tobechi74:

y not black? U are a racist from birth

Lol!!!

Lol!!!


Sorry, I did not mean to laugh but this is very funny...

You mean if someone contacts you and tell you that he is a born again Christian who happens to have some cash and is above 30, you would just accept him based on that?

mantraa: Ok that's interesting, I thought that Christians believe the only way to heaven is by believing in the story of Jesus being the son of god. So do you believe that atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. all go to heaven if they live a good enough life?

Yep!

Uyi Iredia:

He writes as if he's busy_hence short points_ or is not much interested in the section.

Hmmmm...


Okay, I will give him the benefit of the doubt...


#I am watching him

manmustwac: Topics like this that force christians to think critically are always avoided

For one whose strong point is not critical thinking, I wonder what you are on about.

PAGAN 9JA:
fu**CK jesus. this bloody jeww has no right to decide where I end up.

I leave that to the Higher powers to decide.

Hmmmm...for one who screams: "VULGAR ATTACKS AGAINST YOUR GODS"...you aint so different from those you accuse.

The dude speaks out of ignorance...not every Christian believes that good 'non-christian' people will go to hell.

lacum: remember also that jesus said that he who is not against me is with me.
we not only follow jesus with our wrds but deeds dats y we say dat Xtianity is not a religion but a way of life.
some muslims do follow jesus with their way of of life even without knowing it. tks

Great post!

truthislight:

Now thats ^ cute !

What does "Olodoo" means in your language ?

Maybe it means "Good morning" or "Good afternoon", even "Good evening" and we are complaining.

"Good day" Striklyme

Olodo!

Uyi Iredia:

Interesting question. Because I myself thought if God couldn't kill Himself, as Christians say, He couldn't do all things, as Christians also say. One way of solving this quandary is by saying death is illusory, a mere passage from one life to the next. Inanimate matter don't die, they simply exist in another form (e.g fuel becomes heat which runs cars). It could be this applies to God. One can't say He dies, the way one won't say a glass dies if it breaks, or water dies if it evaporates.

But the question is: Can't God kill himself if he wants to?

Uyi Iredia:

Okay. Why the name ? Just curious.

striktlymi got an unjust ban from manmustwac. The name depicts my 'character' on nairaland really...Christians question my loyalty, Muslims are not happy that I am Christian, Atheists are pissed at me, Pagan9ja thinks that I am a lost pagan

Uyi Iredia:
There are 3 aims IMO of the justice system: retribution, reformation and restoration. Rape is serious no doubt but I think we can agree it's less serious than murder. Keeping in mind we just don't want to punish, I think 5 years is enough for a first-time rapist. A serial rapist (first time) or a second-time rapist gets a stiffer penalty.

Hmmmmm....okay, this would mean:

Retribution - To bring justice to the offended.

Reformation - To better the offender and the society.

Restoration - Not sure what the system is restoring here. Is it like a kinda restitution from the offender?

If a murderer gets a maximum of 10 years, I don't think any of the aims you listed would have been met, in my opinion. 10 years could hardly be said to have brought retribution to one who killed another deliberately. 10 years is hardly enough to reform one who has a heart to kill, and really 10 years is not enough restitution.

I have no ish with the jail term you prescribed for one who committed r.ape, depending on the circumstance involved. For me, one who commits r.ape deliberately i.e. not borne out of passion and maybe out of impulse, should get a stiffer sentence.

Uyi Iredia:
The bolded was all I needed you to affirm. I also agree it is a case of civil disobedience. On your last statement, I quite disagree. Anarchy as seen through history, is typically precipitated by adverse social factors (usually catalyzed by a failure of government). Keep in mind what I said earlier, that individuals through religious or political means influence public morals. I used Jesus as an example.

If public morals are left in the hands of the general public to determine for themselves, then that in itself is a failure of the state and it's legislative, Judicial and executive processes.

I agree that religious groups influence public morals through the appropriate channel....they however do not go off on their own to determine public morals via their individual private morals without going through the legislative arm of government.

I suspect we are looking at the same thing from two different angles.

Uyi Iredia:
Okay.

In such regimes people weren't allowed to protest violation of human rights.

Agreed! Hence my belief that military regimes shouldn't be the ideal case study.

Uyi Iredia:
Okay.

But in the case you mentioned private morals overrode public morals, hence prosecution. Note this occurred under the law. Before the law I stated stigmatization did the work. I'm beginning to think you see only formally made laws as public morals OTOH I think public morals are the morals common to most, if not everyone in the society (they may or may not be codified).

Well, I decided to stick to formally made laws as my ideal source of public morals because it forms an objective basis where everyone can be assessed.

If we decide to leave this assessment in the hands of individuals and pressure groups then we will have a situation where the rights of individuals will be swept under the rug for a lack of an objective basis e.g some Christians would see it as being against the law for ladies to wear trousers while some other sect would see it differently.

This is what I believe would lead to anarchy because we would have all soughts of laws that are too subjective and equally conflicting. In this case, the society would be the victim at the end of the day.

Uyi Iredia:
I disagree. The reason being that his killing was supposedly in Abacha's interest. Abacha had no qualms killing political opponents or activists. In spite of public appeals to the contrary he got Saro Wiwa killed. The machinery through which he was murdered is the judiciary. Like it or not, he was tried, sentenced and executed because of Abacha.

This really is why I said military regimes can hardly pass for good case studies as far as this discourse is concerned. Note that the first thing to go out the window when there is a military coup d'etat is the constitution and the judiciary is replaced by a military tribunal.

Military tribunals are not meant to try civilians so the purported trial of the Ogony 9 was a sham from the get go.

Uyi Iredia:
Pressure groups are a coalition of individuals. Privately they believe something is wrong e.g corruption, racial segregation, human rights violation etc. They unite so they can influence public morals through campaigns, protests and suing.

Yes, that should be a good summary of the activities of pressure groups.

Uyi Iredia:
Actually, they are free. No matter how a government tries to straitjacket a people into a mode of thinking freedom prevails. This is why, for example, Stalin ultimately failed to eradicate religion from Russia.

C'mon man! Stalin and freedom do not go together...stalin is to freedom what Obasanjo is to good governance. Stalin's failure to eradicate religion does not mean that the people were free to practice religion when his persecution lasted.

Uyi Iredia:
If your parents flog you for stealing, and say it's right because they are your elders; don't you think it'll be pretentious if they flogged you for flogging a younger sibling who stole ?

If the rules of the home is that only the parents have the right to punish anyone who stole then it won't be unfair for my parents to flog my brother too because it is expressly stated in the law of the home that anyone who punishes apart from my parents would be severely dealt with.

Note: striktlymi = outc@st

Uyi Iredia:

5 years. I know you'll disagree.

Definitely! That would be a slap on the face of justice. Someone commits murder and gets just 10 yrs while one who r.apes another gets 5 yrs? Lady justice must be in love with a murderer. Lol!!!

Uyi Iredia:
Okay.

It isn't. It's a clear case of private moral overriding public morals.

No! That's a clear case of civil disobedience and not just an individual using her private morals as a basis to override public morals.

Like I said before, given each citizen the right to determine what public morals are for them and apply same as law is a recipe for anarchy.

Uyi Iredia:
And public morals are subjective to private morals, especially so, since they are made by them.

I don't think the above has been in dispute. Remember my narrative on the law making process? This was meant to show how public morals are determined and accepted as laws. Public morals are determined by private morals.

Uyi Iredia:
Except when they aren't. As in Abacha's regime, Hitler's regime, South Africa's apartheid regime etc.

I am not sure I understand the above.

Uyi Iredia:
She would have been convicted.

Precisely! And in that answer lies the difference. Civil disobedience is a political tool which is part of the inalienable rights of citizens to protest any law that is seen as unjust. On the other hand, using private morals as a basis of determining public morals contravenes the provisions of the law.

Uyi Iredia:
To curb gays. Before the laws were enacted, gays didn't publicly profess love, have $ex or marry. The prospect of stigmatization was enough to deter them. Now can gays secretly have $ex or marry despite the law ? Yes.

If after deliberations in parliament it was decided that gay marriages are illegal, but a church still decides to go ahead to wed a gay couple i.e using their private morals to determine public morals, this would be seen as going against the law and the individuals involved would be liable to prosecution.

The point here is that we do not use our private morals to override what is already determined as public morals. It's similar to the example of the individual who believes killing another is right.

Uyi Iredia:
It's another clear case of private moral overriding public interest.

No! Ken and the Ogoni 8's case is different. Ken was what you can call a victim of circumstance. He was found guilty of inciting others to violence against some Ogoni chieftains who were brutally murdered. His accuser was an intolerant military regime...this is very different from what we are talking about.

Like I mentioned earlier, pressure groups are an intrinsic part of any law making process. The individuals in a pressure group do not go about using their private morals as a basis for determining what public morals are for them.

If their pressures do not work out and the interest they represent fail to make it into law, the best they can do is accept the determined public morals and fight for other interests as against going against what ultimately becomes public moral. This too is different.

Uyi Iredia:
Because there are laws, and there are people who enforce those laws by agreement, or by compulsion. Just note public moral won't stop individuals from deciding what's moral for them.

I agree! Individuals should be free to determine what is private morals for them, to the extent that their private morals do not infringe on the rights of anyone else.

Uyi Iredia:
This basis was made by individuals, no ?

The basis is determined by individuals collectively and not that an individual is left to determine this on his own and make same, public morals.

Uyi Iredia:
The constitution is a public moral. It's basis is private moral.

The above is not in dispute.

Uyi Iredia:
There's double-standard if what justifies an act in the court doesn't justify an act by a person.

If every individual is subject to the same set of laws and judged by same then there is no double standards.

Hmmmm

.

truthislight:

Looooooooooool.












Who should we blame for that ^ ?

Guy we prefer you the way you were than this.

Is there anything we can do to revert you back to your former demeanour ?

[size=20pt]OLODO!!![/size]

Logicboy03:
Beyond the scope of reasoning? Your christian beliefs are below the concept of reasoning. They are foolishness upon silliness.

A donkey can not talk. It can not talk. Even if it could, why would it speak a Jewish language?
A dead man who has been bled to death can not come back to life in 3 days.


Your beliefs are insane. Faith is the only thing that can make a man carry a bomb to blow up people and than cries the next day that he didnt reach paradise because his bomb didnt detonate and he was caught.

Reason can never justify such psychopatic terrorism

It's either you do not know what reason is or you are mistaking it for something else. Or better still maybe you choose a definition that suits your purpose.

Anyways, like I mentioned in my OP, reason is largely a subjective term and what might be reasonable for one might be very unreasonable for another.

The bottom line however is that my faith as a Christian in a lot of instances can be defended using reason and I maintain that faith and reason work together instead of against each other.

Logicboy03:


But you believe that Gideon in the bible had a dream and it was a revelation from God

You forgot to mention my belief in the dream Joseph had.

okeyxyz:

God does not have the ability to self destruct because he is the ultimate power from which other lesser powers are derived. It takes a greater power to destroy/subdue a lesser one. All powers in the universe aspires to be like God, thus they are lesser and a derivation of God. So suicide can be godly only in relative terms but god himself is not relative but ultimate and absolute. Suicide is relative power(and Godly) in the sense that it can take away your pains(power over your pains).

Hmmm...will I be correct to say that for you omnipotent is the ability of God to 'subdue' other 'powers' but himself?

Top of the morning to you guys,

Let me get this straight...someone slept, had a dream about hell, claim that the dream is a revelation from God and I am supposed to take it seriously?

Logicboy03:


What if some time from now "God" becomes diagnosed as a mental delusion?

Guy, let us focus on what we know. Donkeys can not talk. Faith is not reasonable

At least with this I can't justify calling you Olodo...so I will shelve it for a more appropriate time .

Seriously now, what really is 'reason'? If I can provide justification or explanations for the things I believe in then what I do is in line with reason.

As I mentioned before a number of things that we believe as Christians are completely reasonable. To say that some other things Christians believe in are against reason would be very inappropriate.

If we say something is against reason, we are really saying that what is believed cannot both now and in the future be explained or justified...this is not true and we need not go back too far in history to prove it.

The best we can say is that there are some things believed by Christians (I can only speak for my faith) which are beyond the scope of reason...what is beyond the scope of reason need not be unreasonable for all time as you guys suggest.

okeyxyz: It is not a silly question. It simply means: all power is derived from God.

Yes! all power, whether military, political, science & academics, spiritual, religious, astrology/numerology, etc. Even all lies are derived from God

This is a great answer I must say! I asked this question basically because of a question Plaetton asked: "Can God commit suicide?"...

From your explanation above, I gather that the ability man has to commit suicide is from God, in other words, the power man has to kill himself is derived from God. Now can we extend this to say that God has the ability to self destruct?

plaetton:

Have you ever once considered that what happened to Paul on his way to damascus could have been a sudden onset of some kind of benign mental illness?b

What if, some time from now the 'talking donkey' ish becomes explanable via our frail human intelligence?

davidylan:

I think we are conflating two things here. There is FAITH and there is BELIEF. Believing that killing is wrong is not the same thing as believing that Jesus is Lord.

Belief in the lordship of Christ is not all that faith entails....there is more to it. Your OP suggests that everything that has to do with faith is at opposites with reason...this I do not agree to.

davidylan:
Belief in God isnt humanly reasonable. It takes the Holy Spirit within you to be able to read the bible without laughing your head off. For example... outside the guidance of the Holy Ghost, it makes no sense to believe that someone crucified 2000 yrs ago is going to take away your sins by magic.

It does not take the holy spirit to accept that there is a creator of the Universe. Even non-Christians and a number of great scientists can attest to this.

davidylan:
Like i said earlier, believing in intelligent design doth not a faith make.

davidylan:
The rationale for this analogy escapes me.

Not everything falls within the scope of reason at any given time; and everything that is true but seem unreasonable will become reasonable at the 'right time'.

davidylan:

Its not that complex. human reasoning is based on integration of evidence that is within the intellectual capacity of humans. For example - human reasoning states that man cannot walk on water... well that is based on the physical FACT that we are much much denser than water. But in the realm of God, that is a distinct possibility because God's power transcends human comprehension.

Okay, cool! At least we now know what you mean by 'Human reasoning'. But do note that there are a lot of things we believe as Christians or Children of God that are totally reasonable...for instance our belief that no man should be killed and a host of other beliefs are very reasonable.

davidylan:
Belief in God is completely unreasonable WITHIN the confines of human intelligence. For example... it is biologically impossible to be in the belly of a fish for three days and survive.

Well I disagree with you here...belief in God is very reasonable...the evidence for God are overwhelming. The fact that we are here alone is evidence enough to show that there indeed is a God who created all.

davidylan:
Faith in Christ is about believing that He transcends our puny ability to understand things beyond or comprehension. Faith means believe that what God said, He will do regardless of the circumstances around us that magnify our limitations. Gideon destroyed a huge army with 300 untrained men... it certainly had nothing to do with their military prowess.

Of course there are a number of things that are beyond the scope of reason but this does not mean that when everything is revealed it will still fall outside the sphere of reason...take for instance the belief that the Earth was flat...a scientist came to say that this was wrong but considering that he was unable to provide evidence to support his belief, this was considered unreasonable. But now it is so reasonable to say that the Earth is not flat.

davidylan: From a christian point of view, faith is not compatible with human reasoning.

First, there is the need to understand what you mean by 'human reasoning' but despite this handicap let me ask you this: Do you think it is unreasonable to believe in God? Note that belief and faith are synonymous.

Collins Le Skillz Madumere:

Those instances were from the Bible. If they are rubbish to you then you really need to caution yourself.

Read between the lines pappy!

truthislight:

It is true!

But not now again.

OLODO!!!

Hallo guys,

Yes I know this is rather a silly question and I don't mind getting a silly answer in return; but seriously, when we say that God is omnipotent, what exactly do we mean?

loswhite: I'm not against science if u must know because it involves knowledge. U probably misunderstood me

It's either everyone misunderstood you or your contributions so far screams one thing: OLODOISM!!!

loswhite: so dat is the only tin u can understand frm the post.... Well I don't expect much frm a dumb any way. There is room 4 faith and reason dats d point

Ah men...must you respond? Anyways, if your contributions will follow the trend it has taken so far, then please do us all a favour and STOP contributing...

FortresOfChrist: Following Paul and his epistles is as though following Christ because the Lord our fortress is the Jesus Christ that Paul revealed and this same Jesus gave the revelation to Paul.

Very true! But Christ is the standard. Paul only became relevant because he did not deviate from the teachings of Christ...if he had deviated, Paul wouldn't have become what he is to Christendom today.

loswhite: keep reading and u will see my contribution dumbass

You mean this very ignorant post? You should have discarded all that you learnt in school because you were not part of those who did the initial investigations...

Olodo!!!

loswhite: u see u r not much different from the Christians after all, cos u stated overwhelming evidence that the earth has been evolving 4 past 4. 7 billion years which of course I knw u r not part of the the ppl that did d experiment but yet u choose to believe despite the fact dat u don't have any knowledge of the experiment except 4 the one provided by the same scientist which u read in skool or google . The idea that you believe sumtin until it's proven wrong by another person is similar to u putting ur faith in scientist which are humans that are more learned than u .
Christians put their faith in God and Jesus even tho u are quick to call it zombie story.
Scientist put their faith in their experiment and observation so I wonder where u belong ..... Lost soul I guess