₦airaland Forum

IsraeliAIRFORCE:
This is a testament to the fact that politicians are not the government; institutions are.

Children on Nairaland who know nothing about the workings of a functional system will say something to prove they are always third-world citizens.

Keep quiet. Imagine Tinubu suing Nigerian govt for withholding Lagos State funds when he was governor and the finance ministry then decide to settle the case out of court by awarding Lagos State 38 billion naira as compensation.

Yeah I'm sure such decision will sound right in the eyes of hypocrites like u.


Don't worry, the next northern president will sue his own govt for the unlawful killing of Fulani militia and his govt will then settle Fulani militia with 1.8 trillion naira as compensation.

Radarada. Some people have completely lost their mind.

Explore2xmore:
When historians study ancient texts, they apply consistent criteria: authorship attribution, compositional history, canon formation, and transmission reliability. Applied evenhandedly across the Abrahamic scriptures, those criteria produce materially different results.
The New Testament faces the greatest cumulative challenges. The Gospels are formally anonymous the names attached to them derive from later ecclesiastical tradition, not from the texts themselves. The dominant model in Synoptic scholarship, Markan priority, establishes literary dependence among the Synoptics, meaning the four Gospel accounts are not fully independent eyewitness narratives in the way popular apologetics frequently claims. Canon formation extended over several centuries with significant regional variation, and disputes over individual books continued well into the fourth century. The manuscript tradition is the most pluriform of the three Abrahamic corpora. Scholars including Bart Ehrman and Eldon Epp have documented harmonization, theological smoothing, and scribal modification across manuscript families. The text is not unrecoverable, but it is reconstructed through comparative analysis of divergent manuscript traditions rather than preserved through a singular controlled transmission line. Those are meaningfully different things.
The Hebrew Bible presents a stronger initial structure. Its internal transmission narrative is coherent one named mediator, one foundational national event, one law given to one people. The Masoretic tradition eventually achieved extraordinarily disciplined scribal regularization. But the tradition carries complications that honest analysis cannot set aside. The Dead Sea Scrolls permanently altered scholarly understanding of Second Temple textuality. Emanuel Tov's foundational work demonstrated the coexistence of proto-Masoretic, proto-Septuagintal, proto-Samaritan and mixed textual forms prior to standardization. The Masoretic Text represents a later stage of stabilization, not the endpoint of a singular unbroken transmission. Internal biblical testimony compounds this further. Jeremiah 8:8 records concerns about scribal mediation from within the tradition's own pages. The rediscovery narrative in 2 Kings 22 is treated by most critical scholars as evidence of late Deuteronomistic redaction rather than faithful recovery of an ancient original.
One tradition presents a structurally different profile. Research by François Déroche, Nicolai Sinai, Fred Donner and Harald Motzki consistently describes comparatively early stabilization of the consonantal text within the first Islamic century; a compressed chronological horizon relative to the originating prophetic period. Canonical reading traditions and early manuscript phenomena confirm that variation exists. But the range of divergence is assessed in comparative scholarship as substantially narrower than that observed in the New Testament manuscript tradition or in the pre-Masoretic textual plurality of the Hebrew Bible. Preservation was reinforced through parallel written codification and oral transmission operating independently of each other, a structural redundancy neither of the other two traditions possesses in the same form.
Several qualifications apply and they matter. Transmission integrity and divine origin are separate categories. Historical criticism cannot adjudicate revelation. A text may be well preserved yet false, or theologically meaningful independent of textual uniformity. No serious historian conflates preservation with truth.
But the narrower historical question is answerable. Which Abrahamic scripture presents the strongest documented profile of source proximity, canon stabilization, transmission control and manuscript consistency when identical criteria are applied across all three traditions without special pleading? The comparative scholarly literature points consistently in one direction. And the distance between the strongest and weakest cases is not a matter of degree. It is a matter of kind.

As we can see, u finally exposed your hidden agenda when u initially claimed your argument has nothing to with Islam.

To u and your fellow Muslims, your claim on early preservation and chain of narration falls apart if the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FIRST CHAIN OF NARRATION CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED. THE CHAIN OF NARRATION BETWEEN mormor AND ANGEL JIBRIL.

There's no independent attestation or any eye witness that can confirm mormor spoke to any angel. not his wives or his companions could confirm this encounter despite being with him for 27 years of your prophet speaking to angel jibril.

Every prophet sent by God with a new or transformative message had independent eye witness that attested to the supernatural encounter btw God and the prophet.

70 leaders of Israel witnessed Moses meeting with God on mount Sinai.
exodus 24
9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

Peter confirmed they witnessed the Father speaking to Jesus during the transfiguration.
2 Peter
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”[b] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

Mormor cannot be said to be a prophet along the line of ancient prophets if he had no eye witness to validate his supernatural claim. For all we know, it could be devised stories, dreams, trance or hallucinations. Unless we have someone telling us these encounters were true, then the validity of Islvm as a true religion falls apart. Even the Quran mormor brought didn't state any angel spoke to mormor.

MindHacker9009:
@SIRTee15

I will put it to you again:
Why would a Jew declare someone who calls himself the Son of God to be the Christ without first exploring the religion for himself, but instead choosing to explore other faiths in Israel and then choosing to live as a Pharisee, instead of becoming a follower of your Christus?

Joseph never wrote Jesus is the messiah. The word Christ in the writing u are quoting as been deemed an interpolation by historical scholars.

The Arabic version of Josephus testimonium do not have the word Christ.

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.



So if your argument is based on Josephus calling Jesus Christ and he not being a Christian. That has already been resolved within the academic circles.

MindHacker9009, explain to me how a Jewish historian did not write about disruptive events that happened during his lifetime in Judea but expect him to write about a rabbi who preached repentance and simple message of God's kingdom.

Did he write about Simon of Peraea who declared himself king of the Jews after the death of Herod the great in 4 bce. Simon led an army against the Roman legion to defend his kingship claim. Simon burnt down palaces and led his army as far as Jericho.

philo was very much active that time. Why didn't he write about his events. Even Tacitus wrote about Simon of Peraea.

Did he even write about the samaritan prophet who claimed to be the prophet spoken about by Moses and led a rebellion against Pontus Pilate in 38 AD.
This Samaritan prophet eventually submitted to Simon Agabus who was written about in the book of Acts.

@MindHacker 9009

Jewish historian wrote about Jesus...Josephus.

So this your so called expert Historian wrote about contemporary Jewish events in the early 1st century AD but did not write anything at all about the riots that rocked Judea and Jerusalem during his time.
Did not write anything about all the Messiah claimants including those that raised an army against the Roman govt.

Jesus wasnt the only person who claimed to be Messiah and was killed. Did he write about other ones like Judas of Gamala who told Jews not to pay tax and led an army against the Roman legion. Funny enough, the book of acts mentioned him as a rebel who resisted the roman census.

Philos did not write anything about the zealots movement whose action led to the destruction of the 2nd temple and expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem.
Did not write anything about the Herod dynasty.

Philos was alive all thru this period but wrote nothing about these events.

Very funny. Very funny indeed.


Unless u can give me a valid excuse why philos was silent about these major events during his time, u shouldn't ask me about Jesus.

Did philo write about other jewish Messiah claimants in the early first century.
Did he write about Judas of gamala
Did he write about Theudas the zealot.

These men were popular amongst the Jews, they raised army and fought against the Roman occupation around 1-50 AD to prove their messianic claim.
What did your historian philo write about them?


philo died in AD 50, so would be very much aware of the riots and rebellion against roman authority that rocked the whole of judea in the early first century AD.

Did he write about the zealots that pioneered the revolution. The zealots were blamed for the first Jewish- roman war.
Even the bible mentioned one of Jesus disciple was called Simon the zealot just to show u the impact this movement had at that period.

Did philo report about the execution of Judas's sons, James and Simon by procurator Tiberius Julius Alexander in about 46 CE. James and Simon were fierce nationalists who caused the people to revolt when Quirinius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews.

Did philo write about Pontus Pilate and the massacre of the Samaritans led by their Messiah like figure Dositheus in AD 37. philo was very much alive and active that time, u can't tell me he didn't hear about it because that action led to the removal of Pontus Pilate as governor of judea.

philo didn't even write about John the Baptist who was more popular than Jesus during his time.

Yet you expect him to write about a pacifist whose ministry was restricted to Galilee and never stirred much trouble with Roman authorities.

So much for how people search for missing clues.

Tacitus is not writing from hearsay or that people told him. He gets his source from Roman annals called Acta senatus which is the official roman empire documents.
He had access to these documents because he was a Roman senator.

We had this philo argument before and was thoroughly debunked.
Now u bringing it up again.

Let me ask u, did philo write about John the Baptist, or that one too didn't exist?

MindHacker9009:
These are some Jesuses in the first century so which one, well most likely it was Jesus son of Sapphias that was crucified for leading a rebellion against Roman occupation of Israel.
Tacitus wrote about Jesus in his work Annals, specifically in Book 15, chapter 44.
When was this written?
Most scholars date the Annals to around 116–117 CE
This is during the reign of Emperor Trajan in the early 2nd century
So: Tacitus wrote about Jesus around 116–117 CE (early 2nd century), not in the 1st century.

1. Jesus son of Damneus
Mentioned in Flavius Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews)
High priest of Judea (appointed c. 62 CE)
Took office after the execution of James (as described by Josephus)
Political-religious elite figure

2. Jesus son of Ananias
Mentioned in Josephus (Jewish War)
Apocalyptic street prophet in Jerusalem (c. 62–70 CE)
Shouted warnings of Jerusalem’s destruction for years
Arrested, beaten, and eventually killed during the Roman siege period

3. Jesus son of Sapphias
Mentioned in Josephus (Jewish War, Galilee narratives)
Galilean political/factional leader during the outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt (c. 66 CE)
Involved in violent local power struggles in Tiberias
Not a national commander, but a regional agitator

4. Jesus son of Gamaliel
Mentioned in Josephus (Antiquities)
High priest in the mid–late 1st century CE
Member of the priestly aristocracy in Jerusalem
Part of the shifting high-priestly appointments under Roman authority

5. Jesus son of Sepphas (or Cephas, depending on manuscript interpretation)
Mentioned in Josephus (Jewish War)
Priest connected with Temple affairs during the war
Involved in handing over Temple valuables to Roman forces (under Titus’ campaign context)

6. Jesus son of Thebuthi
Mentioned in Josephus (Jewish War)
Priest who surrendered sacred Temple items (including vessels) to the Romans
Appears during the final stages of the siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)

Listing people called Jesus in the 1st century wont help u. Jesus simply mean Joshua and its a common name in the 1st century period.

Tacitus was talking about a Jesus Christ who suffered under Pontus Pilate. who is that Jesus also called Christ?

In his Annals (Book 15, Chapter 44, written around AD 116), the Roman historian Tacitus describes the aftermath of the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64. Tacitus reports that Emperor Nero, accused of starting the fire, sought scapegoats and targeted Christians: “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus” (Annals 15.44). Tacitus further notes that this “most mischievous superstition” spread from Judea to Rome, where it became widely known.

MindHacker9009:
How, in today’s technologically advanced age, can some adults here still insist that Jesus Christ was a historical figure, when even many people in the country that brought it to Africa regard the story as fiction?

Truth is that if you still believing this nonsense you should go and register at the nearest kindergarten nearest to you.

God Almighty of the Original Torah is the only True God.

JESUS CHRIST NEVER EXISTED - And It Doesn't Matter What You Call Him Or What Colour You Make Him


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-zFQvyFWr4

So was Tacitus lying when he said they crucified Jesus

Explore2xmore:
Good. Then the categories must stay separate. Academic history asks whether the Gospels are credible ancient sources for reconstructing parts of early Christianity? By normal standards, they are. But historical credibility is not the same as divine authority.
Divine authority requires a verification standard. Scripture is not usually accepted as revelation only because it claims to be. There is normally some external basis such as prophetic witness, preservation, miracle, public transmission, or direct authorization.
So the key question is simple:
What external verification establishes the New Testament’s divine authority beyond its own internal claims?

I think I need to come in here to nip this in the bud.

I initially ignored u because ur earlier claim was that scholars don't find the gospel as reliable and historical.
tctrills already did a good job debunking that. So we let it rest.
There are different criteria scholars use validate historical claims. They are criteria of embarrassment, criteria of authenticity, criteria of dissimilarity, criteria of contextual credibility, criteria of coherence, and then the source of language in this case linkage btw what was spoken in Aramaic and what was written in koine Greek.

All scholars agree that the written gospel to a large extent meet this criteria thus have no reason to doubt historical reality stated in the Gospels.

The problem with Muslims is they believe the only way to validate historical claim is thru what they call chain of narrations which itself is problematic bocs it relies on authenticity of the narrators and their memories.

Besides the single most important historical chain of narration in Islam is missing. There's no historical evidence that Mormor spoke to an angel. If we cannot establish and independently verify Mormor actually spoke to an angel, then Islam as a religion is in serious trouble because the whole Islamic faith is based on one simple fact -Mormor spoke to an angel, A claim that cannot be historically verified.

Now what I will be doing is giving u historical evidence for the theology of Christianity because that's what u now asking for.

I will show u that academic scholars including Bart Erhman and any other academic bible scholars u can think of all agree there is historical evidence for the theology of Christianity.

U have been shouting bible scholars on this thread which shows u trust their works.
Now I will bring evidence that same academic scholars agree beyond any reasonably doubt that the theology of Christianity as we know it today is historical NOT made up out of thin air or conjured by some unknown people.

These are- divinity of Jesus, atonement by the blood of Jesus, physical ressurection of Jesus.

So what I will be doing next is bringing evidence supported by bible scholars like Bart Erhman to prove the theology of Christianity as we know it today is historical and actually linked back to Jesus Christ himself.

I sincerely hope u won't change mouth when I bring it.

Bizmind95:
Lol, a county where less than 1% of the population ownes more than 50% of the wealth, while others struggle and live paycheck to paycheck

PGA rest with your lies. As at today, there are 25 million millionaires in America. That doesn't look like 1% to me.

America is still the fastest and easiest to become a millionaire in the world irrespective of your background. It remains the best place in the world for an immigrant for economic opportunities.

Instead of u looking at negatives, look at millions whose lives were turned around by America and make them your role models.

The truth is era of travelling out just for the sake of it is gone. Unless u attain solid middle class in any nation u live, there's no way u can escape economic struggle or paycheck to paycheck lifestyle. That's 2026 for u.

AntiChristian:
Where's the blasphemy and how do you literally kill?

I only oppose Christians.

Can you show the way out biblically for a Christian who is being ill-treated by his/her spouse in terms of domestic violence?

This is a simple issue.

The bible admonish believing spouse to stay in their marriage with an unbeliever if the later wants the marriage.

A man beating his wife shows he's not interested in that marriage and he's not willing to live with her, thus the believing woman can leave.

In christianity, it is not permissible under any circumstances to beat your wife not even with a toothbrush or piece of grass as we have in Islam.

beating your wife is a clear sign u are not a Christian and no longer want to live with your wife, thus she has no reason to stay.

1 corinthians 7
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

pocohantas:
Car is going far. We don't let them make our hair sef. Hair that can grow back o.

Interns are not students. They are fully fledged doctors with a license to practice. U cannot say they should not manage patients.

apprenctice in car workshop or hairdressing saloon are not interns. An apprentice is a student learning on the job rather than the classroom. However, I will expect an apprentice nearing the end of his/her training to be competent enough to make hair and repair cars otherwise his years of training was a waste. At that level, the only way his oga sabi pass am na experience not knowledge.

The issue of senior supervision in medicine cut across all cadres of training. Even senior resident needs supervision and some newly consultants may need support for complex cases.

The idea that interns are left alone to manage patient is an exaggeration, someone here said that they perform operation, that's a joke. Even, junior residents are not allowed to perform operations not to talk of interns.

pls lets be guided by how we confidently dish out misinformation to the public. interns are not students.

cc thrillionaire
AngelSlay
Jman06

BodePolScience:
The various contradictions in the new testament point to the fact that it might be a created fantasy. For instance, the resurrection story despite being a grand, classic and unprecedented event, yet this story is riddled with numerous contradictions, Matt, Mk, Lk and Jn stated different things on what happened to the tomb, who appeared at the tomb site, who rolled the stone, who spoke with who and who first saw Jesus amongst others.

the resurrection contradiction has been thoroughly debunked, even here on nairaland.

read below and get educated.
https://www.nairaland.com/8648429/debunking-called-ressurection-contradictions

This is a simple issue.

The bible admonish believing spouse to stay in their marriage with an unbeliever if the later wants the marriage.

A man beating his wife shows he's not interested in that marriage and he's not willing to live with her, thus the believing woman can leave.

In christianity, it is not permissible under any circumstances to beat your wife not even with a toothbrush or piece of grass as we have in Islam.

beating your wife is a clear sign u are not a christian and your wife has no reason to stay.

1 corinthians 7
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

SonOfWords:
Teargas in a hospital premises. The kind of misbehaviour that's very likely to jail you in saner climes.

The leadership administration in this country is just useless from top to bottom💀.

Have u heard of ICE
They kill innocent people who protest against them.

Na Ogun and Anambra shock me. both are highly industralised and heavily commercial yet they collect more than they receive.

Na Oyo surprise me pass. whether na Ibadan or the mining revenue from the hinterland, their VAT revenue is really commendable.

How Borno mamanged to perform better than most states, that should be the major talking point of this thread.

budaatum:
Did Lagos, Rivers, Oyo etc ask for more allocation?

The did ask. Just haven't gotten it yet.

stop [posting AI summary, the source may be from a nairaland post oer some anonymous twitter post.

Give us source we can verify, do the work and stop being lazy. That's why AI is taking your jobs.

U wan make dem ban u from America? Go protest na that when u will realise entering America is a privilege and not a right.

book of enoch is an apocrypha jewish text that deals with eschatology and apocalyptic realm. It gives some insight into the heavenly realms and foundational principles of ancient knowledge. That's why the book talks about divine Messiah and another power in heaven sitting on God's throne.
However, it definitely has some embellishment in the way Enoch was portrayed both on earth and heaven.

The talk about why it's not cannonised is simply because ancient jews don't consider it reliable as it was compiled after the spirit of God departed the temple. any conspiracy twist to it is just by some ignorant folks who wants to form pseudo-knowledge or promote conspiracy junk theory.

There's nothing unique about book of Enoch. But good thing is it proves the ancient Jews believed in a divine Messiah even b4 advent of Christ and Christianity

LordReed:
It is you who doesn't understand what they are saying. You claimed some moral action will be right or wrong relative to certain conditions then still say it is absolute, that is a clear contradiction.

Killing can be moral or immoral depending on the circumstances.

I didn't appeal to anything I gave you the source of morality. Our differences in coming to different conclusions need to be resolved.

To avoid all those confusion, that's why we appeal to a higher power to clarify morality. When is killing evil and when is it acceptable? Higher power gives guidance.
His guidance is what we call absolute morality


That's why I'm asking u what is the source of your morality, otherwise morality will become relative, what one consider evil will be considered good by another.

How do we come to that rational conclusion that this is good or bad without a definite source of morality.

LordReed:
It is not absolute to you because you gave conditions for which it is right or wrong. If it was absolute then there would not be any conditions in which it would be right, it would ALWAYS be wrong.

Bro I answered your question in my first response to you on this thread. Check it.

then u dont understand morality. Is killing moral? any killing at all?

I think u appealed to philosophy- something like deep thinking
I already answered that- if atheist deep thinking led them to conclude teenage sex is ok, why is your deep thinking in the opposite direction.

Neoteny:
This rejoinder is full of so many delusions, outright lies, misinformation, hallucinations, and misdirection that the inevitable conclusion is that you're an irredeemable zealot.

U ARE SIMPLY CONFUSED. U INITIALLY FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE POST BUT WHEN U FINALLY DID, YOU U REALISED YOUR NONSENSE ARGUMENT HAS NO LEG TO STAND ON AND HAS EVENTUALLY COLLAPSED.
MY CHALLENGE RIGHT FROM THE GET GO HAS ALWAYS BEEN SHOW ME THE SOURCE OF YOUR MORALITY NOT WHETHER MY SOURCE OF MORALITY IS BETTER THAN YOURS.

Neoteny:
Claiming that religion preceded philosophy is your undoing. All through you've been placing emphasis on the Bible as your focal point of morality as you yourself said as the only source of truth,

SHOW ME WHERE I WROTE THAT MY MORALITY IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF TRUTH, SHOW ME. I DARE U TO SHOW WHERE I SAID THE BIBLE IS THE SOURCE OF MORAL TRUTH ON THIS THREAD.
U MADE A CLAIM, BRING THE EVIDENCE.

THIS IS A PASSAGE FROM MY INITIAL POST....The truth some atheists conveniently ignore is that all moral frameworks in society have historically been influenced by religious traditions. People draw from these values in how they live their lives, build families, and relate to their communities.
Yet, some reject the existence of God while still engaging with moral ideas that have been shaped by religious thought.

DOES THIS LOOK LIKE A POST SAYING GOD OF THE BIBLE IS THE BEST MORAL SOURCE. OR YOUR BRAIN THOUGHT THE WORD RELIGION MEANT ONLY CHRISTIANITY.
INSTEAD OF U TO TAKE TIME AND UNDERSTAND THE POST, U JUMPED INTO THE ANTI CHRISTIAN WAGON AND NOW SHAMLESSLY SWALLOWING YOUR VOMIT AFTER I HAVE FINALLY BEEN ABLE TO HAVE YOUR BRAIN REBOOTED.

saying that 'claiming religion precede philosophy is my undoing is lafable' I DARE U ONCE AGAIN, SHOW ME ANY ESTABLISHED PHILOSOPHY THAT PRECEDE RELIGION.JUST ONE. RELIGION THAT STARTED EVEN BEFORE HUMAN LEARNT TO WRITE OR BUILD FIRE.
There are archeological evidence of spiritual behaviours and ritualistic practice as far as the upper paleolithic humans which is more than 50,00 years ago. He will come here and tell me these dont count because religion started when the bible was written or when God spoke to Abraham. OLODO.

Neoteny:
now you're expanding to universal concept of religion, including ones considered paganistic and occultic with ritual sacrifices. These same pre-biblical religions existed and promoted societies that embraced homosexuality.

But because you're a know-nothing blind zealot, you're changing the goalpost.

THIS IS WHAT I WROTE...STOP EQUATING THE WORD RELIGION WITH CHRISTIANITY, THERE ARE OVER A THOUSAND RELIGION

The truth some atheists conveniently ignore is that all moral frameworks in society have historically been influenced by religious traditions

I have no problem iF some society condone homosexuality or teenage sex so long as they can point to their source of morality which tells them it's ok to do so. It's u that's against homosexuality that I need to know your source of morality. What tells u homosexuality is wrong without appealing to religious dogma u were raised in.

Neoteny:
Since logic, restraint and reasoning have flown out the window I'm done with this.

You have a nice day Mr. Morality, and say hi to your god who sends down floods and plagues to kill innocent people, including first born children, and encourages fornication and slavery. That's a nice beacon of morality.

[/quote]Yeah, logic is when u failed to convince anyone here what is the basis of your moral principles. Even in my initial mention to u, I tried to redirect your attention to the core argument instead u went on off tangent attacking christianity.
Finally u got it and realised your source of morality IS WHAT U ARE TOO ASHAMED TO ADMIT.

THIS IS NOTHING BUT ACT OF HYPOCRISY. U BENEFIT FROM THE SOUND MORALITY FROM AN IMAGINARY SKY DADDY BUT U ARE TOO ASHAMED TO ADMIT IT.
MAYBE U CAN MAKE AMEND BY NOT INSULTING THOSE WHO WORSHIP THIS IMAGINARY SKY DADDY because THEY ARE THE ONES WORKING SO HARD TO BUILD AND INSTILL GOOD MORALS AND VALUES IN THE SOCIETY THAT HYPOCRITES LIKE YOU LOVE TO ASSOCIATE WITH.

THEDEEPSIGHT:
This is not morality, such a man simply lacks class. He is too bush.

Someone your daughter loves. u gonna deny your daughter the love of her life based on classism. I hope u know classism itself is considered immoral and most atheists (maybe liberal ones) frown at classism.

LordReed:
You didn't answer the question. Do you realise this is relative morality you just admitted to?

Did I dispute with u that morality is not relative? My morality is absolute to me and all other christians BUT relative to others. That's not the issue.

pork is forbidden in Islam, it's considered immoral to eat pig. other faith dont care. If u ask mMuslims, they will tell u they derive that morality from a higher power.
polygamy is forbidden in christianity but not in islam or hinduism
eating cow is frowned upon in hindusim but not christianity or islam.
everyone will tell u what's forbidden in their faith comes from a higher power. THEY DERIVE THEIR MORALITY FROM A HIGHER POWER, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THESE HIGHER POWERS DONT ALWAYS AGREE. THAT'S NOT THE ARGUMENT HERE.

so what's the point about your relative morality.

It's like u guys dont understand my queation.

whether morality is absolute or relative, that's not the issue. My question is what is the source of your relative or absolute morality?

as a conservative atheist (as one of u called himself here), if u think teenage sex or homosexuality is wrong, where did u derive that morality from?

of course atheist living in liberal societies dont see a big deal in this things because they derive their morality from liberal secularism.


so if u as an atheist living in conservative society see homosexuality and teenage/carefree sex as wrong, what is the source of that morality.

thats my question.

THEDEEPSIGHT:
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Comedy!

The morbid obsession of atheist to the God of the bible needs the be specially studied. It's beyond ordinary.

U already rejected what's in the bible, so whatever morality derived from it shouldn't be your headache.

It's like me scrutinizing the morality of sango worshippers or Hindu followers when I already consider their god false.

Mr Man I got a fine man for your lovely daughter. Tell me, if she brings this handsome Bobo as her future husband, will u object?

If u object, based on what grounds. What morality will u appeal to that will make u reject this potential son in law

Dtruthspeaker:
You are not saying the Truth. It is written God can never support evil. So , i checked it thoroughly and found that Polygamy is a sin. God even uses it as a punishment and I proved it in these threads.

https://www.nairaland.com/8032594/deuteronomy-17-17-shows-god#128966884

https://www.nairaland.com/8238054/polygamy-jews-stopped-polygaming-after

https://www.nairaland.com/8080384/polygamy-gods-punishment-fornication-deut

https://www.nairaland.com/8077583/polygamist-god-gave-him-wives

Pls don't derail this thread with your shallow knowledge. People even corrected u in those thread but your obstinacy no gree u see road.

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT WHO HAS THE BEST MORALITY BUT WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR MORALITY.

Since u think polygamy being a sin is derived from a higher power, then no need proceeding further.

Atheist here are already trying to drive the discussion into the direction of whether the morality of God is the best.

I will appreciate if u don't give them the fuel for that, the question is clear WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF MORALITY FOR THOSE WHO DONT HAVE A HIGHER POWER.