₦airaland Forum

KnownUnknown:
Close it then. I don’t know why you are getting your panties in a bunch.

Your resort to juvenile insult confirms you have no substantive response. My position remains clear and stands unchallenged . You addressed me based on a literalist assumption I do not hold. That was your error.

I have no tolerance for " gotcha" questions followed by incivility when they fail. Engage with someone like Dtruthspeaker who shares your premise.

This conversation is closed. Thank you.

Dtruthspeaker:
Figures of speech are always based on the real natural conducts and behaviour of humans therefore, it is always literal

Your statement is a direct contradiction and demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of literary terms.

A "figure of speech" is by definition not literal. That's what makes it a "figure of speech". If it were literal, it would be a straightforward description, not a figure.

KnownUnknown:
What mistake? The op is based on the literal angle, and my questions were based on that and your response to it.

You approached it from the allegorical angle and presented interpretations including the one you referred to as key.

Where is the “gotcha”?



“the key Jewish interpretation just leads to more questions“ and you said allegories are supposed to lead to more questions. So, how is that a “gotcha”?

I thought you would ask what questions it leads to, not take offense!!!

You are still evading.

My very first reply corrected the OP's premise by stating the story is not literal but allegory. That was me declaring my position. From that moment, you knew I did not subscribe to the literal "gotcha" framework.

Yet, you continued to address me as if I did.You ignored my correction and persisted with the questions that only make sense if directed at a literalist. That is your mistake: failing to engage the person actually in front of you.

You are now retroactively justifying this by saying, "The OP was literal". That is irrelevant. Once I entered the conversation to reject that premise, your choice was to either, defend literalism against my arguments,or engage with my allegorical position.

You did neither. You pretended my correction didn't exist and argued with a phantom literalist. This is why the conversation is stalled. You are not debating me , you are debating the assumption you refuse to update..


Since you pretend not to understand, a "gotcha" question is designed to trap someone in the logic of a premise they accept. You asked me questions that only function as a trap if one a accept the literal historicity of the story. Since my first reply rejected that premise, your questions became non-sequiturs , a failed ""gotcha"".

So answer directly and honestly; when you asked me those logical puzzles, was it because you take the story literally, or because you assumed I did? If the latter, you erred, as my position was clear. If the former, then defend your literalism and stop hiding behind your finger.


The discussion on "interpretation" was always secondary, a demonstration that even religious traditions support the non-literal genre. You've used it as a smokescreen to avoid the core issue you keep dodging. You misjudged my position from the start and refused the correct course.

The mistake is yours. Own it, or at least stop pretending you don't understand it. If not, consider this conversation closed. I have no tolerance for profoundly deceptive arguments.

KnownUnknown:
It is a pick your own interpretation situation. You even gave an Islamic interpretation, Christian interpretations, and a key Jewish interpretation, which can be varied based on the school of thought. Also, I am aware of another interpretation that’s said to be based on the originating context and different from the one you presented.

Also, the key Jewish interpretation just leads to more questions.

You are conflating two separate debates to avoid addressing your initial error.

The core argument is about genre ( fiction vs literal history) not theological interpretation. You are trying to shift the goalposts because you are loath to admit your mistake.

You framed the story as a literal, historical report and asked a "gotcha" question about its plot's logic. My response was, and remains; The story is not a literal report. It is a foundational myth or allegory, filled with clearly non-literal elements, a talking snake,a magical tree. Its purpose is to convey truth through symbolism, not to document events. A child who understands the genre of a folk tale doesn't ask how it's possible for a tortoise to fly to heaven with borrowed wings, they understand the symbolic rules of the story.


By asking me your original question, you assumed I had a literalist view. That was your error. You should direct those " logic puzzle" questions to religious fundamentalist who share your literal premise, not to me.

It was only after I corrected your genre error that you deflected to " pick your interpretation". I provide examples ( Jewish,, Islamic, Christian) not to say "pick one you like", but to demonstrate that even the religious traditions themselves largely treat it as non-literal allegory, each deriving different moral lessons from the same fictional or mythic base. This was evidence against literalism, not an invitation to relativism.

Your statement, "the key Jewish interpretation just leads to more questions", is the entire point. Allegories are meant to provoke questions and introspection. Literal reports are meant to yield factual verification. You're demanding factual answers from a parable.


Your deceptive tactic is clear. When your literalist "gotcha " failed, you retreated to vague talk of "interpretation" to pretend the core issue (genre) is unresolved. It is resolved.

The Adam and Eve story is a work of profound fiction. Accept that you misjudged my position from the start and that your initial question was a category error. Next time as ascertain if someone reads Genesis as history before asking them to defend its historical logic.

KnownUnknown:
So, it’s “pick your own interpretation”. Fair enough.

No. it is not "pick your own interpretation" That's a serious or deliberate misunderstanding of what I said.

I explained the historical and textual context, not personal preference.

I said the story is a Jewish text that was composed and compiled within the Jewish tradition centuries before Christianity existed.

I further explained that within that originating tradition, for thousand of years, it has been essentially understood as theological allegory and myth, a story about human nature, not a historical report.

But thousand of years later , when Christianity emerged it developed a different theological framework (original sin) and reinterpreted the story to fit that new doctrine. This is secondary interpretation and it is what most people like yourself are familiar with .

So my point is not that all interpretations are equally valid. I never said so or even suggested it. My point is that to understand what the story is , its genre, its purpose and its original meaning. You must look to its source. The Christian literal and doctrinal reading is not an " alternative" to the Jewish allegorical reading. It is a later theological adaption of it.

Ignoring the originating context and judging the story by a later foreign interpretation is to guarantee misunderstanding. I am not asking anyone to pick an interpretation. . I am asking anyone reading this, apart from you, to research the source of the text so they know the primary lens through which the story was meant to be read by those who created it. That's all.

KnownUnknown:
If they didn’t have understanding or moral awareness before eating the fruit, how can they be faulted for eating the fruit?

The god told them not to eat the fruit, they agreed but they did not have any understanding or moral awareness.

The serpent told them to eat the fruit, they agreed but they did not have any understanding or moral awareness.

So, what is their transgression?

I never mentioned "transgression" because I am not a Christian and do not subscribe to the doctrine of Original sin. The concept of "transgression against God" is a specific Christian theological interpretation .

The story originates in Judaism, where it is essentially understood as an allegory. In that tradition, "Adam" does not refer to a single historical man, but represents humankind from the Hebrew word, adamah , earth.

A key Jewish interpretation sees the "serpent" not as a devil, but as the yetzer hare, the human inclination towards selfishness or immediate desire. "God' in the context of the story represents our higher moral conscience or divine spark. The story, therefore, delineates the internal human condition, when we succumb to our lower impulses, " we "transgress" against our own higher nature and introduce suffering into our lives. It is an allegory for the birth of moral consciousness and its consequences.

In Islam, the story is similarly seen as a moral lesson about human weakness, error,and repentance, not as original sin that corrupts all future generations. That doctrine of inherited sin is uniquely Christian theological development, one that many, myself included, find logically problematic, as your question rightly highlights

I am not here to defend any specific doctrine. I am explaining the story's purpose as a foundational myth or allegory. It was never meant to be taken literally. The very elements of the story, a talking snake, a magical tree, signal its genre as a symbolic narrative meant to convey a moral and existential truths.

Unfortunately, debates about Genesis are often dominated by two groups who insist on a literal reading; religious fundamentalists and the militant atheist who argues against them. Both sides are trapped in the same literalist framework and completely miss the story's deeper literally meaning.

Everything I have explained here regarding the Jewish perspective is standard mainstream interpretation. You can confirm it by visiting any authentic educational resource on Judaism. You don't need to take my word for it and continue to question me about what is contained in the narrative.

Thank you

Arda1000:
so it was moonlight tales ?

Calling a foundational myth, an allegory, or a profound piece of anceint literature a " moonlight tale" is simply a refusal to engage with its meaning. It's like calling Homer's Odyssey a "fish story" or "Plato's Allegory of the Cave "shadow puppets" and thinking you have made a point.

You've substituted a dismissive label "moonlight tale" for understanding. I'm not arguing about the label, but how we read an ancient text literally or literarily. You've made your choice very clear.

Arda1000:
so it was moonlight tales ?

However it's described, moonlight tale, fairytale or allegory, the literary category doesn't change. It's not a literal report even though some religious fundamentalist have interpreted it as that.

The purpose of the narrative is to convey truths about human consciousness, morality and relationship with what the ancient perceive as the divine or God.

"Eyes open" is a universal metaphor for gaining understanding, in this case, moral awareness and shame.

So to focus all your attention on the biological optics is to reject the story's own terms and purpose.

Arda1000:
Saw after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit their eyes opened and they saw that they were naked.
My question is if they were naked all the while before eating the fruit,does it mean their eyes were not functioning?

The Genesis story is an allegory not meant to be interpreted literally.

The " eyes open" is a metaphor for gaining moral awareness and the knowledge of good and evil, not physical sight.

MaxInDHouse:
The OP spoke his mind regarding what is evil in the churches of Christendom and i showed him what Jesus said about title bearing outside the church it's you that came quoting me out of context talking about politicians when i never mention politicians in my post all because you have a soft spot for self righteousness title bearers who has bribed you.
This is what the scriptures say:
Self righteousness is worthless before the true God {Isaiah 64:6} so to worship God acceptably we must obey whatever His son declares {Matthew 17:5} many are pretending with their gifts so they can make a name for themselves before you {Matthew 6:2} the reason is to gain attention from gullible onlookers but even if they die in the process it's not the love for God they had but hidden agenda! 1Corinthans 13:2-3

So to be a real Christian there shouldn't be anything like title bearing outside the church of Christ so only his disciples will recognize you for the way you are serving your Christian brothers not creating public awareness.

That's why Jesus condemned it!

You have now accused me of having as "soft spot" and being "bribed" . You continue to preach your specific interpretation of scripture as if it is the only possible one.

The reason Jesus advised against titles like "Rabbi and "Father" was to ensure humility and equality among his disciples, to prevent hierarchy of pride. It was not a declaration that titles are the root cause of financial corruption or exploitation in the church. That is your personal interpretation, not the plain meaning of the text

And this confirms my point entirely. You're not here to debate the thread's topic. You're here to preach your doctrine. You're here to attack anyone who doesn't immediately agree with you

No reasonable discussion can happen under those conditions. I have addressed the logical error in the OP''s statement. You're welcome to your theological opinions. I'm done

MaxInDHouse:
Your bad intentions is what's giving you a problem.

There is no single Christian bearing titles outside the church if you find any person whatever righteousness they are trying to claim with their works is unchristian as long as they don't adhere to Jesus' command.

No disciple of Christ should bear religious titles outside the congregation simple as ABC! Matthew 23:2-10

So even if the person share food with you in your house and pay your hospital bills as long as he doesn't adhere to what Jesus taught he is not a Christian!🙂

You arguing in bad faith. I'm not the person who created the thread. So why accusing me of having bad intentions concerning a debate I did not start?

I'm focus on debating the OP's claim about pastor being a position in a Religious Business company while you are focus on debating if it's Christian to bear the title, or who is a true Christian.

MaxInDHouse:
That's why i said you often misplace the comments of others.

OP said the title PASTOR is just position within the religious setting and i said it's even unchristian.

So if you don't know what to say stop quoting others out of point.

You are the one guilty of what you're accusing me of.

OP did not say the title "pastor" is just "a position within the religious setting" He said ," pastor is a position in a Religious Business company"

Go and read it again so you don't derail the thread.

Here below

essentialone:
A Pastor is just a Position in a Religious Business Company RBC. Nothing more than that.

MaxInDHouse:
There is nothing like public titles in true Christianity no Christian is expected to hold any title recognisable outside the church.

I did not say a " Christian is expected to hold any title recognisable outside the church "

I said it is not true that the title "pastor" is the root cause of corruption in the church.

MaxInDHouse:
You are misplacing what i said.

In politics you have the right to bear whatever title you hold since it's not by faith that people must recognize you rather it's by force as your attendants carry weapons to intimidate whoever look down on you but in Christianity we are submissive to those taking the lead among us because we respect Jesus who is the head of the church.

So if Jesus commanded that they should not take their office to the public we in the congregation gives them double honor even though those outside don't know who they are or what service they are rendering to God's flock.

I'm not "misplacing" what you said. You are the one "misplacing" it by shifting the goalpost.

You just said the title , "pastor" is the root cause of corruption in churches. Now you're arguing that such titles disobey Jesus. Those are two different debates. The first is a logical claim I've addressed. The second is a doctrinal one I'm not having. This discussion is over.

Thank you

MaxInDHouse:
That's why i go straight to the root cause of the problem: failure to adhere to what Jesus taught!

You are arguing that if we simply remove the word "pastor", exploitation would vanish. By that logic, remaining, "corruption" would end corruption, or remaining "Nigerian senators" would end corruption in the upper chamber.

No. This doesn't make sense. Corruption resides in individuals and systems, not in titles . If the title itself were the cause, then every single person bearing it would be doing the same thing, operating a "Religious Business Company". That is plainly false.

MaxInDHouse:
Who cares what you think?

I'm talking about what Jesus taught which if not strictly adhered to will lead to problems that warrants the topic of discussion now.

So if nobody bears titles in Christianity do you think such could be a topic of discussion in the first place?

Topics of discussion arise from reality, not from ideal world. We discuss corruption among politicians because politicians exist. Arguing we wouldn't need to discuss it if the role didn't exist is trivial and avoids the actual discussion about the people who do fill the role of "pastor".

MaxInDHouse:
When a man or woman is addressed in the public with any religion title such a person is not a disciple of Christ Jesus!



“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others. “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted. ‭Matthew 23:2-12 NIV‬


Why do people carry religious titles out to the streets?
Jesus answered: To be highly respected and greeted in the public with their titles.

So Jesus commanded his own followers never to be addressed with religious titles rather we all address one another as "BROTHERS" and "SISTERS"

Satan is crafty he may refer to what Paul wrote in the Bible book of Ephesians 4:11


So Christ himself gave the APOSTLES, the PROPHETS, the EVANGELISTS, the PASTORS and TEACHERS, ‭Ephesians 4:11 NIV‬


Does this negates what Jesus taught his disciples?

The answer is NO.

Each disciple who is diligent with his or her discipleship will be given the spirit to serve others in the congregation (church) in different ways but then it's only among the disciples that such ones are recognized due to their activities not by the general public who has nothing to do with the faith.

Your comment introduces a different issue that is irrelevant to the ongoing discussion.

The topic is not whether it is right for Christians to bear the title of pastor according to one's scriptural interpretation. The topic is whether it is factually accurate to claim that every single person who currently bears that title is necessary holding a position in a "Religious Business Company" , or is inherently corrupt.

essentialone:
Even the best scientific researches in the world are all based on Sampling. Call it generalizations and it becomes your headache.

No. It's not my headache. It's yours that you aren't even aware you made a fallacious statement about anyone bearing the title "pastor", .

Instead of acknowledging your mistake, you want to double down on it due to ego.

Your declaration is an unscientific claim. It's based on your personal observation, which is not supported by any valid scientific research. So, don't hide behind science, a methodology for arriving at truth you have shown, by your own comments, you don't even understand

FYI, scientific truths are conventional truths, not absolute; that's why they leave the door open for further research. In your case, you have shut that door firmly, leaving no room for anyone to question your absolute claim; "Nothing more than that"

Sample sizes in the sciences are subjected to rigoruos testing before conclusions are drawn from them. But you know nothing of that. Your "evidence" is merely the anecdotal claim that something is "loud" and therefore true.

You made reference to the " best scientific research". But what valid scientific research have you carried out on this matter? None .

I already stated the discussion couldn't continue, and you have given me further reasons why that decision was a good one.

Say whatever you like. I have made my point clear, which you haven't been able to engage directly, let alone debunk.

essentialone:
Ok that pastors I know and see are the ones I described all pastors as. I don't know any sincere or selfless pastor. All are Scammers and Fraudsters.

You've just perfectly illustrated the logical fallacy you've been committing this whole time. You're using your limited personal experience, "the pastors you know" as proof for a claim about all pastors, or for anyone bearing that title.

That's not sound reasoning. It's a perfect definition of hasty generalisation. By that same logic.

If I only knew dishonest lawyers, I could claim all lawyers are dishonest.

If I only knew rude Nigerians, I could claim all Nigerians are rude.

You're admitting your judgement isn't based on the full reality of the group, but on your own limited, and apparently unfortunate, sample size. With this sort of reasoning you've displayed, how do your expect any reasonable person to take your seriously?

There's no further reason to continue. I will leave it there. You have clarified that your stance is based on personal bias, not on an objective fact about the world.

essentialone:
Well, when something becomes too loud, it becomes the norm. Those we see and know are the Religious Business Centers Pastors. So we can judge them all with that standard. Or should I also go and start looking for Nigerian hip hop artistes who do not smoke Igbo, or to look for Nigerian actresses who are not into Hookup and Prostitution?

You're proving my point about the danger of generalisations.Your opening statement ," when something becomes too loud it becomes the norm" is completely false and dangerous. You are using it to justify prejudice and cognitive bias. And it explains why you think anyone bearing the title "pastor" is corrupt, just like "every herdsman is a kidnapper". The reasoning is very poor.

Moreover, your analogies about artists and actresses are a deflection. They don't address the fact that your original statement was an overgeneralisation.

If someone said "Every Nigerian youth is an internet fraudster," would you accept that as fair? Or would you point out it's a harmful stereotype that ignores all the hardworking, honest young people?

You would rightly reject that label for yourself if you're not involved. And you wouldn't accept it if they insisted all Nigerian youths are fraudsters because of the "loud" ones like Hushpuppi.

That's my entire point. Judging all pastors by the worst, most visible examples is the same logical error. We can, and must, criticize the corrupt "Religious Business Centres" without claiming that's the only thing a pastor can be.

Using your logic, one can justify any prejudice by pointing to its " loudest" examples.

essentialone:
A Pastor is just a Position in a Religious Business Company RBC. Nothing more than that.

Your statement is a pretty sweeping generalisation. It takes the worst examples of religious commercialism and applies that label to everyone, which isn't logically sound or factually accurate.

There's a world of difference between a megachurch pastor with private jet and a local minister who visits the sick and funds a community food bank, sometimes with his own money, sometimes from those inspired by his work. For the latter (and there are countless individuals like this), being a pastor is a calling to serve, not a business to profit from . They genuinely believe a God exist and has called them to serve humanity. This belief, not greed , is their true motivation. Mother Teresa is the famous example, but she's just a tip of the iceberg .

I worked with a retired colleague who, along with other pastors without their own churches,used her personal funds to visit orphanages and prisons. They donated clothes, food and medicine. That was her ministry and "nothing more than that"

So, perhaps the issue is less with the title "pastor" and more with specific, exploitative models of church leadership.

GanagiBitrus:
Both those that practise this fetish nonsense +those that believe in such practices are all part of the problem.

You've correctly identified the belief system at the heart of the problem. It is the belief that certain human body parts contain supernatural power to grant wealth, political victory, legal success, or invincibility.

While believers and practitioners are the direct actors, the rest of society, through willful misunderstanding and mockery, becomes the enabler that allows the crime to persist.

If we want to end the practice,we must stop mislabeling it as organ trafficking, especially in cases like this, where organs from a corpse are medically useless for transplant. This misdiagnosis misdirects investigations toward imaginary medical networks and away from the true motive: ritual use for metaphysical gan. It lets the real perpetrators, the spiritual fraudsters and their clients ,off the hook

We must stop dismissing it as the problem of poor ignorant people looking for magic money. This condescension does not dismantle the belief. Instead, it drives believers deeper into secrecy and empowers practitioners to manipulate their clients

The result is that the police pursue the wrong leads (transplant networks), while public ridicule prevents a serious examination of the criminal networks built on these beliefs.

Dtruthspeaker:
And this is where I pointed out the first fall of the ops statement for

1). If" means that he is talking about conjectures, fabrications, delushuns and fake and not real things

Whereas, we eat real food to live and not fake, unreal food.

2) his statement presupposes that he has seen and met the "ultimate source", to the point that he could describe the so called "ultimate source" whereas, he has not.

Thus, everything he has said on this basis, is not True. And as lawyers say, if you place something on nothing, it cannot stand



You said you had a slightly different view but you did not present it.

Yes, I indeed imply that creator" is the primary or highest category according to the limitation of our human language. And the other examples you give are still lesser than the word creator.

For a Creator is infinite, we don't His Name unless He tells us hence it is understandable by some may say "nameless". And just like the Name, we cannot know His Source.

So, you see, all these are still lesser than the the word 'creator'.

Your response clarifies the fundamental difference in our starting points, which is the entire crux of the discussion.

Yes, you are correct that I didn't state a "slightly different" theological belief. I stated a fundamentally different methodical approach.

Your starting point is "The ultimate reality is a personal Creator who has revealed Himself as such. Therefore, "Creator" is the primary and highest category"

The methodological point I and the OP are making is "Many major spiritual systems begin with a different axiom: that the ultimate reality is mpersonal, non-dual, or beyond the subject-object relationship of "Creator" and "creation". Therefore, "Creator" is not their primary category, it's a category they do not use"

To make this very clear: Brahman, Tao and Olodumare or Olorun are not equivalent to "Creator" as understood in Christianity. This is not just a philosophical distinction, but a historical and linguistic one..


A key example, which you can easily investigate , is in the Yoruba language. In the 19th century, Bishop Samuel Ajayi Crowther, translating the Bible, made a profound theological imposition.

He used the indigenous word, "Olorun" ( Sometimes, Olodumare) to translate the Christian "God" , Jehovah or Yahweh. In Ifa tradition Olorun or Olodumare refers to the supreme unknowable, and formless source, not a personal creator in a biblical sense. This is the same categorical error he made in translating "Esu" ( a divine messenger and enforcer of balance in Ifa) as "Satan"

In Ifa, adherents refer to the ultimate source as either Olodumare or Olorun. They are used interchangeably, with Olodumare often emphasising supreme destiny. It is not the name for a known creator with human emotions, possessing a chosen people or a sacred scripture.



When I say Brahman, Tao, or Olodumare are not " lesser", I mean they are not even in the same category ranking system.

You are asking, "What is the highest descriptive word for the Maker"

They are asking, What is the fundamental nature of existence"?

Your statement that these are "still lesser than the word "Creator" only makes sense if you first accept your axiom. From within their axioms "Creator is the lesser or irrelevant term, because it introduces a personal agent where they perceive none


So, we have reached the core issue. This is a conversation about different first principles, not about comparing terms within the same system.

I respect your faith. My aim was never to challenge your belief, but to explain why the original post's analysis, which labels all religion as anthropomorphic, fails because it universalizes your axiom and ignores the existence of others

I believe we've now fully outlined our positions. I appreciate the civil conversation.

Thank you

Dtruthspeaker:
First, it is we humans who are socially discussing about these things, so it must be in human language.

Then secondly, what word is greater than "creator"?

The question you asked, "What word is greater than 'creator'?" is understandable from within a theistic framework.

However, the OP's point, and mine, is slightly different. If the ultimate source is truly formless, unknowable, and beyond human relation , then the word, "creator" cannot accurately describe it, because " creator" is a human term for a knowable agent who perform a knowable act (creation)

But more importantly, your question assumes that "creator" is the primary or highest category. Many major traditions don't use that category at all. They use different foundational concepts like Brahman in Hinduism, the impersonal infinite ground of being, Tao in Taoism, The nameless,uncarved block, the way of nature, and Olodumare in Ifa, The unknowable source from which everything flows

These aren't " greater" words , they are words from different maps. "Creator" belongs to a map of personhood and action. These belong to maps of impersonal essence or non-dual reality.

So the limitation isn't just that human language is weak. The limitation is that assuming the "creator-creation" model is the only valid map confines the infinite to a single, culturally specific understanding

Dtruthspeaker:
Fair summation.

However, on behalf of Christianity, we see and believe that A creator has an unlimited right to create anything in the way and manner he so chooses, without any limit.

And it has pleased God, to create us to look like Him and resemble Him, as He told us.

So, we are not out of place to read Him in the light of our humanness.

And basically, you can see that the ops aim in life is to attack Christianity. That is why he is reading all the other religions in the eye of Christianity.

And so, for us Christians, he has challenged nothing but talking rubbish and definitely giving dark counsels that would swallow up any shallow and unlearned person who may have been planning on following the way of Christ.

The Christian perspective you have shared clearly illustrates the framework we are discussing.

You declared, "A creator has an unlimited right to create anything in the way and manner he so chooses. And it has pleased God to create us to look like Him and resemble Him".

This is a perfect example of the anthropomorphic projection in question. Every concept you use, "creator", "right", "pleased", "look like him", is drawn from the human experience of agency, law,, emotion,and form.

You are using the language of human craftsmanship and kinship to describe the ultimate source of the universe. This is exactly the instinct the Op examines.

My point is not to attack this belief, but to highlight that it is one particular way of relating to the divine, a way centered on a personal, relational Creator-God. Many other traditions do not start from this premise.

They start from from a source that is impersonal ,(Brahman, Tao, Olodumare) beyond the subject-object relationship inherent in "Creator" and "creation" and Unknowable in terms of "pleasure", "form", or "rights"

You say,, "so we are not out of place to read Him in the light of our humanness?" Within your Christian tradition , you are " not out of place". That is your theology. But the philosophical discussion here is about recognising that this is a theological choice, not a universal fact. The very word, "Creator" is a human linguistic and conceptual model.

To assume it is the absolute and only description is to confine the infinite to the limits of human language and social relations


Finally, your claim that this is "rubbish" or "dark counsel" for those following Christ assumes that Christian faith cannot coexist with the awareness that other cosmologies exist. Many Christians mystics and theologians have engaged with such ideas without their faith being "swallowed up" . True understanding is not threatened by the existence of other maps. It is made clear by knowing which map one is using

In short, you have not engaged with the alternative models presented ( Ifa" formless source, Buddhism's non-theism etc). You have instead reaffirmed your own model as the default. That is the very heart of this conversation: to see our own projections so we can understand what is truly being projected upon.

Theawakensoul:
One of the most important questions in spirituality, philosophy, and even psychology is this:
If God is infinite, formless, and beyond human limitation, why do almost all religions describe God with human traits?
Human emotions.
Human anger.
Human jealousy.
Human favoritism.
Human rules.
Human punishments.
Human rewards.

To understand this, we must first understand the human mind.

1️⃣ The Human Mind Understands Reality Through Itself
Human beings do not experience reality directly as it is.
We experience reality through perception, language, memory, and emotion

Your essay begins with a powerful question, " Why do almost all religions describe God with human traits?".

I believe the insight that follows is valuable, but it's built on a premise that needs examination. The "almost all" in your analysis applies perfectly to the Abrahamic traditions, Christianity, Islam, and to a large extent, Judaism, which centre on a personal law-giving, and often anthropomorphic God, residing in an invisible heaven and requiring worship.

However, it does not accurately describe the theology of many of the world's other major religious and spiritual systems.

Hinduism, for instance, encompasses both personal deities and an ultimate, impersonal, formless reality ( nirguna Brahman) . The belief system explicitly holds that the personal forms are limited manifestations of the formless absolute.

Buddhism generally does not posit a creator God at all. Its focus is on the nature of mind, suffering, and liberation, not on a divine being with human emotions.

In Taoism, the Tao is explicitly "nameless" and beyond description or human attributes.

And here in Africa, many indigenous religion and traditions , like IFA, feature a supreme, unknowable, and formless source ( Olodumare or Olorun) that is distinct from the personified natural forces or divinities (Orishas) that mediate its energy in the world

In Ifa specifically, the ultimate source is never described with human emotions, favouritism, or rules. It is beyond conception. The energies which adherents interact with (Orishas) are not worshipped as supreme beings but are engaged for balance and harmony within a living universe, not because they represent a jealous or tribal deity.

The Orishas, mislabeled as gods in English, are manifestations, aspects, or sacred energies of that source within creation, like the force in a river, the thunder, or the earth. Interaction is relational and reciprocal, not merely worship. Offerings such as "cooling" the earth with palm oil, ( Ebo Ile)are about maintaining equilibrium within a conscious cosmos, not appeasing an emotionally volatile supreme being.

Therefore, by universalising the Abrahamic model of a personal God, your analysis inadvertently performs the same act it describes: it uses the familiar framework you know to interpret all other systems, filling the void of understanding with a single template

The consequences are that, you categorise diverse traditions as if they are all wrestling with the same "problem" of anthropomorphism, when in fact many start from a non-anthropomorphic absolute. You attribute the phenomena of "our God is the real one" and doctrinal exclusivity to religion in general, when these are the hallmarks of specific, dogmatic traditions . Ifa tradition, for example, makes no such claim of being the only path to God or source.

To fully, embrace your conclusion about moving from projection to inner realisation, your analysis must also recognise that the spiritual map you have drawn, which accurately charts one continent, does not represent the entire globe of human religious experience

In any case thank you for what you have shared. It is in challenging our foundational assumptions that the deepest understanding grows.

esnbrutality:
You spoke well, but understand that as local midwives exist that is how a local version of every aspect of medicine exist.

As regards his fleeing...he might be involved in other activities that flout the law, but the police laying emphasis on his properties and mortuary occupation should actually show you that it's a typical example of giving a dog a bad name in other to hang it.

That is how I take it.

Your analogy doesn't hold at all. A local midwife deals with living patients who can report malpractice. A poorly run local mortuary deals with dead bodies that are already deceased. You don't become a fugitive over health code violations for the dead. You get a fine and a shutdown order. People don't abandon their homes and political aspirations because thier mortuary is messy.

There is no reason for him to run away unless he was responsible for the deaths of those found in his mortuary . Your theory that he fled due to "other crimes" is pure speculation, unsupported by any evidence of a prior warrant or police interest.

The police are focusing on his properties because they are the crime scene. But you shouldn't ignore the real victims: the innocent people whose lives have been cut short by Stanley's greed to trade in human body parts for blood money. If your own sibling were among the victims,I am sure you would see this differently.

So, this isn't "giving a dog a bad name", it's finding the dog in a butcher's shop, covered in blood, with the tools of the trade nearly, and the butcher, Stanley Oparaugo, missing. His flight is the logical act of a guilty man who knows the evidence left behind cannot be explained as simple licensing or "a local version of medicine"

·

dfrost:
Well handled, it can survive certain conditions.

"‘Well handled’ and ‘certain conditions’ are meaningless unless you can specify exactly what those conditions are and provide evidence they existed at the crime scene.

For an organ to be ‘well handled’ for transplant, the conditions are non-negotiable. The environment must be sterile. There must be immediate cold storage with specialised preservation fluid, and a surgical team to perform the harvest because it is advanced medicine, not butchery.

The official report described the exact same opposite: an unhygienic mortuary with decomposing bodies

So, I ask, since you're sure it's organ trafficking:

What specific certain conditions in that environment could have kept a human kidney viable for more than 2 hours, the time it takes before it becomes useless for transplant?

How were the harvested organs "well handled" without a sterile environment, cold storage, or a surgeon?

Where is the evidence of the rapid transport network and waiting recipient that your organ trafficking theory demands?

If you cannot answer these basic logistical questions with facts from this case any other one that you know of, then you are speculating to avoid the more complex culturally uncomfortable truth that this was a ritual murder hub.

Filling the void in your knowledge by insisting on "organ trafficking" ,simply because the reality of ritual murder doesn't make sense to you, is a dangerous distraction.

The truth is fueled by a different logic: a belief system where certain human parts are seen to possess spiritual power. This is what drives the demand. People kill for hearts, heads, or genitals in the belief it will bring them wealth, win court cases, grant political power, or make them fearless.

Your refusal to engage with this uncomfortable fact doesn't make it disappear. It only makes the criminals who operate within this belief system harder to catch.


Stick to the evidence. The scene points to ritual, not medicine.

Projecting. It is personal opinion not truth

dfrost:
I don't know.

Then why trying to educate others about what you don't know?

dfrost:
There was never money rituals. It has always been organ harvesting business all along.

🤢🤮

What is money ritual?

esnbrutality:
He was not indicted for organ harvesting.

It's is said that the mortuary was unhygienic and that the bodies showed signs of mutilation.

I ask .. when bodies are preserved even in the international space, do organs remain inside the dead body or are they removed?

This is a simple case of a local mortuary that lacks proper maintenance standards

This is a propaganda skit and it's so pathetic that it's used as a banter issue.

No matter what happens in the SE..it can't equate SOKA FOREST in OYO STATE.

Even Devil freeze when him see action for SOKA.

You're missing the point entirely, and your deflection to Soka proves it.

It is pointless to whitewash this. If this was just a "poor maintenance" issue, a violation of health codes, the owner would stay, pay a fine, and upgrade. People don't flee their community and become a wanted fugitive over a sanitation issue in a mortuary. He ran because he knows he is guilty of something far worse, something he can't explain to a judge

The whole set up is the evidence. A hotel to trap the living, a mortuary to dismember the dead, and a shrine to sanctify the crime, operating under one person is not a coincidence. It's a business model for ritual murder. You don't need to be a detective to connect those dots.

Stanley Oparaugo is not a pathologist and he didn't employ one. So what was he doing running a mortuary? He was using it as a processing facility for something else. The " mutilation" reported on decaying bodies confirms it

Instead of you saying, "This is horrible, let's get justice for these victims in Imo, you immediately yell " But Soka" What does a crime in Oyo have to do with holding Stanley in Imo accountable?

When a Yoruba person blames the East, and an Igbo person blames the west, they are both doing the same thing, looking outward for a villain,instead of looking at the criminal structure and inward at the societal failures that allow it to thrive.

The client in Abuja who orders a ritual sacrifice using human body parts does not care if the shrine is in Imo or Ogun State. The Babalawo in Ibadan does not check the tribe of the bank alert from his client in Port Harcourt. The criminal network is ruthlessly pragmatic and trans-ehnic. Our response, trapped in tribal name calling is naively myopic.