Highflyer3:

Where was that specified?

Here is the offending paragraph:

Highflyer3:
19. A man who is ungodly and despises the Bible as the word of God has no checks on his life that would make him love and respect his wife.

All muslims are potential wife beaters then. In fact everybody who isn't a christian is a potential wife beater. You try.

Sinequanon, what are you?

I think ladies like pink lips. My female friends just hate it so much that I smoke; their number 1 reason is that my lips will stop being pink. Then cancer.

Then I've had some some interesting experiences.

Our priest drinks alcohol uninhibitedly. I even served him two medium stout once when he came visiting. It would be nice to be in your shoes.

@blesie

In all honesty, both of you are wrong.

Your hubby is dead wrong for forcing you to have sex. It does not matter that you are his wife; there is no rule that says a married couple must have sex. Sex is the norm, but technically its not a must.

On your own part, you should have discussed your stance on sex with your husband beforehand. I know nobody usually has such a discussion, but where you don't have any desire for sex with a man, you should let him know before you get married to him. I was stunned to read that on your wedding night you just bathed and proceeded to sleep. Who does that?!

That is still no excuse for him to rape you. He should really, utterly apologize for it.

If this marriage is to work, you have to be more forthcoming sexualli, since it appears that every time you guys have had sex, you did not really consent to it. Under our laws, divorce is actually permitted on grounds of denial of sex. Another ground for divorce is the abuse you have received.

In any discussion you guys have on what the way forward is, be ready to negotiate away some of your frigidity.

I'm just being curious here...are you attracted to him sexually? Didn't you guys ever make out before the wedding?

What you need is a diary for your random musings. Check out the diaries section.

What is sin?

Kay17:
In as far as poverty is not illegal nor immoral, we are expected to tolerate the consequences of poverty which includes poor people pulled into crimes, child beggars, miscreants etc.

Poverty itself is not immoral or illegal. I think however that producing children who any reasonable person can foresee being sustained only on the mercy of strangers is an immoral thing to do. A child should not be subjected to that, deliberately or negligently or however.

TheTerrible:


@first half of your post, instances please

@second half, God tried the option of giving us dominion on a platter of gold but it didn't work.
So now He is trying the option of we working for the dominion, so we can manage it well, in your heart of hearts, you know it wasn't given to you like that, you earned it, thus, whoever you want to give it to will have to earn it e.g a very good hunter comes home every day with big games and another hunter isn't that fortunate , alright, he gives the hunter part of his games, first time, second time, instead of the third and consecutive times, is it not better that the successful hunter teaches the unsuccessful one where, when and how to huntt big games?

And I won't call that suffering, I will call it responsibility

Some instances would be being the victim of a crime or contracting a disease or getting struck by lightning and having to lose a body part.

On the issue of man being responsible for the state of the world by eating the fruit, this explanation still leaves open the question of whether the perfect God could have chosen to create and use such a highly flawed system.

She could have put on another blouse. This one is rather dreadful.

TheTerrible:


suffering is part of human life my friend, it is a 'training' process. Show me a great man in history that did not suffer.

Also if you could expantiate on what you call 'suffering', your question will be clearer to us becausea child that has the love of his parents and has everything provided for will tell you he his suffering when he is being spanked for a wrong doing, a person that is addicted to something will tell you he/she is suffering if he/she can't afford what their addicted to e.g. Cocaine, alcohol,etc.
Hope you get my point

Well the examples you mentioned are also suffering but we can even leave them and say suffering refers to the instances where you have no blame in your predicament.

Like you said, suffering is a part of human life and that is precisely what makes some wonder whether such a state of things is compatible with a perfect God.

5minsmadness:


I don't get you. Were they expecting an imperfect God to create the complexity around them?
Atheists are a confused bunch if so.

They expect a perfect God to make everything perfect or to at least prevent suffering.

tevinsolt:

Yeah I took my time, cuz I have a life, and things to do during the day

I'm sure you do, but for a while it was not clear what your answer was:

tevinsolt:

If a God pays no heed to the moral law he has set, I don't think he would care if his creation do as they wish. the moral responsibility we have is a reflection of God's being and character.

tevinsolt:

it perfectly does, of course there would be no consequence, and I'm sure we his creation wouldn't have any moral code to uphold. Everything is allowed.

tevinsolt:
If the God in the bible goes against his own moral code, there would be consequences,

It's okay, anyway.

1) First off conciousness is not subjective, perspective is. I'm aware of my conciousness/existence there is no two way about it.

Really? I'm not saying that the existence of consciousness is subjective. I'm aware of my consciousness too.

2) what does it have to do with anything? What happens when two people with equal abilities totally have different views on life have to live together, they either compromise or do their own thing.

The point is about who gets to be the moral arbiter between them. Whose morality gets to be objective?

3) you posed a question asking, If God is bounded by the morality he has created the way humans are bounded by it. You asked if there would be consequences If he breaks his own moral.......clearly it is you suggesting that he is not perfect. And I think I did fairly well explaining that scenario...etc

You did do a good job. However, it's one thing to be capable of sin and another thing for one's sin to have consequences. You may have noticed that the bible's God does do things that would be considered sinful if done by man, such as getting jealous or allowing the sun to go down on his anger.

5minsmadness:
An "atheist" and a christian can never see eye to eye because they are both speaking different languages. The christian has faith, that is a belief in something he cannot see. An atheist sees this as foolishness. But anytime the atheist looks up into the sky and sees the birds in the air, the clouds, the heavens, and takes time to look at nature all around him his soul starts to ask questions. It is these questions that are the beginning of faith. Alas the atheist will always do all in his power to supress these questions from coming to mind, to supress the movements of his soul because the moment he begins to wonder...is the moment his faith in 'nothing' will be shaken.

But these questions are also the beginning of atheism na. Some atheists look at the birds in the air, the clouds, the heavens and at nature all around them and wonder how a perfect God could have been responsible for everything. I guess it boils down to how one feels about the universe, whether overall it is a good package, or not.

tevinsolt:

I already answered your question, I'll do it one more time. If the God in the bible goes against his own moral code, there would be consequences, this would affirm the justness of God but not his perfect character or it could just be that God is willing to take upon himself the punishment of his creations to provide redemption at the same time satisfy justice, this way his perfect character, justness is upheld. A God that would go against his moral codes without, and punish his creations is a tyrant and a flawed God.

You certainly took your sweet time about it.

Okay. Your position is that God defines morality and He defines it in such a way that it is binding on Himself, so that He will have an incentive to not be immoral.

Firstly, I don't think that if God is the one who defines morality, the morality which He defines is an objective one. I said this earlier. Some of the reasons I think so are that

1. God is conscious and consciousness is subjective. It is difficult to see how a God with a subjective consciousness can decide what an objective morality is. Morality, having originated from His mind, cannot be objective.

2. I also said this earlier, what happens where there are two Gods (imagine something like the holy trinity) and each God has a different morality?

Secondly, and more to your point, I see a paradox when you say that God, because He is good, makes morality binding on Himself to prevent Himself from going bad. Is God all good or not? If He is not all good, what sort of morality has He defined? Provided the objective morality we speak of is one which is the encapsulation of all that is good, such a God could hardly have defined it.

What say you?






I notice that you don't capitalize properly when you use "his" to refer to God. I hope you are not one of these two a penny atheists on nairaland.

loool. is all of that cum from one guy? no kiss and make up for this one sha. tim may want to pass on kissing for a while.

They mean the peace and calm of death, don't they?

Can we discuss something other than marriage please?

tevinsolt:

it perfectly does, of course there would be no consequence, and I'm sure we his creation wouldn't have any moral code to uphold. Everything is allowed.

The question was not whether God cares about us, but whether there are any consequences to his going against a moral law he has set, just as we get to go to hell for breaking moral laws.

exceptionalhim:
Recently, an angel spake with me in my dream, he said, do you know why people are dying anyhow these days ? I said no, i don't. He then said, they are not useful for God ! He warned me to make myself available for God, or else i will be taken out. How about you, will you make yourself useful for God ?

tcrojem@gmail.com

Not unless the angel comes to me too. I don't see why you should get special treatment. I'm willing to die in protest of this injustice!

How are there so many of these terrorists? I hope we can decimate them soon...at least civilians have started repelling them now.

tpiah2:



Your own upbringing really doesnt speak well of your parents, if we are to go by the crap you type here.

And why all this mad mad ranting? Are you hoping to cover yourself? Your emphasis on mad shows its on your mind constantly, care to share?

I'm sure a time will come when you'll make sense. Just be patient, and keep rambling till then.

aderonila18:


She's always ranting on nairaland like a mad woman. Most of us have concluded that she's insane so you'll notice most people don't bother to reply her.

You can't have a conversation with a mad woman

I can see that now. Thanks for clearing that up.

tpiah2:




ok, i sound mad but you're the one advocating jail time for having children.

so, in your opinion, you're sane?

as per your genitals, why would you hide yours while advocating castration for other people's own?

are you smoking substandard somethings?

What are you on about? You rant like a mad person.

I did not say anybody should be castrated. Maybe you can point to where you think I said it.

I did not say anybody should be jailed merely for having children. You may have noticed that the OP is about people who produce children they cannot forseeably take care of, forcing these children into unimaginable difficulty.

You don't have to reply at once. Wait for a lucid moment first.

tpiah2:


Were your parents given jail time for having you and your siblings?

Btw you sound occultic.

Were you castrated?

I'm not occultic, whatever that means.

My genitals are intact for now.

My parents could not have been given jail time for having children. There is no such law in place.

You sound mad.

Between advice and castration, advice is the better option. Lol. You might castrate a man today and tomorrow he'll become rich.

I suppose the state can take care of such children, and give the parents jail time plus labour, or just labour so that they can at least contribute in some way to the upkeep of the children.

Yes I can, but maybe not to all the wives.

OP you mean you just stay alone in the toilet without giving your brain something to do other than explore the smell of poo? Eeeewww!

tevinsolt:


If a God pays no heed to the moral law he has set, I don't think he would care if his creation do as they wish. the moral responsibility we have is a reflection of God's being and character.

This doesn't actually address the question.

timmy2409:


Correct. Just from eyeballing this chart, Pascal's Wager has a 90%-ish chance of earning you eternal torment. And it doesn't account for a myriad of other fringe religions.

@OP You're also assuming that God accepts people that hope that he's real, as opposed to those that believe.

Lol funny chart. If only someone could tell us the chances of God existing. Perhaps we would be able to use Pascal's wager maximally.