PSALM 14:1.—The fool hath said in his heart There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
There is much to glean from this sweet morsel of holy writ. We may begin our enquiry by asking who is a fool?
In the verse under consideration, the word for fool in Hebrew is נבל. It is transliterated nâbâl and Pronounced naw-bawl’. It is defined as being stupid or wicked (especially impious). We can clearly see from the verse that being a fool has to do with moral deficiency and not necessarily lack of mental prowess. For who are they that are corrupt? The fools that say in their hearts there is no God.What is the evidence of this corruption? It flows forth in the streams of the abominable works which they effortlessly perform. Finally this corruption is universal, for there is none that doeth good. This last statement unequivocally tells us the condition of every single human who has ever lived that is outside of Christ. Those who would wish to protest their innocence should do well to ask themselves the same rhetorical question the psalmist poses in Psalm 130:3, “if You, LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?” Also you should consider Job’s question in Job 15:16, “How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinks iniquity like water?”
Notice that in the first part of the verse the fool “hath said in his heart.” These are words said to oneself and not spoken out. Hence there might be an outward affirmation of God’s existence but a tacit denial in the thought processes. Some might not have the courage to voice out their opinion but in their minds the God of the bible could not exist. Also this could refer to those who affirm the existence of God but live as if he does not exist. They might go by the name evangelical or tick the box for Christian on a from but live as if they are heathens. What the bible says is of little importance and they rarely try to obey it. They are no better than the fallen angels whose knowledge of God causes them to tremble but cannot love or obey him.
Titillating air. Strong, sensual and sweet. Almost beyond what words could describe. For the first time my lungs felt alive. The body of water by my feet was crystal clear, almost as if it was a mirage. The forage before me; lush and greeny as if it contained infinite chlorophyll.
I immediately began making my way through this incredible scenery looking for my subject. Finally I caught sight of him hiding behind some thick vegetation. Everything about him seemed normal except his eyes. They were glassy and lifeless. I think he noticed I was there for he skipped past me and headed for a near by tree. He took one of the the fruits and munched with utter indifference.
I moved closer till I was in front of him. “Hello”, I said while waving my arm and brandishing my best smile. There was no response instead I was greeted with loud sounds of chewing. Thinking that probably he was blind I tried to make contact but received a reprimand by a series of successfully quick motions in which I was picked up and tossed into a near by Bush.
At this point It dawned on me I had made a grave error. I was supposed to observe and remain concealed, but instead I chose to make contact. But that was the only way I could confirm if the creature before me was indeed conscious.
Looking at him I wondered how long before he became conscious. Probably until some ninety thousand years into the future. But then how could a brain physically identical in all respects to mine fail to be conscious? I had thought consciousness was the exclusive preserve of foldy meaty substances. Anyway it was time to leave this world budding with life but lacking any form of consciousness. This only reinforced my suspicions that mind was an immaterial reality and its by product consciousness could be present or absent without a brain.
It is no news that music maestro Tuface Idibia is planning a city wide protest. Also this event has the impeccable timing of coinciding with the return of the president from his vacation abroad. What is rather surprising is that Tuface has received a lot of upbraiding from various individuals for this planned action based on what they see as certain deficiencies in his personality.
First it has been said that he is illiterate. I don’t know when being literate became a necessary condition for engaging or leading a protest. Also the use of the word in the Nigerian parlance means someone is a college dropout or never went to college, neglecting the true meaning of the term which is inability to read and write. At least we can take the bare fact that Tuface can read and write songs as a starting point of evidence of his literacy.
Secondly his apparent or pronounced lasciviousness and philandering is brought up as grounds for him having lost the moral rectitude to criticize the government. Clearly this is a case of an ad hominem, where rather than adress the substance of the issue an attempt is being made to discredit it by discrediting Tuface himself.
Finally it must be recognized that a Tuface and those who may wish to join him have the right to protest predicated on certain other fundamental rights such as the right to freedom of assembly, the right to freedom of association and the right to freedom of speech. While they may not have any articulated clearly any laws or policies they want changed, I take it that the aim is to raise awareness of the present economic realities which most Nigerians find unpalatable. While I sympathize with Tuface, it would do us well to ponder if we do not deserve the kind of leadership we have presently. While we hold our leaders accountable let us also hold each other accountable and remember that there will be a day of reckoning when everyone who has ever lived will be held accountable for his or her actions.
The eccentric general overseer of the omega fire ministries is in the spotlight once more, he is the man literally in the eye of the storm after a video of him asking his members to kill Fulani herdsmen went viral. Click on the link below to watch the video for yourself to have a proper frame of reference for this post.
I think a charitable interpretation of the video is not that of asking people to commit premeditated murder but more along the lines of self-defense. Also it must be added that Suleman obviously does not understand the concept of self-defense if that was indeed what he had in mind. Probably he thinks self-defense is to kill at the slightest appearance of danger. If that was indeed the case then we must bring it to his attention that he has made a grave error and must apologize and retract his statements.
If the alternate was the case then we must remind him that he has imbibed the duplicitous ways of his antagonists. For he is now on the same moral footing as a current president who threatened blood over the outcome of elections.
Also his allusion to David killing Goliath is not analogous to the present case as that was under the context of war and even in war their are codes of ethical behavior.
Furthermore there is no where in the new testament where we see Christians given the charge to kill by any apostle. Only God has such a right for he alone gives life and can decide when and how it is to be taken.
Finally we must ask where Johnson Suleman gets his authority to speak so emphatically and stake claim to the title of apostle. If it is from God then why are we not writing down his words and adding it to the biblical canon as sacred scripture? If his authority is not on par as the biblical apostles then he is irrelevant for we have a more sure word from God in the 66 books of the old and new testaments. Hence we can safely ignore him as a charlatan and a false apostle.
hopefully this will be a series of letters written in anticipation of your coming. Your mom gave me the news of your sex today. Honestly I didn’t have any preference as to whether you were male or female but due to certain societal prejudices I am happy you are a boy. This is because at least your mom would have a say in your paternal side of the extended family. Don’t worry you will understand such issues when you are grown.
There is a lot I have to say but since I still have some months to spare before you are born, I will take my time. Suffice to say that since your mom received the news she is super excited. She has been shouting and even the time I had her tipsy with wine cannot compare.
Naturally we refrained from buying any clothes since we didn’t know your sex but we have made your wardrobe. Hopefully we will begin to buy your stuff soon but the most pertinent concern seems to be the selection of your name. Your mom and I cannot seem to find any common ground, I want something weird and exotic while she prefers something Hebraic. Am sure that eventually we will find some means to settle the stalemate.
That’s all for now, will write soon as the lord permits. Love you to the moon and back.
Permit me to indulge in a bit of retrospection. For most of the 20th century homosexuality was classified as a disease in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association. This raises very interesting questions. We could ask how do medical practitioners define diseases and what has changed in little under a century to warrant the reclassification of homosexuality? Furthermore its quite prevalent these days to hear about gay pride and anyone with a dissenting opinion is be labelled a homophobe, is such name calling factual? Let us consider the questions posed thus far retrogradingly.
Is anyone opposed to gay pride a homophobe? We could easily ask if the medical professionals who classified homosexuality as a disease were homophobes? I think it is obvious that they were not and that their classification of homosexuality as a disease was a reflection of social consensus about the matter. Hence the term homophobe should be used with caution and preferably restricted to instances where violence has been threatened against gays either implicitly or explicitly.
So what has changed? Why is homosexuality no longer a disease? The American social clime underwent a sexual revolution in the 60’s to the 80’s and medical practitioners as members of the society were not left out. Their classification of diseases also had to reflect the existing social consensus.
From all this it should be clear that the process of defining a disease isn’t that clear cut and can sometimes be likened to the heraclitian flux. Defining diseases goes beyond empirical judgements about human physiology to incorporating certain ethical considerations. Hence we must ask where do we get our ethical directions? On what moral foundations do we build our theories of ethical normativity and consequently make value judgements? Since disease is related to the biological, then probably an evolutionary theory would be the right ground. But then evolution is a blind process. Organisms grow and they die, some appear and are able to survive while others become extinct. If we were to build upon the foundation of evolutionary theory then there would be no point in even grappling about disease. The inferior of the species would always die out, that is the natural order and there is no point saving them. Furthermore it would reduce the goal of medicine to biological fitness and exclude other human goals and values.
Finally, one last consideration. Would it be wrong for someone now to claim that homosexuality is a disease? So far we could say yes due to the prevailing social consensus. But what if this consensus were to change tomorrow? What if it were to revert to the previous consensus of the last century? One might respond it would be right then but wrong now. Just as it was right before but wrong now. I think all sober minded individuals will find such responses rather very unsettling. It espouses moral relativism and its Achilles heel is that in the final analysis no one is indeed right or wrong. It is all based on subjective opinions. To escape this then the only option is to be a moral objectivist. That is to say moral truths are not dependent upon cultural factors or social consensus. So to answer the question would depend on whether diseases are classified according to naturalistic or normative theories or a combination of both.
Having a job is a big deal if you are Nigerian. It is an even bigger deal if you are married, have kids and dependents. Having a white collar job? People be like “damn, you the man! ” It’s so bad that I don’t really disclose where I work to people. So much expectations you literally feel like that Charles Dickens book. As if that’s not enough you have to deal with the Sisyphus complex. Top that off with some unbearable days, then you have a recipe for the wishful lotto winning fantasy.
Even though I don’t believe in luck because it is conceptually incoherent, I find myself wrapped around it’s tentacles because it’s more comforting than the though of running a business. I fear I have been too indoctrinated in the art of routine. Not just any routine but that associated with a growing concern that is not mine. I have become accustomed to getting that sweet sounding bank alert at the end of the month. Sometimes I just love the security of knowing some money has been fixed at the end of the month.
But then comes big bad recession and there goes security. The threat of being laid off becomes more real and one has to consider a viable alternative means of income in case the sword of Damocles eventually falls.
But this thing called a business seems a rather strange creature. If observed under a microscope it’s has the prefix “micro” but when under a telescope it changes to “macro.” It’s fluidity seems to defy categorization. What seems even more strange is that some people domesticate it and then charge others to teach them the skills of domestication.
These people tell me I need these skills for it is inevitable that I would have to deal with the creature sooner or later. I think I do agree with them, but until that time let me continue in my serendipity.