Stats: 3,189,807 members, 7,938,399 topics. Date: Tuesday, 03 September 2024 at 03:18 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Outcst's Profile / Outcst's Posts
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (of 7 pages)
![]() |
tobechi74: 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: 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. 3 Likes |
![]() |
PAGAN 9JA: 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. Great post! |
![]() |
truthislight: Olodo! |
![]() |
Uyi Iredia: But the question is: Can't God kill himself if he wants to? |
![]() |
Uyi Iredia: 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: 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: 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: Agreed! Hence my belief that military regimes shouldn't be the ideal case study. Uyi Iredia: 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: 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: Yes, that should be a good summary of the activities of pressure groups. Uyi Iredia: 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 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: 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: 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: 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: I am not sure I understand the above. Uyi Iredia: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 above is not in dispute. Uyi Iredia: If every individual is subject to the same set of laws and judged by same then there is no double standards. |
![]() |
Hmmmm |
![]() |
. |
![]() |
truthislight: [size=20pt]OLODO!!![/size] |
![]() |
Logicboy03: 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: You forgot to mention my belief in the dream Joseph had. |
![]() |
okeyxyz: 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? 33 Likes |
![]() |
Logicboy03: 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. 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: What if, some time from now the 'talking donkey' ish becomes explanable via our frail human intelligence? |
![]() |
davidylan: 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: 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: ![]() davidylan: 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: 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: 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: 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: Read between the lines pappy! |
![]() |
truthislight: 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!!! 2 Likes |
![]() |
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... 1 Like |
![]() |
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 . |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (of 7 pages)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 93 |