Logicboy03:



Look....I have had this same debate for over a year now on nairaland. When facts are told about the christian slavery, we always have theists/religious/spiritual people denying the facts with nonsense opinions based on zero evidence


"the real british/european christians didnt engage in slavery, the real ones came and ended slavery"
"christainity didnt catch on until they (the Europeans) came back"

^^^
I am sick of nonsense like these quotes


Another point of annoyance is the lying against Dawkins- which is a christian dogma in its own right nowadays

Another point of annoyance is the nerve to ask silly questions when faced with a superior argument- what kind of person asks what is wrong with social darwinism? Why not pretend to be a Jew in front of a neo-nazi? That will answer your question-labellling certain people with certain xteristics as inferior and treating them different

There is no need to get worked up. I do find it interesting that though you say you are annoyed by the points religious folk have made, yet you start threads like this and actively engage one similar to it. Why would that be?

Still you failed to provide points but I will bow out of my conversation with you. I can do this because I am confident of the knowledge I have in this area.

I leave this with you if you care to read it. These are the words if an atheist who when he returned to his home country of Malawi made the following statement (see link):
http://cafn.us/2012/03/08/as-an-atheist-i-truly-believe-africa-needs-god-matthew-parris/

Now you may disagree and that's fine but clearly the man must have really given the situation some thought before publishing it.

NativeBoy:

To address your points in order.

1. I never said all atheists subscribed to Darwinism.

2. Perhaps "Darwinian" is a better term?

3. Why couldn't a sensible person advocate for Darwinism in a social context? (Another thread discussion perhaps?)

4. I am familiar to Dawkins' work and he has not been truly to justify the above. In fact, in his book, "The God Delusion", he states that good and evil really have no meaning when you look at the whole picture of existence (I paraphrased).

5. Indeed the Portuguese Roman Catholics arrived in Nigeria in the 15th century but it never took a strong hold. In fact, it eroded over the next 200 years until they returned in the 1800s. This time the Protestants came as well and by 1865, the first school in Nigeria was built.

I do not contend that the abolition of slavery played an important role in the establishment of schools on the African continent. It did. And it is interesting to note that the abolitionist movement was championed by believers like Wilberforce, Clarkson, Heyrick, Buxton, etc.

This is "whitewashed" history bro. The main reason behind the abolition of "slavery" is that the so called "trade" stopped being economically viable and the activities of enslaved Africans played a huge part in the abolition. "Slave" revolts were occurring all over the Americas, plantations being set on fire, white people being killed by the enslaved in order to get their freedom. I'm sure you are aware of many of these revolts which was highly motivated by the huge success of the Haitian Revolution. The Haitian Revolution was mainly successful because it was based on African "religion" and spirituality, many argue. Toussaint L'Ouverture and his comrades depended highly on African spirituality and this was made possible by the sizable amount of African born "slaves" in Haiti (these guys abolished slavery in Haiti! Making Haiti the first "independent" black nation). The impact of these revolts played an important part in the decline of the "slavery" economy and thus, its collapse and eventual abolition. This is a fact that is often downplayed a lot in favour of the "valour" of the "abolitionists". Wilberforce, a very questionable character is revered more than Olaudah Equaino, a "slave" from Nigeria who significantly contributed to the abolition of the trade (I suggest you read Olaudah's book/account. I'm sure it is downloadable for free over the internet).

This brings me to Wilberforce...After Haiti abolished slavery, this should have been a positive thing for Wilberforce, right? He should have supported the movement if he really cared about Africans but no....he distanced himself from the event. British troops invaded Haiti in order to counter the movement and also, get one ahead of the French after they've been defeated by Toussaint L'Ouverture and the people of Haiti. They wanted Haiti to return to slavery. Wilberforce should have been against this as a true Christian abolitionist motivated by Christian morals, right? Uh...nah. A motion was raised in parliament to withdraw British troops from Haiti and Wilberforce opposed the motion. So much for the great abolitionist, uh?

The abolition bill of 1807 that actually led to the abolition was not Wilberforce's bill. He had presented bills year after year that were defeated in parliament quite easily. No one was interested in abolishing the trade because the reality of its non-viability has not quite set in yet. So, during this 1807 debate, there was a motion that children of "slaves" should be considered free and guess what? Wilberforce opposed it! What kind of guy is this? Does he know what he is doing at all? He also opposed the prohibition of whipping women and he demanded that when slavery is abolished eventually, white slave owners should be compensated for the loss of their property. Seriously, compensation for their loss? Do you know that the current UK Prime Minister, David Cameron's ancestors amongst many other British elites are beneficiaries of this compensation?

Thomas Clarkson, which I believe you mentioned said that Wilberforce "cared nothing about the slaves, nor if they were all damned, provided he saved his soul". So, the whole altruism attributed to Wilberforce as a great abolitionist is garbage. He was in fact very racist in his comments about Africans. He made so many comments about how Africans actually deserved their enslavement and how they were not yet fit for freedom.

Damn! I have typed a lot of story lol. My point is that the abolition of slavery was way way more than the noble acts of abolitionists who often benefited from slavery while putting out half-hearted abolition campaigns. One need to read deeper and think deeper as well. Why is it that most plantation owners preferred "slaves" that were born outside of Africa to the "fresh slaves" from Africa? These "fresh slaves" were simply trouble, they still had fresh connections to their roots and they often had a stronger desire to be free, hence the many revolts inspired by them. Plantation owner thus heavily discouraged the practicing of African traditions, music and languages and enforced Christianity instead in order to kill the freedom spirit. Again, back to the point, many factors led to the abolition and the weakest of those factors are the efforts of the so called "missionaries" who brought good tidings. The movie "Amazing Grace" dedicated to Wilberforce should have been called "Amazing Disgrace".

Sorry for the long post. This is why I usually refrain from talking much about slavery and similar topics.

ThaProphet:

This is "whitewashed" history bro. The main reason behind the abolition of "slavery" is that the so called "trade" stopped being economically viable and the activities of enslaved Africans played a huge part in the abolition. "Slave" revolts were occurring all over the Americas, plantations being set on fire, white people being killed by the enslaved in order to get their freedom. I'm sure you are aware of many of these revolts which was highly motivated by the huge success of the Haitian Revolution. The Haitian Revolution was mainly successful because it was based on African "religion" and spirituality, many argue. Toussaint L'Ouverture and his comrades depended highly on African spirituality and this was made possible by the sizable amount of African born "slaves" in Haiti (these guys abolished slavery in Haiti! Making Haiti the first "independent" black nation). The impact of these revolts played an important part in the decline of the "slavery" economy and thus, its collapse and eventual abolition. This is a fact that is often downplayed a lot in favour of the "valour" of the "abolitionists". Wilberforce, a very questionable character is revered more than Olaudah Equaino, a "slave" from Nigeria who significantly contributed to the abolition of the trade (I suggest you read Olaudah's book/account. I'm sure it is downloadable for free over the internet).

This brings me to Wilberforce...After Haiti abolished slavery, this should have been a positive thing for Wilberforce, right? He should have supported the movement if he really cared about Africans but no....he distanced himself from the event. British troops invaded Haiti in order to counter the movement and also, get one ahead of the French after they've been defeated by Toussaint L'Ouverture and the people of Haiti. They wanted Haiti to return to slavery. Wilberforce should have been against this as a true Christian abolitionist motivated by Christian morals, right? Uh...nah. A motion was raised in parliament to withdraw British troops from Haiti and Wilberforce opposed the motion. So much for the great abolitionist, uh?

The abolition bill of 1807 that actually led to the abolition was not Wilberforce's bill. He had presented bills year after year that were defeated in parliament quite easily. No one was interested in abolishing the trade because the reality of its non-viability has not quite set in yet. So, during this 1807 debate, there was a motion that children of "slaves" should be considered free and guess what? Wilberforce opposed it! What kind of guy is this? Does he know what he is doing at all? He also opposed the prohibition of whipping women and he demanded that when slavery is abolished eventually, white slave owners should be compensated for the loss of their property. Seriously, compensation for their loss? Do you know that the current UK Prime Minister, David Cameron's ancestors amongst many other British elites are beneficiaries of this compensation?

Thomas Clarkson, which I believe you mentioned said that Wilberforce "cared nothing about the slaves, nor if they were all damned, provided he saved his soul". So, the whole altruism attributed to Wilberforce as a great abolitionist is garbage. He was in fact very racist in his comments about Africans. He made so many comments about how Africans actually deserved their enslavement and how they were not yet fit for freedom.

Damn! I have typed a lot of story lol. My point is that the abolition of slavery was way way more than the noble acts of abolitionists who often benefited from slavery while putting out half-hearted abolition campaigns. One need to read deeper and think deeper as well. Why is it that most plantation owners preferred "slaves" that were born outside of Africa to the "fresh slaves" from Africa? These "fresh slaves" were simply trouble, they still had fresh connections to their roots and they often had a stronger desire to be free, hence the many revolts inspired by them. Plantation owner thus heavily discouraged the practicing of African traditions, music and languages and enforced Christianity instead in order to kill the freedom spirit. Again, back to the point, many factors led to the abolition and the weakest of those factors are the efforts of the so called "missionaries" who brought good tidings. The movie "Amazing Grace" dedicated to Wilberforce should have been called "Amazing Disgrace".

Sorry for the long post. This is why I usually refrain from talking much about slavery and similar topics.

I do not mind reading long posts especially when you present your points in the manner that you have. I am familiar with all the points you have made and even the questionability of Wilberforce's intentions. Nevertheless, the point still remains that Christianity played a role in the abolishing the slave trade as did the human spirit of our noble ancestors who broke off their chains. I would not call the abolitionist movement half-hearted. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say and it seems we are always too eager to criticize the past. I often wonder what would be said by the future generations about the many brilliant Nigerians living today and being unable to change their country for the better. I think you will agree that if you didn't one good thing, people will point out five other things you didn't do right. If you are pointing out that Wiberforce was a hypocrite, I wouldn't disagree with you though I do not judge the man. Indeed many Christians have espoused something with their lips and done another. That tends to be human nature. After all, the same men who professed freedom, liberty, and justice for all were slaveowners themselves.

Haiti stands as a one off but it had great impact on America and Europe. And it only proves my initial point that we must look at ourselves before blaming religion. Still, a great contributing influence that brought about the end of slavery was the abolitionist movement. When you look at other attempted rebellions after Haiti, they were all put down. So what produced the change? I think you will find it was a mixture of the right elements of which the abolitionist movement was a main ingredient. Just like the civil rights movement. The religion of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X didn't kill their yearning to be free.

I am not God's advocate. If all of us Nigeria decided to reject God, it wouldn't stop me from believing in Him. I would see it as a choice we made and we will live with that choice. As long as I am not restriced from worshipping and proselytizing, I'll keep trudging along. Again I ask, would getting rid of religion make us less corrupt, less greedy, less of cowards?

Sorry for the long post.

It bothers me why some ppl who seem to claim that they are intelligent are actually dull...can anyone claiming that there is no God prove it? I just want a proof that God doesn't exist. Well think it this way, if God doesn't exist and I believe in Him...am I loosing anythin? Oh perhaps losing "because some ppl say he has a blind faith"...but wat if God exists and you don't believe in Him, you lose right? So from the foregoing, I think its beta to believe in God, either He exists or not...I lose nothing! I would like one atheist to prove to me that God doesn't exist! But so u can know, I have had way too many personal experiences, than some set of ppl that the Bible called "utter fools" to make me think that God doesn't exist!

dejilg: It bothers me why some ppl who seem to claim that they are intelligent are actually dull...can anyone claiming that there is no God prove it? I just want a proof that God doesn't exist. Well think it this way, if God doesn't exist and I believe in Him...am I loosing anythin? Oh perhaps losing "because some ppl say he has a blind faith"...but wat if God exists and you don't believe in Him, you lose right? So from the foregoing, I think its beta to believe in God, either He exists or not...I lose nothing! I would like one atheist to prove to me that God doesn't exist! But so u can know, I have had way too many personal experiences, than some set of ppl that the Bible called "utter fools" to make me think that God doesn't exist!

Europeans & Arabs as races, are your juniors. They have no business coming to show us how to link to the Creator, claiming exclusivity and sowing seeds of mutual exclusiveness. Atheism and communist ideology are white supremacist doctrines, competing for white supremacist domination of the world. Feel free to read your Bible (which is a whitewashed ancient African script), but with the awareness that your ancestors already knew that Obatala molded man out of clay and Olodumare gave the breath of life.

NativeBoy:

I do not mind reading long posts especially when you present your points in the manner that you have. I am familiar with all the points you have made and even the questionability of Wilberforce's intentions. Nevertheless, the point still remains that Christianity played a role in the abolishing the slave trade as did the human spirit of our noble ancestors who broke off their chains. I would not call the abolitionist movement half-hearted. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say and it seems we are always too eager to criticize the past. I often wonder what would be said by the future generations about the many brilliant Nigerians living today and being unable to change their country for the better. I think you will agree that if you didn't one good thing, people will point out five other things you didn't do right. If you are pointing out that Wiberforce was a hypocrite, I wouldn't disagree with you though I do not judge the man. Indeed many Christians have espoused something with their lips and done another. That tends to be human nature. After all, the same men who professed freedom, liberty, and justice for all were slaveowners themselves.

Haiti stands as a one off but it had great impact on America and Europe. And it only proves my initial point that we must look at ourselves before blaming religion. Still, a great contributing influence that brought about the end of slavery was the abolitionist movement. When you look at other attempted rebellions after Haiti, they were all put down. So what produced the change? I think you will find it was a mixture of the right elements of which the abolitionist movement was a main ingredient. Just like the civil rights movement. The religion of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X didn't kill their yearning to be free.

I am not God's advocate. If all of us Nigeria decided to reject God, it wouldn't stop me from believing in Him. I would see it as a choice we made and we will live with that choice. As long as I am not restriced from worshipping and proselytizing, I'll keep trudging along. Again I ask, would getting rid of religion make us less corrupt, less greedy, less of cowards?

Sorry for the long post.

About Haiti...it can be called a one off but like you mentioned, it brought about change. Chances are that without the success of Haiti, changes would not have occurred drastically. Also, there were other successful revolts besides Haiti, the island of Curacao led by Tula although this revolt did not result in a Haiti-like situation, it brought about change and some level of equal rights on the Island. Other revolts might not have resulted in independence but they were very effective in destroying the economy of slavery and reducing its profitability thus, I would say that they were successful. The Malcolm X and MLK example is a great example of how religion does not necessarily have to make one docile. But these examples are very rare. Especially in Africa. Well, contemporary Africa. As a matter of fact, in the world today. These days, religion is used to promote and excuse docility. That is a problem.

Would getting rid of religion make us less corrupt, less greedy and less of cowards?

A lot of damage has been done already and I am not that naive to argue that getting rid of religion automatically solves the above problems. Also, it is almost impossible to get rid of religion, it is not practical to think so. However, I'd like to think that people should think more and act more without recourse to religious sentiments. That will definitely go a long way in making us less cowards. As to greed, yes, it will help because religion in Nigeria, especially Christianity, preaches the Gospel of Greed. Placing so much emphasis on material gains fosters corruption. Hence, we have (mis)leaders in different government offices having their seats reserved in special sections of the church auditorium. We have people giving inhumane testimonies as to how they are the only survivors of a car accident ad how they were saved by grace (different topic altogether).

Another issue I have with religion is the role it plays in the subjugation and demonization of our people and culture. I echo John Herik Clarke's words...
"nearly all religion were brought to people and imposed on people by conquerors and used as a framework to control their minds...if you are a child of God and God is a part of you, then in your imagination God is supposed to look like you. And when you accept a picture of a deity assigned to you by another people, you become the spiritual prisoners of that other people"

That is the way I tend to look at this issue. Was God not with Africa before Christianity and Islam? Did we as a people only exist, waiting to be saved and brought to the knowledge of God by other people? Did we not have a connection with God before the white man came?

I have no problem with religion. I advocate individual freedom. As long as that freedom does not encroach on the freedom of others. A good example is the discussion we've been having so far. I think this is the first time I've engaged in such a discussion without getting the following threats:

"Change your ways or burn in hell", "I pity you, you better accept Jesus before its too late", "I warn you! God cannot be mocked", "oh! you are an atheist, hell is real!", "You are a devil's incarnate!"

Honestly, I appreciate your level of reasoning. Usually, the above is what a discussion such as this descends to.

jantavanta:

Europeans & Arabs as races, are your juniors. They have no business coming to show us how to link to the Creator, claiming exclusivity and sowing seeds of mutual exclusiveness. Atheism and communist ideology are white supremacist doctrines, competing for white supremacist domination of the world. Feel free to read your Bible (which is a whitewashed ancient African script), but with the awareness that your ancestors already knew that Obatala molded man out of clay and Olodumare gave the breath of life.

I believe if u had read that same Bible u call a whitewashed ancient African script! Perhaps u'd undastnd why Obatala was said to have molded man out of clay! Ever come across the story of Nimrod?! Perhaps u shld read more! Either u like it or not? U stil haven't proven that God doesn't exist, so wen u do, I'd take u more seriously. So for us who have had more experience than just "philosophical reason"...we know God exists! so prove that He doesn't. Quite simple!

dejilg:

I believe if u had read that same Bible u call a whitewashed ancient African script! Perhaps u'd undastnd why Obatala was said to have molded man out of clay! Ever come across the story of Nimrod?! Perhaps u shld read more! Either u like it or not? U stil haven't proven that God doesn't exist, so wen u do, I'd take u more seriously. So for us who have had more experience than just "philosophical reason"...we know God exists! so prove that He doesn't. Quite simple!

Ahn Ahn!! Bros! Isn't it unfair for you to tell him to offer proof that God does not exist when you yourself have not offered a shred of proof? Play fair, brother. Plus, from the brother's post, he clearly isn't an atheist or did you not read his post?

ThaProphet:

Ahn Ahn!! Bros! Isn't it unfair for you to tell him to offer proof that God does not exist when you yourself have not offered a shred of proof? Play fair, brother. Plus, from the brother's post, he clearly isn't an atheist or did you not read his post?

Oops! Okay! Sorry Bro(s). Probably he attacked d wrong thread and I replied d wrong way! Well if u tell me to prove if God existed, I'd say I dnt knw how to. But since the atheist seems to be so sure, am just curious as to knowing how they came about that. So atheist prove to me that God doesn't exist!

dejilg:

Oops! Okay! Sorry Bro(s). Probably he attacked d wrong thread and I replied d wrong way! Well if u tell me to prove if God existed, I'd say I dnt knw how to. But since the atheist seems to be so sure, am just curious as to knowing how they came about that. So atheist prove to me that God doesn't exist!

Hehe..its all good bro!

dejilg:

Oops! Okay! Sorry Bro(s). Probably he attacked d wrong thread and I replied d wrong way! Well if u tell me to prove if God existed, I'd say I dnt knw how to. But since the atheist seems to be so sure, am just curious as to knowing how they came about that. So atheist prove to me that God doesn't exist!

This is funny. You can't prove that your god exists but you'll like somebody to disprove it.

See logic: The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, i can't prove it though but you have to disprove it. If you can't then he exists! QED!!!

Mr Troll: This is funny. You can't prove that your god exists but you'll like somebody to disprove it.

See logic: The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, i can't prove it though but you have to disprove it. If you can't then he exists! QED!!!

Well u r yet to show me reasons not to believe that He exists, so until u do so, keep ur famous quotes to urself! Thank u!

dejilg:

Oops! Okay! Sorry Bro(s). Probably he attacked d wrong thread and I replied d wrong way! Well if u tell me to prove if God existed, I'd say I dnt knw how to. But since the atheist seems to be so sure, am just curious as to knowing how they came about that. So atheist prove to me that God doesn't exist!

@dejilg Greetings! Perhaps, my writing is condensed, but @ThaProphet could follow. I was only trying to expand your point. When I mention 'whitewashed african script' I mean that African spirituality and Civilization are the concealed core elements of today's imported evolved white man's Judaism, Judeo-Christianity and Judeo-Christo-Islam that did not bring them peace.
If you have time, look up
https://www.nairaland.com/807515/original-hebrews-black-africans-ancient
https://www.nairaland.com/1257066/african-origin-bible-famine-story
https://www.nairaland.com/930023/black-african-origin-alphabets
https://www.nairaland.com/502454/african-origin-is-ra-el
https://www.nairaland.com/506114/solomon-black-man

Bob Marley sang that the Almighty God is a Living [Black] Man.

NativeBoy:

There is no need to get worked up. I do find it interesting that though you say you are annoyed by the points religious folk have made, yet you start threads like this and actively engage one similar to it. Why would that be?

Still you failed to provide points but I will bow out of my conversation with you. I can do this because I am confident of the knowledge I have in this area.

I leave this with you if you care to read it. These are the words if an atheist who when he returned to his home country of Malawi made the following statement (see link):
http://cafn.us/2012/03/08/as-an-atheist-i-truly-believe-africa-needs-god-matthew-parris/

Now you may disagree and that's fine but clearly the man must have really given the situation some thought before publishing it.

€

I read the article. It is nonsense.


One final point for you-

Slavery is accepted both in the bible and quran.

jantavanta:

The 'Egyptian God' Horus (Greek spelling of Heru) is a Black African God as Black African as Anyanwu. Another Egyptian God is Amon/Amun/Amen that has been borrowed/stolen and transformed to the Caucasian prayer termination Amen/Amin. Though Hollywood has succeeded in making most Africans believe that the Ancient Egyptians were Caucasians labelled so-called 'Semites'. We import our Gods, Import our values, goods & services and end up exporting our jobs for youths to go abroad and look for work.

We have rejected God in our own image and accepted God in the image of Caucasians (of the Ice & Desert). We have been advancing in self-rejection; importing Gods, exporting Jobs;importing what we have, exporting what we do not have!

For the sake of Argument, I'll accept that Horus was black......Doesnt make him any less of a foreign god.

Unless you're saying its ok to worship a foreign god as long as it is black?

Logicboy03:


Many types of Buddhism has no god as well. There are atheistic religions.There is religion without God


Atheism itself is not a religion and can not be. It is a disbelief not a belief.

As for communism- it has everything a religion needs
-worship of an entity- the state
-rituals
-faith (in the power of the state)
-symbols
-organised
etc

Communism is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order

Karl Marx - "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself."

ThaProphet:

About Haiti...it can be called a one off but like you mentioned, it brought about change. Chances are that without the success of Haiti, changes would not have occurred drastically. Also, there were other successful revolts besides Haiti, the island of Curacao led by Tula although this revolt did not result in a Haiti-like situation, it brought about change and some level of equal rights on the Island. Other revolts might not have resulted in independence but they were very effective in destroying the economy of slavery and reducing its profitability thus, I would say that they were successful. The Malcolm X and MLK example is a great example of how religion does not necessarily have to make one docile. But these examples are very rare. Especially in Africa. Well, contemporary Africa. As a matter of fact, in the world today. These days, religion is used to promote and excuse docility. That is a problem.

[b]Would getting rid of religion make us less corrupt, less greedy and less of cowards?

A lot of damage has been done already and I am not that naive to argue that getting rid of religion automatically solves the above problems. Also, it is almost impossible to get rid of religion, it is not practical to think so. However, I'd like to think that people should think more and act more without recourse to religious sentiments. That will definitely go a long way in making us less cowards. As to greed, yes, it will help because religion in Nigeria, especially Christianity, preaches the Gospel of Greed. Placing so much emphasis on material gains fosters corruption. Hence, we have (mis)leaders in different government offices having their seats reserved in special sections of the church auditorium. We have people giving inhumane testimonies as to how they are the only survivors of a car accident ad how they were saved by grace (different topic altogether).

Another issue I have with religion is the role it plays in the subjugation and demonization of our people and culture. I echo John Herik Clarke's words...
"nearly all religion were brought to people and imposed on people by conquerors and used as a framework to control their minds...if you are a child of God and God is a part of you, then in your imagination God is supposed to look like you. And when you accept a picture of a deity assigned to you by another people, you become the spiritual prisoners of that other people"

That is the way I tend to look at this issue. Was God not with Africa before Christianity and Islam? Did we as a people only exist, waiting to be saved and brought to the knowledge of God by other people? Did we not have a connection with God before the white man came? [/b]

I have no problem with religion. I advocate individual freedom. As long as that freedom does not encroach on the freedom of others. A good example is the discussion we've been having so far. I think this is the first time I've engaged in such a discussion without getting the following threats:

"Change your ways or burn in hell", "I pity you, you better accept Jesus before its too late", "I warn you! God cannot be mocked", "oh! you are an atheist, hell is real!", "You are a devil's incarnate!"

Honestly, I appreciate your level of reasoning. Usually, the above is what a discussion such as this descends to.

It is a shame that many threads seem to descend into back and forth name calling but I understand that it's because few people on both sides (believers and unbelievers) welcome a close examination of what they believe. It happens on every other forum, not just Nairaland. Indeed religion and politics are very divisive, as they should be.

In realizing that I haven't stated my position blatantly, I will now do so. Africa needs God. The Judeo-Christian God. Why? Because I believe that if and when Africa develops, the Gospel of Christ is what will keep us from devouring each other. I posted a link in an earlier response I gave to 'LogicBoy'. Please read it. The last couple of paragraphs are very potent.

To address the point you made about the way the Gospel is preached in Nigeria. I think I alluded to in an earlier post that the approach some take to scripture and make it appear that God is going to descend and put money in people's pockets is a mistake. Indeed Nigeria is filled with pastors who have turned a profit using the scripture and those are the ones you always hear about. The ones with the big churches. I will ask you to consider the churches you don't often hear about: the ones with the 50 to 100 people. The ones where the pastor shares in the same plight as the congregation and where members are doing for each other. I tell you that that is part of how Nigerians have been able to get by. As I see it, the two critical things that the church can do for Nigeria is to emphasize that "God has not given us a spirit of fear but of a sound mind..." and that "God has given everyone a measure of talent and he expects us to use it."

Lastly (without digressing too much), God has always been present in the world and I think this is why every race of man had a concept of a higher power; someone or something greater than themselves. Initially, God revealed himself to Abraham and to his descendants, but in the fulness of time he revealed himself through Jesus Christ who then gave his disciples the great commission to go into all the world to proclaim the gospel of Christ. So to answer your question, the spirituality of Africa and other peoples was fine but now the light of the God has shone for all men to see and come to know Him. Sure the white man brought the gospel to us, but salvation didn't come by the white man. And we find even in our own country, God raised up his own people. Consider the AIC (Aladura) churches. Christianity for Africans by Africans. Now there is so much more to be said on these points but I still want to retain your attention. Haha.

Logicboy03:
€

I read the article. It is nonsense.


One final point for you-

Slavery is accepted both in the bible and quran.

Like I said, you may disagree with the man. Opinion isn't fact. But at least he provided reasoning for why he made his statements instead of just saying "It is nonsense". I don't see how a conversation can move along when people keep making declarations without supporting with reasoning. And that's why I bowed out of our conversation.

I wonder at the purpose of your final point. Do you think I haven't read the bible? I think you expect me to bite. Unfortunately for you, this thread deals with a different topic. But if it was raised elsewhere, I would speak on it. I suspect however that you would not want to hear my points but turn the thread into a circus. I have no intent of joining the circus.

jantavanta:

@dejilg Greetings! Perhaps, my writing is condensed, but @ThaProphet could follow. I was only trying to expand your point. When I mention 'whitewashed african script' I mean that African spirituality and Civilization are the concealed core elements of today's imported evolved white man's Judaism, Judeo-Christianity and Judeo-Christo-Islam that did not bring them peace.
If you have time, look up
https://www.nairaland.com/807515/original-hebrews-black-africans-ancient
https://www.nairaland.com/1257066/african-origin-bible-famine-story
https://www.nairaland.com/930023/black-african-origin-alphabets
https://www.nairaland.com/502454/african-origin-is-ra-el
https://www.nairaland.com/506114/solomon-black-man

Bob Marley sang that the Almighty God is a Living [Black] Man.

Yea. Definitely aware of the Afrikan origins of Christianity. Very interesting. I can't bring myself to worship some Ceaser Borgia's image.

NativeBoy:

It is a shame that many threads seem to descend into back and forth name calling but I understand that it's because few people on both sides (believers and unbelievers) welcome a close examination of what they believe. It happens on every other forum, not just Nairaland. Indeed religion and politics are very divisive, as they should be.

In realizing that I haven't stated my position blatantly, I will now do so. Africa needs God. The Judeo-Christian God. Why? Because I believe that if and when Africa develops, the Gospel of Christ is what will keep us from devouring each other. I posted a link in an earlier response I gave to 'LogicBoy'. Please read it. The last couple of paragraphs are very potent.

To address the point you made about the way the Gospel is preached in Nigeria. I think I alluded to in an earlier post that the approach some take to scripture and make it appear that God is going to descend and put money in people's pockets is a mistake. Indeed Nigeria is filled with pastors who have turned a profit using the scripture and those are the ones you always hear about. The ones with the big churches. I will ask you to consider the churches you don't often hear about: the ones with the 50 to 100 people. The ones where the pastor shares in the same plight as the congregation and where members are doing for each other. I tell you that that is part of how Nigerians have been able to get by. As I see it, the two critical things that the church can do for Nigeria is to emphasize that "God has not given us a spirit of fear but of a sound mind..." and that "God has given everyone a measure of talent and he expects us to use it."

Lastly (without digressing too much), God has always been present in the world and I think this is why every race of man had a concept of a higher power; someone or something greater than themselves. Initially, God revealed himself to Abraham and to his descendants, but in the fulness of time he revealed himself through Jesus Christ who then gave his disciples the great commission to go into all the world to proclaim the gospel of Christ. So to answer your question, the spirituality of Africa and other peoples was fine but now the light of the God has shone for all men to see and come to know Him. Sure the white man brought the gospel to us, but salvation didn't come by the white man. And we find even in our own country, God raised up his own people. Consider the AIC (Aladura) churches. Christianity for Africans by Africans. Now there is so much more to be said on these points but I still want to retain your attention. Haha.

Well, my position is that Africa already knew God. They did not need the Judeo-Christian God. I will post a letter sent from Belgium to missionaries in the Congo just to buttress this point (if I can find it).

As to the last point you made, well, I simply do not believe it (for the lack of words lol). See, someone used a great analogy which I believe perfectly captures this issue....
the truth is like the oceans of the earth, vast! If someone takes a sample of it from the shores of Brazil and another takes a sample from Spain and yet another takes a sample from Sierra Leone, we all took samples of the same ocean. The samples are true and accurate but if you examine the samples closely, the contents and composition will vary. But it would be silly for one of the people who took this sample to claim that my sample is the only accurate one and represents all of the vast oceans and the others a incorrect.

That is exactly the problem with these religions. They all claim to have the truth which is too vast for any one doctrine or book to handle. This is especially the problem with religions that believe they have the mandate to proselytize (Islam and Christianity). I once wrote an essay about the clash of these two "civilizations" and the mandate to proselytize is one of the main reasons why both are at loggerheads since the rise of Islam in the 7th century. I see it as the ultimate display of ego.

The beautiful thing is that we can always agree to disagree but at the same time learn. Bro, nah you still have my attention lol. We can even go into the Bible if you want, it is a book with many flaws but I'm not the type to completely dismiss it.

NativeBoy:

Like I said, you may disagree with the man. Opinion isn't fact. But at least he provided reasoning for why he made his statements instead of just saying "It is nonsense". I don't see how a conversation can move along when people keep making declarations without supporting with reasoning. And that's why I bowed out of our conversation.

I wonder at the purpose of your final point. Do you think I haven't read the bible? I think you expect me to bite. Unfortunately for you, this thread deals with a different topic. But if it was raised elsewhere, I would speak on it. I suspect however that you would not want to hear my points but turn the thread into a circus. I have no intent of joining the circus.

You do realise dat i am the op of this thread?


Anyhoo....i will send you links of my other threads to see how i explain my points. You seem new to atheism....

You might want to read leveticus 25:44
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.

ThaProphet:

Well, my position is that Africa already knew God. They did not need the Judeo-Christian God. I will post a letter sent from Belgium to missionaries in the Congo just to buttress this point (if I can find it).

As to the last point you made, well, I simply do not believe it (for the lack of words lol). See, someone used a great analogy which I believe perfectly captures this issue....
the truth is like the oceans of the earth, vast! If someone takes a sample of it from the shores of Brazil and another takes a sample from Spain and yet another takes a sample from Sierra Leone, we all took samples of the same ocean. The samples are true and accurate but if you examine the samples closely, the contents and composition will vary. But it would be silly for one of the people who took this sample to claim that my sample is the only accurate one and represents all of the vast oceans and the others a incorrect.

That is exactly the problem with these religions. They all claim to have the truth which is too vast for any one doctrine or book to handle. This is especially the problem with religions that believe they have the mandate to proselytize (Islam and Christianity). I once wrote an essay about the clash of these two "civilizations" and the mandate to proselytize is one of the main reasons why both are at loggerheads since the rise of Islam in the 7th century. I see it as the ultimate display of ego.

The beautiful thing is that we can always agree to disagree but at the same time learn. Bro, nah you still have my attention lol. We can even go into the Bible if you want, it is a book with many flaws but I'm not the type to completely dismiss it.

Exactly. In fact I have never heard someone become a believer through conversations via forums. The nature of debate almost insists that each participant cling to their position. And that is why we don't need to get into discussing the bible. It suffices me to know your position and of course you know I take a different one with regard to the contents of the bible.

I will contend with the negative connotation of your statement regarding the mandate to proselytize. It is this part that puzzles me as skeptics, agnostics, atheists who are the most vocal about freedom cannot stomach people of faith proselytizing. People like Sam Harris who say that it should be considered child abuse for parents to teach their children about Christianity (I paraphrased). Do atheists not proselytize? Are they not egoistic as well?

Your ocean taking sample does not only apply to practitioners of faith. Even atheists don't agree. Some are strict determinists, others compatibilists, another are existentialists, another are absurdists. There are eminent scientists who are believers and others who are not. There are pastors who became atheists and atheists who became pastors, so on and so forth. Ultimately we all must make a choice. We all have free will. God's gift to man.

Logicboy03:



You do realise dat i am the op of this thread?


Anyhoo....i will send you links of my other threads to see how i explain my points. You seem new to atheism....

You might want to read leveticus 25:44
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.

.

I do realize you are the op of the thread. That was sort of the point. I mentioned that you started this thread in an earlier post.

NativeBoy: [/b]

Exactly. In fact I have never heard someone become a believer through conversations via forums. The nature of debate almost insists that each participant cling to their position. And that is why we don't need to get into discussing the bible. It suffices me to know your position and of course you know I take a different one with regard to the contents of the bible.

I will contend with the negative connotation of your statement regarding the mandate to proselytize. It is this part that puzzles me as skeptics, agnostics, atheists who are the most vocal about freedom cannot stomach people of faith proselytizing. People like Sam Harris who say that it should be considered child abuse for parents to teach their children about Christianity (I paraphrased). Do atheists not proselytize? Are they not egoistic as well?

Your ocean taking sample does not only apply to practitioners of faith. Even atheists don't agree. Some are strict determinists, others compatibilists, another are existentialists, another are absurdists. There are eminent scientists who are believers and others who are not. There are pastors who became atheists and atheists who became pastors, so on and so forth. Ultimately we all must make a choice. We all have free will. God's gift to man.

Some things I find wrong with your posts

1) While it wouldbe hard to find people who became believers fom forum discussions, many believers became atheists/agnostics from forum discussions. You might not be giving forum discussions their appropriate valuation


2) Your point on Sam Harris is a blatant lie- Just like yur claims on Richard Dawkins. The point made by many atheists is that religion can be child abuse when it is taught to children as the only truth that is valid and unquestionable. This destroys the critical reasoning ability of the child since he or she is not allowed to question. Mind you, many atheists actually teach their children religion- that is many religions- Buddhism, christianity, Islam....

Children can be taught religion, the problem is that is sometimes taught as the only truth and also at the expense at other forms of knowledge So Sam Haris's point is about the way religion is taught. Get ur facts right.


3) Atheists are more united in disbelief than christians in christianity. Atheists disbelieve in the existence of God or gods. That is simple. Atheism is the disbelief in God. Nihilism, compatiblism, determinism are not under atheism....atheism is just a stance on God- anything else is extra. Now, christians on the other hand do not even agree on who Jesus is.

Futhermore, you can exactly "preach" atheism or "evangelize" or proselytize the message of atheism.


I would be like claiming that a cocacola sales rep is preaching the good news of holy cola beverage. Those terms apply to religion- which atheism is not.

NativeBoy: [/b]

Exactly. In fact I have never heard someone become a believer through conversations via forums. The nature of debate almost insists that each participant cling to their position. And that is why we don't need to get into discussing the bible. It suffices me to know your position and of course you know I take a different one with regard to the contents of the bible.

I will contend with the negative connotation of your statement regarding the mandate to proselytize. It is this part that puzzles me as skeptics, agnostics, atheists who are the most vocal about freedom cannot stomach people of faith proselytizing. People like Sam Harris who say that it should be considered child abuse for parents to teach their children about Christianity (I paraphrased). Do atheists not proselytize? Are they not egoistic as well?

Your ocean taking sample does not only apply to practitioners of faith. Even atheists don't agree. Some are strict determinists, others compatibilists, another are existentialists, another are absurdists. There are eminent scientists who are believers and others who are not. There are pastors who became atheists and atheists who became pastors, so on and so forth. Ultimately we all must make a choice. We all have free will. God's gift to man.

Absolutely! Everyone engages in some form of proselytizing, some aggressive, others very less aggressive. Hence why I mentioned earlier in this thread how atheism has its religious tendencies as well even though it seeks to debunk religion lol. Proselytizing did and continues to play a huge role in the Christian/Islam struggle we see today. Perhaps this is more noticeable because they are both Abrahamic faiths.

Oh yes! The ocean example applies to all who claim to have the absolute truth including the "big bangers" lol. Its been great discussing with you and I hope we've both gained some new insights. I sure have.

Logicboy03:


Some things I find wrong with your posts

1) While it wouldbe hard to find people who became believers fom forum discussions, many believers became atheists/agnostics from forum discussions. You might not be giving forum discussions their appropriate valuation


2) Your point on Sam Harris is a blatant lie- Just like yur claims on Richard Dawkins. The point made by many atheists is that religion can be child abuse when it is taught to children as the only truth that is valid and unquestionable. This destroys the critical reasoning ability of the child since he or she is not allowed to question. Mind you, many atheists actually teach their children religion- that is many religions- Buddhism, christianity, Islam....

Children can be taught religion, the problem is that is sometimes taught as the only truth and also at the expense at other forms of knowledge So Sam Haris's point is about the way religion is taught. Get ur facts right.


3) Atheists are more united in disbelief than christians in christianity. Atheists disbelieve in the existence of God or gods. That is simple. Atheism is the disbelief in God. Nihilism, compatiblism, determinism are not under atheism....atheism is just a stance on God- anything else is extra. Now, christians on the other hand do not even agree on who Jesus is.

1. Never said anything about a believer becoming atheist/agnostic via forum.

2. Can be? Come on, now you are just being cute. Are you saying that in raising their children people say, "Now listen jr, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, but you know what, I won't force that on you, I want you to question it." Come on bro, if a parent truly believes something, if its their guiding principle, how will that not inform the way they raise a child. So Sam Harris isn't saying "can be" unless he doesn't know that parents are the ones that children get their frame of reference from. As for the statement of Dawkins, please read his book.

3. The point is this: atheists are just as united in their lack of belief in a god just as believers are united in a belief in God. My point was that even in both camps, you find conflict in the who's, what's, why's, where's, and how's.

4. Of course atheists proselytize, the just set up an Atheist church in the UK and an offshoot in Australia. Also there was an ad campaign in the UK along the lines of "there is probably no god, so live your life...". In the US there is a monument to atheism I think in a park in Florida.

NativeBoy:

1. Never said anything about a believer becoming atheist/agnostic via forum.

2. Can be? Come on, now you are just being cute. Are you saying that in raising their children people say, "Now listen jr, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, but you know what, I won't force that on you, I want you to question it." Come on bro, if a parent truly believes something, if its their guiding principle, how will that not inform the way they raise a child. So Sam Harris isn't saying "can be" unless he doesn't know that parents are the ones that children get their frame of reference from. As for the statement of Dawkins, please read his book.

3. The point is this: atheists are just as united in their lack of belief in a god just as believers are united in a belief in God. My point was that even in both camps, you find conflict in the who's, what's, why's, where's, and how's.

4. Of course atheists proselytize, the just set up an Atheist church in the UK and an offshoot in Australia. Also there was an ad campaign in the UK along the lines of "there is probably no god, so live your life...". In the US there is a monument to atheism I think in a park in Florida.

1) Point taken

2) "my mother said that I shouldnt play with John because his parents are atheists. His parents are evil fools because the bible says that "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good." (psalm 14;1)"

"I know our human origin. My dad told me that we came from Adam and Eve since God created them as the first humans. It is true because it is in the bible."

Just because you believe nonsense, it doesn't mean that you should abuse your child by teaching him nonsense.


3) Wrong. Atheist and theists can be similarly united in their disbelief/belief in God. The topic is religion. Religious people are divided, not united. Theism is not a religion. You can believe in god without religion. Christians can not agree who God is. Shia and Sunnis have different Hadiths and divine laws the follow from God...etc


4) It would make the same sense as muslims having an islamic church. The atheist church is a parody. Atheism can not be preached. It is neither a belief or a religion.

Furthermore, the atheist monuments are a reply to christian monuments not being taken down (observing the separation of church and state- no religion on public grounds). If christians can break the law, then atheists can break the law too by having their own monuments

ThaProphet:

Absolutely! Everyone engages in some form of proselytizing, some aggressive, others very less aggressive. Hence why I mentioned earlier in this thread how atheism has its religious tendencies as well even though it seeks to debunk religion lol. Proselytizing did and continues to play a huge role in the Christian/Islam struggle we see today. Perhaps this is more noticeable because they are both Abrahamic faiths.

Oh yes! The ocean example applies to all who claim to have the absolute truth including the "big bangers" lol. Its been great discussing with you and I hope we've both gained some new insights. I sure have.

Indeed. I have gained insight as well. I like to understand another person's perspective. One must keep learning.

dejilg:

Well u r yet to show me reasons not to believe that He exists, so until u do so, keep ur famous quotes to urself! Thank u!

Famous quotes

I'm only just showing how absurd your logic was. . . But its alright

Logicboy03:



1) Point taken

2) "my mother said that I shouldnt play with John because his parents are atheists. His parents are evil fools because the bible says that "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good." (psalm 14;1)"

"I know our human origin. My dad told me that we came from Adam and Eve since God created them as the first humans. It is true because it is in the bible."

Just because you believe nonsense, it doesn't mean that you should abuse your child by teaching him nonsense.


3) Wrong. Atheist and theists can be similarly united in their disbelief/belief in God. The topic is religion. Religious people are divided, not united. Theism is not a religion. You can believe in god without religion. Christians can not agree who God is. Shia and Sunnis have different Hadiths and divine laws the follow from God...etc


4) It would make the same sense as muslims having an islamic church. The atheist church is a parody. Atheism can not be preached. It is neither a belief or a religion.

Furthermore, the atheist monuments are a reply to christian monuments not being taken down (observing the separation of church and state- no religion on public grounds). If christians can break the law, then atheists can break the law too by having their own monuments

Nothing you said is a refutation of my points.
You seem to be agreeing with the notion that parents teaching their children about God is child abuse.

Again those who believe in God are united in that belief though they may disagree about the whos, whats, wheres, whys, and hows. Atheists have the same issue.

How much of a parody is the church of atheism. I mean won't they be collecting offerings in order to pay the rent and utility bills of the building, staff? Seems like they are being serious to me otherwise they have become the very thing they accuse others of being: irrational.

NativeBoy:

Nothing you said is a refutation of my points.
You seem to be agreeing with the notion that parents teaching their children about God is child abuse.

Again those who believe in God are united in that belief though they may disagree about the whos, whats, wheres, whys, and hows. Atheists have the same issue.

How much of a parody is the church of atheism. I mean won't they be collecting offerings in order to pay the rent and utility bills of the building, staff? Seems like they are being serious to me otherwise they have become the very thing they accuse others of being: irrational.

Erm.....if you read my comment properly, you would have seen that my comment was about forcing unquestionable beliefs on children, especially when they run contrary to facts.

Atheists and deists make easy pals. The problem is not teaching a child about belief in god. The problem is facts. Forcing non factual stuff onm children........




You should read more on parody religion. I honestly hope that you really dont belkieve that atheists go to the atheist church to preach n worship