₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
Why should bad behaviour "not be condemned nor condoned"?
Are you blind?

Let's tackle who's blinded and deal with telling the truth, budaatum please answer these two questions now:

1/ Was there an advanced warning given by person in question, asking another person, not to, anymore, toe a particular line of action?
2/ Did the person in question,
inform this other person, of the serious consequences, if found to intentionally disregard or not pay attention to the cautionary advice given?

budaatum:
Do you not see it?

After answering the two questions above, do you see it now?

budaatum:
Are you mentally incapable of deciding what to "condemn or condone"?

Do you condemn or condone the action of the aggressor,
who was beforehand warned of what woe will betide him/her, if he/her continues with the unwelcomed and/or unappreciated line of action?

budaatum:
Or did you not learn humpty dumpty?
Disgraceful you, yes wriggler.

You still are comapring apples with oranges
Remind me of some of humpty dumpty's famous wise sayings

budaatum:
Wasn't your wriggle that I did not even qualify to be in this thread not to talk of comment because, buda does "not believe in Jesus!"

Now you wriggle with "no one is allowed to decide if bad behaviour should be "condemned or condoned".

This is a disgraceful double travesty of comments

You not only double travestied comments but also incorrectly attribute someone else comment as mine

Why dont you reproduce the original posts contextually here
I seem to recall, I was minding my business with shaybebaby,
then you jumped in, to out of proportion, reply to a comment directed not at you but was at shaybebaby

Same thing that happened with flamingRed and HardMirror
flamingRed sent HardMirror a warning address
we all saw how dalaman, took it upon himself, to reply to flamingRed's comment and post addressed not to him but to HardMirror

budaatum:
Bo ya omo kekere ni iwo se ti iwo ko fi mo eyi ti o da yatosi eyi ti ko da.
Ni ta wa, 'Agba ki wa li oja ki ori omo tuntun ru iwe".
Translate please.

No, "Ni ta wa, Ẹni to ya igbẹ, lo ma ko igbẹ ẹ, fun ara rẹ"
Loosely translated means
"No, as for us, you do, your translating yourself, if you crap on yourself, you without assistance, clean yourself up"

Though johnydon22 is much much younger to you, it was him I reached out to concerning
"Agba ki wa li oja ki ori omo tuntun ru iwe"
Here is the link
https://www.nairaland.com/4538134/mental-disorder-called-atheism-must/8#68149349
Tell me what you think of the content in the link

budaatum:
I grew up in Lagos, and never had to shout at "area boy" by the way.
Some were my mates for Christ sake, so why would we be shouting at one another?
And especially at me, buda?

There you, again, go travestying my comment
Where and when did you read, shout at, in any of the posts about "area boys"?

There are certain style of language and mannerisms that an "area boy" will only understand
That style of language and mannerisms is the only thing they understand and that will or can SUBDUE them

budaatum:
Try respecting "area boy" for a change, muttley.
You'd be amazed what you'd reap in return.

God bless you real good for this comment
Why not trial it
Try respecting "area boy" opposites, here on this thread and elsewhere in the Religion section, for a change
You'd be amazed what you'd reap in return
You'd reap blessings and not curses
You'd reap well wishes and not death wish

dalaman:
Obgeni, keep your dishonesty aside and learn to stand for something. You always claim that atheist say that morality is subjective and you say it is false. Now that you have the chance to show that morality is objective you ate crying and talking complete nonsense. Is morality objective? Show us how it is or keep quiet.

I don't have the chance for anything and I didn't say I wanted to show anything since you want to now throw a red herring after I have taken you to the cleaners. Lmao

The whole issue about subjectivity began when I wanted to show you that you have no right to accuse anyone for anything as an atheist because you hold a subjective morality and as such is personalized. So you support the notion that each individual is free to do or act in a way that makes him happy FIRST before the society.

That is subjective morality. It is PERSONAL FIRST before SOCIETY.

hopefulLandlord:
The morals Christians preach today have been greatly influenced by science, enlightenment and common sense. That's why you'll notice there are things Christians consider normal today that were considered abnormal and heretic/blasphemous before and "normal" Christian behaviors of the next centuries would be seen as heretic by present christians!

There was a thread on FP about MFM in UK and US allowing women to wear trousers. this is the same church that preaches against such in Nigeria with fire and Brimstones. Deeper Lifers see the immorality in Winners and Christ Embassy's dressings but all of them would not only swear morality is absolute and objective but they would claim that they have the objective morality aligns with them. The Yahweh of deeper life who dictates objective morality says women shouldn't wear tight fitting clothes, cover their hair, not wear makeups, not use wigs/attachments while the Yahweh of Christ Embassy who also dictates objective morality says its okay for women to wear tight fitting clothes, leave hair uncovered, use makeups, fix hair and wear wigs
If that doesn't scream of subjectivity I wonder what will

This "god of morality" is nothing but an empty man made symbol that believers use to hide their own subjectivity, their own moral values and their own intentions so they then can judge others with impunity from a pretended "superior and objective moral standpoint" as if they weren't the ones actually judging everybody else. They just PRETEND they aren't the ones actually dictating and imposing what is moral and what isn't. Also, there is absolutely NOTHING objective about some invisible immaterial guy in the sky with superpowers that works in mysterious ways dictating "moral values". Its easy to scream "Objective morality exists" just like its easy to scream "Unicorns, Minotaurs, Yahweh, Allan, Vishnu exists" but demonstrating it exists is the hard part. any damn fool can claim anything

Ergo: Theistic morality is subjective morality presented as objective

You've done justice to the nonsense Butterflyleo was saying about Christian objective morality.

The various sects within Christianity do not even have the same view on morality. A deeper life views a lady not covering her hair and applying too much make up as immoral but a christ embassy doesn't see it as such.

A woman can not preach or become a priest in a Catholic church , it is immoral but she can be a pastor and preach living faith church.

Butterflyleo:
I don't have the chance for anything and I didn't say I wanted to show anything since you want to now throw a red herring after I have taken you to the cleaners. Lmao

The whole issue about subjectivity began when I wanted to show you that you have no right to accuse anyone for anything as an atheist because you hold a subjective morality and as such is personalized. So you support the notion that each individual is free to do or act in a way that makes him happy FIRST before the society.

That is subjective morality. It is PERSONAL FIRST before SOCIETY.

Your lies will not kill you.

When did I support the notion that each individual is free to do what he or she likes or what makes them happy first before society?

I told you that no matter how you want to marry 4 wives in Sweden you can't do that legally and morally. No matter how you want to own a gun in Nigeria you can not do it legally and morally. You don't want to touch my points instead you just create things I am not even saying and making empty commentaries on the.


If morality is not objective how have you shown that it is objective. You don't want to touch it because you know very well that morality is not objective and you have nothing to show that it is.

dalaman:
Yiuve done justice to the nonsense Butterflyleo was saying about Christian objective morality.

The various sects within Christianity do not even have the same view on morality. A deeper life views a lady not covering her hair and applying too much make up as immoral but a christ embassy doesn't see it as such.

A woman can not preach or become a priest in a Catholic church , it is immoral but she can be a pastor and preach living faith church.

You still don't get it. Each of those examples you just gave are not subjective but are all based on one common denominator and that is THE BIBLE.

EVERY ONE OF WHAT THEY DO COMES FROM AN ALREARY EXISTING MORAL FOUNDATION WHOSE THRUST IS JESUS.

Can you now say they act OUTSIDE what is found in the bible?

If your answer is no then how then are they being subjective when their foundation is not based on a personal view but their view is already set for them scripturaly and all they are doing is working with it.

True or false

Anas09:
I am in Christ and Christ is in me. And i am seated in heavenly places far above the demons you worship and authority has been given to me to command them and they'd do as i say.

All i need do is be right before YHWH, i'll petition His throne by summoning you there, an Angel will be released to do what i request. Most of you are dead already, it's a matter of time.

Commanding your demons against you is easy.

I didn't know demons worked for you though. That is dark.

You are gradually moving over to the dark side. Lol

dalaman:
Your lies will not kill you.

When did I support the notion that each individual is free to do what he or she likes or what makes them happy first before society?

I told you that no matter how you want to marry 4 wives in Sweden you can't do that legally and morally. No matter how you want to own a gun in Nigeria you can not do it legally and morally. You don't want to touch my points instead you just create things I am not even saying and making empty commentaries on the.


If morality is not objective how have you shown that it is objective. You don't want to touch it because you know very well that morality is not objective and you have nothing to show that it is.

You don't have to say it or support it. The very definition of subjectivity clearly says so

subjectivity
noun
the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

It clearly says its FEELINGS, TASTES AND OPINIONS are BASED ON AND INFLUENCED BY THE INDIVIDUAL and not society.

That means that its INDIVIDUAL FIRST BEFORE SOCIETY. So this means if I had a subjective morality, then my happiness or comfort comes first before society.

Do you deny the very definition?

shaybebaby:
Oh I have, I'm mostly a silent reader. Just a bit bored today so thought I'd join in the fray.

There is too much negativity here that is totally unhealthy, that is why I don't find such engagement attractive

Anas09:
Yes it is, and that fact will keep eluding you.

How can it elude me when I was the one that pointed it out?

johnydon22:
You don't expect me to read every comment here, do you?

I skip through and read only ones from monikers I'm interested in.

I and Anas friend outside nairaland so imagine my disappointment seeing her in such puerile mud.

I didn't see Frank's comment but non the less saying he killed his wife is inconsiderate, insensitive and wicked.

I too, I am friends with a lot outside NL,
we meet, yarn, help each other out, talk and play with each other outside NL

johnydon22, I once shared the language I used that got me out, when cornered with a snarling menacing dog in a dead alley
There are certain style of language and mannerisms that an "area boy" will only understand
That style of language and mannerisms is the only thing they understand and that will or can SUBDUE them
It's the only style of language and mannerisms that will make them keep their distance or make them properly behave

johnydon22:
Now I have seen the comment in the link you shared, you can compare both?

All Anas did (so called retaliation) was affirm his judgement by throwing out such blatantly insensitive comment that I still maintain is wicked and dark..

C'mon johnydon22, I hold you in more esteem that this

The fact is taken onboard, that you're unable to read every comment
or that its impossible for anyone to read all or every comments in the Religion section
however in light of what has been brought to your attention,
why are you shirking from answering the question:
"who do think is jivving first and stirring up the hornets' nest in the above link?"

Butterflyleo:
subjectivity
noun
the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

objective
adjective
(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

What are the many versions of CHRISTIANITY?

What do they all have in common?

Is their morality self determined or based on what they have in common?

That is how you would know why they are not subjective.

Children should learn to shut their mouths when unable to think well enough to engage adults. Shut up and learn.

Is christian morality based on facts? Ogbeni, even christianity hangs on subjective morality.

Go and sleep

Butterflyleo:
You still don't get it. Each of those examples you just gave are not subjective but are all based on one common denominator and that is THE BIBLE.

EVERY ONE OF WHAT THEY DO COMES FROM AN ALREARY EXISTING MORAL FOUNDATION WHOSE THRUST IS JESUS.

Can you now say they act OUTSIDE what is found in the bible?

If your answer is no then how then are they being subjective when their foundation is not based on a personal view but their view is already set for them scripturaly and all they are doing is working with it.

True or false

They are subjective because of they were objective , then they will be the same for all Christians. All Christians will see it the same way.

So which one is the true biblical position? That women can apply make up , wear trousers and leave their hair open and go to church and even become pastors dressed that way or that women should always cover their hair, can not wear trousers and make up and can not become pastors. Which is the true bi local position because if it is objective it won't be a subject of debate.

What is Jesus position on this and which one should be the foundation for Christians?

hopefulLandlord:
The morals Christians preach today have been greatly influenced by science, enlightenment and common sense. That's why you'll notice there are things Christians consider normal today that were considered abnormal and heretic/blasphemous before and "normal" Christian behaviors of the next centuries would be seen as heretic by present christians!

There was a thread on FP about MFM in UK and US allowing women to wear trousers. this is the same church that preaches against such in Nigeria with fire and Brimstones. Deeper Lifers see the immorality in Winners and Christ Embassy's dressings but all of them would not only swear morality is absolute and objective but they would claim that they have the objective morality and it aligns with them. The Yahweh of deeper life who dictates objective morality says women shouldn't wear tight fitting clothes, cover their hair, not wear makeups, not use wigs/attachments while the Yahweh of Christ Embassy who also dictates objective morality says its okay for women to wear tight fitting clothes, leave hair uncovered, use makeups, fix hair and wear wigs. talk about creating god in your own image
If that doesn't scream of subjectivity I wonder what will

This "god of morality" is nothing but an empty man made symbol that believers use to hide their own subjectivity, their own moral values and their own intentions so they then can judge others with impunity from a pretended "superior and objective moral standpoint" as if they weren't the ones actually judging everybody else. They just PRETEND they aren't the ones actually dictating and imposing what is moral and what isn't. Also, there is absolutely NOTHING objective about some invisible immaterial guy in the sky with superpowers that works in mysterious ways dictating "moral values". Its easy to scream "Objective morality exists" just like its easy to scream "Unicorns, Minotaurs, Yahweh, Allan, Vishnu exists" but demonstrating it exists is the hard part. any damn fool can claim anything objectively exists but it still needs to be demonstrated and I can assert that Christianity has we see it doesn't have anything pointing to objective morality

Ergo: Theistic morality is subjective morality presented as objective

I wish butterfly and his cohorts could understand this! this is why I asked him if christian morality is based on facts for him to call it "objective".

Your summary in bold nails it "Ergo: Theistic morality is subjective morality presented as objective"

dalaman:
They are subjective because of they were objective , then they will be the same for all Christians. All Christians will see it the same way.

So which one is the true biblical position? That women can apply make up , wear trousers and leave their hair open and go to church and even become pastors dressed that way or that women should always cover their hair, can not wear trousers and make up and can not become pastors. Which is the true bi local position because if it is objective it won't be a subject of debate.

What is Jesus position on this and which one should be the foundation for Christians?

You are simply devoid of any form of logical weight.

Women wearing trousers or not are all found in scripture WHICH IS AN ALREADY GIVEN AND EXISTING FOUNDATION.

This makes it objective in nature and not self derived out of thin air by anyone. The mere fact that you said BIBLICAL POSITION even in your comment above shows that it has an already existing foundation.

You are now trying to use a red herring to shift me from further using you to wipe the floor.

Nice try but kolewerk.

Butterflyleo:
You are simply devoid of any form of logical weight.

Women wearing trousers or not are all found in scripture WHICH IS AN ALREADY GIVEN AND EXISTING FOUNDATION.

This makes it objective in nature and not self derived out of thin air by anyone.

You are now trying to use a red herring to shift me from further using you to wipe the floor.

Nice try but kolewerk.

Please, quote the scripture that says women should not wear trousers

superhumanist:
Is christian morality based on facts? Ogbeni, even christianity hangs on subjective morality.

Go and sleep

This is why I keep telling you to shut up and learn and stop showing off your inability to reason.

Christianity is based on facts. Facts can be personal or universal.

Those are the two kinds of facts.

Personal facts and universal facts.

If you were thinking that facts is one kind then like I said, shut up and learn.

Butterflyleo:
You don't have to say it or support it. The very definition of subjectivity clearly says so

subjectivity
noun
the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

It clearly says its FEELINGS, TASTES AND OPINIONS are BASED ON AND INFLUENCED BY THE INDIVIDUAL and not society.

That means that its INDIVIDUAL FIRST BEFORE SOCIETY. So this means if I had a subjective morality, then my happiness or comfort comes first before society.

Do you deny the very definition?

You see how you tell lies to yourself all the time abi? Am talking about subjective morality and you are busy with the WORD subjective, as if subjective means subjective morality. Subjective morality and the word subjective are not the same thing.
Subjective morality means all value judgements are subjective.

While objective morality means morality is based ob value judgment of some kind, and it must exist apart from human valuations and be immune to them. Thus, it would apply to all humans all the time regardless of what any human thinks about the particular moral issue.

There is no moral issue that meets those requirements at all.

Lying isn't wrong objectively.

The Muslims that hid Christians and lied to ISIS that came hunting them in Iraq few years ago that they didnt know where they were did the right thing. The lies they told was right, if they had told ISIS that came hunting them the truth they would have killed them.

Even keeping your promise is not objectively right or wrong.

If I make a promise to a gun lover to buy him a gun as his birthday present and I get to know that he was planning on using the gun for a mass shooting, the right thing to do is to break my promise in that case and I will do the moral a d right thing.

These are the issues but you don't want to touch it, you prefer writing me meaningless commentaries always.

Butterflyleo:
You keep saying what is THE BIBLICAL POSITION? Without seeing that you already declared that there is an already given position or foundation which therefore makes anything done by a christian in line with that which has already been given as objective.

If there is a foundation and position as you've said then why are people holding conflicting positions? Why are they not holding a single position if there is only one foundation?

superhumanist:
Please, quote the scripture that says women should not wear trousers

Red herring.

Not going to take the bait. Read my OP again, I am not ignorant of your devices. I will be the one to choose what I wish to engage you on and I am also the one to choose when to disengage.

Your baits have been rendered useless.

dalaman:
Ogbeni what is the biblical position? If it is objective then why are Christians holding different positions on it? What are you saying sef?

You keep saying what is THE BIBLICAL POSITION? Without seeing that you already declared that there is an already given position or foundation which therefore makes anything done by a christian in line with that which has already been given as objective.

MuttleyLaff:
There are certain style of language and mannerisms that an "area boy" will only understand
That style of language and mannerisms is the only thing they understand and that will or can SUBDUE them
It's the only style of language and mannerisms that will make them keep their distance or make them properly behave

Really?

I didn't grow up in Lagos then so I'm unfamiliar with this.

I grew up in Igbo land we'd rather say "If a mad man slaps you while naked, don't chase after him naked too or you'd be presumed mad"

I'd rather live according to that.

C'mon johnydon22, I hold you in more esteem that this

ok

The fact is taken onboard, that you're unable to read every comment
or that its impossible for anyone to read all or every comments in the Religion section
however in light of what has been brought to your attention,
why are you shirking from answering the question:
"who do think is jivving first and stirring up the hornets' nest in the above link?"

I have read the link and I still maintain that Frank's comment was not enough to bring up such dark, wicked reply from Anas.

Understand this: I'm not interested in who threw the jive first.

If she had replied with an insult I won't even care, after all that's basically what this thread is about from page 0 to page 12.

I do not care.

Saying he was responsible for killing his wife is tat above normal insult, its dark and connotes a terribly bitter and dark mind to spin out such vile.

If you don't find anything wrong with her obviously insensitive reply then its good.

I'm done sir.

dalaman:
You see how you tell lies to yourself all the time abi? Am talking about subjective morality and you are busy with the WORD subjective, as if subjective means subjective morality. Subjective morality and the word subjective are not the same thing.
Subjective morality means all value judgements are subjective.

While objective morality means morality is based ob value judgment of some kind, and it must exist apart from human valuations and be immune to them. Thus, it would apply to all humans all the time regardless of what any human thinks about the particular moral issue.

There is no moral issue that meets those requirements at all.

Lying isn't wrong objectively.

The Muslims that hid Christians and lied to ISIS that came hunting them in Iraq few years ago that they didnt know where they were did the right thing. The lies they told was right, if they had told ISIS that came hunting them the truth they would have killed them.

Even keeping your promise is not objectively right or wrong.

If I make a promise to a gun lover to buy him a gun as his birthday present and I get to know that he was planning on using the gun for a mass shooting, the right thing to do is to break my promise in that case and I will do the moral a d right thing.

These are the issues but you don't want to touch it, you prefer writing me meaningless commentaries always.

My God see rape of intelligence on display

Subjective morality is the perspective that moral claims don't really have a truth value

Not having a truth value means it has no existing determinable foundation but its truths are individually determined and valued.

Once you have the word SUBJECTIVE before MORALITY the meaning speaks for itself especially when subjective is already defined as

subjective
adjective
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Please stop bombarding me with unintelligence.

dalaman:
If there is a foundation and position as you've said then why are people holding conflicting positions? Why are they not holding a single position if there is only one foundation?

There are no conflicting positions. ALL THE POSITIONS YOU CALL CONFLICTING ALL ARE FOUND IN SCRIPTURE. true or false?

johnydon22:
Really?
I didn't grow up in Lagos then so I'm unfamiliar with this.
I grew up in Igbo land

I bet you do "ajebutter" or form phonetics with garage or area boys in Igbo land

johnydon22:
we'd rather say
"If a mad man slaps you while naked, don't chase after him naked too or you'd be presumed mad"

I'd rather live according to that.

When craze man see pesin wey adopt craze, wey pass hin own craze ooo,
hin go whistle, sit up straight and reset hin mad man brain back to normal
and let every body live happily ever after

johnydon22:
ok

Take it to bank,
or frame it up to put on your mantle piece

johnydon22:
I have read the link and I still maintain that Frank's comment was not enough to bring up such dark, wicked reply from Anas

That's not the point johnydon22
We are talking about the present, not the past.
The point is why did Frank have to bring on to this thread something that happened on another long dead buried and forgotten about thread?

johnydon22:
Understand this: I'm not interested in who threw the jive first

Was asking you to be honest
and not asking whether you're interested or not
Why did he have to bring on to this thread something that happened on another dead and buried thread?

johnydon22:
If she had replied with an insult I won't even care, after all that's basically what this thread is about from page 0 to page 12.
I do not care.
Saying he was responsible for killing his wife is tat above normal insult, its dark and connotes a terribly bitter and dark mind to spin out such vile.
If you don't find anything wrong with her obviously insensitive reply then its good

Considering the build up and circumstances that led to the drastic measure now put up as exhibits in the public gallery of this kangaroo court,
it would not be condemned nor condoned
just as you, budadatum et al are not ready to see anything out of place with how dalama quoted flamingREED's previous above double quotes warning, addressed to HardMirror
and not only taking panadol for another's headache but replying back to it, using bitter and abusive language.

johnydon22:
I'm done sir.

Weh done sir.
Run along my dear sire

M0ron:
Coward,
Don’t argue, reason with them instead

Trust me, there's no reasoning with those guys, they will just turn it into an unprofitable and unenlightening argument

Butterflyleo:
Not from my standpoint it is not. That is why Christianity is against subjectivity because morality should have a general foundation worldwide and it is only when it is so that we can actually talk about being completely right or completely wrong because we cannot be that way if we are right in one country and wrong in another. That is not a good litmus test for righteousness so we as Christians work with Objective morality where the foundation is ONE.

Are you saying that while morality is determined by subjective people as a function of their time, you just refuse to accept that fact and chose to take your morality from people ofa distint specific point in time and no other?

budaatum:
Are you saying that while morality is determined by subjective people as a function of their time, you just refuse to accept that fact and chose to take your morality from people ofa distint specific point in time and no other?

Your opinion.

What I am saying is that my morality has a truth value which has already been preset for me to follow and not one I created for myself.

For me, Morality is not determined by me but something/ someone who was here long before I was and this morality is futuristic and not ancient because the very moral fabrics of today and the future are sewn into it.

johnydon22:
There is too much negativity here that is totally unhealthy, that is why I don't find such engagement attractive

This particular one for example, yes but there are others that are quite illuminating.

As for this one, the op and his cohorts are like religious agberos (touts)

Butterflyleo:
Individuals present INDIVIDUAL ideas of morality before any is adopted by a society. THE SOURCE FOR SUCH MORAL THOUGHT OR MORAL ADOPTIONS COME FROM INDIVIDUALS.

This is common sense.

So, subjective individuals create morals? So morality is subjective, right?

Butterflyleo:
Your opinion.

What I am saying is that my morality has a truth value which has already been preset for me to follow and not one I created for myself.

For me, Morality is not determined by me but something/ someone who was here long before I was and this morality is futuristic and not ancient because the very moral fabrics of today and the future are sewn into it.

So, you are saying that while morals are subjective, your morality is preset by "something/ someone who was here long before" you?

budaatum:
So, you are saying that while morals are subjective, your morality is preset by "something/ someone who was here long before" you?

Morals are not subjective if they have already been preset.

budaatum:
So, subjective individuals create morals? So morality is subjective, right?

Wrong!