₦airaland Forum

Discussions do not need to degenerate to the point of calling names or using pejoratives. One of the fruits of an astute mind is the ability to make cogent responses to the 'question' asked. it need never get to the point of calling names.

In my opinion there are two distinct questions being asked. The first is does the source of the money preclude the good it can do to the church. To answer the question, money is money, and can be used in a variety of ways. The source of the money does not ultimately preclude the good that the money can do. I can take funds from a drug dealer and build an orphanage, do the orphans care where the money comes from, of course not.

The second question is equally as easy to answer. You can not buy your way into heaven, inasmuch as you are faithful in your tithes and offerings, but have not been transformed by the renewing of your mind, this will not avail you of Heaven. God is not mocked, and one does not continue to sin that grace may abound. Even though the righteousness of man is like filthy rags before God, knowing fully well that none is righteous except HIM that be in Heaven, no amount of money can wipe your slate clean, only he can do that, which is why he says 'come, let us reason together, though your sins be red as scarlet, they will be made white as the driven snow'.

Ultimately, Christ came for the looters and the criminals, but once you commit yourself to his Kingdom, you can not remain the way you are, but you must instead 'seek ye first the kingdom of God and ALL of it's righteousness'...then you get everything else. But one that comes in sin, attempts to bribe his way into heaven, will ultimately depart in the sin and find himself removed from the glory of God...

What makes you think that the 'youth' as you so colloquially put it, have the answers...

This is a silly question...

My advice, don't bother. This is a uniquely personal journey, which you can not and should not legislate for others or undertake on their behalf...

This thread looks like it might have some meat on it, so with your indulgence I will posit my two cents worth. Indeed as you have alluded to in the question, the path to unravelling this conundrum would depend on the prism (philosophies if you like) through which we view these actions. Instead of taking each act individually, I will instead attempt to look at the questions through a sampling of disparate philosophical views.

Utilitarian Principle: This view looks to the utility (benefit) of the act, as opposed to the disbenefit to others. Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. The principle of utility is used to determine the validity of rules of conduct (moral principles). Under this rule, we can look at all the actions enunciated in your question and raise a simple query, what benefit does an individual derive by engaging in those acts, if the benefit of those actions are thought to outweigh the disbenefit to others, then under this principle we can argue that acts of bestiality (pleasure), prostitution (monetary gain) have a utility that should not be denied to the actor, as opposed to the disbenefit of disgust, moral concerns and the like. So the good of the few could outseigh the good of the many.

Social Contract: John Dunne said: 'no man is an island', within a social contract individuals give up a certain sense of that individuality in order to get along with others (this philosophy directly challenges Nietzche Superman Theory, which says One Man overall, or do what you think you can get away with, we won't discuss that here), so under this, even though there might be a utility to the actor, the greater good of society might not wanting you engaging in those actions. Let's take drugs, Society as a whole might feel that allowing an individual to engage in this might threaten the social fabric, might lead to anarchy and a rejection of social norms, whatever excuse you like. So under this philosophy as opposed to the Utilitarianism, the good of the many outweigh the 'needs' of the few. This is where you get into discussions of what the government should or should not do etcetera.

Hedonism: Do what you want, the search for pleaure, even through pain. This philosophy allows for anything, ultimately you exercise control over your own needs and wants, but this can also stretch to include others who consent to you using them to derive pleasure so ultimately getting pleasure is the only intrinsic 'good'.

Christian Philosophy: 'Don't you know, that your body is a temple', 'Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial', I believe that these two verses are the controlling texts that we need to focus on, in this final view point. Your body is a temple, ergo, what you do with it, must be pleasing to God, even though you are allowed to do anything, the context within which you do it, is as important as the act itself. You want to have sex, go ahead, just make sure it's with your spouse, you want to do drugs, by all means, just make sure that it is prescribed to cure an ill. You can't blaspheme or engage in bestiality because that is not the proper use of your body.

I could go on, but I will stop here, ultimately the answer to this question has already been answered for you, by and large, by your society, your upbringing and your own personal belief system.

This is still a silly thread...

Maybe Jonathan should do the same...

None...

Logicboy03: If he bigger question is about Africa, did you not notice that many posters here actually talked about Africas problems?

But I did, which is why I asked that we focus on that instead, the other question serves as a distraction and in no way fosters meaningful discourse. I started by saying we should agree to disagree on this issue, because comments that focus on the larger question actually move the conversation. Which is what you want as well...or am I wrong in this?

Start over...

This is a silly question...

This Thread is not being treated with the severity that the question demands. It is an important question, but it presumes and treats as given various positions that first need to be debated before any cohesive discourse can take place.

Dont be a smart azz.


What is this larger question?[/quote]I was not trying to be, but thank you for starting our conversation with a pejorative...the bigger question is Africa

ooman: Religion never searches for truth, it believes its the truth

It is a search...'be ye transformed by the renewing of your minds...'

Careytommy, let us not be deceived or just view this development as a 'mere' act. It carries resounding consequences. Catholic seers and protestant prophets alike have spoken about this. This just moves us closer to what we know is coming. In terms of time I cannot tell you, but we are poised for some shaking. The financial upheaval has moved the conversation of one currency closer, issues of identity theft will make RFDs and Chips the norm, biometric information is being demanded on almost all levels and soon this will be linked to our bank accounts, which will make money obsolete.

The Security Council in the UN is asking for greater control and a standing army which will move us closer to the police state, the media is sanitized and all information coming from them is information they want you to know as opposed to what you need to know. Our cultural and moral standing are being debated on a daily basis and the shift is not conservative but liberal, very liberal, in order words anything goes. Believers, trus believers are now the minority and many states and countries have laws that state that believers can be charged with hate crimes for speaking out against what are now accepted norms.

There is cooperation on the parts of governments that is unprecedented and is likely to continue, in truth the plans are in place and what we need is the trigger mechanism to make them all reality. This is chess my friend and the devil just said check.

Dude, what you've expressed is what every believer, at some point or the other wrestles with. It is comforting and I must applaud you that before you came to your conclusion you allowed yourself some time to research. I will not insult that effort by telling you it's flawed, rather I will state simply, that when I got to the point you obviously are, my research affirmed what I now know to be the Truth.

Do not be deceived, the Atheist and the Agnostic will ask you for proof and absent that tell you, you're wasting your time. It is howver interesting to note that the very thing that compels them not to believe is food and drink for the believer. I was listening to series of lectures given by Neil Degrasse Tyson, when he was speaking about "Unintelligent Design" and what he said was this: everything in this Universe is designed to kill us, the Sun's position is such that any slight movement would either freeze the Earth or roast it, there is a very delicate equilibrium in terms of the gases, any slight deviation and we all asphyxiate, every year the Earth is alost hit (and sometimes is) by meteors that could destroy it. He went on to say that we are not perfectly made and that a lot of our organs perform a dual fucntion which is not optimal.

What struck me most in his talks though, was something else he had said, he said that the difference between humans and the smartest primates was less thann one per cent, and yet that one per cent invented cars, gave us Mozart, sent us to the moon and done all these amazing things, he then said could you imagine what a one per cent difference from us could do. Whilst his argument was there was no such thing as intelligent design and ergo no such thing as God, I got a very different take away from it. We are at the mercy of something, we are precariously balanced, by his own argument we should have been struck by a multitude of disasters by now and yet, we are still here. We are made to praise Him, everything is a gift, if indeed we are careening through space blindly and the worst is a second away, why are we still here. With all his vaunted intellect NDT could not answer that.

Don't get bogged down by the trivialities, truth be told, the Earth is old, very very old, as a believer I am conversant and comfortable with Micro-Evolution, that doesn't test my faith in the least. As a believer I know that creation is ALL from a common stock. What I do not accept is the Chaos Theory, or the Argument of Chance. If you know where to look, you will see that prophecy is being fulfilled, you will see that what was spoken is now coming into being, you will see a falling away of the church, you will see the hubris of Man threatening his salvation.

Some will say it's all nonsense and so be it, everyone has to work out their own salvation, with fear and trembling. These are the last days and our common enemy is hard at work, using the hidden mysteries to test your belief whilst at the same time working hard to bring about what was prophesied. Do not be ignorant of the devices of the evil one, with discernment all the answers you need are around you.

Petrus Romanus, Peter of Rome is whom you speak of. The one whom the Prophecy says will legitimize the great deceiver.

Why don't you all just agree to disagree. There is a common need between Religion and Science, that none of the commentators on this thread seem to realize, and that need is a search for Truth. The starting points of both, however differ, whilst at the same time both claim to be able to achieve and define the mysteries of 'everything'.

The starting point of any Religion is 'faith', which by its very definition is antithetical to the starting point of Science. When you realize this, you realize that this exercise is pointless. Science will posit a theory, and for better or worse will work towards proving or disproving that theory, Religion accepts on 'faith', what science says must be proven, so why would you waste your time on this.

I am more of the opinion that there is a larger question being asked by the Thread itself, that we can concern ourselves with.