₦airaland Forum

hahn:
It is Mr Hahn to you

Is everything god's will or not?

Do you want us to digress to the topic called God's will?

And to the previous, I hope I v clarified the reason you see diff churches in a building or Street.
Its just like diff schools, diff hospitals etc.
Although church is a religious organization

Dindondin:
Do you want us to digress to the topic called God's will?

And to the previous, I hope I v clarified the reason you see diff churches in a building or Street.
Its just like diff schools, diff hospitals etc.
Although church is a religious organization

Answer the question. Is everything god's will or not? It is a yes or no answer.

Yes I want to digress

hahn:
Jehovah - The god of confusion Christianity - The religion of the confused

service sense fall on u

Tiwaladeice:
service sense fall on u

Sense fall on Jehovah

zcee:
I blame you, you are either the deceiver or the deceived... If u lyk don't open your eyes well

I wont be surprise, when someone lacks direction such is being given up to reprobate mind to do whatsoever he pleases or seems right before him.

CoolUsername:
society is the source of morality.

E.g The Nazis?

hahn:
Answer the question. Is everything god's will or not? It is a yes or no answer.

Yes I want to digress

Everything is not Gods will.

9inches:
Everything is not Gods will.

Lol

Good to know

Another reason why it does not deserve my servitude

hahn:
Lol

Good to know

Another reason why it does not deserve my servitude

You have freedom of choice to 'will' things as you like. That's the reason why God does not will everything.

But if you ask whether God knows everything, the answer is a YES. And He deserves your servitude because He created you.

9inches:
You have freedom of choice to 'will' things as you like. That's the reason why God does not will everything.

But if you ask whether God knows everything, the answer is a YES. And He deserves your servitude because He created you.

No, if you believe something that does not exists created you then fine. But you do not have any right to impose your delusion on me

Besides, the concept of free will is lost on you theists. I will not even bother explaining to you

9inches:
E.g The Nazis?

Yup, the Nazis formulated their own moral code. It was rejected by most of the world which is why they were seen as evil and fought against.

CoolUsername:
Yup, the Nazis formulated their own moral code. It was rejected by most of the world which is why they were seen as evil and fought against.

Does evil exist and do you think the holocaust was evil or not?

hahn:
No, if you believe something that does not exists created you then fine. But you do not have any right to impose your delusion on me

Besides, the concept of free will is lost on you theists. I will not even bother explaining to you

I'm sure you can't explain it without hitting same concrete wall of morality where all atheists' arguments meet their death.

See my signature below

9inches:
Does evil exist and do you think the holocaust was evil or not?

I think the holocaust is evil based on the standards of morality that I was brought up with and the ones I have acquired through reading and interaction. I also believe it went against basic empathy.

And I believe that something is evil if it's detrimental to the well-being of a fellow man whether directly or indirectly this also extends to reasonably empathic treatment of animals.
But I also feel that evil is relative, and my definition is far from exhaustive. How do you measure 'reasonably empathic' treatment? So while I believe in the existence of evil, I realize that life is not black and white and that morality has a lot of grey areas. These grey areas coupled with cultural differences make the specifics of it subjective.

To clearly answer your questions.

Yes, the holocaust was evil in my opinion.
Yes, evil exists in my opinion.

9inches:
I'm sure you can't explain it without hitting same concrete wall of morality where all atheists' arguments meet their death.

See my signature below

Lol

Nothing you have said makes sense. Neither does your signature. You are only proving how myopic your reasoning is

hahn:
Answer the question. Is everything god's will or not? It is a yes or no answer.
Yes I want to digress

I ll answer on one condition. Go to the religion section & create a thread on God's Will. Quote my name & I m sure you get response.

hahn:
Lol

Nothing you have said makes sense. Neither does your signature. You are only proving how myopic your reasoning is

Mr. sensemaker, it is obvious you are too slow to wrap your head around it. Now smile you just won my pity.

CoolUsername:
I think the holocaust is evil based on the standards of morality that I was brought up with and the ones I have acquired through reading and interaction. I also believe it went against basic empathy.

And I believe that something is evil if it's detrimental to the well-being of a fellow man whether directly or indirectly this also extends to reasonably empathic treatment of animals.
But I also feel that evil is relative, and my definition is far from exhaustive. How do you measure 'reasonably empathic' treatment? So while I believe in the existence of evil, I realize that life is not black and white and that morality has a lot of grey areas. These grey areas coupled with cultural differences make the specifics of it subjective.

To clearly answer your questions.

Yes, the holocaust was evil in my opinion.
Yes, evil exists in my opinion.

It seems to me you are saying there is moral absolute somewhere from which your judgement was made against the Nazis. In a world where morality is subjective, it would be callous of you to call eugenics or gassing of jews evil when they were all convinced it would better their society.
Secondly, if you were born into a Nazi society, would you have done anything different than what they did?

Not even a single nazi officer would have been successfully convicted if the judges agreed morality is subjective.

9inches:
It seems to me you are saying there is moral absolute somewhere from which your judgement was made against the Nazis. In a world where morality is subjective, it would be callous of you to call eugenics or gassing of jews evil when they were all convinced it would better their society.
Secondly, if you were born into a Nazi society, would you have done anything different than what they did?

Not even a single nazi officer would have been successfully convicted if the judges agreed morality is subjective.

I clearly stated that the Nazis were evil based on my own judgment and morality. Read what I wrote carefully.

Dindondin:
I ll answer on one condition.
Go to the religion section & create a thread on God's Will.
Quote my name & I m sure you get response.

You can comment on https://www.nairaland.com/3616205/more-evil-god-devil

It is also about god's will

...

hahn:
You can comment on https://www.nairaland.com/3616205/more-evil-god-devil

It is also about god's will

o. That thread has been derailed by yourself & some other folks.
Also...the topic is diff from the main content which is God's Will.
So... bro, create a new thread & I ll honour it. And pls, I m not used to using abusive words.
I v read how you exchange words with people on Nairaland

CoolUsername:
I clearly stated that the Nazis were evil based on my own judgment and morality. Read what I wrote carefully.

My point is, your judgement and morality are just like your personal opinion- yours alone. Therefore, it is not binding on any party with opposing views. One can then deduce that where there is no moral absolute, there is no real justice. Truth be told, in reality, you can't even live a worldview such as yours out.

Dindondin:
o. That thread has been derailed by yourself & some other folks.
Also...the topic is diff from the main content which is God's Will.
So... bro, create a new thread & I ll honour it. And pls, I m not used to using abusive words.
I v read how you exchange words with people on Nairaland

I really do not have that time anymore. It is difficult arguing over the same non existent being over and over again. I'd rather focus on my business.

Maybe johnnydon22 will be interested. Whayasay Johnny?

9inches:
My point is, your judgement and morality are just like your personal opinion- yours alone. Therefore, it is not binding on any party with opposing views. One can then deduce that where there is no moral absolute, there is no real justice. Truth be told, in reality, you can't even live a worldview such as yours out.

The most absolute morality stems from the generally accepted views of society, which change with time.

And no, my views cannot and should not be binding on others in a democratic society. I can only strive to convince others in order to gain majority approval.

Now let me ask you a question, what do you think of slavery? Is it good or bad?

CoolUsername:
The most absolute morality stems from the generally accepted views of society, which change with time.

So there is absolute morality you mean?

And no, my views cannot and should not be binding on others in a democratic society. I can only strive to convince others in order to gain majority approval.

You see why I said you cannot live that out. Tell me again why we have the law courts and police. Does "fundamental human rights" sound subjective to you at all?

Now let me ask you a question, what do you think of slavery? Is it good or bad?

Slavery is bad. It has never been good.

9inches:
So there is absolute morality you mean?

No, I'm just saying that we may generally have similar moral leanings. But the specifics are never the same.

9inches:
You see why I said you cannot live that out. Tell me again why we have the law courts and police. Does "fundamental human rights" sound subjective to you at all?

You act like laws don't change and the constitution doesn't get modified all the time. We all want to uphold human rights, but to the average Nigeria for example, these rights shouldn't extend to LGBT people. That's exactly what I said about the specifics being different.

9inches:
Slavery is bad. It has never been good.

But it was never condemned in the Bible or Quran. In fact, the Old Testament gives specific instructions on how to go about slave ownership. How then did you conclude that it's a bad thing?

CoolUsername:
No, I'm just saying that we may generally have similar moral leanings. But the specifics are never the same.

What does that make it, objective or subjective?

You act like laws don't change and the constitution doesn't get modified all the time. We all want to uphold human rights, but to the average Nigeria for example, these rights shouldn't extend to LGBT people. That's exactly what I said about the specifics being different.

Moral law does not change, societal laws do.

But it was never condemned in the Bible or Quran. In fact, the Old Testament gives specific instructions on how to go about slave ownership. How then did you conclude that it's a bad thing?

It wasn't approved/sanctioned either. Peter told slaves, “Be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing. For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly” (1 Pet. 2:18-19).

Peter and the other apostles knew that slavery was wrong, but they also knew that it was better to conquer evil with good (Romans 12:21) than to commit evil in order to achieve good. That’s why Peter asks what good it does for a slave to commit evil against his master and then be beaten in return. At least when a slave is beaten for no good reason and does not respond with evil (in imitation of Christ, who endured similar abuses without retaliation), he will stand blameless before God (1 Peter 2:20). Loyalty to a master was also a common way for slaves in the Roman Empire to earn their freedom. After serving a master faithfully, a slave would be released as a libertus.

9inches:
What does that make it, objective or subjective?

Subjective.

9inches:
Moral law does not change, societal laws do.

I disagree, women weren't allowed to vote in civilized countries until the 19 century. Since then, not only laws but attitudes have changed towards the treatment of women.

9inches:
It wasn't approved/sanctioned either. Peter told slaves, “Be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing. For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly” (1 Pet. 2:18-19).

Peter and the other apostles knew that slavery was wrong, but they also knew that it was better to conquer evil with good (Romans 12:21) than to commit evil in order to achieve good. That’s why Peter asks what good it does for a slave to commit evil against his master and then be beaten in return. At least when a slave is beaten for no good reason and does not respond with evil (in imitation of Christ, who endured similar abuses without retaliation), he will stand blameless before God (1 Peter 2:20). Loyalty to a master was also a common way for slaves in the Roman Empire to earn their freedom. After serving a master faithfully, a slave would be released as a libertus.

I still don't see where it condemns the act. Ephesians 6:9 and Colossians 4:1 show that although early Christianity wanted fair treatment of slaves it never once condemned the practise of owning and trading people.

CoolUsername:
Subjective.

So you believe nothing is morally right or wrong? See, if Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Lenin had believed that there was a moral standard outside of themselves that rested in God, and not their own preferences, perhaps over 104 million lives would've been spared.

I disagree, women weren't allowed to vote in civilized countries until the 19 century. Since then, not only laws but attitudes have changed towards the treatment of women.

You're buttressing my point - moral law does not change, societal laws do.

I still don't see where it condemns the act. Ephesians 6:9 and Colossians 4:1 show that although early Christianity wanted fair treatment of slaves it never once condemned the practise of owning and trading people.

Mind you that we are talking slavery of a different kind here, not a systematic oppression of one ethnic group or race by another. The ancient slavery was one of conqueror to conquered and there was nothing that resembled the racist transatlantic slave trade we all know. Ancient slaves served their owners as administrators, financial agents, physicians, secretaries, house servants, cooks, farmers, etc.

In addition to the verses you quoted, Apostle Paul in Gal. 3:28 writes, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile (Greek), neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
In the ancient world, a man setting his slave free and submitting to a woman would have been an outrageous and humiliating thought. Therefore, Paul’s ultimate mission is to see women, slaves, and all races treated equally. But in order to accomplish this, some measure of submission to culture was necessary. In thesame way, Paul encouraged wives to submit to their husbands so that their husbands may come to know Christ, and in time, understand their calling to mutually submit to their wives and to empower women.

9inches:
So you believe nothing is morally right or wrong? See, if Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Lenin had believed that there was a moral standard outside of themselves that rested in God, and not their own preferences, perhaps over 104 million lives would've been spared.

Wrong, because Hitler was clearly opposed to atheism. Likewise, you've conveniently forgotten the part where I said that Nazis were evil in my opinion. You've also conveniently forgotten the religious violence we've faced throughout history. Look at Islamic terrorism in recent times, aren't these supposed to be people with 'objective morality'?

9inches:
You're buttressing my point - moral law does not change, societal laws do.

What do societal laws have to do with the way attitudes towards women and in extension, blacks? The changing attitudes are caused the change in societal laws. LGBT discrimination dropped to a minority BEFORE the law could have was passed. In fact, in a democratic system, your argument is completely wrong.

9inches:
Mind you that we are talking slavery of a different kind here, not a systematic oppression of one ethnic group or race by another. The ancient slavery was one of conqueror to conquered and there was nothing that resembled the racist transatlantic slave trade we all know. Ancient slaves served their owners as administrators, financial agents, physicians, secretaries, house servants, cooks, farmers, etc. In addition to the verses you quoted, Apostle Paul in Gal. 3:28 writes, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile (Greek), neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” In the ancient world, a man setting his slave free and submitting to a woman would have been an outrageous and humiliating thought. Therefore, Paul’s ultimate mission is to see women, slaves, and all races treated equally. But in order to accomplish this, some measure of submission to culture was necessary. In thesame way, Paul encouraged wives to submit to their husbands so that their husbands may come to know Christ, and in time, understand their calling to mutually submit to their wives and to empower women.

I thought you said the Bible didn't condone slavery? Let me ask, which is worse: Rape at knifepoint or rape by sedation? Rape at knifepoint may be more traumatic but does that justify condoning rape by sedation? Why not just speak out against rape? Why not just speak out against slavery? Would you like to be subjected to treatment of slaves even back in Biblical times? Would you like it to happen to your son? Then stop being a slavery apologist.

CoolUsername:
Wrong, because Hitler was clearly opposed to atheism. Likewise, you've conveniently forgotten the part where I said that Nazis were evil in my opinion. You've also conveniently forgotten the religious violence we've faced throughout history. Look at Islamic terrorism in recent times, aren't these supposed to be people with 'objective morality'?

You are the wrong one here. Go and read up on Hitler's belief system; maybe you will forgive yourself for setting yourself up.
I did not forget you said the Nazis were evil in your opinion. My point is, your subjective moral opinion which does not trump another persons' (in this case, the Nazis) subjective morality. By that worldview, it would be tyrannical for you to impose judgement on the Nazi officers.

What do societal laws have to do with the way attitudes towards women and in extension, blacks? The changing attitudes are caused the change in societal laws. LGBT discrimination dropped to a minority BEFORE the law could have was passed. In fact, in a democratic system, your argument is completely wrong.

Maybe I should have used societal norms to represent both the laws and attitudes, since you weren't getting the point.
Not oppressing any human being is a moral absolute regardless of what the societal norms is. One can only measure the degree of conformity to that moral absolute.

I thought you said the Bible didn't condone slavery? Let me ask, which is worse: Rape at knifepoint or rape by sedation? Rape at knifepoint may be more traumatic but does that justify condoning rape by sedation? Why not just speak out against rape? Why not just speak out against slavery? Would you like to be subjected to treatment of slaves even back in Biblical times? Would you like it to happen to your son? Then stop being a slavery apologist.

@bolded, you did not get that from me? I'm sure if you go through my previous posts, you will see me saying slavery is bad. I did say the following as well:

Peter and the other apostles knew that slavery was wrong, but they also knew that it was better to conquer evil with good (Romans 12:21) than to commit evil in order to achieve good. That’s why Peter asks what good it does for a slave to commit evil against his master and then be beaten in return. At least when a slave is beaten for no good reason and does not respond with evil (in imitation of Christ, who endured similar abuses without retaliation), he will stand blameless before God (1 Peter 2:20)

If I go to preach the gospel to prisoners (even those on death row) on how they should be of good behaviour, it does not make me a supporter of the system that put the prisoners there. If the apostles were to be the judges, they will all receive mercy and forgiveness, but unfortunately they weren't.