₦airaland Forum

@Kay 17

We are not on the same frequency but I believe God is perfect in his purposes.

The following verses tell accounts in an anthropocentric sense. From a human perspective (even when God is speaking)

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7

If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?
Amos 3:6

Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?
Lamentations 3:38

We are below the plains of evaluation of good and evil. So we observe and say "Oh this is evil" or "This is good", depending on how it suits us. e.g. is it good for the US to wage war / oppress a country in the Middle East and cart off their oil? We could say it's good for the US economy and evil for that country. BUT in the real sense, only someone who sees the entire picture at once can TELL if an event is good or evil. And that person is God.

Anybody can call an act of God good or evil as they wish. After all, none of us can see the ABSOLUTELY complete picture as he does, so in our myopic views we will call it good or evil.

I believe God is perfect in his purposes, and that's all.

We are definitely not on the same frequency then, for you do not even believe God exists, let alone believe he is perfect in his purposes.

Or how can one be perfect in purpose who is not perfect in existence?

@plaetton:

He asked for a Christian theological view and I gave it to him. If you want a one-size-fits-all view, sorry I can't help you there.

Maybe you should read my post again with that mindset and if it's still not clear you can ask again.

Good and evil are tied to purposes, and according to Christian theology, these purposes are DEFINED by God. And in God only. THUS only he who establishes a purpose can KNOW what is well-suited or ill-suited to the purpose. It is objective on our end, but it is subjective to God's own purposes, him being the source.

As for being above the plains of good and evil, THAT is the reason why he can judge good and evil without bias. I thought that would be obvious 

Joagbaje:
It's very obvious the documrntary is malicious . But Can you make enquiry or throw light on the response of Dr fireman to the documentary. What was his comment or the perspective of the church on it?

I honestly don't see anything malicious about the video documentary. Maybe it was heavily edited to serve the journalist's purpose but it was not doctored. i.e. they didn't make Dr Fireman say things that he didn't say in reality. e.g. He DID say "God is a game. . . and the game is easy" or something. SO, kindly help out here.

What do you find malicious about this video?

Tonye-t:

Ok then.

Pastor Kun:
@Italo
These hypocrites would refuse to address the 1 corinthians issue you raised as it would expose them to be manipulators of scripture. It's so damn obvious that biblical wine is alcoholic yet this clowns keep going to extents to force their delusions into the scripture. I have been asking ola and image to also address luke 7:33-34 for years now neither of them has even attempted to address it rather they evade the issue as it exposes them as liars.

I promise you it's very interesting.

Drinking is NOT a sin but Drunkeness is a sin.

Alcoholism is a sin but Alcohol is not evil.

Moderation is what is required, but its a slippery slope.

Titus 1:7 states that a minister of God should not be given to wine or an alcoholic. This means it should not be an addiction.

I respect the wishes of people who say they will not touch any alcohol (for reasons best known to them, or to avoid having to deal with the risks of moderation) but when they say it is [i]forbidden [/i]for a Christian to take any alcohol, that is another entirely different matter.

Kay 17:
@enigma @thelstan

Is God (CHRISTIAN ONE) evil, despite the verse indicating he created it?

I may not know enough about other worldviews on God to answer this, but since you ask of the "Christian God", then this question is otiosely superfluous in the Christian Theology.

1.) Good means well-suited to and desirable for a specific purpose.
2.) Evil means ill-suited to and undesirable for a specific purpose.
3.) The "Christian God" does not suit unto any purpose because he established all purposes.
4.) Therefore the "Christian God" is above the plains where good and evil are adjudged.

italo:
None of you has explained to us how people were getting "drunken" during the Lord's Supper in 1Cor 11: 21.

Was it Juice that was getting them drunk?

+1

@Tonye-T:
Jesus did not force the wine down anybody's throat. It is the duty of every adult to observe moderation. God will not enforce moderation for us because we're not zombies.

^^^^

What's the NASA image for?

davidylan:
I stopped reading at the highlights . . . I call BS. Called at 3? Even Christ Himself waited to be officially baptized and called at 27!

Hahahaha walahi me sef weak when I read am

How come there are no records of his articles at age 6, books at age 14 etc and the city wide crusade that he held in Aba when he was 19?

"Sign Fireman" seems to forget that some people knew him from his background.

Please believe whatever you want about your pastor. Just realize that we're not that gullible. At least I'm not.

Enjoy

Cool, cool

Those with one or two posts so far have started to surface.

This marketing stuff, is it lucrative?

---

http://www.signfireman.org/

This is the official website of the ministry of Dr. Sign Fireman. A ministry with the vision of taking the Final Move of God to the peoples of the world. The life of the founder, Dr. Sign Fireman, is out of this world: called at the tender age of three, born again at the age of five, started writing Christian articles at the age of six, started preaching at the age of seven, got involved in pastoring at the age of twelve, started writing Christian books at the age of fourteen, and started holding city-wide miracle crusades at the age of nineteen…

No be small matter at all my people

charlsecy4:
Please, what is python used for? After learning it, what can you do with it?

Python can be used for desktop applications or for web based applications (e.g. via Django, more on that later).

Most of Google's awesome codes are done in Python. Of course that includes the Google App Engine and also Youtube.

http://www.python.org/about/quotes/

"Python has been an important part of Google since the beginning, and remains so as the system grows and evolves. Today dozens of Google engineers use Python, and we're looking for more people with skills in this language." said Peter Norvig, director of search quality at Google, Inc.

"Python is fast enough for our site and allows us to produce maintainable features in record times, with a minimum of developers," said Cuong Do, Software Architect, YouTube.com.

Python combines being very powerful with being easy to learn for a beginner. It is a great programming language to start with because it entails many modern programming practices.

Django is a high-level Python Web framework that encourages rapid development and clean, pragmatic design.

Django is used for web based programming in Python. It's one of the best things about Python.

Finally, Python was also used to cook the moinmoin wiki engine. http://moinmo.in/  Ummmm delicious!

Mr--Why:
Before you decide on which of the languages you should learn in depth. Have you asked yourself if you prefer object oriented programming to web programming or both?

BCuZiMBlaCk:
Good Q

Bad question. Who said Web programming cannot be Object Oriented?

I think the question you meant to ask is if desktop programming or web programming is preferred?

Dr Fireman's Fans have joined Nairaland. Cool, cool.

The advert below is part of the Game. No be small thing at all.

[img]http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg615/scaled.php?tn=0&server=615&filename=32aya.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640[/img]

Everyone, judge for yourselves

[img]http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg615/scaled.php?tn=0&server=615&filename=32aya.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640[/img]

Actually if you posted as much as 300 at once, you would probably have been flagged by the spambot and banned from posting. *shrugs*

Start with Python and you can't go wrong.

Then maybe you can move on to C# on the .NET platform.

Let's assume for a moment that the argument is correct and Jesus was rich.

Did he acquire his riches via collection of tithes? Did he ask anybody to give things to him? Did he mandate the amounts that were to be "sown" into his life and ministry? Was he rich at the expense of those who were his close companions?

Abeg jare.

jayriginal:
Audi alteram partem

You have posted extracts of the argument from the other side. 100 such points. AND you have provided links to the website. I doubt that we need to wait till you post the entire contents of that website and maybe its sister websites till we have heard the other side. I'm certain if we were all posting all the data from external sites there would be no viable discussion at all.

mazaje:
Sure no one can be right all the time, enigma implied that morality comes from God and all I have said is that it is false since all moral laws and codes of conduct can be show very clearly to be created by humans ALL the time in an evolving and continuous manner. . . .God centered morality poses a problem to God believers since God believers believe in different Gods hold different moral laws and codes of conduct. . . .

I am not sure if you guys understood my point, but Kay 17 was the one who introduced God in the OP as an assumed center of objective morality, if he so exists. i.e. Kay 17 was saying, "God does not exist, because if he exists, he would have prevented evil from happening (being the center of objective morality)".

Contrary to your statements, and plaetton's, then Enigma or myself were not the ones who introduced God as a (supposed) center of objective morality; we are towing the line of the OP's initial reasoning, regardless of whatever we believe.

150k wey go buy Bold 5 (Touch) plus 6 months BIS subscription for the girl in only one day. Pschew na im de guy dey complain. Na small-time mugu self.

The girl no even ask for Louboutin shoes join make the guy kwench last last.

REALITY101:
Op are you related to Mr. Cork? Lefulefool and 190?

Lol I no dey related to them walahi.

But make we no lie, Christmas weather dey cold well well. Chei. I pity side-chicks in that weather

Kay 17:
@thelstan

i support abortion, but like selfdefense, life is lost. So its unfortunate.

If there is an omnibenevolence God, why is there evil in his creation.

Why not?

If you think there shouldn't be evil in God's creation then you believe that objective morality ought to be centered on God. Right?

Then you're the one mazaje and plaetton have been railing against all day.

omega25red:
lol

not entirely true because the side chick will get gifts too and while you the man is chiling with your fam she has a chance ti fuk around on you until you get a chance away from your family

imagine a man getting mad that his side chick is cheating on him

Hahaha I didn't think of that!

Happy holidays to all the side-chicks out there! The main chicks will be around all the time for Christmas and New Year, so nothing for you.

Enjoy the coming holidays!!

I have a problem with people who argue on threads like this and will start gallivanting when they are shown to have gaffed, it has happened often on this thread already. No one can be right all the time. Let's wait and see what mazaje and plaetton will return to say concerning their indicated solecism about a God-centered objective morality.

Enigma:
@ Thelstan

I think we might need another thread to discuss the medical aspects; however, I am actually familiar with that site that you posted; I will say "health risk" is one thing and the real statistics are another. I will also note that western opposition to it are truly largely cultural and couched in human rights terms. But as i said --- another thread, another time.

Encroyable! Thanks bro. I will look forward to that

plaetton:
And ofcourse ,you are the only one who truly understands. That's what you tell yourself.
Bravo to you.

Mazaje is aguing against your god-centered objective morality .
I have already made my case for objective morality. Once any idea becomes god-centered, it takes  convoluted pathways to validate itself.

This is ridiculous. RATHER it is the OP that has made objective morality a God-centered construct, howbeit saying that God is allowing Evil if he so exists.

This is what he said:

The presence of Evil lays the biggest doubt of the existence of an OMNIBENEVOLENT God. If there is an all good being, who in his pursuits CHOOSES good despite his ability to do bad, why is there evil? If he has elected none? If he is all perfect?

Doesn't this mean he is saying that objective morality is meant to be defined by God, if he so exists?

---

plaetton:
@Thelstan:
It is interesting that you are invoking medical science, and not god ,as the definer of objective morality for this particular issue of female Core circumcision .

I do not believe medical science kicks against my theology. I wonder where you got such an opinion from.

@Enigma

Oh my apologies. As opposed to male circumcision which has many positive benefits like below:

[Male circumcision] reduces the risk for HIV, chancroid, syphilis, neonatal urinary tract infection, penile and cervical cancers, and possibly herpes simplex virus II.[4-6] Current evidence suggests that some cells found in the male foreskin are especially vulnerable to infection with HIV,[7] and that routine circumcision of all men in Africa, for instance, could prevent 2 million new HIV infections and avert 300,000 deaths over the next 10 years.[8-10] After 20 years, 3.7 million new HIV infections would be prevented and 2.7 million deaths averted.[10]

Female circumcision or female genital mutilation has no positive medical benefits. Rather it is ridden with health problems. Below are physical and psychological consequences (FGC = Female Genital Cutting)

Immediate complications of FGC include severe pain, cellulitis, sepsis, urinary retention, hemorrhage, shock, and even death. Long-term complications, seen predominantly in women who have undergone type III procedures, include cysts, abscesses, keloids, recurrent infections, dyspareunia, and dysmenorrhea due to the infibulated scar overlying the vaginal introitus.[21,22] Neuromas, which can cause sharp, excruciating pain, are rare. Decreased sexual responsiveness is understandably common, and some women suffer infertility, but there is no increased risk for sexually transmitted infections.[21,25]

Women with FGC are significantly more likely than those without FGC to have adverse obstetrical outcomes, including prolonged or obstructed labor, obstetric fistulas, caesarean section, postpartum hemorrhage, extended maternal hospital stay, infant resuscitation, stillbirth or early neonatal death, and low birthweight.[19,26] Risks are higher with more extensive FGC. FGC leads to an extra 1-2 perinatal deaths per 100 deliveries, likely secondary to unattended or inappropriately treated obstructed labor caused by vulvar scarring.[19,23] Fetal complications are rarely seen in developed nations.[15]

Psychiatric sequelae of FGC include shame, fear, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and memory problems.[21,27] Male complications resulting from FGC include difficulty in penetration, wounds and infections on the penis, and psychological problems.[28]

References from http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/546497 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/female_genital_mutilation.shtml

@Kay17

Kay 17:
Yes, cos life is terminated, a potential is lost. And its tragic. Evil is an imperfection, a conflict with a system. Also i hate repeating myself too often. Tb has defined God, i ve defined evil and good. While u and enigma didnt read them.

Life is not necessarily lost in self-defence, and sometimes abortions are medically prescribed to save a pregnant woman's life. Is it then evil to protect yourself from an assailant, or is it evil to abort a baby to save the mother's life? Or is it good in either case? What determines your judgement?

As for your definitions, sorry I must have missed them somehow. I'll like to put it all together before we advance. Who is Tb?

mazaje:
And any one with intelligence will also see the point plaetton was making. . .

Enigma's question to plaetton was:

Enigma:
Is female circumcision "good" or "evil" and what makes it either?

But plaetton did not answer outright, he/she rather obtusely skirted the problem.

The point Enigma was making, I believe, is that some things are outright wrong regardless of societal beliefs. Some societies embrace female circumcision but it is a medically unhealthy practice, and thus is outright wrong regardless of societal beliefs.

That would then be an example of objective morality. In this case, it has been defined medically. Sound health is the preferred alternative, so it is clear what is good and what is evil in this case, regardless of whatever the society, or your family in the society (or even yourself as a young woman about to experience female geni.tal mutilation) may think.

Enigma:
@Plaetton

As Thelstan has already shown, it seems you do not understand what is meant by objective morality.

Let us take another example: some societies still believe in female circumcision and happily do it --- even the persons to be circumcised happily do it. Yet westerners (and people seeking their money) keep shouting about the "evils" of what they call 'female Core gen.ital mutilation'. So which is it? Is the act "evil" or not and on what basis do we determine whether it is indeed "evil" or not?

Thanks for a more lucid example!

plaetton:
C'mon.
Humans, whether thiests or athiests, have evolved beyond that type of behaviour. Universal codes of behaviour that respects and protects human freedom and dignity are enshrined in the laws of very every society. We have come a long way.

You must be kidding! There are recently discovered examples of such colonies and societies in Papua, Uganda and other places. And there may be yet undiscovered ones as well. I see how you have evaded the question by recoursing to non-existence of such a society. The point is that you are relying entirely on a fallible society to define your own evaluation of good and evil.

Kay 17:
@thelstan

Restrictive bias?! There are many types of Gods, and i was simply specific on the God was talking about.

Why does evil apply only to humans? As i mentioned earlier, man is a conscious being with immense intellectual abilities which strives to control nature, his fate and achieve perfection, however he is limited and opposed by nature. Evil is the contradiction, the conflict and its tragic. It includes diseases, death, abortion, self-defence. While animals are trapped by simple desire to survive.

Wait, I don't understand this. Diseases, death, abortion and self-defence are instances of evil?