₦airaland Forum

Pastor AIO:
Does the example above really indicate a spiritual person? It suggests someone who believes that they can effect a cure by praying. That belief can be the result of delusion.

I wonder, what exactly is your definition of a spiritual person?

Well Pastor, the point of the example was actually this, that someone who is a firm believer in say Christ is still capable of causing harm due to ignorance. The example involved a persons health, the same principle can be applied to errors in child rearing, at work, in relationships etc. That a person is a God fearing or spirit filled person does not make him incapable of making costly errors due to lack of knowledge. Where this leads to is the fact that many people in this forum seem to have this concept of spirituality on one side and knowledge, science etc on the other. Should things be this way, should Christians and other religious people not strife to gain further knowledge about the world they live in in order to be better equipped to take care of themselves? Would Nigeria not be a better place if we spent less money building grandiose churches and more on good quality, affordable schools, training institutions for kids and the youth. What do you think?

Really shameful performance by the government again, pity legal avenues are not easy to pursue in Nigeria. I had the misfortune of going past the recruitment venue in Ibadan, Adamasingba stadium and was shocked at the crowd in attendence. I had to also wonder how much the salary of a customs officer is? Or is it possible that all this recruits were hoping to be employed and sent to the border to amass wealth by dubious means?

~Lady~:
Spiritual people don't lack knowledge to improve their standard of living. Americans are spiritual, so are Britons, and Italians, and Spaniards, and Germans, and many others, but they have a nice and comfortable standard of living.
There are neurosurgeons, scientists, nurses, professors, philanthropists who are spiritual. How does spirituality measure a person's lack of knowledge.

Spirituality does not mean a lack of knowledge. Lack of knowledge does not arise from spirituality.

Thanks for the reply. I didn't actually say that spiritual people lack knowledge, what I asked was if it's possible for a spiritual person to still lack knowledge. What I meant by this is that it's possible for a person to be spiritual and still cause harm from lack of knowledge. Consider this example, a "spiritual" person arrives at the site of a road accident, one of the victims lies on the road immobile, he has suffered an injury to his spinal column. The spiritual person does not know this, he kneels down beside the victim lifts the victims head in his arms and begins to pray vigorously. In this process he manages to exacerbate the injury and ensures the victim will never walk again. The spiritual person meant well, but he's lack of knowledge has caused him to injure a person irreparably.

When you consider this scenario, which would you is of paramount importance especially in developing countries, higher levels of spirituality or the acquisition of useful knowledge. Thanks, again your comments are well appreciated.

Just a quick question. Does religion have a purpose? What exactly are the benefits of religion or spirituality for us here on earth? How has worship and religion affected our day to day life in Nigeria. Has it affected life in Nigeria positively or negatively? Is it possible for spiritual people to still lack knowledge to improve their standard of living and if so is there any point in being spiritual without acquiring knowledge? If for instance a person falls ill which path should he find to health, does he pray fervently to God for deliverance or should he seek for medical solutions and knowledge? Just curious about how Nigerians feel about this questions. Would love to hear your comments.

@ Pastor AIO

Pastor AIO:
How do we avoid Conflict of this sort in a Humanist world?

Get your point. Answering the above question, how about with round table discussions. What I mean is isn't it possible for the ecology man and the money man to sit together? The ecology man expresses his concerns and the money man talks about his plans to make money. Then they consider how the money man can operate without to much damage to the environment. I believe oil companies try to do more of that nowadays and aid development of areas where their drilling may have caused damage. This may be a problem in Nigeria because of corruption but I'm sure its workable in decent countries. Isn't this sort of conflict resolution possible?

I'll have to agree with Huxley and say that humanism and rationalism should be the way forward for not just Nigeria but the world. I don't really agree that man is instrinsically wicked and evil. I do believe however that man is pushed by basic needs for food, water, self esteem etc and in the quest to achieve this things man may do "bad" things. This should actually be the point of humanism, it should be man sitting together to say ok I want food, my neighbour wants food, the guy in the next country needs food, how can we all get food without shooting each other. Religion certainly has not been able to achieve togetherness among all persons if anything it's encouraged diviciseness.

Humanism will not solve all this problems at once, but it will be a starting step in the right direction. Definitely there will still be people who are intentionally evil. People who will go for their own personal gain without concern for the general good. Humanism should however reduce drastically the damage that is caused by lack of enlightenment and lack of knowledge. Perhaps with time law enforcement will improve enough to curb the evil some large corporations are causing. This sort of people are simply greedy and totally selfish. They certainly don't represent the nature of all man. The process of bringing up a child in most societies already involves teaching kids to think about others and not be totally selfish.

@ mishoo

I'm not quite sure if you read and understood my post well, so I'll go over parts of it. I explained that your reason for claiming supernatural reasons for certain events is based on your predisposition to this type of reasoning. You funny enough have said the same thing " so should it be based on your own?? i think we explain thing according to our perception of its meaning. thats why i wasnt quoting anyone. i speak what i know."

"You are telling me to broaden my horizons?? LOL, you don't even have an idea of who i am and how broadened my horizons are. Grin Grin and believe, i don't want to prove anything to you or tell you about myself." But you are in fact trying to prove something to us. You are trying to prove to us that Juju exists. Paradoxically you admit that that conclusion is based on your subjective experience. So how you do you know your perception is the right one?

When you said
" How many of you have seen a bird turn into a human (LIVE) ??
How many of you have seen a REAL witch Doctor (babalawo) ??
How many of you have seen a REAL 'Bante' (the charm thats tied around the waist) ??
am not talking of films guys !!!"

were you not implying the some of us don't believe in juju because we have not "experienced" it. My guy again I repeat my point, that you think whatever you have experienced is supernatural does not make it supernatural. You perceive things based on your level of education and exposure. I'm hazarding a guess that you might need to broaden your horizon in the field of rationalism and science. At times associating events that are hard to explain to mystical reasons is the easy way out.

"@Tasma, if you are really sure i don't know what am saying, you can send me your real name, your father's name and your mother's maiden name. i don't even need your location. i'll pass them to the right quarters."

Well here you're really just being plain silly.

Cheers

Pastor AIO:
Does anything in life have to be purposeful? Does religion have to be purposeful? How can I explain myself?

Well I guess here is the fundamental difference in the way we both think. I believe practically every part of the human culture - including religion - is there for a purpose. Things didn't just come out of the blue for some mystical supernatural reason. Even if that was the case it still seems funny that a society and persons that have "firm" religious footing still end up doing completely silly stuff. Deeply committed religious persons have kept slaves, killed children, flogged wives, burnt witches etc. All this things society would denounce now. How could people who believed they were so spiritual end up doing things so stupid. If their spirituality didn't stop them from committing atrocities or maybe even encouraged them to commit such then why is being spiritual even considered to be a good thing?

Cheers

@ mishooo

[quote][/quote]"How many of you have seen a bird turn into a human (LIVE) ??
How many of you have seen a REAL witch Doctor (babalawo) ??
How many of you have seen a REAL 'Bante' (the charm thats tied around the waist) ??
am not talking of films guys !!!"

Have YOU seen a bird turn into a human (LIVE)?? Paradoxically I will use a statement you made to try to explain things to you. Yes our level of education and enlightenment affects how we perceive things in life, for example a villager might be awestruck at the sight of space shuttle, that does not make a space shuttle supernatural. Your level of education and enlightenment obviously affects your perception on things. That is why one persons subjective view on an event cannot be taken as truth. The fact that you may have thought you saw a bird turn into a human, does not actually mean that is what really happened. Your perceptive of such an event is based on your own tendency towards a supernatural explanation for things you cannot understand. I wonder what will happen if you watched LIVE an hour long magic show by the likes of David Copperfield or some other great magician. You'll probably leave that show convinced that "white man jazz pass black man jazz o". Not wanting to put you down man but just try to broaden your horizons a bit.

Cheers

dblock:
Religious people may actually be more critical in their ideas, than non religious people who in fact are not as inquisitive but simply choosing not to believe in certain things and absorbing everything else.

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say non religious people choose not to believe in certain things and absorb everything else. I certainly don't accept everything I hear about. The point I'm trying to make though is that religion is simply pointless without it being purposeful. The things that most religions try to promote, love for humanity and care and compassion for each other can be achieved without the needless brainwashing. In fact the fundamentalist approach to religion is counterproductive because first you must turn the listener into an unthinking zombie before then making him do whatever you want. On the short term it looks effective but it's definitely very damaging on the long run. It also involves the risk of bad leadership causing mayhem - example religious riots in the North of Nigeria - because the listeners are simply following without thinking. Cultivating the spirit of critical reasoning in a people may seem dangerous initially as they may decide you are not worthy to be their leader finally. You would however have escorted them to where they can fear no more.

We must accept the responsibility to achieve this goal ourselves as Nigerians, because you can be sure the developed world isn't exactly crazy about Africans achieving self emancipation and self respect.

Thanks, and again comments are well appreciated.

The replies to this post shows how far we have to go before achieving real progress in taking care of ourselves in Nigeria. Hopefully we'll someday get our heads out of this superstitous mumbo jumbo and face our problems with reason and education.

As a structural engineer I can assure you that no matter the field of engineering you go into the job prospects are good. I work with quite a few women engineers in my field and it's a cool field for a woman. This is because as a structural design engineer it's basically an office job designing roads, bridges, buildings, dams. You may have to go to sites in a supervisory role i.e to make sure the contractor follows the office design but you wouldn't be spending truck loads of time under the hot sun. Like others have said go with your gut instincts in choosing which ever branch of engineering you wish to study first. After the experience of a first degree you will be in a better position to decide what you want to specialise in or if you wish to do a conversion masters into another branch of engineering (i.e. its possible to be a civil engineer with a masters on off-shore engineering).

Cheers

I've always wondered about Nigeria's development and I reading several posts in the forum has led me to a certain conclusion. Perhaps the greatest detriment to human development is the inability for a people to think critically. Specifically I refer to posts by "literal" christians that even in the face of overwhelming evidence still insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Even years after christian scholars and theologians themselves admit that several parts of the Bible can only be taken mythologically! People still insist on the creation story, Noah ark, israelites exodus from Egypt etc as historical facts, because the Bible says so.

A simple cursory examination of the Bible will show so many contradictions, impossible stories, blatant errors that it would require amazing feats of cognitive reasoning to back up this stories. On the other hand if the Bible is understood as the writings of ancient people in their quest to formulate a god for their times a lot of things are explained.

I wonder if literal Christians in the room can take a moment and step back to observe christianity neutrally. Without all the emotion and sentiment just try to examine your religion critically. It's difficult because you have probably be taught from birth to believe without questioning like many of us. You must be courageous enough to search. I assure you that the result will bring you nearer to "God" than you ever imagined and possibly the Nigerian nation can begin to become a country that can provide basic physical and emotional care for our citizens, instead of simply being the nation with the most churches and church goers while remaining the most corrupt!

Cheers, comments are well appreciated.

@ redsun

so if politicians inadvertently cause the death of children by their actions and policies, it makes it ok for God to order the killing for kids for mocking an adult?

Thoughts, anyone?

This is a topic that always ends up in lengthy discuss. Interesting discuss though. My view of the topic has always been this, when you debate the existence of God, must you not first define "God". Are you talking about the christian, islamic, hindu, traditionalist etc God? When people say that by observing the world around us there must be God I think this is another issue entirely. Certainly with the limitations of the human mind when we look at the vast complexity of the universe and the earth we think of a creator. This is simply natural, same way if you walk in a jungle and suddenly discover a factory 50 storeys high churning out motorbikes or something, immediately you say to yourself someone must have made this. The greater the complexity of what we perceive the more all powerful we assume our "God" to be.

The point really is this, our belief that there must be maker does not in any way inform us of the nature of the maker. If indeed there is a maker our limited reasoning faculties can only create an image we can somehow understand. Any christian, islamic or otherwise view of God is at the end simply human beings [b]trying [/b]to picture what the nature of the maker must be. Why can't it simply be enough to feel there may be a creator while admitting to ourselves that we may be incapable of understanding his nature and influence on our lifes?

@ sun god
If you insist on arguing with fundamentalists and literal believers in the Bible you really will make little headway. Why? well because for a fundamentalist belief is more in important than critical analysis. For a fundamentalist the spiritual and emotional part of religion is sacred. When you point out holes in the rationality of his belief, you are threatening the core of his happiness and joy. He will then mostly react aggressively and maybe even respond to your questions obstusely.

I have given you an answer in that many Christians do not take Biblical stories literally, many are aware of the historical, cultural and mythological influence on biblical writings. Many of such Christians will not argue about the issues you have brought up because they already have similar views. However a Christian may still choose to live a Christian lifestyle for the emotional advantages - the happiness factor.

@ Sun God,
funny enough a lot of church priests and scholars - even in the Catholic church - have reservations about some of the stories in the Bible. All you need to do is discuss with someone who has actually been to a seminary or studied Bible theology. If you discuss this topic with many members of "new" churches you probably will not get insightful discuss.

In summary like I said I think the message of Christianity should be seen in the life and lifestyle of the Christian and not in endless argument about literal meanings to Biblical stories.

Well not all christians are literal believers in the Bible. There are a lot of Christians that take stories such as Noah's Ark as largely metaphorical. It should be possible to pass the message of Christianity - love for it other and belief in God - without insisting on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The other day I had a discussion with a born-again "spirit-filled" person at work and the discussion got round to the subject of Jews. I made a statement about most Jews not being Christians and he was genuinely shocked. He said that was impossible seeing as Christ himself was Jewish. After a little tutoring he admitted he didn't know that. Now my point is that he just did not know much of Christian/Jewish history and had not bothered to read up about it. Yet he would always insist that he is a "true" Christian and I don't begrudge him for this. He is actually a nice and pleasant person. It's just that I find it quite worrying that there can be this much "faith" with so little enlightenment.

So the question really is that is it possible to profess faith without knowledge? How do you discern what is right or wrong in your faith without knowledge or is it unnecessary to have "worldly knowledge" to understand the basis of your faith? Lastly since we know human knowledge grows over time is it possible the our interpretation of our faiths are constantly evolving?

Would love to hear people's comments.

Think the question actually is, if God already knows what you will do, then do you really have free will?

Hardly any issue here. Basically the guy must be extremely insecure. She had better not quit volleyball or next he'll be asking her not to leave the house without permission. First she needs to sit with him and let him realise how insecure he's being. If that fails she may seriously need to consider that she may be with the wrong person. Remember he is your boyfriend not your boss!

Ok so when our critical reasoning contradicts the Biblical stories we must shelf our reasonable and accept by faith. My question now must be , why? If someone else came up with a religious book and assured you it's authentically God word will you also accept it fully. Obviously reading and believing in the Bible may have an impact on how a person lives his life. But that's exactly my point, it's more of a spiritual thing, something that affects our thoughts, our feelings etc. This same things can be achieved without literal belief in the Bible. Is it possible that the need to believe in the Bible is the reason some CHOOSE not to examine it critically?

Well in a way JeSoul you have an answer to the post, your answer isn't very direct though. For you perhaps I should ask the question "Is Literal Bible Belief Necessary"? That seems to be more along the line of what you are saying. What do I mean? You have started first with the premise that everything in the Bible must be correct even if you can't explain it. Thus it's simply a matter of us human beings not being knowledgeable or spiritual enough to understand everything in the Bible. That view is fine and answers the post by saying "no, it's not possible for man to have common sense, literal belief in the Bible without a hefty dose of faith". A bit lengthy I know but that's the shortest I could write it.

Ok now how about this view? That human beings simply don't know, we don't know how the earth came about, though we know bits of the process, we don't exactly how we came about, though we have concepts and scientific theories. We do however find the "need" to believe we understand our existence, so WE come up with religion. In our attempt to understand God and our existence WE write the bible. Now because our understanding is poor and continually growing the Bible we write is flawed and full of bits and pieces from various concepts of God. Unfortunately the Bible has been labelled the word of God and cannot now be changed (even though it may have been heavily edited in the past). What then happens is that as human knowledge makes certain parts of the Bible seem unrealistic (see Earth being flat or spherical) we need to keep coming up with new and more stretched explanations for Biblical stories.

If we accept the Bible and in fact other religious books as man's attempts to describe God, it is unnecessary to become bugged down with literal interpretations of the Bible and we can begin to study the purpose of religion. Consequently we may look for ways to achieve the objective of religion that will be more acceptable to people and will not have to deal with endless interreligious quarrel and strive.

Does this make any sense?

@ Dafid,

Assuming I believe God is capable of doing anything and apply this to literal belief of the Bible. That would mean that I believe God would allow THE book that sends his word to man to be full of contradictions and incredulous stories, also he would expect me to believe this stories even if there is no real evidence to support them. This post is not so much about whether God has done miraculous things in the past, but the fact that somehow there has been so much effort to make sure there is no physical evidence to back the miracles. I wonder why this is so. The only way to accept the Bible fully is simply to say "it doesn't make reasonable sense, I don't understand it, but it must all be true because the Bible says it and the Bible is God's word".

If that's the case then belief in the Bible can only be a spiritual thing and not something that one can back up with reason or logic.

Right JeSoul,
I said a lot of the Biblical stories don't seem credible and you are saying that they simply must be accepted as they are. That one must apply enough faith to nollify the need for any critical, scientific analysis of any Biblical story. In that sense I'm not sure if we are really discussing the topic of the post reasonably. Why? Well because you have simply gotten us to the point that says believe everything in the Bible because it is the Bible and thus does not need to be explained reasonably.

I've always found that stand a bit curious, that stand means any other religious group may claim their ways are "the way" because their knowledge is divinely inspired and thus cannot be questioned by anyone. Funny enough if God created us with critical minds to help us survive in a changing natural environment, isn't it strangely worrying that He would actually want us to shelf our reasoning faculties when it comes to understanding him and his nature?

Thanks for the comments from everyone so far.

??

Anyone with meaningful insight to the questions asked?

Ok JeSoul,
so what happens when scientific knowledge refutes something that is alleged to have happened in the Bible. If the Bible describes a flood that wiped out the earth and there is no evidence to back it up, do you just accept it? If the Bible says that a single family built a boat that carried two - male and female - of every animal on this earth does this really sound literally right to you. You may say that the scientific tools to check this details are faulty but remember that it's the same scientific principles that are used to built the car you drive, the computer you use, rocket ships that go to the moon.

Isn't it more likely that the Biblical stories are mythical but still bear a message. Again would love to hear your reply.

"Listen, you cannot reason logically until you thoroughly and deeply believe in what you ignorantly condemn"

I'm not sure I really understand this statement. Are you saying that to reason logically you must first totally accept what you don't understand? If you totally accept a theory then why is there reason to ask any question at all about the theory. Isn't it the logical questioning of details you don't understand that can lead to a better understanding and acceptance of a theory.?

Would love if you can clarify the statement above.

Is there anyone that can give some insight into the question asked? Thanks.

Hi everyone,
my question is this, is it possible to be a literal believer in the Bible. When I say this I mean can Christians believe that events like the flooding and Noah's Ark, parting of the sea, origin of the earth etc to be literal, historical facts? I can understand the "spiritual" nature of Biblical stories i.e. that biblical stories cannot be understood without spiritual insight. The consequence of thinking like that is that the bible may be largely metaphorical, can only be understood with deeper insight and knowledge.

I don't believe that thinking of the bible in this way takes away from the central message of the bible and in fact think that insistence on a literal interpretation of the bible only ends up in endless argument and quarrel. Would like to hear what people think of this.

Sorry to have to say this but what' s happening is your kid is the self doubt and uncertainty that will come to any intelligent kid about organised religion. Forcing the kid to go to church will be a big mistake now. She will definitely hate you and the church more for that. Funny enough YOU are actually the one that needs some change to solve this problem. You will need to be more open minded in your ideas about religion. Worshipping God is not the same as spending hours in a church or mosque but in the way we live our lives and interact with people around us. If we choose to be Christian then regular church attendance aids our worship of God, otherwise it does not. I think you should encourage her to be close to God in her life, sounds like you're probably doing this in the way you interact with her already. Forcing her to go to church passes the exact opposite message, tells her you are am arrogant, authoritarian. Not the image of the God fearing parent you want at all!

The issues of what she can be up to when you leave her alone at home is a completely different issue. You sound like an intelligent person, think about a solution to this. Perhaps there is a safe place when she would not mind going during church hours, the library, swimming or tennis lessons etc. Places where she will have adult supervision for a few hours.

Just my ideas on the subject, good luck and God bless.