|
davidylan (m)
|
Before you know, the argument of my bible is the original one and your's is the fake one will crop up. How disorganized can a religion be? No wonder over 4 billion people look at christianity and wonder what the "Hell is wrong with these clowns, can't they just agree on something for once"  its so "disorganized" and yet is the most criticized religion on earth? Its so "disorganized" that we get no less than 5 threads on it a day? Its so "disorganized" that you'd waste your precious time foaming in the mouth about Christ's forgiveness and His hell? Dude, as a freethinker . . . why do all these bother you? why do you own a bible? why read it? Just pick a book of Buddha . . . didnt you tell us they said all that Christ said 700 years before He was born? |
|
|
|
|
|
magentam (f)
|
Quit this HELL FIRE madness. There is NO hell. Kapish!
|
|
|
|
|
|
debosky (m)
|
@debosky Why are you just twisting the whole issue up and tying yourself into knots? Genesis 5 says thus: 5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." It is written there in black and white that god came to see the tower they were building. It did not say a house, tent, cage or temple. He specifically came down to see the TOWER. What makes a building a tower? Your house? I brought out a defination of the word tower and it expressly used the phrase "exceptionally high in proportion" which differentiates it from a regular building. Buildings like the Trump Towers or the Twin Towers are used to express buildings that are exceptionally high in proportion because they dwarf regular buildings. the biblical passage was explicit enough to name it as a tower and not a small house or shelter and Just because the bible didnt gaff like the dimensions of noah's ark this time doesnt mean it did not goof by saying "god came down to see the Tower" You can rigmarole and try to squeeze out from this precarious situation but the bottom line is that it is specifically refered to as a tower and not a minute house or mid size temple. Besides if you trying to wiggle out from that assertion to say it wasnt a tower, how then did god decide to scatter a multitude? If only 8 people built an ark that big then it pre supposes that probably double the size , maybe 16 people were building the tower and just because of that group, he decides to scatter the rest that had no interest in it? Talk about a surgeon trying to remove a mole with a gullotine! You don't need to use lame excuses as to what dimension the so called tower was. A tower is a tower bottom line! Stupid fairytale! The Lord came down to see what they 'were building' no? So if it was completed why bother dividing them? If he had to 'come down' to see the tower, then obviously the Tower had not reached heaven.  We are not told how much they had built, but that God came to see what was being built - i.e not completed, for all we know it may only have been a foundation You are mentioning trump tower and Twin Towers, were the buildings of yore comparable to those? http://library.thinkquest.org/10949/fief/hitower.html the latter link gives a description of a medieval tower, much later than the time in the bible, yet it speaks of a 'tower' and says it was only 5 storeys high, now are we supposed to believe whatever you 'think' a tower was or what actually existed? Once again, you have no proof that this tower was 4, 5 or a 100 storeys, all we know about is the intent of the builders to reach heaven, whatever their conception of that was. No one is trying to wriggle out of anything, If you want to make a categorical claim, make it based on evidence - no one knows the dimensions of the tower and thus no categorical claim can be made regarding its size - it might have been 5 floors high like the medieval ones or larger, no one knows. The scattering of the multitude was to prevent their unity being used for the wrong purposes, and not against the tower in itself, surely that would be apparent to you. |
|
|
|
|
|
davidylan (m)
|
Quit this HELL FIRE madness. There is NO hell. Kapish!
Exactly why i'm worried why you're even bothering to respond to this thread. I'd expect freethinkers to patiently wait to personally confirm it when they die no? |
|
|
|
|
|
pilgrim.1 (f)
|
@Zino, @pilgrim
What so hilarious about freethinking? That i don't have the right to chose and i shouldnt be so dogmatic to a belief that cannot be substantiated with conclusive evidence but to rather rely on faith? I haven't denied you the right to choose, have I? Rather, it was quite hilarious that mazaje would be making quite an implosive statement - which I considered significant enough to call his attention to. What good has religion done to the world? The fact that there are thousands of contradicting passages in the bible makes it so nauseating that a freethinker would do away with such nonsense and pick up the next book to analyse. The fact that i am not dogmatic to the point of stupidity over a book that provides no intelligent claim whatsoever makes me a free thinker. Arguemnts like this are worn out, and I haven't been the least impressed with dogmatism of any sort - even of the sort being bantered by rationalist under the mistaken idea of "free thinking". There's nothing rational in the sort of language that is as dogmatic as to assume that religion has hardly done any good to anyone. . . a case in point is the rationalistic idea that loving one's neighbour could then be translated suddenly as the bane of the world! the fact that everytime i ask a question about the absurdity of that biblical passage instead of using reasoning and logic christians resort to belief and faith. Reasoning and seasoned discourses without the slurs was what I had held out consistently. If anything, I was more concerned that "rationalistic" tendencies are often too polarized with slurs rather than reason. It is quite queer that the several enquiries I tended have hardly been tended, and the same convenience recource to misrepresentations is all I have read from mazaje's at the least. What is that? But when they see a shroud of physical evidence to back up their claim, they scream to the high heavens to substantiate the very existence of it. I'm not as irrational. People assume that the bible contains stories which serve as moral guides to live your life by. While the bible does contain some good moral precepts, such as any ethical person could write, it contains some stunningly immoral teachings. It seems you're only acknowledging the "assumptions" by your admittance already, regardles the decries. Everyone has bought into the assumption that the bible is the "Good Book", but I have found that few people have even read it. Indeed, the few who haven't read it often make the mistake of trying to misapply and misquote it, No? How do they get their information? It is given to them from the pulpit-- by pastors and christian zealots who have chosen non-offensive, morally mainstream stories to read to their congregations. At least, I didn't have to be spoonfed from the pulpit to point out the mistakes so far in those who take the rationalistic worldview. The bible, both in the Old and New Testament, is morally repugnant and should be rejected by every ethical person. I see. . . perhaps that is why we read the sudden inward collapses in the argument that loving one's neighbour is a bane. "Talking about love your neighbour as yourself" quote of christ, none of those moral teachings are original. All of the favorable teachings of Jesus can be found in earlier "pagan" writings. Nothing good said by Jesus was original.It was all said before. And for all that, the core values of love to one's neighbour is a bane? Christ came, they tell us, to make a revelation, and what did he reveal? "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? That was in the Old Testament. "Return good for evil"? That was said by Buddha, seven hundred years before Christ was born. "Do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you"? That was the doctrine of Lao-tsze. Did he come to give a rule of action? Zoroaster had done this long before "Whenever thou art in doubt as to whether an action is good or bad, abstain from it." I've often wondered if anyone who still argues this way would be able to find the endurance of the agony of the cross in Buddha and Lao-tsze. Talk is cheap. Did he come simply to tell us that we should not revenge ourselves upon our enemies? That is precisely what I had waited to see in a reasoned discourse from freethinkers. Is that what He came to do, Zino? Long before, Socrates had said: "One who is injured ought not to return the injury, for on no account can it be right to do an injustice; and it is not right to return an injury, or to do evil to any man, however much we have suffered from him." And Cicero had said. "Let us not listen to those who think we ought to be angry with our enemies, and who believe this to be great and manly. Nothing is so praiseworthy, nothing so clearly shows a great and noble soul, as clemency and readiness to forgive." Is there anything in the literature of the world more nearly perfect than this thought? Maybe not, but is that a "bane" on par with mazaje's rationalism? Was it from Christ the world learned the first lesson of forbearance, when centuries and centuries before, Krishna had said, "If a man strike thee, and in striking drop his staff, pick it up and hand it to him again?" Have you demonstrated the same thing you seem to so eloquently outline? Just a thought. Is it possible that the Son of God threatened a vast majority of his children: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels," while Buddha, centuries before, was great and tender enough to say: "Never will I seek nor receive private individual salvation; never enter into final peace alone; but forever and everywhere will I live and strive for the universal redemption of every creature throughout all worlds. Never will I leave this world of sin and sorrow and struggle until all are delivered. Until then, I will remain and suffer where I am"? Could you please tell me what Buddha's convictions were about diabolical behaviours? What Jesus brought to the world was this: the idea of condemning someone for their honest opinion to eternal torture. That's quite subjective - and a convenient mind-game. I believe my discources have neither been condemning towards you nor mazaje. And if we have to be honest, you were being narrowly engaging here - the same thing I often find by many who take a rationalistic view to be unreasonable to see the full picture of what they argue against. The infinite revenge of Jesus, for failing to believe his unbelievable tales, is the most intense form of pain and anguish imaginable, and not just for a long time, but forever. That's okay, if at all you could match the descriptive sufferings of your other heroes with the crucifiction of the Cross. Apparently, his inexhaustible forgiveness runs out when it comes to hell. To warn people against hell does not negate the fact that love does not refuse to deal with man's insatiable lust for wickedness. From hell there is no pardoning-- the gates of hell are one-way only. His "unconditional love" comes with this condition: believe these unreasonable accounts or suffer so much you'll wish you had never been born. And considering that the vast majority of the people who ever lived either never heard of Jesus or didn't believe in him, and are thereby subject to this doctrine of eternal pain, the notion of infinite revenge should be enough to sicken any moral, just person. Your persuasions are hardly moral, forgive my observation. By the way you see freethinking as hilarious, freethinkers see christians as a group of imbecilic bunch under the deluge of hypnotism of fear of the unknown and hoping that the unknown would provide future succor for them in an utopian world filled with milk and cookies with no war, anger and rebellion, just a place where you sing praises all day and wear halos in white garments, oops i forgot the wings! By contrast, it should stand out that freethinkers who play the moral stick of labelling others as in the bold in your quote really "love their neighbours".  |
|
|
|
|
|
mazaje (m)
|
I'm just wondering, why are you really bothered about explanations to bible passages? I thot you said it was full of nonsense? I'D recommend you burn your bible and free your mind. I am also bothered as to why you are always attacking the moslems, you said you don't read the koran so stop attacking them and keep on reading your bible. . . . . . . . Not really, He brought a message of salvation to the few who'D be willing to listen. He didnt bring a general message to force you to believe in. Ignore Jesus, live your life like He doesnt exist. When you die you can find out if there is anything like eternal torture or not, if i were you i would wait patiently for that time instead of wasting precious time banging on a bible i don't believe in.
You spend your presious time banging on the koran too, this is just the case of the kettle calling the pot black. . . . . . . . . . why are you so concerned about what Jesus has to say? I don't see this kind of venomous "concern" about Allah's hell or Buddha's place for bad people . . . its not by force you know. Thats they lie you christainalways use to console your selfs, the other day i caught you lying about me not attacking allah and i gave you a link to see where i attack allah on a kano forum. . . . . . . . i know a lot of ex moslem athiest who attack allah all the time so stop talking about things you don't know. . . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
Zino Ben
|
@mazaje No mind them jare. When they have no excuse to the riches of embarassing passages in the bible they begin to use silent arguments and clinging unto straws to explain what is not there. There are thousands and thousands of mistakes in the bible that makes it totally incomprehendible that intelligent inspired men of god wrote such rubbish and say it is the owrd of god. Even if there was a god, certainly it can't be the god of the bible for what so ever reason. the stories there cannot be told to little children at night and they do their best to make sure they cut out these horrifying stories whenever they are in the mood to spread the gospel "of doom" None of them, i repeat, none of them even their pope or their chief pastor can validly defend such a book when ever darts are thrown at them. They just love to cling unto straws or knee jerk reactions. Did these words come from the heart of love by a loving biblical god?? "When the lord thy god shall drive them before thee, thou shalt smite them and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, or show mercy unto them”. "I will heap mischief upon them. I will send mine arrows upon them; they shall be burned with hunger and devoured with burning heat and with bitter destruction." "I will send the tooth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust." "The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin; the suckling also with the man of gray hairs." "Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow; let his children be continually vagabonds and beg; let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places; let the extortioner catch all that he hath, and let the stranger spoil his labor; let there be none to extend mercy unto him, neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children." "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body -- the flesh of thy sons and daughters." "And the heaven that is over thee shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron." "Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field." "I will make my arrows drunk with blood." "I will laugh at their calamity." Did these curses, these threats, come from the heart of love or from the mouth of savagery? Was Jehovah god or devil? Why should we place Jehovah above all the gods? Has man in his ignorance and fear ever imagined a greater monster? Have the barbarians of any land, in any time, worshiped a more heartless god?  |
|
|
|
|
|
magentam (f)
|
One of you should volunteer to die. then come back to tell us before I will believe you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
mazaje (m)
|
Pilgrim you no fit read? my post was very very clear stop grasping at straws lol, i respect you sha i must confess. . . . . . . . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
pilgrim.1 (f)
|
Pilgrim you no feed read? my post was very very clear stop grasping at straws lol, i respect you sha i must confess. . . . . . . . . . . My respects as well. I'm not grasping at straws, just wanted you to be clear about your misconception. If religion teaches the same thing you applaud, it doesn't make good rationale to turn round with the "bane" labelling against it. |
|
|
|
|
|
davidylan (m)
|
One of you should volunteer to die. then come back to tell us before I will believe you.
Why? Even if one were to die i'd consider it a waste of time to come tell you anything. Go see for yourself. Since you say it doesnt exist why don't you die and go wherever it is you think dead people go? I'm not one who goes around trying to make you believe anything, infact my philosophy (ditto with the bibles') is simple - he that will be unrighteous let him be unrighteous still. Choice ma'am. I am also bothered as to why you are always attacking the moslems, you said you don't read the koran so stop attacking them and keep on reading your bible. . . . . . . .
You spend your presious time banging on the koran too, this is just the case of the kettle calling the pot black. . . . . . . . . .
I already pointed out the falsehood of this allegation. I'm not surprised that lying is not below "Freethinkers". Thats they lie you christainalways use to console your selfs, the other day i caught you lying about me not attacking allah and i gave you a link to see where i attack allah on a kano forum. . . . . . . . i know a lot of ex moslem athiest who attack allah all the time so stop talking about things you don't know. . . . . . . . .
I went there . . . i didnt see your name there. The islamic section has not a single reply at least for the last few months. |
|
|
|
|
|
mazaje (m)
|
its so "disorganized" and yet is the most criticized religion on earth?
Its so "disorganized" that we get no less than 5 threads on it a day?
Its so "disorganized" that you'D waste your precious time foaming in the mouth about Christ's forgiveness and His hell?
Dude, as a freethinker . . . why do all these bother you? why do you own a bible? why read it? Just pick a book of Buddha . . . didnt you tell us they said all that Christ said 700 years before He was born?
because christains are the only people that are still travelling the world over evangelising and trying to win 'souls' for christ by building schools, hospitals etc in other to win the minds and souls of the people they are trying to convert. hindus and moslems don't travel and evangelize hence people don't pay much attention to them as they do with christains. islam only supports and promotes the sustenance and survival of the moslem umma, unlike christains that keep travelling from place to place to preach to the unbelievers. christains are still the ones that preach in buses and in market places. even though i don see say moslems too don start these days for naija . moslems, hindus, jews, buddist etc just hold unto their own and don't go around knocking on doors every weekend sharing bibles, tracts and other materials that propagates their faith like the christains do. if they did they will recieve as much attention as the christains. |
|
|
|
|
|
davidylan (m)
|
One of you should volunteer to die. then come back to tell us before I will believe you.
You say hellfire doesnt exist but you don't want to be the one to die and confirm it for us? What a funny bunch these alleged "freethinkers" are. |
|
|
|
|
|
davidylan (m)
|
because christains are the only people that are still travelling the world over evangelising and trying to win 'souls' for christ by building schools, hospitals etc in other to win the minds and souls of the people they are trying to convert. Just the same way you have the right to go campaign for votes so do christians have the right by law to evangelise the world. You have the conscious choice to shut your doors or report them to the police for disturbing you when they come knocking. |
|
|
|
|
|
pilgrim.1 (f)
|
hindus and moslems don't travel and evangelize hence people don't pay much attention to them as they do with christains. This is not true - many Muslims travel and evangelize. |
|
|
|
|
|
davidylan (m)
|
because christains are the only people that are still travelling the world over evangelising and trying to win 'souls' for christ by building schools, hospitals etc in other to win the minds and souls of the people they are trying to convert. hindus and moslems don't travel and evangelize hence people don't pay much attention to them as they do with christains. islam only supports and promotes the sustenance and survival of the moslem umma, unlike christains that keep travelling from place to place to preach to the unbelievers. christains are still the ones that preach in buses and in market places. even though i don see say moslems too don start these days for naija . moslems, hindus, jews, buddist etc just hold unto their own and don't go around knocking on doors every weekend sharing bibles, tracts and other materials that propagates their faith like the christains do. if they did they will recieve as much attention as the christains.
the dripping hypocrisy in your statements is what makes your position the more sickening. Muslims impose their religious laws in a secular state like Nigeria and i hear not a word from you. I can't imagine the uproar if the US decided to adopt the laws of Moses. |
|
|
|
|
|
mazaje (m)
|
Just the same way you have the right to go campaign for votes so do christians have the right by law to evangelise the world. You have the conscious choice to shut your doors or report them to the police for disturbing you when they come knocking.
I have shut my doors many times, hey you are digressing from the issue here you were trying to console your self with the idea that christianity is the only religion that is under attack by athiest and i just gave you the reasons why, coupled with the fact that most athiest here were former christains and that is the only organized religion they know. This is not true - many Muslims travel and evangelize.
I was once a moslem and i know very well what i am talking about, no moslem has ever knocked on my door some deeper life people came knocking just yesterday on my door. . . . . moslem only preach to their fellow muslims and use money mostly to entice people to their faith their outreach program is nothing compared to that of the chriatains who travel from place to place spreading the 'word'. . . . . . . hence all the attention and scrutiny. . . . . . . . Pilgrim you no fit read? what the heck didnt you understand i my post? tell me let me clearify and stop misconturing my post. |
|
|
|
|
|
davidylan (m)
|
I have sut my doors many times, hey you are digressing from the issue here you were trying to console your self with the idea that christianity is the only religion that is under attack by athiest and i just gave you the reasons why, coupled with the fact that most athiest here were former christains and that is the only organized religion they know.
Keep shutting it until they stop. I'm not digressing from any issue . . . there is no issue at all. Hell exists or not . . . you make a conscious, unforced choice to accept whichever you want. Console myself with which idea? I really could care less what is under attack and by who. I'm just puzzled why athiests bother asking questions on issues they are not forced to believe in. Athiests are former christians? So what? Burn the bible and pick up a newspaper. Why do i want to hear whether you believe in noah's ark or not? |
|
|
|
|
|
pilgrim.1 (f)
|
I was once a moslem and i know very well what i am talking about, no moslem has ever knocked on my door some deeper life people came knocking just yesterday on my door. . . . . Muslim evangelism doesn't have to be a clone of Christian evangelism - they have their own ways of both travelling and evangelizing, and that is the point. Even as a former muslimah myself, I still remember a lot of names within the Muslim circles who both travel and evangelize/preach to none Muslims (e.g., Amr Khaled on the one hand and Zakir Naik). They may not come knocking on your door, but they still have their outreaches to the non-Muslim public. moslem only preach to their fellow muslims Not true. . . see above. and use money mostly to entice people to their faith Maybe. their outreach program is nothing compared to that of the chriatains who travel from place to place spreading the 'word'. . . . . . . hence all the attention and scrutiny. . . . . . . . I know Christian evangelism dwarfs their Muslim counterparts. Pilgrim you no fit read? what the heck didnt you understand i my post? tell me let me clearify and stop misconturing my post. Please refer and see it nah. . . abi? |
|
|
|
|
|
mazaje (m)
|
the dripping hypocrisy in your statements is what makes your position the more sickening. Muslims impose their religious laws in a secular state like Nigeria and i hear not a word from you. I can't imagine the uproar if the US decided to adopt the laws of Moses.
What the heck is it with you and moslems? them kill your paza? what the heck do you mean that you hear not a word from me? i just gave you a link to a kano forum where i have been banned so many times and all my post erased because of my attacks on allah and his messenger. . . . . . that does'nt take away the fact that christains go from door to door propagating the 'word'. . . . . . . . at the same time inviting scrutiny to that which they assert. . . . . . . . . . Those bible thumping republicans wont mind the law of moses being enacted in the US. . . . . . at least they won't have to be boiling baby goats in their mothers milk. . . . . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
pilgrim.1 (f)
|
enough for the day. Cheers gentlemen.  |
|
|
|
|
|
mazaje (m)
|
@mazaje No mind them jare. When they have no excuse to the riches of embarassing passages in the bible they begin to use silent arguments and clinging unto straws to explain what is not there. There are thousands and thousands of mistakes in the bible that makes it totally incomprehendible that intelligent inspired men of god wrote such rubbish and say it is the owrd of god. Even if there was a god, certainly it can't be the god of the bible for what so ever reason. the stories there cannot be told to little children at night and they do their best to make sure they cut out these horrifying stories whenever they are in the mood to spread the gospel "of doom" None of them, i repeat, none of them even their pope or their chief pastor can validly defend such a book when ever darts are thrown at them. They just love to cling unto straws or knee jerk reactions. Did these words come from the heart of love by a loving biblical god?? "When the lord thy god shall drive them before thee, thou shalt smite them and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, or show mercy unto them”. "I will heap mischief upon them. I will send mine arrows upon them; they shall be burned with hunger and devoured with burning heat and with bitter destruction." "I will send the tooth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust." "The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin; the suckling also with the man of gray hairs." "Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow; let his children be continually vagabonds and beg; let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places; let the extortioner catch all that he hath, and let the stranger spoil his labor; let there be none to extend mercy unto him, neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children." " And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body -- the flesh of thy sons and daughters."
"And the heaven that is over thee shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron."
"Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field."
"I will make my arrows drunk with blood."
"I will laugh at their calamity."
Did these curses, these threats, come from the heart of love or from the mouth of savagery? Was Jehovah god or devil? Why should we place Jehovah above all the gods? Has man in his ignorance and fear ever imagined a greater monster? Have the barbarians of any land, in any time, worshiped a more heartless god? Thank you Zino ben. . . . . . . he is god of love, patience and understanding is what they always say, most of them don't even know that such passages exist in their bible, they always cherry pick the good parts and leave the evil parts. . . Even the devil has not commited such atrocities in the bible like the hebrew god himself so i wonder why they spend all day and night casting and binding him. . . . . . the worst part is that they spend day and night casting the devil they have never seen and blaming him for all their inadequecies. . . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
Zino Ben
|
@pilgrim To be frank, i am disappointed with your responses. I have gone through most of your last posts and i see you know your bible well and would be a formidable opponet but i wasn't expecting you to follow davidylan's style of posting by dodging issues and trying to rephrase questions with rhetorical questions. It Doesn't augur well for their status. don't be like davidylan. He has nothing to offer but the same ol' question replying question quips. I expected you to reply back with authorities to substantiate your claims. It is just point blank, I said god is a monsterous killing monster who kills babies and i quote passages to show that it is true. What i expect from you is to say "No god did not kill babies in that passage, in fact i am reading the wrong bible and that verse actually states blah blah blah' You don't have to merry go round and dodge issues if you even choose to answer them back. For example: GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day. How is this possible because the sun separates night from day or GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created. GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created. GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created. GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created. GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created. GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created. GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time. GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later. GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction. LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.) GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation. GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation. All these contradictions and confusion is bewildering to say the least and instead you of you to put it in a proper perspective and refute the obvious, you choose to follow davidylan's style or are you no longer dogmatic to the faith and turning into a freethinker to align with whatever doctrine or reasoning you choose to answer your questions? Please even if you don't want to answer them for me, imagine a person who intends to choose a religion to follow and is hoping you can convert him, please don't disappoint him |
|
|
|
|
|
mazaje (m)
|
here are more false assertions in the bible regarding animals, In the beginning, when God allegedly created the animals, they were designed to consume plants rather than meat (Genesis 1:30). Even so, there’s certainly no reason to believe that the ancestors of present-day predators survived off an herbivore diet. The food chain is in harmony because of the fluctuations occurring due to a rising and falling cycle of predator and prey populations. Withdrawing that relationship would throw the chain into unknown chaos. Furthermore, we have fossil records of these animals purported to be herbivores. Their equipped teeth were intended to initiate and facilitate the digestion of meat, not plants. Six thousand years ago, just like today, many species could not survive solely on plants. In addition, parasites require blood from living hosts. Blood is neither a plant nor a meat. Suggesting that parasites also made their daily meals from plants is increasingly absurd. Science demonstrates that it’s impossible for some species to survive on plants, yet the erroneous Bible claims this testable statement isn’t true. Do Christians expect everyone to believe that the Bible is correct regardless of what it says?
|
|
|
|
|
|
davidylan (m)
|
@pilgrim
To be frank, i am disappointed with your responses. I have gone through most of your last posts and i see you know your bible well and would be a formidable opponet but i wasn't expecting you to follow davidylan's style of posting by dodging issues and trying to rephrase questions with rhetorical questions.
It Doesn't augur well for their status. don't be like davidylan. He has nothing to offer but the same ol' question replying question quips.
To those who truly have a mindset to learn and are interested in making a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to understand the bible, Davidylan ducks no issues. To those who are only here to mock and pour scorn i only say . . . if God truly doesnt exist are you not better off sleeping than wasting your time posting volumes of unintelligible stuff? |
|
|
|
|
|
mazaje (m)
|
To those who truly have a mindset to learn and are interested in making a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to understand the bible, Davidylan ducks no issues. To those who are only here to mock and pour scorn i only say . . . if God truly doesnt exist are you not better off sleeping than wasting your time posting volumes of unintelligible stuff?
You also mock and pour scorn on allah and his messenger too. . that doesnt make you a better person. . . . . . . you have never made a conscious choice to understand islam either. . . . . . . . you have posted a lot of unintelligible topics on the moslem thread as well. . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
davidylan (m)
|
here are more false assertions in the bible regarding animals, In the beginning, when God allegedly created the animals, they were designed to consume plants rather than meat (Genesis 1:30). Even so, there’s certainly no reason to believe that the ancestors of present-day predators survived off an herbivore diet. The food chain is in harmony because of the fluctuations occurring due to a rising and falling cycle of predator and prey populations. Withdrawing that relationship would throw the chain into unknown chaos. Furthermore, we have fossil records of these animals purported to be herbivores. Their equipped teeth were intended to initiate and facilitate the digestion of meat, not plants. Six thousand years ago, just like today, many species could not survive solely on plants. In addition, parasites require blood from living hosts. Blood is neither a plant nor a meat. Suggesting that parasites also made their daily meals from plants is increasingly absurd. Science demonstrates that it’s impossible for some species to survive on plants, yet the erroneous Bible claims this testable statement isn’t true. Do Christians expect everyone to believe that the Bible is correct regardless of what it says?
Misrepresentation galore. Read verse 29; was man also made to be a vegetarian? |
|
|
|
|
|
mazaje (m)
|
@pilgrim To be frank, i am disappointed with your responses. I have gone through most of your last posts and i see you know your bible well and would be a formidable opponet but i wasn't expecting you to follow davidylan's style of posting by dodging issues and trying to rephrase questions with rhetorical questions. It Doesn't augur well for their status. don't be like davidylan. He has nothing to offer but the same ol' question replying question quips. I expected you to reply back with authorities to substantiate your claims. It is just point blank, I said god is a monsterous killing monster who kills babies and i quote passages to show that it is true. What i expect from you is to say "No god did not kill babies in that passage, in fact i am reading the wrong bible and that verse actually states blah blah blah' You don't have to merry go round and dodge issues if you even choose to answer them back. For example: GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day. How is this possible because the sun separates night from day or GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created. GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created. GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created. GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created. GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created. GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created. GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time. GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later. GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction. LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.) GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation. GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation. All these contradictions and confusion is bewildering to say the least and instead you of you to put it in a proper perspective and refute the obvious, you choose to follow davidylan's style or are you no longer dogmatic to the faith and turning into a freethinker to align with whatever doctrine or reasoning you choose to answer your questions? Please even if you don't want to answer them for me, imagine a person who intends to choose a religion to follow and is hoping you can convert him, please don't disappoint him Zino ben please i will urge you to watch the documentary tittled banned from the bible in case you have'nt you will get a better picture and understanding of how the entire fable was put together. . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
davidylan (m)
|
You also mock and pour scorn on allah and his messenger too. . that doesnt make you a better person. . . . . . . you have never made a conscious choice to understand islam either. . . . . . . . you have posted a lot of unintelligible topics on the moslem thread as well. . . . . . . .
I don't pour scorn on allah and his messengers, i don't read about them . . . i only seek to disprove those who try to force them into the bible. When you want to make a point, try and use some truth. I have made a conscious choice not to understand islam, its the reason you don't find me making 20 threads a day asking muslims to prove the existence of jaanat. It is their business where they want to go when they die. Do thou likewise. |
|
|
|
|
|
davidylan (m)
|
Zino ben please i will urge you to watch the documentary tittled banned from the bible in case you have'nt you will get a better picture and understanding of how the entire fable was put together. . . .
I saw the 2 h series last night. The beauty of it is that most of the books not added to the bible are available online or in bookshops for those willing to read. I'm going to get my own copy of the dead sea scrolls myself. Its all a matter of choice. you don't have to read it, neither do you have to waste precious time watching "banned from the bible". Watch soccer or sleep. |
|
|
|
|
|
mazaje (m)
|
Misrepresentation galore.
Read verse 29; was man also made to be a vegetarian?
Genesis 1vs30and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so Where is the misrepresentation?. . . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
davidylan (m)
|
30and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so
Where is the misrepresentation?. . . . .
In the same vein that you stupidly and literarily assume that because verse 30 does not mention meat (for carnivores) it must mean ALL animals were created as plant eaters . . . so is the same way i'd assume you would interprete verse 29. Since it NEVER mentions meat anywhere i'd assume man was also created NEVER to eat meat no? Do you reason at all? |
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
