₦airaland Forum

sonOfLucifer:
Mind of your own? Hahahahahaha. No be mind of Christ you get again?

I have a mind, Christ lives in me. And I love Jesus. What sort of trauma did you pass through or are you passing through?.

sonOfLucifer:
To go to heaven, you have to die first. Na there the problem dey.

So whats the fuss all about? Why not wait till you die and see for your self instead of consistently constituting nuissance on a thread you dont belong.

Ranchhoddas:
Over one billion people believe in Allah and Muhammed, close to another billion trust their Hindu God, the same goes for Buddhists, and other faiths. Are they all crazy. What of stories of people that died, saw Allah, came back and became Muslims, are they all crazy? what of people that claim to have re-incarnated and possess memories of their past lives. Are they all mad? Grail messengers and Eckists claim to visit the afterlife regularly. Are they all mad?

In my optimism, i've been looking for such stories about people who died and saw other gods in paradise, i've not been able to come accross any. Pls post 5 links to videos of those who claimed they died and saw other gods in paradise so we can watch. Thanks.

sonOfLucifer:
The day you close the Bible, you'll discover you have a mind of your own. Don't let it go to waste. The world has far moved on. Jesus would no longer be relevant if he wasn't making so many men rich.

I have a mind of my own. I think better than you. I probably live better than you. Atheists in the 17th century said the world would move past christianity before the 18th century, Even 19th century atheists were convinced on the death of christianity. Too bad they are not alive today.

An example: Voltaire, French infidel, died 1778
- said that within 100 years of his time, Christianity would be swept away from existence and pass into the obscurity of history.
-Yet 50 years after his death, the Geneva Bible Society used his house and printing press to produce stacks of Bibles.

In your own case, we may use you life investments to promote the good news when you eventually surrender your life.

Yes, Jesus makes many rich, He also gives us a whole lot of goodies too.


“A thousand times over, the death knell of the Bible has been sounded, the funeral procession formed, the inscription cut on the tombstone, and committal read. But somehow the corpse never stays put.”
“No other book has been so chopped, knifed, sifted, scrutinized, and vilified. What book on philosophy or religion or psychology or belles lettres of classical or modern times has been subject to such a mass attack as the Bible? With such venom and skepticism? With such thoroughness and erudition? Upon every chapter, line and tenet?” - Bernard Ramm

sonOfLucifer:
You don't have to be crazy to tell good lies. You just have to repeat the same story, including common elements like golden road and white Jesus, some trumpets and two or three angels.
Throw in a sob story like how you used to be human(womanizing, drinking, smoking etc) and you're good to go. People won't question. They believe already Jesus can do anything.. heal the sick, raise the dead and scratch my balls.

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table:moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.


And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


Luke 16:19-31 King James Version (KJV)

otemanuduno:
In life it is all about what you believe in. You can not be attending Public school and your name will appear in the lists of those who have failed in a private school.

Religion began billions of years after the making of the universe. All the sons of God (Jehovah, Vishnu, Moloch, Odin, etc) began to make human beings for themselves(homoerectus, etc). They formed religion and whatever they determine to the end of their creatures will surely be their end. Atheists are those who do not believe in any of the TRIBALISTIC gods as the God who created the universe. So whenever an atheist die, his soul will walk straight into the Valley Of The Shadow Of Death for correction of all his mistakes on earth and then he will be transported to either the Chumorld or the Clumoid to start his second life.

Domino Reverad the father of Jehovah(Satan) hates religion and only wants all creatures to use their brains and do what is right. so you are in much more danger of going to hell than the atheists whose sin was that they refused to accept any of the tribalistic and murderer gods as the GOD who created the UNIVERSE.

Read DOCTRINE OF THE UFOS and be FREE from the bondage OF RELIGION to know the true GOD of the universe:
www.nairaland.com/2938907/doctrine-ufos

People should notice that atheists will not concern themselves with this strange idea by this young man whom i'm replying, even though it conflicts with their views, but will be quick to attack the slightest proclamation of the christian doctrine.

So that leaves me the question: What is it about christianity that the carnal nature seeks tirelessly and desperately to suppress?.. This is one question that needs serious consideration.

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

prinsam30:
Has anybody really gone to heaven and come back

Hundreds of thousands of people have made this claim, now and in the past. Christians, muslims, Atheists and several others.
Its either they are all lying or telling the truth. But one thing is certain, "they all cant be crazy."

One great thing about our God is His unending love, compassion and forgiveness. He can bend His rules just to prove to His creations How great and loving a God He is. He has granted second chances to hundreds of thousands of people (believers and non-believers) now and in the past just because he wants people to learn and avoid eternal damnation. Skeptics like to refer to these priviledged people as mad or crazy in their thousands. Its funny how they wont even listen to atheists who have had this golden experience. Well, experience they say, is the best teacher but hey, it ain't the only teacher. You can learn from other good teachers.

God did not create hell for humanity just the same way you didnt buy a table knife for the murder of your kids. However there wont be much you can do if your kid is desperately bent on committing suicide. God loves you and has provided that you live life and live it more abundantly. Choose life my friend, so that you might live.


Once again, like hundreds of others, documented and undocumented, this atheist shares his experience. May God bless you as you watch his story.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbTAmN4m2lQ

realmindz:
Is God all merciful? If God is all merciful, then is he all powerful?

If God is this, then He is not that. If God is that, Then He is not this, blah, blah bla, are just nothing but ideas, assertions created by humans, for humans and nothing more. Your Creator cannot fit into your assertions or logic, no matter how much you want Him to.

realmindz:
A certain man had a teenage son, so it happened that the boy wanted to go out clubbing with his friends.

His father gave him a serious warning never to go out that night but the boy was disobedient and sneaked out in the middle of the night to join his friends for clubbing.

Unfortunately they had a terrible accident and the boy was in a state of life and death. The father wept bitterly. An operation was to be done to save the child's life, the father was not ready to lose him and did everything he could do to rescue his son's life.

He sold everything he had laboured for all his life to save him, unfortunately the son died and went to hell to perish forever and ever till the end of time...

......................................................................................

Wrong picture. If the Son on the sick bed kept telling his father that he really wants to die and that he does not need his father or anyone anymore. Of course, his father will still try to help him, but there will be little he can do for someone who is determined to die. Thats the same with God.

Let me give a better analogy:

How will you stop your grown son who is bent on committing suicide (say with a knife) you bought strictly for the kitchen.
Atheism 3:16 "For you loved your son that you bought a knife, and are confused on how to save your son from using on himself the knife you bought for food (probably)".


Can your grown son decide for himself what he wants, Yes
Does man have free will, Yes

Did you buy the knife for your son, NO
Did God create hell for humanity, NO

Will you take measures to help your son out, Yes
Will God take measures to help his creations out, Yes (By providing an alternative).

God is not the man you have created in your created brains neither will He fit into your mere ideas, He has provided a way out for man. Jesus..
That you constantly reject this alternative is your problem.

realmindz:
If God is all merciful, then he will do anything to see his earthly children never to perish in hell.
.

.He made the greatest sacrifice when he caused His Son to take on the sins of the world by dying on the cross. He reached out to man in the most loving way even after man rebelled.

My question to you?; "Will you make your son die for the survival of the human race"?

realmindz:
He might be all powerful but not all merciful therefore he passes judgement to whomever he wishes and punishes however it pleases him as the most high and all powerful.

Perhaps he is all merciful, but not all powerful....so he is fighting hard to rescue the few he can rescue from hell.

Only one of the above is a possibility for the possibility of an all powerful, all loving and all merciful God is a contradiction that fails simple logic.

Whatever you term as possibilities is as puny as you are. Your Creator created you and as such wont fit into your weak cage of assumed possibilities. You people have really created a much more predictable, controllable and definately human god in your minds. This god is not the Creator of the universe.

KingEbukasBlog:
The Universe is all of time and space and its contents. The Universe includes planets, natural satellites, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic particles, and all matter and energy - Wikipedia

I had to recheck to be sure I was not out of line . What am trying to say is , what we call universe is simply a collection of energy , matter , space , planets , stars etc . So if energy which is contained in other constituents is eternal , why do we say the universe has a beginning - we are focusing on other constituents

Let me put it this way.
Energy is a force of nature.
The forces of nature predate the universe and acts on the universe.

That does not seem to me like a blind mindless force.

GeneralShepherd:
So we can agree that Einstein did not belief in the Christian God.

Also, there have always been scientists on either side of the divide.

Thomas Eddison, Alan Turing for example were atheists and I am sure there will be more if I care to research . In modern science, I think there are more atheists than believers.

Not the christian God alone but christianity surely gulps a lot of those great men, most of the intelligent humans were theists.

Thomas eddison and alan turing were not atheists. Thomas Edison believed in a Creator as laws of nature that ruled the world, Alan turing believed in reincarnation.
In mordern science, evolutionists are trying hard to define science as a disbelief in God, science is no longer based on observation and experimentation but a disbelief in God. No transitional fossil whatsoever exists to validate evolution, yet evolutionsts have faith that evolution is true.
If you tell me there is no God, then you must be God who sees and knows everything everywhere. Like KingEbukasBlog said, agnosticism is a more honest position.

GeneralShepherd:
Atheism or lack of it is not equivalent to intelligence.

You might need to tell that to your atheist colleagues.

GeneralShepherd:
What great thinkers are you talking about? Einstein?

These ones:

https://www.nairaland.com/2670287/famous-scientists-believed-god
https://www.nairaland.com/2499498/quotes-famous-men-bible
https://www.nairaland.com/2975009/christianity-reason-science

Einstein believed in a personal god, he also saw the rationality in reaching for the supernatural.

GeneralShepherd:
Believe in God requires great faith and a lot of trusting in heavenly (leaving the wisdom of Man).

This is one of the many erroneous beliefs of atheism. Trusting in the heavenly does not require a man to deaden his brains. Have you ever sat down just to objectively analyze where the evidence leads?. Thats what some of us did and thats why we believe in a Creator. We arent dumb as you think, most of us are smarter and more intelligent than you guys. As a matter of fact, most of the greatest thinkers, inventors and innovators, including the founder of the scientific method were theists. Only in the atheist mind does atheism equate superior reasoning.

When you follow the evidence where it leads, then you can ask the honest question; "Which is the true God".

KingEbukasBlog:
But energy is a constituent of the universe and it cannot be created or destroyed . How do you reconcile that ? It is certainly incongruous with a universe that has a beginning .

The energy in the pre big bang singularity was outside the bounds of time strongly suggesting that this force existed before the creation of the universe i.e predates the universe, and also acts on the univerrse. So energy may have been eternal, and the universe of course had a beginning.

KingEbukasBlog:
Bro . Winner01 .. No mind am ... The topic has been on my mind for a long time , what do you think . I think , the beginning addresses time from the creation of heavenly bodies .

Man cant grasp the concept of eternity. I mean, how could something not have a beginning. Well, since the universe had a beginning, then it and we (humans) were created within the bounds of time. Anything outside time seems beyond our reach. And that is why we need to reach for something beyond the physical to come for it.

Naijaboy007:
You can't prove your god exist

You cant stop your obsession about a non-existent God.

Julianyao:
1. I procreate, tyres can't. I'm rational; tyres aren't...

Do you have proof for this, or are you just making assumptions?

On procreation, I feel tyres, if left really long enough, with the right conditions, can evolve useful parts gradually, and then a mind of its own and then procreate. Please dont find this odd, its what atheistic evolutionists would have us believe

On rationality, You have no proof that tyres or any other product of this great "coincidence" is rational or irrational. Your opinions are yours and nothing more.

Julianyao:
2. I'm a vegan

Oh, then my question is still valid. ; What is your justification for killing and eating plants (equal products of meaninglessness) which have equal rights, or even higher rights than you (at least based on man and plants relative contribution to the continuity of planet earth.) and not man? (We all know Plants try to clean up our toxic gasses mess, so what justification do you have for destroying the precious life of a plant.)

Julianyao:
I also want you to know that I'm good in the Christianity game.

Christianity is truth. Christianity is not a game, even though some people see and use it as an end to their selfish and evil desires.

Julianyao:
In fact I still preach in churches up to this very day. I don't do that because I feel it in my heart and/or because it is my calling. I do because of the people that look up to me, see as mentor, always want to stand by them(If only they know the pain I go through). I've believe in that all my life and in seeking to know him (god) more and more, I realised how suspect everything was. I realised I was wrong.

Do you mind sharing how you came to be in this faith you profess. It will go a long way in helping people understand what you mean exactly.

Julianyao:
If I don't die any time soon, I will be leaving (officially) Christianity at the turn of the year to focus on my career fully.

Now i like this, @ bolded. "If you dont submit your life any time soon". Kinda contrary to the beliefs of the average proud, self-acclaimed intellectual atheist who thinks he owns his life.

I know of a man who has been a christian for over 40 years, he just gave his life to Christ recently. Whats my point?. You cant leave where you have never been.

Julianyao:
I don't hate anyone for believing in these things; it gives them hope, comfort... in this life that is devoid of meaning. Also, I don't and I won't hold any ill feelings for you.

If you didnt hold any ill feelings for me or anyone else, you would live your life as subject to your own beliefs and allow other people to. But this atheistic inclination against christianity majorly is what is odd, it is what makes me wonder why they hold christianity alone in such contempt, why they have atheist mega churches and not mega mosques or whatever.

There really is something about Christ, that the the carnal nature seeks tirelessly day and night to suppress. Nairaland is a good example. You can show me 10 atheistic threads aginst islam or any other religion since the inception of Nairaland.

Julianyao:
I know what it's like to be in your position because I've been there and I know how it feels when one attacks the beliefs upon which your life is based.

Ive also been in your position, i just wanted to live my life, not as an atheist or theist or whatever. I just wanted to be me. I realised sooner that there is more to this great reality, and its going on behind the scenes.

Julianyao:
If you decide to hold on to it, I'm fine with that; it's your choice and I respect that. We can discuss these things like normal people because there are people out there who will benefit from it.

I have examined the theistic and atheistic worldview. I only followed logic and evidence where it led. Im yet to find a worldview that thumps christianity or thats has been so persistently attacked as christianity. In my leisure time, i hope we can have a more detailed discussion.

Julianyao:
You, you think you're something special? Sorry, you're not. You're human; all too human- nothing more.

On the contrary, I am special. If i wasnt special, i wouldnt have the ability to know that I'm not special.
You see, this is the beauty of theism, christianity especially. We see God's creation as special and strive to know more about God and the world around us.
Atheists vent their frustrations mostly on christians because we present a worldview that leaves them in a small meaningless box.

My question to you: You and a useless car tyre lying down the street are both products of blind chaos (in your worldview).

1. How are you more important than that tyre.
2. What is your justification for killing and eating animals (equal products of meaninglessness) which have equal rights, or even more rights than you (at least based on man and animals relative contribution to the continuity of planet earth.) and not man?

KingEbukasBlog:
Great job bro . Looks like I came early for the party .

Yeah Bro , You're welcome.

Julianyao:
Note: This an excerpt- can't trace the rest of it.
Let me attack your god briefly:
His moral system or the system which appeals to him is a completely fecked up one. You can murder all you want, rape all you want...But the moment you give your life to Christ, you are saved, forgiven. And if the society don't know about it, wow! lucky you. After all god has forgiven you, Who the feck can judge you. The problem is that your god's system set up a ridiculously high standard (of morality) that no one can meet and then create a loophole (believe in Jesus) to escape punishment. There's also the thought crime but I prefer to leave it here.

Note: Perfect justice implies no mercy. Also justice and any degree of mercy are mutually exclusive

The fact that you cant grasp the concept of God's unending love and mercy only shows how human you are.

You Note: Human opinions, models and theories are created for humans by humans. You cant fit your Creator into your created models. That is exactly what makes God GOD and man MAN.

Tellemall:
What do you want from me?

Excuse me?

SirWere:
Hian!

Isn't it funny that this "Moral Lawgiver" changes from place to place, culture to culture.

God never changes. Humans do change or at least their perception about God.

SirWere:
Isn't he funny that he/she/it tells them they are special and he loves them more than any other person, even though he created them

The people you refer to as loved and special people were sold into slavery, conquered, maimed and killed for centuries when they exercised their God-given freewill to rebel against God.

God loves man. The fall of man messed things up. God still (in his unending love and kindness) reached out to man through the sacrificial lamb. Man keeps rebelling and demanding a sense of entitlement as if he owns himself or asked to be created. Death has repeatedly proven that man does not even own his body, talkless of his life.

SirWere:
more importantly,
isn't it funny that this "Moral Lawgiver" condones wanton violence and acts that we now call mass terror ; slavery and other forms of mass degradation.....
And yet he is the Moral one

What could you possibly mean by mass degredation if morality is really subjective? , What is degrading to you might be right to another person remember? , see how your logic crumbles?
God is God no matter how much you want to have your way, no matter how much you wish he does not exist, no matter how much you hate him for existing.

The only funny thing here is your unrepentant, hardened and close mind.

SirWere:
Dude, Morality is subjective. The British wiped out the Tausmanians back then and no one shouted. They enslaved we Africans because they believed they were doing the right thing.
And to them, honest to God, they were probably moral

Did you read the article atall or are you so scared your "weak intellect" might get shattered?
I advise that you re-read the article and answer the question below before you further waste my time or that of any other person.

Is there actually such a thing as objective morality? Are right and wrong real things that all people at all times are obliged to obey or are they just matters of opinion? Was Adolph Hitler evil? If so, why and where did the standard he is judged by come from?

The moral argument for the existence of God tries to show that moral values must be objective and universal to make any sense. And if moral values are objective, the source must be a transcendent, personal being who is concerned with the actions of human beings. This is one of the most powerful arguments for God’s existence because all of us have a sense of right and wrong, good and evil, and the way things ought to be. The question is how to account for why that is.



RELATIVISM
There are two basic ways to view morality: as relative or as objective. The most widely held view in our culture is called relativism. Relativism holds that societies or individuals decide what is right and wrong and that those values vary from culture to culture or person to person. There
are no objective, universal moral truths—just conventions for behavior created by people and that are subject to change. There are three different forms of relativism: cultural relativism, conventionalism, and ethical subjectivism.


CULTURAL RELATIVISM
Cultural relativism is based on the observation that different cultures seem to have different values. And since they all have different value systems, there must be no right system, no objective morality. For example, some cultures, like Mexico, declare abortion to be abhorrent and have passed laws prohibiting it. Other cultures, like the United States, permit abortion as a legal option open to any pregnant woman for any reason. Still other cultures, like China, have actually required abortions under certain circumstances. Cultural relativism says that because
each culture is holding to its own view of morality, and because these views differ, there must be no objective morality.

There are several problems with this line of thinking. One is that observing how cultures behave is just that: observation and nothing more. At best, these observations are simply statements of fact. Morals are not descriptions of the way things are. Morals are prescriptions of the way things ought to be. Just because things are a certain way does not mean they should be that way. When Popeye says, “I am what I am” he is making a statement of fact, not a moral claim. If he said, “I ought to be what I am,” he would be making a moral claim.

Another problem with cultural relativism is its premise that different answers to a given question means there is no right answer. Just because Mexico, the United States, and China disagree on the issue of abortion does not mean there is no right or wrong approach to abortion. If two golfers disagreed on how many strokes one of them took on a hole, it does not mean there is no incorrect answer. Either both are wrong or one of them is right. They cannot both be right. When people disagree about morality, it does not mean that there is no objective morality.

Finally, let’s say someone disagrees with cultural relativism. If the cultural relativist is to remain consistent, they must agree that the fact that there is a disagreement means that there is no wrong view of moral theory. But as a cultural relativist they are claiming there is a correct view of moral theory and that other views are incorrect. As a result, they cannot live their own philosophy.

On the other hand, if the cultural relativist claims that the opposing view is a wrong way to think about the issue, then again they show they are not actually a relativist. Thus, cultural relativism cannot give an account of the basis of morality.




CONVENTIONALISM

The view that each society decides what is right and wrong for itself is called conventionalism. In contrast to cultural relativism, which says that there is no right or wrong answer, conventionalism claims there is a right and wrong, but it varies from society to society. The majority rules and morality becomes simply what is legal.

If conventionalism is true, the results are counterintuitive and very hard to live out. For example, let’s say a law was passed that made having blue eyes illegal and that the penalty for having blue eyes is death. There would not only be nothing immoral about the law, but it would in fact be immoral to have blue eyes!

But we don’t need to invent absurd hypothetical situations to see what a conventionalist society would look like. Conventionalism was the philosophy of Germany in the 1930s and 40s. Thus, when the Nazis declared Jews to be sub-human and deserving of death, there was no recourse for the Jews. The law by definition was “moral.” The large community of countries who protested were ignored. After all, what grounds did they have to critique German society? As a result six million Jews were systematically killed. And the defense given by Nazis tried at Nuremberg was conventionalism. “It couldn’t have been wrong, it was the law,” they said. “We were only following orders.”

One of conventionalism’s problems is that it leaves no room for society to be reformed. If society defines morality, then a person who protests against the laws of that society is, by definition, immoral and criminal. If a society were to change a law it would not change from immoral to
moral or from unjust to just. The law could only change from one rule to another, it would simply be different, not better or worse.

Think about what this means: if conventionalism is true then people like Gandhi, Jesus, and William Wilberforce would be among the most egregious criminals that ever lived! Their crime? They thought society could be changed for the better. The criminalization of such
moral reformers is, of course, wildly counterintuitive and helps show the bankruptcy of the conventionalist view.

Ultimately, conventionalism is about power, not morality. Whichever way the wind blows, the will of the majority is what is moral. Like a gang of bullies forcing into submission those who would dare oppose them, conventionalism forces its preferences on everyone by defining itself into power. And like cultural relativism, this fails to account for morality.



ETHICAL SUBJECTIVISM

The most widespread form of relativism is ethical subjectivism. In this view, individuals decide what is right and wrong for themselves and themselves only. Morality is nothing more than personal preference and opinion. “What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me.”

One of the major problems with ethical subjectivism has to do with language. Conversation about values and moral topics becomes completely incoherent. No longer could anyone say something was right or wrong with any meaning. The best you could say is, “I choose not to do that because it is wrong for me,” or “I do not prefer that.” An ethical subjectivist could not meaningfully call the terrorist attacks on September 11 evil or wrong. And they could not call the rescue workers good or heroic and make any sense. When an ethical subjectivist makes a statement about the morality of an event or action they are not talking about anything other than their opinion of it, not about the thing itself.

The fatal flaw in this view is that it is clearly self-refuting. Again consider the statement, “What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me.” The statement makes no sense. It says that truth claims only apply to the person making them. The problem is that if this statement is true it applies to everyone, which, of course means the statement is false!

A very effective way to expose the bankruptcy of Ethical Subjectivism is by using examples of obvious moral clarity that apply to all people at all times in all places. “Torturing babies for fun is wrong,” is a well-known example. When confronted with this statement, an ethical subjectivist
would then be in the unenviable position of having to argue against it. They may not personally think it is right, but they could not say it is wrong and be consistent. Just imagine what kind of people this system produces. In this system an ethical subjectivist must walk past a rape in
action since they cannot condemn it for anyone but themselves. An ethical subjectivist must allow trespassers into their home, thieves to burgle it, and arsonists to burn it as long as the trespassers, thieves, and arsonists don’t believe their acts are wrong. But nobody lives this way. Or do they?

One way to judge a moral system is to look at the kind of heroes the system produces. Take the objective moral stance of the Judeo-Christian view. The heroes are many and mighty: Jesus, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr. immediately come to mind.

But what kind of hero best exemplifies ethical subjectivism? Lived consistently, it produces moral monsters, people who see no need to care about others, and are unaccountable to anything but their preferences. Jack the Ripper. Ted Bundy. Albert Fish (one of the inspirations for Hannibal Lector). Ed Gein (the inspiration for Psycho, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and the Buffalo Bill character in Silence of the Lambs). These are the heroes of ethical relativism.




OBJECTIVE MORALITY

Morals are not opinions or personal, private decisions. And they are not descriptions of behavior. They are prescriptions for behavior and motives that have the force of a command. They have a sense of obligation and oughtness that is universal, authoritative and applies to all people in all places at all times.

One way we come to moral knowledge is directly. We know it through intuition. This immediate knowledge is important because some things are only known in themselves. No investigation of facts or reasoning is required. This is precisely what is demonstrated by clear case examples like, “Torturing babies for fun is wrong.” Nobody has to investigate this claim before they can take a moral stance on it. Our intuition enables us to recognize it as self-evident. Just because we have a moral intuition does not mean we do not have to develop it, however. Even though we have an intuition for logic, we still have to cultivate a reasonable mind to better act on that intuition. The same is true with moral intuition; we have to cultivate our minds to be sensitive to it and to act on it.


There are several ways to show that all people, even self-professed relativists, actually believe in objective morality at their core. As we have seen, one way is through clear case examples. These examples don’t have to be confined to outlandish claims like the torture example. Often
conversations present opportunities to make this point in a much more personal way.

Christian thinker Francis Schaeffer was a master at this. He once had a conversation with several students, one of whom disagreed with Schaeffer’s moral objectivism. The student claimed there was ultimately no difference between cruelty and non-cruelty. Another student who was listening decided to put that belief to the test. He picked up a teakettle full of boiling water and held it over the first student’s head as if he were about to pour it onto the student. He then said, “There is no difference between cruelty and non-cruelty.” The first student realized that in his worldview he could not object to the threat and got up and left the room disillusioned. What makes these kinds of situations so powerful is that they are opportunities to take the conversation out of the abstract and put into the everyday world we all live in. In this light, the force of the objectivist position is undeniable no matter how hard someone tries to resist it.

Another way of exposing objectivism in a relativist is to discover their passion and relativize it. Let us say, for example, a relativist believed deeply in animal rights. A moral objectivist could tell the relativist how he is trying to find a new shampoo and just tested out a couple brands
by rubbing the shampoo into the eyes of a dog to see if there was any adverse reaction. The relativist will betray what they say they believe and object to these actions. And rightly so. But by objecting they demonstrate the reality of moral objectivism: moral laws are not personal opinions.

So, objectivism stands as the only coherent view of morality and the only way that can be consistently lived out.

At this point in the argument, all that has been shown is that there are very good reasons for believing that objective morality exists. Two questions now arise: “Where did morals come from?,” and, “Why should we obey them?” To find the source we should look at the characteristics of morality. Morality is:
• Prescriptive
• A command
• Universal
• Objective
• Authoritative


Prescriptions and commands are forms of communication, and communication happens only between minds. Also, because morals deal with purpose and will, the source of morality must also have purpose and a will. Because morals are universal and transcend individuals, societies,
and time, the source must be universal and transcendent. Since morals are authoritative they must come from an authority, and authority can only be held by a person. Finally, this person must have the power to impose his moral will on us and provide us with an ability to know their moral will through intuition. Thus, morals come from a transcendent person who has the power and authority to impose a moral law on us. And we call this person God.

Another indication of where morals come from is found in what happens when we violate the moral law. We’ve all ignored our moral intuition and done what we know is wrong, and the result has been guilt. Sometimes it is obvious to us whom we feel guilty towards. At other times the object of our guilt is not so clear, like when our guilt stems from our own thoughts or motives.

To whom do we feel guilty then? The answer is in the question: “whom,” not “what.” We feel guilty towards persons not objects. And we do not just feel guilt toward the person we deceived or harmed, but we understand the law came from someone, not something, and we feel guilt towards that person.

But is something good just because God says it is or is there a standard that God is using? If something is good because God says it is then the standard is arbitrary since it could have been something other than what it is. Or if God uses something outside himself as a standard to judge
things, then God is truly God since he relies on something outside himself. Either way is a fatal flaw against the claim that God is the source of morality. However, those are not the only options.
A third option says that things are good because they reflect God’s nature and character. God’s character is the standard of goodness and his preferences are extensions of his character, not arbitrary decrees. Because God does not change the standard does not change. And because the standard is internal God is not dependent on anything outside himself.

The argument from morality for the existence of God can be made in a couple of ways. A modest case uses it along with other arguments as only one part of a whole case. Others have made transcendental arguments with it. This approach asks what the necessary preconditions are for objective morality and argues that only the God of the Bible can account for it. This is obviously a more ambitious take on the argument, but it can be extremely effective. Both methods rely on the same claim: that objectivism is the only coherent view of morality and the only view of morality that can be lived consistently. And it points very strongly towards the existence of a transcendent, powerful, personal God.




Source; Apologeticbible.com


cc; KingEbukasBlog, Richirich713, thoniameek, anas09, Tufanja, elantraceey, OLAADEGBU, KingEbukaNaija, ceeted, Chidexter, lezz, analice107, bxcode, Topeakintola, UyiIredia, Tellemall, vooks, Ishilove, sukkot, gatiano, mrpresident1, Drefan2, Strawman

KingEbukasBlog:
So you did not witness this event and can't provide any tangible evidence ? My brothers winner01 and Richirich713 , isn't that an exhibition of faith

Lol, they dont see it that way.

SirWere:
The universe is ageless, timeless, so yeah, eternal

And what's up with this "Universe had a cause"

The universe is eternal?

KingEbukasBlog, I dont think this dude deserves your time.

The word “cosmos” is a Greek word that refers to everything that exists—the universe itself and everything in it. The cosmological argument for the existence of God tries to show that because anything exists there must be a God who brought it into existence. In other words, without God to create it, nothing would or could exist. It’s possible for God to exist without the universe, but it is not possible for the universe to exist without God. Thus, the cosmological argument tries to show that the universe is not a necessary being. This means the universe relies on something for its existence; it is contingent and therefore cannot account for its own existence. The goal of the argument is to show that the universe was caused by an agent that is not part of the universe, has no cause itself, and is personal.

There are several kinds of philosophical cosmological arguments, but we’ll focus on what is called the Kalam Argument because of its forcefulness and because understanding it often helps understand the others. The Kalam argument tries to show that the universe is not eternal—that it had to have a beginning and that the beginning was caused by person. Although this argument was first formulated by Christian philosophers, it was not until medieval Islamic thinkers devoted attention to the argument that it found its full force. Kalam is an Arabic word that can be translated “talk” or “speech” though it means something closer to “philosophy” or “theology.”

The argument hinges on three sets of alternatives. The universe either began or had no beginning, either it was caused or uncaused, and if it was caused the cause was either personal or impersonal.

At the core of the argument is an understanding of the difference between a potential infinite and an actual infinite. Potential infinites are sets of numbers that are continually increasing by adding another number to the series. For example, the seconds on this counter are potentially infinite. Once the count began, a set of numbers was generated and will increase until we move on to the next point. If we never move on, the seconds will potentially accrue forever. But no matter how long we let it sit here and add up, the number will never get so big that it turns
infinite. There will always be a finite number that we can add another increment to.

Actual infinites are sets of numbers to which no increment can be added since, by nature of their infiniteness, the set includes all numbers – there is nothing to add. If this is hard to imagine, there is good reason: actual infinites do not exist and cannot exist in the physical world. If actual infinites did exist in the physical world, we would see absurdities and effects we literally could not live with.

For example, here we see the earth rotating around the sun and the moon rotating around the earth. Which is happening more often: the moon going around the earth or the earth going around the sun? Clearly the moon makes more rotations around the earth. Now, if the universe
was infinitely old, which would made more rotations: the moon or the earth? The answer is they would be equal; they both would have made an infinite amount of rotations. Even thought the moon has made 12 times the number of rotations of the earth, they have made the same amount! It is an absurdity that cannot exist in reality.

Or, let’s say you had a CD collection that was infinitely large and each CD had an infinite number of songs on it. If you listened to one CD you would hear as much music as if you had listened to all of the CDs—an infinite amount—and yet those infinites are of different sizes—a nonsensical notion. Let’s also say that there were only two artists in your CD collection, Bach and the Beatles, and that every other CD was by the Beatles. This would mean that you had as many Beatles CDs as you would Beatles and Bach CDs combined; they would both be an infinite number. And would the number of Beatles CDs be odd or even? It must be one or the other, but to speak of infinity in such a way is irrational.


If this makes your brain hurt or is confusing at all then you are beginning to understand why actual infinites do not exist in the real world. These examples are not just interesting brainteasers or puzzles. The fact that if X=Y then X cannot also be twelve times greater than Y is extremely important. You would never want to cross a bridge, ride in a car, or live in a house designed by an engineer who didn’t recognize or didn’t care about the absurdities of actual infinites.

This demonstration of the non-existence of actual infinites is important to us in two real-world areas, time and causality. The best way to show that time is not infinite, that it had a beginning, is to observe that there is a “now.” If now exists then time cannot be infinite. To show this, picture the moment “now” as a destination, like a train station. Then picture time as train tracks that are actually infinitely long. If you were a passenger waiting on the train to arrive, how long would you have to wait? The answer is: forever. You can never reach the end of infinity; thus, infinitely long train tracks cannot ever be crossed. There is no end to arrive at, no station. If infinitely long train tracks could be crossed, they would be the equivalent of a one-ended stick, a nonsensical notion. In fact, this is the opposite limitation of potential infinites. Just as potential infinites are finite numbers that can never turn infinite, actual infinites could never reach the end of their infiniteness and turn finite. But there is an end, a “now”; the train did arrive at the station. This means the tracks of time cannot be infinitely long. There cannot be an infinite number of preceding moments prior to the present moment. The past is not an actual infinite. Thus, the universe had to have a beginning.

The universe, however, did not cause itself to spring into existence. If it had a beginning, then something began it. This is where causality comes into the picture. There is no such thing as an effect that was not caused. You are an effect of the biological process caused by your parents. These words you now hear were caused by my using my voice. The current state of the universe is an effect caused by various astronomical and physical conditions. But notice that each of the causes mentioned are also effects. For example, your parents are not only your cause, but they are the effects of their parents who were the effects of their parents, and so on. But, as the nonexistence of actual infinites shows, the chain of causes cannot regress forever.

The train station in this case is made of present causes; because we have causes now, there must be a beginning to the sequence. Thus, there must be a cause that is not an effect, an uncaused cause, or first cause.

Since the universe had a beginning and is an effect, it must have had a cause itself. At this point there are only two options: either the cause was personal or it was impersonal.
Let’s think about what this uncaused cause would look like. The first cause be non-contingent, meaning that its existence depends on nothing but itself. If it was contingent, then it would simply be one more effect in the chain of causes and effects. It must also be transcendent. This means the cause of the universe must exist outside of and apart from the universe. And because this being exists apart from the universe it must be immaterial. If it was material then it would be part of the universe. The first cause would have to have the power to create the universe. Without this ability nothing could be created. But these things are not enough to bring the universe into existence. There also needs to be a desire to create, a will to make the universe. Without this will to create, nothing would be created because the power to create could not be acted on. Now add all these things together.

What kind of thing
• relies on nothing for its existence
• exists apart from the universe
• is immaterial
• has the power to create something from nothing
• a will to do it or not do it

Does this sound like a personal or impersonal being? Personal, of course. The ability to will is an attribute that belongs only to persons. Thus, the Kalam argument brings us to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning that was caused by a personal, powerful, transcendent, selfexisting, immaterial being. In other words, God.

A question that frequently arises at this point has to do with God’s infinite characteristics. “If there is no such thing as an actual infinite, then how can God be infinitely good or loving?”
When we speak of God’s infinite characteristics, we are speaking in more of a metaphorical manner. We do not mean that God has an infinitely large quantity of goodness and love with which He funds His grace and mercy. We mean He is the ultimate embodiment of goodness and love.
These characteristics are without measure and speak to the quality of His character, not the quantity of His characteristics.

But philosophical arguments are not the only kinds of arguments that demonstrate the universe had a beginning. There are scientific arguments as well. The second law of thermodynamics, for instance, is often used as an illustration. However, the best and most easily understood example may be the big bang theory.

In the 1920s, Astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that our universe was bigger than previously thought. In fact, it was much bigger. Until he saw outside our galaxy, the prevailing thought was that our galaxy was the entire universe. Hubble was the first to recognize that ours was only one of a vast amount of galaxies.

While he was studying the light from distant galaxies he found it was not what he expected it to be like. He noticed the light was uniformly shifted to the red side of the spectrum. This phenomenon became known as the red shift.

Hubble found an explanation for the red shift by applying the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect says that if sound or light waves are emitted from an object moving toward you, the waves are compressed or shortened. In the case of sound, the shortening of the wavelength increases the sound’s pitch. The farther away the object is as it moves towards you, the shorter the wavelength and the higher the pitch. As the object is moving away from you, the sound waves are lengthened and the pitch shifts lower. The Doppler effect is what describes the change in pitch you hear in sirens from ambulances. As the ambulance gets closer to you, the sound you hear drops towards its natural pitch. And as the ambulance gets farther away the siren drops progressively lower than its natural pitch.

Hubble applied the Doppler effect to the light waves he was studying. The blue end of the light spectrum is composed of the shorter wavelengths, while the red end is composed of the longer ones. Everywhere he looked in the universe he saw a shift in the light towards the red end of the spectrum. This meant the stars emitting the light are all moving away from each other. Thus the universe is expanding.

Other scientists took this discovery and built on it. If the universe is expanding, it must have beginning, a point of origin from which it was expanding. Other discoveries were made that showed the expansion is slower now than it was when it began—like an explosion. This explosion became known as the big bang, the beginning of the universe.

The two primary challengers of the big bang theory are the steady state theory and the oscillating theory. The steady state theory argues the universe has always existed and always will exist. There are two problems with this. It does not account for the observations that support the big bang, and it would require the existence of actual infinites. The fact that there is a now makes the theory of an infinite number of preceding moments an impossibility.
The oscillating theory says that the universe will eventually stop expanding and contract back to a singularity which will then explode and continue a cycle that will repeat forever. The problem is a cycle of oscillations without beginning or end would require the existence of actual infinites.
But since we exist in the current oscillation, there must be a start to the cycle. The other problem is the second law of thermodynamics. The energy in the universe is not infinite. Just as a rubber ball bounces lower and faster with each bounce until it stops, an oscillating universe would eventually run down. Again, an oscillating universe must have a beginning.

The big bang remains the best explanation for the current state of the universe. But if the big bang was an explosion, why did it explode? What exploded and where did it come from? Explosions are effects and effects need causes—they do not cause themselves. The cause of
the big bang is not to be found in the physical universe because that is precisely what exploded.

Also, the matter that exploded did not create itself. The non-existence of actual infinites shows that matter cannot be eternal. So, because the universe had a beginning, something must have initiated it. It did not start itself. The cause of the universe must be found outside of the universe; it must be transcendent.

The cause must be powerful in order to create the entire universe out of nothing. The cause must not be an effect, but is an uncaused cause. And this cause must not rely on anything else for its existence; it must be non-contingent—or necessary.
Note that this only describes what is necessary for the big bang to work. But if there is such an entity as the one described it’s still not sufficient for the creation of the universe. Just because this entity does exist does not mean the universe must exist. Something is still missing—intentionality, a will to make it happen.

A car that has a working engine, a healthy battery, a properly connected electrical system to start the engine, and is full of gas has all the necessary conditions for running. Yet parking lots are full of cars that have the necessary conditions to run but are not running. Although they have the necessary conditions, they lack sufficient conditions. Cars that are moving down the street have necessary and sufficient conditions for running—that is why they are moving. What do the moving cars have that the parked cars do not? They have drivers. And what is a driver? It is a personal being that can act on their will. Thus, the universe needs a driver, a personal, intelligent agent that can choose whether to create the universe or not. This necessary and sufficient cause of the universe is what we call God.

It is important to be honest about what the cosmological argument does and does not prove. It does not show that the God of the Bible is the one true God. Remember, this argument is also used in Islamic apologetics. However, the God of the Bible is consistent with the picture of God
the cosmological argument describes. If our case for Christianity relied only on the cosmological argument, it would fail. But when we use it in conjunction with other arguments, it is a powerful component of a persuasive case.




Source; Apologeticbible.com


cc; KingEbukasBlog, Richirich713, thoniameek, anas09, Tufanja, elantraceey, OLAADEGBU, KingEbukaNaija, ceeted, Chidexter, lezz, analice107, bxcode, Topeakintola, UyiIredia, Tellemall, vooks, Ishilove, sukkot, gatiano, mrpresident1, Drefan2, Strawman

Seun:
These topics are not as bad as you're implying. Can you give ten examples of topics that you would like to see on the home page on Sundays?

Testimonies
https://www.nairaland.com/3136567/trapped-inside-own-body-12
https://www.nairaland.com/3136515/bahai-faith-porn-alpha-jesus
https://www.nairaland.com/2825218/fox-news-highly-reluctant-jesus
https://www.nairaland.com/3134957/how-french-atheist-becomes-theologian

Good deeds
https://www.nairaland.com/2987225/photo-teenager-praying-homeless-man
https://www.nairaland.com/2811390/wycliffe-continue-spread-gods-word

Spirit lifting
https://www.nairaland.com/2764761/4-ways-prepare-spiritual-battle
https://www.nairaland.com/2627189/6-signs-being-attacked-spiritually
https://www.nairaland.com/2960796/what-does-bible-say-speaking

Apologetics
https://www.nairaland.com/2499498/quotes-famous-men-bible
https://www.nairaland.com/3026320/jesus-only-way-heaven
https://www.nairaland.com/2722039/former-atheists-speak-testimonies
https://www.nairaland.com/2988881/atheism-terrorism-annihilation-grasp-atheistic
https://www.nairaland.com/2797026/quotes-scientists-regarding-design-universe


To mention a few.

Strawman:
Oh my God.. winner01, I used the "Fine Tuning" argument to win a debate against some atheists in school, and here I am, looking at a more detailed version

How much insult I could've added to injury back then

ehyaa . You could have knocked them out.

donnffd:
Pardon me, you dont expect me to read all long post.

Who are Scientists and who are creationists? I wonder what you people think of Newton, pascal, boyle, herschel and others. You should start by reading the post first.

ValentineMary:
I wonder what type of organisms are in Jupitar or Pluto.

Earth is your home.