₦airaland Forum

This is her [i]about me [/i]page on her website http://www.itsmarlowright.com/Its_Marlo_Wright/About_Me.html and her blog http://www.cutierun..com/ with many excerpts of the book and I have briskly perused them with no references to Christ Embassy.

Where did you find this information that you are spamming the board with (all your posts so far)? I'm curious.

Take note, I have never been in a Christ Embassy service but I don't see the reason for this mention of that church in an unrelated matter.

And Christ Embassy was not even mentioned in the video, and according to my research / the excerpts / interviews, in the book either.

plaetton:
An athiest is not island. He is part of a collective of other humans in a society. Naturally, he subcribes to moral and ethical value system of the society.A thinking human being does not need the shackles of a theological belief to subscribe to a more rational approach in recognising the merits of a collective civic consciousness and order.
Of course ,the understanding that when one is somewhat concerned about the common good, there is also a greater good to the self, even beyond or at least equal to the needs of the collective.

Do you obey law trafiic laws because you are afraid of punishment, or because safety is good for you and therefore is everyone's responsibility

So if you find yourself by some means in a society where it is perfectly alright to cannibalize on weaker people and strangers, will you join in the feasts? If not, why not?

FreddieG:
^^^^^
She was inspired to writ it when she found out that one of
the "Pastors" was not getting good loving in his marriage
and not even Head!!!

And so in that case you are right to say Christ Embassy has authored the book?      

FreddieG:
Hmm but u r aware of the book ROFLMAO!! Hmmm i seeee

No I simply did a little google search. Found her youtube videos. I don't take ANYTHING at face value anymore.

Suck a D*** Save a Marriage (SaD SaM as the book is popularly called) authored by Marlo Wright, has nothing to do with Christ Embassy. I wonder why you had to put that in the title.

mazaje:
The very CLEAR evolution of morality throughout the history of man and the fact that it varies from place to place shows that it isnt objective no?

If you say morality is, overall, subjective and not objective then necessarily good [/b]and [b]evil (which terms the OP has not clearly defined) are also globally subjective. This means there is no absolutely good construct, neither is there an absolutely evil construct. Is this your point of view so we know what you are saying?

Enigma:
You're welcome Thelstan.

Actually, I want to follow up an interesting point you made with this: the militant/aggressive/evangelical/etc atheists

Too much trouble. ANGRY Atheists works just fine for me.   That's the mental connection that I obtain when I think about how they approach religious discussions. Heck, even when I see their posts here. Obviously I'm not new on Nairaland.

Enigma:
the militant/aggressive/evangelical/etc atheists like to quote that famous phrase of Epicurus, meanwhile they overlook the fact that Epicurus was not arguing a caae for atheism with that quote at all; similarly they like to refer to the 'Euthypro dilemma' (or a modified modern version) but they overlook that Plato assumed the existence of a god or gods with the so-called dilemma.

You KNOW this!!! Atheists nowadays like to recourse to such as these but what Epicurus and Euthyphyro were arguing is NOT a case for atheism. Rather it translates to cases for a better understanding of the vast dynamics of God.

I am totally in love with this thread!

Here is my favourite quote so far by 1Godfather

In essence, most atheists, when they attempt to wrestle with the arguments from the other side of the aisle, seem to be really only capable of interacting with caricaturish and simplistic misrepresentations of the argument. It betrays a certain level of intellectual vacuousness that would make you question their pretensions to the contary. It seems that much of the contents of the new atheist arsenal are simply appeals to ridicule and sophistry.

And I love this too, by Enigma

Now as long as evangelical atheists maintain the attitude bolded, especially the red bit:

- they are liars when they say they support "free thinking"
- they are fundamentalists
- they do not believe in freedom of religion
- they accept only one religion --- the (evangelical) atheism religion!
- they are intolerant of others' viewpoints
- they are dogmatic and dogmatists
- they are hardly better than those who say "our religion is a religion of peace, but we kill those who deconvert"

Jayriginal kindly stop spamming the thread with posts from that website naa. We have seen the link and extracts already.

^^^^

Na wa for your size 75 red font o. Haba.

I just read https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-298119.0.html and I'm in stitches.

"30 Keys To Being An Effective Atheist"

Interesting! Thanks for sharing, Enigma

Enigma:
The outstanding question that the militant/aggressive/evangelical/etc atheists are avoiding: what is the basis of your morality and on what basis do you classify ANYTHING as "good" or "evil"?

This was my own point of entry into the thread, and I have stressed this question to no avail!

Enigma:
In fairness, one of them says there is no objective morality; only he does not realise the ramifications of such a statement. What's new?

Wow no objective morality would make us all descend very fast into. . . anarchy. Phew God forbid.

Extracts from a peer-reviewed Stanford University article about Leibnitz on Theodicy

[b]Open any contemporary introductory textbook of philosophy and it becomes clear that the problem of evil in contemporary philosophy[i] is thought of as an argument for atheism. [/i][/b]Since, the atheist contends, God and evil are incompatible, and evil clearly exists, there is no God. Some, thinking that the claimed incompatibility in the above argument is too strong, argue that even if the existence of God and the existence of evil prove compatible, the existence (or duration, or amount, or distribution) of evil provides us with at least strong evidence that God does not exist.

Framed in this way, the “atheistic problem of evil” invites certain sorts of responses. In particular, it invites the theist to explain how a being that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good can allow evil to exist. And thus, contemporary responses to the problem of evil focus largely on presenting “theodicies”, that is, reasons why a perfect being does or might allow evils of the sort (or duration, or amount, or distribution) we find in our world.

When we turn back, however, to the works of those medieval philosophers who treat the problem of evil, the “atheistic problem” is not to be found. Since these figures believed that the arguments of natural theology demonstrated overwhelmingly the existence of God, the problem that evil presented was quite different. For them, the problem was how the existence of evil was compatible with divine moral purity or holiness. Since, they argued, God is the author of everything that exists, and evil is one of the things that exists, God is thereby the author of evil. And if someone is an “author of evil,” they are thereby implicated in the evil and thus cannot be morally pure or holy. Thus, God cannot be morally pure nor holy. Let's call this problem of evil the “holiness problem.”

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-evil/

THIS is the classical problem of Theodicy. It is not an argument for atheism like Kay 17 and his bedfellows are trying to tout here. It is a "holiness" problem. And there have been generations of arguments and refutations on the topic.

You may want to read the entire article if you are interested in the centuries-old philosophical problem called the holiness problem. Nothing new here.

ETA: And yes, Thehomer, this article discusses God from a theistic viewpoint without trying to apply a single case like Christianity to a general case.

Mazaje,

Your comment has been successfully recognized.

---

Thehomer,

I am tired of this unfruitful back and forth. I have the RIGHT to state that I am a theist and leave it at that without you attempting to box me into a corner with definitions of a God, which is [i]my [/i]personal God and you have no business about. I, for example, am content knowing that you are an atheist and I leave it at that. There are too many brands of atheism and I don't actually care which one of them you subscribe to, knowing you are an atheist is sufficient for our discussion. And yes, I can discuss the problem here without recourse to any particular strawman representation of God e.g. a white bearded guy in the sky, for you to attack.

---

Kay 17,

The problem you are outlining here is a classic philosophical one called Theodicy. Are you familiar with it?

Enigma:
Keys nos 1 & 2 from here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-298119.0.html   


The OP did not mention the Christian God; I have not focused on the Christian God. Above all we have asked the OP to define what he means by "God"; we have also asked the OP to define what he means by "good". He has done neither! Also, his definition of "evil" is evidently inadequate.


Thus the so-called atheists* are so far only wasting everyone's time.



* More properly: evangelical atheists, militant atheists, aggressive atheists, fanatical atheists etc etc etc.

And that's all. Thanks for the summary, Enigma

Thumbs up!

thehomer:
What idea of God are you referring to? I thought you wished to go with the Christian God for starters.

You had no reason to assume. I was supporting Enigma's reasoning. Enigma is a Christian but the reason that he supplied encompasses a general theistic viewpoint.

thehomer:
You need to pick the idea of God you're referring to for me to know what I'm to deal with.

Not so. The OP did not specify either. In threads that are talking expressly about the Christian God, I am also talking about the same unless I state otherwise. But that's not the case here so let's be as vague as the OP was, alright? I wonder why you need a particular strawman of God to deal with when the OP did not present any one in particular for the sake of discussion.

thehomer:
I'm using the particular theist's idea of what God is. I don't have to believe in the Christian God to understand what Christians believe.

And is the Christian God necessarily [/b]the one that the OP refers to in his opening remark "The presence of Evil lays the biggest doubt of the existence of an OMNIBENEVOLENT God"? If not, why are you zooming in on that view of God?

thehomer:
Actually, you are doing that when you point to God as some sort of standard.

Yes, as [b]a standard for those who believe in that God. I don't know how many times I need to say that. You're an atheist so why should it be a standard for you? You think one size fits all?

thehomer:
Sure but some theists think they are objective terms and introduce God as the resolution to that idea. That is the view of many Christians. This is why I need to know your idea of God. I was proceeding on the assumption that we were discussing the Christian idea of God.

As I said, this thread is not about the Christian God, unless it was necessarily [/i]so indicated by the OP so you have no reason to assume such. The OP has been asked to define what he means by an omnibenevolent God, and what the features of this God are, that make him lay a lot of doubt on his existence due to the presence of Evil when he can rather do Good. The words colored here are yet to be defined to place this thread and consequent discussion into proper context.

thehomer:
Knowledge of what Christians believe and the words of Christian speakers.

And so you commit an inductive fallacy of hasty generalization. Well understood.

thehomer:
No it doesn't digress from the thrust of this discussion because God was being considered as a solution to the idea of good and evil.

Solution for those who believe in God. If you do not believe in (any) God, as you don't, the solution is moot to you. This is crystal clear.

thehomer:
Atheism isn't a worldview.

Is that so?
Worldview(n): The framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual, group or culture interprets the world and interacts with it.

thehomer:
My point is that God isn't a good response to resolving the idea of good and evil.

How do you manage to describe what is to be used to resolve the idea of [i]good [/i]using the same word?
And of course to you, God isn't a good response to [i]anything [/i]since you don't believe he exists. This is an uncomplicated matter.

thehomer:
It isn't popular opinion but that the idea of good and evil is based on the [i]well being of conscious creatures.

Another anthropocentric view. Is it evil for a man to eat a dying woman in a case of extreme hunger in isolation (e.g. trapped underground) / famine? After all, his well being as a conscious creature has been taken care of. And there is the survival of the fittest to look at, isn't there? Tut tut.

thehomer:
So, what point are you trying to make? Is God an appropriate standard for deciding what is good and evil?

Since you have decided to be anthropocentric; then humanly speaking, there are personal standards and communal standards.

For those who hold God in their worldview, God is an appropriate objective standard for deciding what is good and evil. For those without God in their worldview, I take it that it is left to each individual bias. Either way, it is a subjective matter on the personal scale.

For a societal collection of people, with such various subjective tandards, they come to an agreement on what they will call good and evil, they establish laws and they try to stick to them.

thehomer:
And the claim that God is moral isn't biased?

Where have I said God is moral? Rather, I said the below:

Thelstan:
I don't get your point because not all religions consider God, respectively, as a moral being. And what is the rationale for preferring a moral being? Moral with respect to what?

Morality is subjective too, and so for you to say God is moral, God must be moral with respective to something beyond himself. For a belief in an absolute God who does not rely on any other construct, this will not figure.

thehomer:
Sure. So which God are you referring to?

Isn't the word "God" subjective to each theist? You're an atheist, and you're making claims about God to a theist. How does that work until you define what you mean by God, just as you do not believe in the idea?

thehomer:
Actually, it is the issue. A major part of the issue. If the Christian God defines a threshold of evil actions, then how can one say that it is moral? Or that we get the idea of morality from it?

Nobody asked you to take your idea of morality from a God you do not believe in.

thehomer:
In other words, good and evil depend on the person's idea of God's desires. How is this not subjective?

Have I not already said that evil and good are subjective terms within the context of an understanding or acceptance of "God", contrary to what the OP states?

thehomer:
The God the person believes in.

All the actions he commands.

Whoever believes in him strongly enough.

Sure. One thing common to them is that if their God commands them to commit genocide, they must go ahead and do it. Doing otherwise will be a sin.

And you know this by personal observation, by second-hand reports or by private experience?

thehomer:
For the God believer, there are no thresholds. Whatever God commands must be done. If he commands you to commit genocide, you better go ahead and do it.
If the believer forms his own thresholds, then they don't believe deeply in that God or don't think his commands are worthy to be obeyed.

This digresses from the thrust of THIS discussion. The OP is an atheist. So I ask; for atheism as a worldview, what delineates your own express definitions of evil and good since a construct God is not within any of your worldviews? Is it popular opinion? Or you're also anthropocentric like Kay 17?

plappville:
Back this up with the bible plz.

Cornelius' household - Acts 10:1-11:18; 15:7-11

God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34) so the same token applied to the entire household.

My point is that baptism is a symbolic expression of faith. I am not saying the baptism of a baby saves it. It just shows an intention of dedication of the child to God. Even if infants are dedicated to the Lord, when they grow up they will still have to make their personal decisions.

Some people believe baptism can save a baby, but I disagree; and I disagree also that it can even save an adult. But that is my own view.

Kay 17:
I would restrict God to the Muslim and Christian versions, since they claim their Gods are omnibenevolent. But to claim that whatever God does is good, undermines the fact that moral values are inherent in acts not agents.

Those are not the only two religions that uphold a view of an omnibenevolent supreme God. And whatever the case, why should WE ALL be limited to the restrictions of your own bias, especially since you do not even believe in the God in context? Now you're taking the theist's threshold and using it to define an atheist's threshold of good and evil.

Kay 17:
Evil goes beyond subjective, its clearly the opposition to the full development of human potential. I feel evil is the conflict btw man and his surrounding. Like a design flaw.

Why should the world be anthropocentric? Why should your definition of evil revolve around human beings? Do you believe evil can involve, for instance, animals or other aspects of nature besides human beings?

You said "full development of human potential". Isn't human potential often fully developed at the expense of some other humans? Can't you see that good and evil will still be subjective to bias, in that case?

Kay 17:
@the

there are cases of destruction, disability which immediately strike our minds as evil. However, if you see good as what God does without any barrier or choice involved, then he is not a moral being, who is capable of being good.

I don't get your point because not all religions consider God, respectively, as a moral being. And what is the rationale for preferring a moral being? Moral with respect to what?

Morality is subjective too, and so for you to say God is moral, God must be moral with respective to something beyond himself. For a belief in an absolute God who does not rely on any other construct, this will not figure.

[img]http://c0014044.r32.cf1.rackcdn.com/x2_957956b[/img]

juancabana:
Greetings, I took the photo with a digital camera there is no photoshop involved. Visit my site thefeejeemermaid.com I took all the photos on my site, some indoors some outdoors.

This mermaid is not made out of plaster either as someone here claims. The mermaid is 100% authentic fish skin on the exterior. As are all my creations.

Also I am not Mexican ( or Mexican descent ). I was born in Tampa

Best regards, Juan Cabana ( Tampa Florida )

Welcome to Nairaland, Juan Cabana. It's really lovely work you do!

There is nothing wrong with baptising a baby. It is a symbolic expression of faith on behalf of the parents, and no harm is done. If the child grows up and chooses to be baptised again, he/she can go ahead.

E no dey too much for body

*Chops knuckle*

Thanks bro.

Yes I'm 100% sure I'm the person you, by 99% I guess, think I am.

Hi Enigma

Yes I should sound familiar sir. A leopard can't hide its spots. And thanks, yeah it's been a while,

Cheers!

Reference:

A non-alcoholic beverage is a beverage that contains less than 0.5% alcohol by volume.[1] Non-alcoholic versions of some alcoholic beverages, such as non-alcoholic beer ("near beer" and cocktails ("mocktails", are widely available where alcoholic beverages are sold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-alcoholic_beverage

Wine is always wine and always has alcohol. It's all in the percentages. Non-alcoholic wine is, by definition, wine with less than 0.5% alcohol by volume (ABV).

italo:
Jesus provided wine, he didn't force it down anyone's throat. When he fed 5,000, he provided surplus food (12 baskets surplus) and he knew that gluttony was a sin. He didn't force anyone to overfeed.

Well said, italo.

thehomer:
Do you think there is any threshold with the Christian God? I hope you know that he recommends slavery, commands genocide and is perfectly willing to punish children for sins of their parents.
What many people don't seem to realize is that with God, all things are permitted.

This opinion is verily biased.

To start with, "God" in my previous post need not refer to the Christian worldview. But for the sake of context in your reply, let us first take the Christian God as an example.

Secondly, whether the Christian God recommends anything for people or not, or[i] punishes a category[/i] of people or not, is not the issue here. The thrust of the matter is that the Christian God somewhat defines a Threshold, no matter how fair or unfair YOU [/b]may think it is; and the Christians can define their own perceptions of good and evil [b]RELATIVE [/i]to that Threshold, and maybe believed to be valid as at that point in time.

Generally, any God-believing person (whichever God such a one believes in) has an absolute Threshold or a set of Absolute Thresholds (each one for the deities  he deems most supreme) and this earmarks (a) definition(s) of Thresholds by which he/she can define good and evil.

When you say with God all things are permitted, once again you have made a biased and blanket statement. Which God? And what are the all things? To whom are they permitted?

[i]For each and every believer in some God, not all things are permitted. For a Muslim, who believes in Allah (SAW) some things are haram (forbidden) BUT ONLY for those who will believe Allah (SAW) as their God. That is a threshold, and it will not define verges of evil and good for, say, a Jew for whom other things are for example, kosher (sacred) because he/she is a believer in YHWH.

There is always a threshold for one who believes in some God(s), by which they define their observations and experiences as good or evil, relative to the thresholds believed about the God(s). For an atheist, no such thresholds exist. How can an atheist then concern herself with expressions of good and evil. Good and evil relative to what exactly? Popular opinion? 

No be small thing o!



https://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/full/450502179.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJF3XCCKACR3QDMOA&Expires=1322347735&Signature=BBSzOh6gBiPf8dbCu4SQrzk5csc%3D

Kay 17:
You are daft!

But this comment was uncalled for!

This question is only designed to foment trouble.