₦airaland Forum

Anas09:
Really? I contradicted myself?

You still didn't read the passages i quoted, or maybe you have comprehension issurs.

She freed herself from the ways of Moab and it's gods and clung to the God of Naomi the Israelitess woman.

Anyways. I don't think i want to go into this. Believe what you want.

You don't have to go into it but if you do then I'll have to insist that saying Moab was under a 'perpetual uncleanness' is contradicted when you say that Ruth chose to follow the God of Boaz and so the uncleanness was lifted.

You are trying to force Ruth out of the curse of Moab by inventing doctrines. There is nowhere where it states that the curse was lifted off Ruth because she chose to follow Boaz' God.

Anas09:
Are you sure you read what i posted? Go back and read, this time slowly.

Okay, I've read it all now. All you've done there is totally contradict yourself.

Are Moabites 'pertually unclean' or can their 'uncleanness' be revoked.

Maybe it is not you, maybe it is the bible itself that is just demonstrating another example from it's morass of contradictions.

But let us not just blame the bible because in this case you are clearly adding your own jara to the bible.

I do not recall anywhere where Ruth freed herself from a curse despite her devotion to Boaz and his God.

Anas09:
God Commanded that no Israelite shd ever marry from those Nations. Moab and Ammon.

And, God said none of them should ever come into his presence becos they were perpertually unclean.

Abeg, where did the ancestress of the precious King David come from? Nor be Moab?

KingEbukasBlog:
I get what you mean bro but this didn't address the question .

I mean looking at the timeline of human evolution , we did gain emotions - anger , love , hatred , joy etc . So the question is : Did we lose some emotions , or are we expected to lose emotions as time goes on . The same way some features like tails , large forehead , large teeth were lost . Or are they important evolutionary needs for our survival . You dig ?

I get you, I think. You are asking if we can evolve out of feeling emotions.

The honest answer is 'I don't know'. Your original question was whether evolution Theories could explain why we have certain emotions. I hope I answered that to your satisfaction.
What will subsequently happen down the line is as much a mystery to me as it probably is to you.

KingEbukasBlog:
Is it possible for us to lose our emotions ? Are there some emotions that were lost possibly in the past ? You lose and gain features over aeons right ?

I'm not even sure if the above is the answer to the question you were asking or not. I don't think I fully understood your question.

KingEbukasBlog:
Is it possible for us to lose our emotions ? Are there some emotions that were lost possibly in the past ? You lose and gain features over aeons right ?

It is possible for a person to momentarily lose an emotional state, yes.

When you talk about emotions you have to be very careful because there are some quite different things that get lumped together and conflated as emotions.

For example some people conflate Basic Urges with secondary emotions.
I'll explain. I may feel an irresistible urge to talk to my sister. This drives me to pick up the phone and call her number. However there are 2 possible emotional outcomes from this. Either I talk to her and the Urge is gratified leaving me feeling happy and satisfied.
Or I miss her and can't talk leaving me feeling frustrated and angry.

Anger, Happiness, Satisfaction etc are emotional states that are products of the gratification or frustration of more Basic urges.

Many people see the urges as an emotion, and the final result as an emotion too. But they are two very different though interacting things.

Urges come and go. And depending on whether we can gratify them or frustrate them the secondary emotions come and go too.

KingEbukasBlog:
Hmm . So bro , how does evolution explain embarrassment , shame and humiliation ?

So Evolution has many gimmicks for favouring the species that it wants to favour. It makes some run fast. It gives some strength. It gives some wings to fly. etc etc etc.

Another one of these gimmicks that it gives some species is Society. Some species are social animals. Their evolutionary advantage comes from their ability to form and organise as societies. Wolf packs that hunt together have a better chance of success than a lone wolf.

Homo sapiens sapiens is probably the most successful at using sociability to advance. Almost Everything that gives humans an advantage over other species comes from our abilities to form and organise societies. Social organisation is probably our foremost advantage. Within these societies we accumulate knowledge and information and pass it on as a society from one generation to another.

Now how do Societies work? Obviously we are all independent individuals so what is it that compels us to band together in societies? Evolution has developed in us a need for social contact and those that are better at managing and maintaining social interactions are rewarded.

What are the inclinations that help our social interactions? We need to have a good sense for social norms, and also social status. Embarassment Shame and Humiliation (all social phenomena) are emotions that we try to avoid by conforming to social mores. If we didn't feel Shame our Social instinct would be diminished and as a species we wouldn't be as successful.

Is it possible that the slaughter of the Lamb was a bigger event than just a redeeming act for Sins.

Perhaps the slaughter of the Lamb was the very act of Creation itself. ie. No Slaughther, nothing to base/found the universe on.

KingEbukasBlog:
Hmm . So bro , how does evolution explain embarrassment , shame and humiliation ?

I'll come back for this tomorrow morning. I was going to answer tonight but I've spent the last hour trying to log in to nl and my time is used up.

Bros, You won't believe that some yeye moderator banned me for calling a buffoon a buffoon. O ma se o! and to even create another username to continue is so stressful. I swear e go easy pass to enter Fort Knox than to start a Nairaland account.

shadeyinka:
Hi My Friend
Deliberately, I removed the effect of inbreeding from my presentation because it is a scientific fact that inbreeding destroys the vigour and strength of a biological being.

I wanted to look at it purely from moral point of view.

If civilization has to do with living a reasonable, productive social life and conduct agreed as binding to a community. (Note that not all civilizations are good AND the term reasonable, productive are relative).

Relative to our current civilization, would inclusion of incest as part of societal norm improve our current civilization or destroy it?

The question follows the fact that
1. The average Theist reject totally incest on moral ground
2. The average Atheist (may not approve of incest) but sees nothing immoral/evil about it except it violates the right of others or hurts others.

Morality cannot be separated from scientific fact. If it became a scientific fact tomorrow that slapping your wife thrice in succession will cause her bank account to expand by millions then such an act will become very commendable.

So you cannot separate the outcome of an act from the moral appraisal of it.

Morality covers everything and encompasses everything so there is no such thing as a purely moral point of view. Although I can understand that a xtian would look at morality as just something that God requires rather than make a personal appraisal of what he believes is the value of an action based on the action itself.

Your definitions of civilisation are so blatantly and unabashedly self contradictory. You say not all civilisations are good, but you are asking about whether an act is Good for a civilisation. If the civilisation is evil nko? and the act destroys the civilisation, would that make the act a good act.

And you're right, a lot of the terms you use, like productive, are relative.

What do you mean when you say that theist reject incest on moral grounds? Are you saying that they don't actually see what is wrong with it, but only reject it because the bible told them to reject it?

There would be my problem, and a problem that many atheists accuse religious people of. The fact that religion seems to require you to suspend any personal independent moral thought of your own and just follow the religion. It is like a child that has used calculator all his life and can no longer do simple 22 divided by 7. What to most others would be as simple as pie.

By absolving it's followers of moral thought xtianity actually makes them become morally decrepit. We see the evidence for this in Nigeria.