, you lose the ability to control your world.
Your philosophy of surrender to impulse ( worshiping the devil) guarantees the very wars and suffering you point to . It does not fix anything, it only adds more fuel to the fire.

If you think humans can learn internal mastery of guiding principles - in order to make their world safe and peaceful - then what principles should guide the natural resources of the earth such as the mountains, rocks, water and the earth - to prevent them from creating earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes for peaceful existence of humans?

Natural disasters are not moral agents. They have no choices, no conscience, no capacity for principles. We do not need to "guide" mountains or rivers. We need to understand them through science and adapt, by predicting, preparing , and moving out of harms way.

However, your analogy is a red herring. We are discussing human behaviour where principles do apply because humans have free will and choices. So please stick to the topic.

You seem too fixated on a "perfect world" without acknowledging the elements beyond human control.

If I were fixated on a ", perfect world" I would not have agreed with you on anything. At the beginning of this conversation I acknowledged that no one is perfect even me but said we should strive for balance. Too much of anything is bad.

This is the intent of my article - to reveal an IMPERFECT WORLD  - not the "beautiful dream-world" you think can be memorized in a classroom of perfection - all in the name of INTERNAL MASTERY...

No . You lie. This is not the "intent" of your article . You are denying because you have been exposed. Your intention is clear to everyone.

Now that I have answered that my principle is conscience - are you ready to admit that your definition of morality is a social construct based on fear and consequences?

No . Conscience is not a principle. It can be silenced or rationalised away, as you yourself demonstrated when you justified adultery as "procreation" to quiet your conscience

My definition of morality has never been "based on fear". I have said repeatedly that guiding principles are internal standards we choose to live by, such as honestly, keeping agreements, and not causing unnecessary harm. These are not from fear. They are from character

Your so-called.principle , from your own "devil's philosophy", is simply this: do whatever you like to survive, and don't care if anyone is hurt.

You have spent this entire exchange building straw men, deflecting every direct question and twisting my words. I will no longer waste my time.

So, Kayjordan, , I am done with you. The conversation is over. Thank you.

Philosophy is complex and it's understandable, if terminologies are made broad or accommodating - which makes it seems you are misunderstood.

Nevertheless, these are summaries of my argument:

1. Principles are a collection of orientation, culture, family values - and this collection forms the foundation of rules and certain principles.

2. Conscience is only created after acquiring knowledge. You cannot "know" good or bad without "first" being taught.

3. Humans are born into the world with nothing, and leave with nothing - therefore concepts of truth and morality are learnt environmental traits rather than inherited biological traits.

4. I project my honest opinion about human experience of the everyday man and that's why it feels to you - I project "a lack of moral awareness".

5. There's a saying: Train up a child in the way he should grow, and when he grows old, he wouldn't depart - but at the same time, it's important to know some children have law-abiding traits and rebellious traits as foundational nature.

6. A society with no principles, leads to chaos and at the same time - a society with "differing" principles can be in chaotic situations. For example: Nigeria upholding both Christian and Islamic morals and having to deal with religious and ethnic conflicts.

7. I personally struggle - reconciling my nature with unrealistic, limiting beliefs, extremist rules and principles - and often solicit for laws and principles that are neutral.

8. "Procreation" is a biological order more than it is a moral or biblical order - which ever way "procreation" is done - be it with a sole partner or multiple partners - such act is considered "fair" and given a natural "pass" than a negative judgment in an evolutionary sense. This probably birthed polygamy.

9. And atimes, (for me and those who can relate), we try to "balance" what "we want" with what "society expects" - so in this context, and in many Nigerian contexts, "morality is largely based on fear". For example in Nigeria: Only the Military, seems to be the most respected institution in Nigeria than even the constitution and the religious organizations.

10. My watch word is "honesty" in all ways possible - which you may like to call "principle."

I write from an understanding of human society and with practical observation - if guiding principles are so feasible in a complex world of family, tribe, race, religion and biases - then you may want to share your own observation so that people can understand what you are trying to promote better.

If you have a realistic observation to share - I'm open for more dialogue - but if you cannot prove the efficiency of "principles" you promote in a world where even family members (basic unit) struggle with their own respective principles together - then I close the argument satisfied and wish you farewell.

triplechoice:
Please don't try to gaslight me. You know you never answered correctly or clearly. Take responsibility for your deliberate obfuscation and don't shift the blame onto me.


1. The question is not whether you like to follow rules. The question is whether you have any guiding principle that guides you when no one is watching. So far you have not stated one.

Guiding principles are not ruies. They are standards an individual promises to keep in their interactions with others. You follow them because they reflect who you choose to be , not because of fear of punishment. . For example "I will not betray trust" reveals character, not someone blindly following a rule because of fear.

2.Saying that there are others like you without a definite guiding principle does not make your position valid. Popularity is not proof of wisdom. Many people live recklessly without restrain simply because they refuse to take responsibility for their actions..



Which principle again? Up there you said you already have principles you follow. Now you say "if I propose a principle" , as if you don't have one yet. My friend, you are contradicting yourself .

A guiding principle is not a vague feeling or a "conscience", that is just a label. Conscience can be ignored or rationalised away, exactly as you did with sleeping with other people's wives.You justified it as "procreation" to silence your conscience.




Stop comparing yourself to a lion. A lion has no choice but to kill to survive. You, however , do have a choice . You do not need to kill, steal , or cheat to survive. You have alternatives, honesty , integrity and respect for others. The lion acts on instinct, you act on decisions. So stop hiding behind animal behaviour to excuse your own choices.



The law is not a substitute for conscience. The law is external, and its violation caries a penalty or punishment. Conscience is internal. You can ignore it , and no one punishes you except yourself for doing what you know is not right.



Your claim that "good" and " bad" are only recognised because a system makes us aware of them is not true.

Laws and principles do not create morality. They reflect it. Moreover, humans have the capacity to reason, to empathize, and to understand that stealing or betraying trust causes harm, long before any law is written. And that is why we create laws in the first place.

I think you are projecting your own lack of internal moral awareness onto everyone else. Just because you need an external system to tell you what is right does not mean the rest of us do.



I did not say animals have "no consciousness". You edited my words to make me say what you want. I said a lion has no moral consciousness, which is not the same as having no consciousness at all. There is a difference between sentience and moral reasoning. You are twisting my statement to avoid the real point.


Your argument that since we are not "born with any principles we cannot master them is false.That is like saying since we are not born speaking a language, we cannot learn one and master it.

No one is born with a guiding principle. But we are born with the capacity to reason, to learn and to choose. Principles are tools we develop to live harmoniousy with others. Nature can be natured.


A child who has imbibed the virtue of honestly and truthfulness will find dishonesty difficult as an adult. If you struggle with honesty, blame your upbringing or your choices, not nature. And you can still change if you are determined


I don't agree with you that the "core of human nature is "raw " and that wars, killings and stealing come from that raw core "coated with thin refinement "

Our true nature is not raw and wicked. Our true nature is consciousness itself, capable of empathy, reason, and love. What you refer to as "raw " is the untrained mind, the ego running unchecked. When we lose connection to our deeper Seif and let the undisciplined mind drive our actions, chaos follows

The solution is not to worship that raw impulse as " nature". The solution is Seif -mastery, learning to control the mind from an early age so that refinement is not a thin coat but the very fabric of our character. It is still possible to control one's mind even as an adult and master it.

If you do not learn to control your mind, you lose the ability to control your world.
Your philosophy of surrender to impulse ( worshiping the devil) guarantees the very wars and suffering you point to . It does not fix anything, it only adds more fuel to the fire.


Natural disasters are not moral agents. They have no choices, no conscience, no capacity for principles. We do not need to "guide" mountains or rivers. We need to understand them through science and adapt, by predicting, preparing , and moving out of harms way.

However, your analogy is a red herring. We are discussing human behaviour where principles do apply because humans have free will and choices. So please stick to the topic.


If I were fixated on a ", perfect world" I would not have agreed with you on anything. At the beginning of this conversation I acknowledged that no one is perfect even me but said we should strive for balance. Too much of anything is bad.


No . You lie. This is not the "intent" of your article . You are denying because you have been exposed. Your intention is clear to everyone.


No . Conscience is not a principle. It can be silenced or rationalised away, as you yourself demonstrated when you justified adultery as "procreation" to quiet your conscience

My definition of morality has never been "based on fear". I have said repeatedly that guiding principles are internal standards we choose to live by, such as honestly, keeping agreements, and not causing unnecessary harm. These are not from fear. They are from character

Your so-called.principle , from your own "devil's philosophy", is simply this: do whatever you like to survive, and don't care if anyone is hurt.

You have spent this entire exchange building straw men, deflecting every direct question and twisting my words. I will no longer waste my time.

So, Kayjordan, , I am done with you. The conversation is over. Thank you.