₦airaland Forum

nobilis:
I don't think it is right to put euthanasia and abortion and gay marriage. And I don't know if you have ever been in a situation where one of the options you have is to perform either euthanasia or abortion. Until you've been in that situation (that's if you've not), you really have no right to judge.

As for gay marriage, until you've understood that homosexuality isn't just about sex, until you've understood the reason why gays have been clamoring for marriage equality with their heterosexual counterparts, I don't think you should really judge.

as to your first paragraph, i got my rankin spot on, if thing should be accepted as intellectually sound simply because they came from the west they abortion and euthanasia should be listed. They are all product of the new western civilisation. Secondly, the idea that you can talk about something unless you have experienced it is baloney. I haven't killed someone, but i know murder is wrong. I don't need to experience it to make objective comment, i have empathy so i have a pretty good idea of how the other feel.


As to your second paragraph, marriage by definition is a union between a man and a woman, toward a communion of love and the procreation and upbring of kids. The term "gay marriage" is itself contradictory, marriage deal with complimentary sex by definition. Again I know homosexuality isn't all about sex, if you were attentive on the thread you would have noticed where i differentiated between the inclination and the act. And lastly, to correct and rebuke are all qualities that a good Christian should have.

GSKing:
Was Jesus queer? We don't know. But it is a possibility that cannot be ruled out. One version of St. Mark's gospel - which is still the subject of academic dispute - alludes to Jesus having a homosexual relationship with a youth he raised from the dead.
According to the US Biblical scholar, Morton Smith, of Columbia University, a fragment of manuscript he found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958, showed that the full text of St. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the
passage:

"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. [size=25pt] And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of
God". [/size]

The veracity of this manuscript is hotly contested by other Biblical scholars. This comes as no surprise. The revelation of a gay Jesus would undermine some of the most fundamental tenets of orthodox Christianity, including its rampant homophobia. But even if the text is genuine, does this ambiguous, elliptical passage offer evidence of Jesus's homosexuality? It is hard to say. The precise nature of the relationship between Christ and the youth is not spelled out. Sexual relations are suggested but not explicitly stated.

The Morton Smith document is, in fact, irrelevant to the vexed issue of Christ's sexual orientation.
What we can say for certain is that the standard, accepted Biblical narrative gives us no information at all about Jesus's sexuality. This absence of firm information does not, of course, mean that we can take it for granted that Christ was heterosexual. Far from it! The lack of information about his erotic inclinations begs more questions than it answers. The truth is that we simply don't know whether Jesus was straight, gay, bisexual or celibate. There is certainly no evidence for the Church's unspoken presumption that he was either heterosexual or devoid of carnal desires. Since nothing in the Bible points to Christ having erotic feelings for women, or relationships with the female sex, the possibility of him being gay cannot be discounted.

In the absence of any evidence - let alone proof - that Jesus was heterosexual, the theological basis of Church homophobia is all the more shaky and indefensible. How can established religion dare denounce homosexuality when the founder of its faith was himself a man of mysterious, unknown sexuality who could, for all we know, have been
homosexual?
The Bible tells us that Jesus was born a man and therefore presumably had male sexual feelings. It would have been more or less impossible, biologically, for him not to have an element of erotic arousal - even if only having the normal male response of waking with an erection.


www.petertatchell.net/religion/jesus.htm

More Info here:

www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1431

www.en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Jesus

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably

www.tektonics.org/gk/gayjesus.php

www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/born_gay.html

www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html

www.bustedhalo.com/questionbox/what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-homosexuality

www.thoughtcatalog.com/ronnie-hafmerb/2013/01/7-reasons-jesus-was-gay/

www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm

hehehe,

absolutely funny, so Jesus has to be gay, just so gays can feel ok?

beryl04:
Yup! That's why they're clinging on to Africa and south America like a leech to an open sore!
Because here, people are still dum.b,ignorant and backwards enuf to follow follow their archaic doctrine.

Why do u think they're dwindling in popularity in d west?

Religion is indeed d opium of d masses.

so you think euthanasia, abortion and gay marriage shows intellectual might, brilliance and forwardness?


If achaic doctrine are wron simply because they are achaic then i may very say the new world practices are wrong simply because they are new.

kemqox:
You are the worst heretic liar ever.
Catholic church cannot take such stand against the rule in a country.
God punished them and their land in Sodom, so why wont we after all?

actually the catholic church can take whatever stand it belives to be true irrespective of the "rule" in the country. Countries make laws, they don't make morals. The law makes thing legal or illegal, it doesn't make things moral or immoral. The catholic church has no problem deciding what is moral over and against what is legal in countries.

One of the sins of sodom was its refusal to accept other people, i hope God doesn't hold that against you in jugdement. While we must reject sin whenever and whereever we see it, we must accept people where ever they are and bring them before God's merciful throne of grace.

beryl04:
This was originally made for a homophobe in another thread but seeing as u, kemgox and d girl possess similar traits and characteristics ,it becomes apt for u: I don't worship that HATEFUL GOD OF YOURS. MY GOD loves ALL his creations. MY GOD hates NO ONE. However, human beings can and do hate, but not God. God is the root of all love, void of hate. I worship a LOVING God, NOT a God-fearing one who NEVER wrote the bible. Man wrote the bible, not God! Feel free to be scared into insanity all you want though by a book written 1,000 years ago which supports genocide/murder, incest, slavery and polygamy and which says you must be put to DEATH if you work on Sunday (EXODUS 35:2) or if females are non-virgins on their wedding night (DEUTERONOMY 22:20-21). Be brainwashed and scared into insanity all you want, but don't force me to believe in your "evil bible" because I'll not. We have freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion in this country.

i'm not sure the nierian constitution actually have anythin like "freedom FROM religion", where did you get that?

beryl04:
The whole article if I can even call it that reeks of double-speak!
Catholicism is going into extinction anyways,so who cares what they think or what primeval ideology they propagate.

Religion( Christianity&Islam) should evolve or die already

it isn't double speak, it is simple theology, hate the sin, love the sinner.
I also think the arch bishop is very clear, he never said that nigeria should agree to gay marriage or decriminalise gay sex, that isn't the point he is making. He instead is saying that nobody should be arrested, harrassed or mistreated because he has a different "sexual orientation". The same way nobody can be harrassed simply for having an innate likeness for porn, stealing, eating, having sex...e.tc, nobody should be harrassed for his inclinations. The only things that can be criminalised is actions. The church is pretty clear on this, nobody should be discriminated against simply because he is attracted to the same sex. If he sins, then you should rebuke and correct him but his inclinations isn't a reason to condemn him.


It is found in the catholic catechism in a much cleaner way, in the very place homosexual sex is condemned and the inclination said to be disordered it clearly says inclination aren't basis for any kind on judgement in the matter. This is the important sections. For context it follows stuff like masturbation, fornication, pornoraphy, prostitution and rape.


CCC 2357 and 2358

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of form through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psycholoical genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on sacred scripture, which represent the homosexual ACTS as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always decleared that "homosexual ACTS are intrinsically disordered". They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complimentarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is no neligible. This INCLINATION, which is objectively disordered, constitute for most of then a trial. they must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and, if they are christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition"


anyone who really studies those statements will see that the acts is separated from the inclination, while the acts are always condemn, the inclination is simply disordered and the gay individual should be treated with acceptance and respect, compassion and sensivity. It isn't doubble speak it is pretty clear theology and it has nothing to do with the secularism in europe.

babestell:
I support communion for the divorced and remarried Catholics with reasonable restrictions

even i want everybody who can be in a state of grace to recieve communion, the problem is how?

If you are divorced and remarried the your current "union" is a contradiction of matrimony. The "new" conjugal unions become sinful. How do u reconcile that so that they can recieve communion.

SalC:
somehow, I fear for the outcome of this synod. I pray am wrong sha may God take control and his will be done

the media and some cardinals are raising the expectations on the synod... And the pope is a very confortable treading the ambigious line. I think the pope wants a real discussion on the topics, what he expects that i do not know.

There is a need to find a solution without undermining the sacrament of matrimony.

Rich4god:
I didnt mean to start writing much, but I believe that there are instances where one of "a married couple" might decide to opt out on his/her own without following the church's process of divorce, probably by serving her divorce paper from the court. Now in this case, I feel the church should give the other partner the grace to recieve communion and probably to remarry since the 1st partner is gone without following the church process and is not ready/willing to follow the process.

the church doesn't have a divorce process...
And Who say the patner who ran away is responsible for the failed relatioship so that the other is given communion?


I have seen cases of a violent and abusive man, who drove the woman to the point of divorce, should the man be given communion becos it was the woman that ran away?... My point is that you have opened a can of worms.

That isn't even the point, that is even off key. The main point is that the marriage covenant is by nature permanent and unmovable, it can only be broken by death.

If the church allows a remarriage, (that will be insane) that means she recognises two active marriages for one person.
That isn't just possible because marriage is between one man and one woman, two active marriage on one person is against the nature of marriage itself.

Marriage is permanent and indissoluble, the church didn't make it that way, God did.

As we continue the october devotion, let us remember in bishops in the extra ordinary synod on the family.

AgentOfAllah:
Of course you don't realise the paradox inherent in creating "before" time. The word 'before' is inextricable from time. Saying god chose to create before time is analogous to saying "there was a time when time didn't exist".

Add to that, the conundrum of choice you've created for god. See, if god already knows everything that will happen, by definition, god does not have an active role (choice) in it. For if god, out of choice, changes what it already knew, it clearly didn't know everything in the first place. So, can it really be said that an omniscient has made a choice? For emphasis, I could present such a paradox in the form of a question: Is it possible to know everything you're going to do and still call them choices?

1st, you are right, the use of the word "before" makes the statement almost contradictory since before is used in relation to time. I used the word "before" for lack of a better term. Maybe "prior to" will be a better term. God existed in eternity prior to time.


Now the second only brings me to my next point.

God is pure act (actus purus), thus in his knowing and willing there is no transition from potency to act, no habitus, no sequence of individual wills or knowledge, no progress from known to unknown. His knowing is neither potential nor habitual, neither successive or discursive. God knows all in one single indivisible act and he wills by one single successionless act of willing. Does that statisfy your question?

hifaif:
Predestination , in theology, is the doctrine that
all events have been willed by God. (from Wiki)

I am sorry, the other question does not make sense to me.

that must be wiki. Take a christian source and check predestination.


I certainly do no belive that God actively wills all events. He allows manys and wills some.

If you are using wiki definition then we are not argueing about the same thing.

Dapo777:
Even the book of Barnabas is not included in the Bible,despite What Barnabas did to Christianity, Barnabas was the one that allowed the apostles to accept Saul who Later become Paul,So I heard,So why wasn't the book of Barnabas included in the Bible.
Those theologians are politicians,I don't believe any of them!!!!

the so called gospel of barnabas wasn'twritten by barnabas, that is why it isn't in the bible.

Dapo777:
Since you are very close to God,tell God to reveal himself to me by himself If he is not shy. If God isn't bold enough to toast me himself I will not accept his proposal because he has decided to send u

Help me ask Mr God why he is So wicked in OT and considering the fact he said he changeth not and it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than for the word of God to change,So I suppose God is still as wicked as he was in OT. Tell me What he told you once he replies you.

o.k, God come and toast dapo.

How do you define wickedness?

alexleo:
Those who experienced God personally and genuinely cannot be deceived that there is no God. It is the ones who see God through the eyes of their pastors and churches that have the tendency of being deceived that there is no God.

There is a difference between a christian who slacked back in his/her walk with God yet believes in God and the one who slumps into atheism.

not really,

i think atheism is simply a fall back plan.

There is only so much we can know only so many answers we can provide. I only know one tool that carries people on, its faith, when we ignore the goodness of the divine laws, we will sin, when faith is lost atheism is a logical choice.

"experience" doesn't cut it, when your mind and heart is nolonger convinced then those experiences will be explained as "episodes", the brain reacting to certain chemicals.

striktlymi:
Probably because the question is a bit ambiguous.

If you are asking if I think the Universe was built in 6 days of 24 hrs, my answer would be a resounding NO!!!

If the question was whether I think God created the Universe and all there is then it would be YES!!!

However the direction of your question, I do hold the view that there is a whole lot to the Genesis story than we are unaware of.

make i rephrase again.

Do yo think that adam and if story really happened?




Besides you said the scriptures show why man is similar to apes...add flesh to that.

peppyluv02:
Me and you

see as your face dey scare me.

Me and u dey fight and i was not informed... That one serious.


E clear say u go beat me na, i no kukuma sabi fight before.





Na weytin happen?

PastorAIO:
Please can I refer you to this post for further clarification:

https://www.nairaland.com/335826/pastor-aio-come-teach-us/4#4938603

too bad.

I'll take a look.

hifaif:
I am so sorry to say that you have abandoned your earlier stand. Wasn't it you who said God has planned everything right from the beginning? How can man exercise free will in a predestined world?

I will accept that Adam exercised free will if only you accept that God did not know that Adam was going to eat the fruit.

Of course, if you make choices, there are consequences. But when the choices you make are already known before you were even born, then it is not free will. You are only acting out what was already expected of you. Free will involves multiple choices independent of coercion.

that means i have a question for you.

What do you understand by predestination?

Then a second question.

Does the past change when you recall thing?

PastorAIO:
It is simply a matter of intellectual honesty and integrity. God is not something that we can know or grasp. We can try, but if you think that you've pinned God down then you'll be setting yourself up for a shock. Repeated shocks.

There are two parts to this Free Will issue. The Free part, and the Will part.

what do we mean by Free? Are the choices God makes truly free, or are they bound to by his character. ie. are there things that God will typically do and things that he wouldn't do?

Anybody that knows me would tell you that if you were to put chocolate down on one plate, and marzipan on another and tell me to choose one, if they truly know me they will know that I am more likely to choose the marzipan. Knowledge leads to prognosis. If you know me you'll be able to predict my behaviour.

Does God have Character? Likes, dislikes, behavioural patterns, features? If so then his/her choices would be bound to his/her character. that is not totally free. There are things therefore that God just wouldn't/couldn't do.

Then there is the question of who created God's features and characteristics. God himself? ie Self creating. Then what informed his decisions to create himself the way he did? You see how these questions are taking us beyond the levels that our intellect can reach. The honest answer to these questions is 'I don't know'. I don't know why it is so hard for my christian brethren to say these three little words.

Then there is the Will part? If God's Will is absolute then can there by any other Wills in the universe? An absolute Will cannot be thwarted in anyway. Whatever happens must be in accord with this absolute will. If there are other wills, i.e. human will, then that will must necessarily be impotent since the will of God is absolute. Nothing can happen other than what God wills.

However if Human will is not impotent, then God's will cannot be absolute.

first and foremost, the discussion about God's "freedom" simply means he can't be compelled. Its like ps 134:6 says, he does what he wills where ever he wills. It doesn't absolve him from the inclinations of his own character. Even the most rigid doctrinalist shouting "God is free" must admit that he made creation out of love. Thus admitting that his essential character causes his action( that is of those words may be used to describe him.).


Secondly, i think you are drawing an unneccesary parrallel when you compare divine and human will. I believe God himself provides the insurance for moral human will, he created it and chose not to violate it. He ensure man is allowed to his own counsel, so i absolutely do not see the need to place mans will and the divine will in opposition.

After that i'll also say that the divine will is absolute. When he condemns to hell, no human or spirit will jump from hell to heaven. Essentially what he wants to happen will happen. It is also the decision to the divine will to leave man's moral will intact.

How does that sound?

Man is allowed to do that which he can do, and GOd will accomplish whatever he wishes.

hifaif:
Take a minute to check your post above. In all honesty, does it make any sense to you?

yes my dear. It makes sense.

You have shakled your mind to the present and you have failed to consider the possible.


GOd isn't bound by time, the past is past before him nor is the future yet to happen for him. He see the end from the begining, he knows the choices you will make tomorrow, and new year, he has factored all thoseyour choices in his plan.

It makes perfect sense.

sheunfemix:
Bros what are u trying to explain to an AgentofAhall who calls God 'it'

hehehe.

AgentOfAllah:
So that means it is also a subject of time like the rest of us, hence, it doesn't really know everything that will happen until it makes its "choice"

He isn't subject to time, infact, he made the choice to create even before time began, he created time, he transcends time.


He already has his plan, his choices are made, to saved those who are saved and punished those who are punished. That is another peck of his prescience. Now in that plan he has factored all possible possibilities and all free choices.

ojimbo:
Hello nairalanders, trust you all had a lovely weekend.
Something really is bordering my mind about creationalism.
The christian holy book describe God as the creator of the whole universe and everything that is in. Never the less book of Genesis also stated that God created man in his own image which implies that God must have posses the same features as man.
The greatest confussion of the creation was that religion believes that God was created out of nothing and yet He(God) created man in his own image.
My thoughts: if we should belive that God in the image of man was created out of nothing, wont it be possible to believe that man was also created out of nothing.
Am just an agnostic trying to create sense out of nonsense.

my dear i think you are under the influence of some untrue new age teaching.

First of all.

God is uncreated, God isn't created out of nothing. God is existence itself, he wasn't created. He has always existed.

Secondly, when scriptures say we are made in his likeness it is simply refering to the fact that He created us like himself in mainly 3 ways, that is, OUR INTELLECT, OUR UNDERSTANDING AND OUR WILL. It is in these that we are alike to God, we can think for ourselves, understand, and make choices.

peppyluv02: just seeing this.
Kitchen?.....No
Lecture?....I'll try but Rev Fr Italo or Ubenedictus(even thou we are fighting) will do better.

I love you all. Keep inspiring me

no lectures for me this few months.


Besides, i no understand your sentence, you and who dey fight?

striktlymi: One or more cardinals have described the Genesis story as a combination of myths and truths.

I would love to believe that every 'ounce' of the story is real but the question is, how do we define real?

If you define real as something borne by our everyday experiences then I may be inclined to go with the thoughts of those cardinals.

If on the other hand, your definition of real is about whether the events took place or not, then I may have a different opinion.

The Genesis story is basically about love and betrayal. God's love prompted him to utilize his capacity for creation; for which He created everything good.

His love helped him to forgive and show empathy when that love was betrayed by man's greed. The story showed us why the Earth is in disharmony and 'evil' thrives.

If the story is viewed in that light then my take on it is that the story is as real as it gets.

you are tip toes around the question.

Let me rephrase.

Do you think the events described there took place?

jnrbayano: Gbowam!!

na weytin happen?

I don't have the time for this, its still morning.


I was here, i'll be back

AgentOfAllah: My question is: Is it faced with choices in its decisions or not?

that is a powerful question. One that carrys with it a lot of sematics.



I believe God has choices, yes! He could chose whether to create or not to create. I see another question coming.

striktlymi: If we look at the story of Adam, Eve and the Garden a bit closer, we would notice that God did not just put one special tree in there, as it is the popular opinion. There were 2 special trees in the middle of the garden:

Genesis 2 Good News Translation (GNT)

9 He made all kinds of beautiful trees grow there and produce good fruit. In the middle of the garden stood the tree that gives life and the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad.

On one hand was the tree that gives life (underlined above) and on the other was the tree that gives the knowledge of good and evil (in bold above). The second tree is very different from the first because with it comes the promise of death; not life.

The tree of life, I believe, was one that could help sustain the purity and innocence in which Adam and Eve were made into. It could help them remain in that state before the age reasoning. The state in which they can do no wrong even when their actions in themselves are wrong.

If they don't know an action is wrong, they can't be held accountable for that, just like children. The order God gave was for them to eat from every other tree (including the one that gives life) except for that which brings death.

The foregoing brings me to my earlier question: "Why then did he put that 'blasted' tree in there if indeed he loves us?"

My simple answer to that is LOVE!!! If you love someone, you should be ready to let them make their own choices, even when those choices are wrong. You can't claim to love someone when you make a puppet out of that individual.

God gave man more than he needed to survive. He gave man everything there is with the hope that man would be too busy enjoying himself to think of going against the only wish of a Father.

To bring this thought home, think in terms of a young lady who got everything she needed from her parents such that she doesn't have any cause to ask any man, some of whom only want to get under her skirt, for anything.

The lady would have absolutely no need to compromise her 'innocence' for anything. If such a lady goes forth to allow a man break her just for a few lousy naira, then that lady has done something terrible to her father.

God did not only give Adam and Eve all, He gave them something extra: a special tree that gives life; planted right in the middle of the garden where they have ready access to it.

In my view, the tree of good and evil was not planted for man to fall but grow in God's grace.

What do you think?

i think, you've gat a powerful handle on the story. God has provided oversufficiently for them to chose right, for them to chose life, for them to chose to obey.


This gat me thinking...this is exactly what happens when we sin, this happens everyday. We've gat a personal soul guard (our guardian angel), the presence of God in our souls with its associated graces. Heck we gat God at our beck and call. He made himself indebted to us when we commanded that we ask. In a way we are most time like adam and eve in a garden. We have been given special I V card and membership cards into eternal joy. More especially we all know what is right!

Yet we still act like adam, we fail, we fall, we are banish. We chose ourselves instead of God. We want to be our own gods. Or we will rather allow our passion have dominion over us than allow our creator.

...


So my question.


Do you think the story is real?

SalC: Noted bro, signed, stamped and sealed!

thanks.

hifaif: It doesn't make any sense. Whose script was Judas following when he betrayed Jesus?

judas was acting freely, according to his own counsels. His free choice was already known to God and factored into his plan.

As i said earlier, his prescience is infalliable. He is aware of all possible possibilities and they will all work to his glory.