MuttleyLaff:
Why wouldnt or couldnt there. Evil, afterall, is the absence of good. Similar manner, darkness is the absence of light. There really isnt darkness, it is just an absence of light. So, evil is the absence and/or departure of the God factor

There is no evil in God. That is why evil doesn't exist in God's creation.

MuttleyLaff:
I knew before posting my comment, when staring at how to conspicuously put it as "God's Nature" that you would try and plan to slant it. Anyway and fyi, intrinsically, there is no evil in God.

Then there cannot be evil in the world God created. Otan!

budaatum:

An image, an idea of, a thing as a concept, materialised. If God is "immaterial" why have we bothered to create images of it?

People feel a strong need to materialise something even if it's not there. But why the quotes? Don't you think God is immaterial?

johnydon22:
Hahahaha guy calm down.

NnennaG6 is a very brilliant person and she stays in Enugu too, i am dying to discuss with her in person.

She is brilliant but I no too gbadun her style. In any case nothing wrong with what I wrote. You sef understand.

MuttleyLaff:


Man became god the moment after eating the fruit. Hate filled the vacuum, after the departure and/or absence of love. Evil filled the vacuum, after the departure and/or absence of good. Harshness proceeded and emanated because the ground was cursed due to man. There is no evil in God's Nature.

Your Christianity never ceases to amaze me. How does evil exist if it is not part of God's Nature?

NnennaG6:

You people haven't demonstrated that a perfect being can only act from need.

Mechonu there.

johnydon22:
It doesn't, it just simply implies that a God that by definition doesn't need is incompatible with that realization therefore cannot exist because such a God wouldn't create.

a God however who at least has a need to create can exist under the considered premise.

Fine by me. I mean what are we talking about. If God didn't need He would not create. Creation itself expresses a need.

So if I may ask: what is absurd about it?

TheArranger:
@johnydon22 Thanks for the compliments, bro


Isn't he "perfect and eternal"?

Yes. So?

johnydon22:


LOL

I am laughing with u there. Obviously, the need and reason explain themselves.

johnydon22:
That is the whole point. There must be a need factor.

How does the need factor invalidate the idea of God?

TheArranger:

God is an omni-x being first of all. Anything else follows after that. Given that he's an omni-x being, this suggests that he's perfect and eternal and has already attained all good ends. So why the need to create. Doesn't this imply dissatisfaction? If so, then God can't be perfect.

Explain what you mean by 'attained all good ends'? How does God rhyme with that?

bloodofthelamb:



And who told you that God made you to worship Him? He made us to love us.

God created out of love. He made all things in love, goodness and kindness that he might share with them all that He is.

He also made all things in hate, evil and harshness so He might share them. Evil is part of God's Nature.

johnydon22:
He has a need to create then he literally has a need then.

Yes. One need.

budaatum:

I agree. We create images in our puny heads and call it God despite the advice not to create images nor bow to worship them then we claim we are doing the will of God.

What a bunch of amusing people we are.

I don't understand the need to create God in an image. God is immaterial.

TheArranger:
The creative process seems inexorably tied to needs. This process surges as a result of the need to survive, compete or for expression. (It can also happen by accident...)

An omni-x being, or God, by definition has no needs. One might argue that creating would go against his nature. From the Abrahamic standpoint, why would said beings create inferior beings to worship him?

One could attempt an argument as follows:

1. An omni-x being has no needs or reason to create anything

2. An omni-x being would simply be.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, if the universe was created, the author was an entity with a need. (Or created it by accident...)

This conclusion would point to a being quite different from the omni-x God theists describe.

In fact, this omni-x God seems like a classic post hoc explanation for a reality we find difficult to explain.

What do you think?

A Creator without needs I can compute with one exception. He has a need to create. Otherwise, what is He a Creator for?

MuttleyLaff:
There isnt anything bewildering in God BECOMING A MAN and DYING for our sins

There is o. To be sure can God become an elephant or a rat?

A God that can become one of his creation doesn't make much sense if you think. The creation is something different from the Creator. That's what I think.

grad2012:
uyi uyi how was your day? will check that stuff tonyt once am home.

U have my no. I am on WhatsApp and you can call.

GeneralShepherd:


When any thing is said to be objective the inherent characteristic of such a thing is the fact that it's attributes are immutable and does not depend on the subjective views of its observer.

Which is what I think about pedophilia. Doesn't depend on your subjective views it is wrong. I think atheists and theists shoot themselves when they say we should look at it one way. And leave aside the issue of looking at it case by case whether moral objectivity or subjectivity applies in some cases as opposed to others.

GeneralShepherd:


Can you show me how morality can be subjective sometimes and then objective other times?

For starters, I don't believe people who believe in moral absolutes think it applies in all cases believe it or not there are many cases they think meals could swing either way. Like the dress issue I brought up.

Think about it. Can you be morally absolute or morally relative about EVERYTHING?

johnydon22:
Morality can't be both relative and absolute.

That's the problem and the reason i am arguing on this thread

It is illogical for a moral relativist to make morally absolute judgements. That is a blatant contradiction that can never work.

You either agree morality is absolute or you don't. Not both

Let me make it clear that what I am saying is depending on the context morality is relative or absolute. IOW, in some moral cases moral relativism applies and in some cases moral absolutes work.

In case you didn't know moral absolutes never worked completely in a person's life. It's not like they made dogmas over which dress you wear. Yes, Christians can be dogmatic but you get the point.

GeneralShepherd:


Pedophilia is wrong today and I agree with everyone on that but to say morality is relative and absolute at the same time is a contradictory as saying you found a desert under water.

If is either morality is absolute or relative . If it is absolute then Muhammad was wrong and will always be wrong, if it is not then Muhammad was not wrong but his followers now are wrong.

The thing I am realizing is that when it come to context that is not the case. Morality could be absolute or relative when it comes to context.

johnydon22:


I don't think absolutism has an inbetween. Something is either absolute or not.

More like some things are absolute or not and some things are relative.

johnydon22:
Oh true. Human condemnation of killing is based on an intersubjective belief that 'human life is sacred' therefore taking it is a violation of that sacredness.

Morality is an imagined order. Other imagined orders are; money, government, country, corporations etc. (We imagine it, we believe it)

Let me demonstrate this better with another example of imagined order.

Take for instance; Nigeria used to use the Nigerian pounds and shillings.

today, we no longer, we use naira now.

Was the Nigerian pounds and shilling money then? - Yes
Is the Nigerian pounds and shilling money today? - No

Imagined orders thrive on the prevailing belief of that given locality. I think this simplifies it for everyone right?

What is morality if not an imagined order? That's the question to me.

grad2012:
u know what I think so many people go into relship for sex n fun and the sad part of it is they end up going into relship with people who want a real dedicated relship.

But if it be made easy that the ones who crave for a real relship can identify the ones coming for fun but the sad thing is they all pretend they are all coming for a real relship until its half way and its starting to become glaring and then someone gets heart broken.

The problem is the pretence if only the sincerity can be known on what you are in the relship for then they can both know what they are both getting into.

But unfortunately the pretence will always continue.

What of d one that wanted a real relationship till temptation turn their head?

johnydon22:
You are at least a deist, you can believe in moral objectivity hence this statememt is more rooted.

However the guy is arguing on the logic of a moral relativist (atheist) to condemn pedophilia as it was practised within a moral provision 1,500 years.

TBH his argument make sense. And BTW I am something between moral relative and absolutist. I feel you can still argue against pedophilia under a case where moral relativism doesn't fully apply and there's some moral absolute.

Do we seriously have to judge pedophilia like eating a cake? I think the moral sphere isn't so divided against the two sides as it seems.

rekinomtla:


No, I would not do that. But I also would not criticise anyone on moral grounds if I was a moral relativist.

Well you can right. But seriously pedophilia is grossly wrong. No arguments there.

ikbnice:
atheists don't pray to any god nah, why did you?

Atheists go fear fear na.

finalboss:
gurl you were hallucinating.

Sure. Her and her sister.

iceboy4752:
Nairalanders, what's that creepy incident that left unforgettable scars in your memory?
Though I've had many bad incidents, but let me share the most recent one.
I was travelling to Jos together with my elder brother when a red Honda sped past us. In the car was a young man who waved at us with a very unusual and amiable smile across his face. My brother responded with a horn.
We got to a village close to Kaffanchan some minutes later. There was a heavy traffic because two cars had collided. It involved an Opel vehicle and that of the man who waved at us moments before that. We saw the moment his corpse was brought out of the car by some men. He was on a white attire that got totally soaked in blood.
We were really shocked that day. The incident leafed through my memory for many days.

Losing my two parents must be the worst days of my life I won't forget. I have still not recovered from that. I'm okay though.

tohyorsih:
operation turn your leftover white rice to fried rice. It was delicious tho.

Water beats Pepsi

BeLookingIDIOT:

Yeah...but this seems different.Even among handsome guys there's no sexual attraction...it only faintly happens with the exceedingly good looking ones and this is so because somehow my brain sees them as feminine

It's kinda gay sha though it's really not gay. The problem though is that you see really fine guys as feminine. I'm supposed to ask why but these things happen.

cococandy:
I was off of rice for a bit but it seems I’m back on a binge now. Can’t stay away from rice

Very yummy. Reminds me of the rice they sell at my spot.