|
pilgrim.1 (f)
|
Just wondering: why is an attitude of deliberate misrepresentation the default position to assume against the Biblical faiths?
|
|
|
|
|
|
mazaje (m)
|
@mazaje,
I don't see where it is argued otherwise in the reference you gave.
Again, He did not describe those bodily processes as "treacherous circumstances" - it seems apparent in your quote above that you intended to call it such. Second, He did not "despise" the process, as is clear in the whole chapter of that reference.
The recommendation was not exclusive to women - men were to present the same two doves to the priest (Lev. 15:14). The "uncleaness" is defined in verse 31 properly in issues that had to do with approaching the tabernacle.
Childbirth in itself was not deemed to be foul. The issues around childbirth was the focus, not the childbirth itself. Qv (". . .according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean"). Verse 4 of Lev. 12 reinforces my point earlier that the focus was on rites associated with the tabernacle (or 'sanctuary').
Women were not designated as "filthy individuals" following childbirth.
you see you are now using your own understanding of things to imply that that was what the hebrew men god was talking about. do you see it as acceptable for women not to enter the temple of god when they are menstrating? i believe you still go to church even when you are having heavy flows as long as the flow doesnt make you sick. what do you mean that child birth is not deemed foul to the hebrew god? the hebrew god clearly showed his contempt to menstrating women and women that have given birth by ordering people to ostracize them and not touch them or anything they have touched. will you accept if people refuse to touch anything you have touched or ostracize you just for menstrating? by the way what have the two innocent doves done that requires their sacrifice to an all powerful and all knowing god? why does he love blood so much? these are not the words of an all loving, all knowing and all compassionate god but the words of 1st centuary normards who had little respect for women at that time. |
|
|
|
|
|
mazaje (m)
|
Zino, there goes the answer to your question.
see this dishonest liar. . . . . . that is not the answer to his question and you know it lair |
|
|
|
|
|
mazaje (m)
|
@ mazaje,
if you are not christian, then i don't see why that should bother you. Please i would like to plea with you as a friend to drop this your idealogy because it would lead you into destruction. if you don't believe in heaven and hell or God and his powers then you should shut up. don't go start accussing GOD of any misdoings. Because if God should turn and look at you men it wont be funny.
INFACT MAZAJE WHETHER YOU BELIEVE OR NOT< NON OF YOUR WORDS OR ACCUZATIONS OR PROVES WOULD CHANGE WHO GOD IS. HE IS STILL THE SAME AND WOULD FOREVER REMAIN THE SAME.
if you say there is no hell, then where would your spirit be when you evetually die?. HOW did the world came into existence? My words or accusation you call it  your hebrew god is no better than hitler, sadam hussien, george bush, musulini, osama bin laden etc he has killed and ordered his footsoldiers(prophets) to kill innocent people so many times in the bible. read all of it, it is in your bible so i wonder why you call it accusation, as for your blatant lie about your hebrew god remainaing the same forever, all i have to say is that you have not been reading your bible, your hebrew god has fliped-floped and has changed and moved with humanity from the old testament to the new testament so i don't know what you are talking about. you asked me how people came into existance? that i don't know but i find your hebrew god's story of creation ridiculous and prosesterous |
|
|
|
|
|
pilgrim.1 (f)
|
@mazaje, . . . . . that is not the answer to his question and you know it lair Actually, Zino asserted it could not have been the case; whereas, it really is - which was why I pointed it out earlier with the case of Jeremiah 13:22, and following same in post#46. No? Anyways, you see you are now using your own understanding of things to imply that that was what the hebrew men god was talking about. On the contrary, not. It's easy to see that if something is said which was not intended by the authors, there could be no prolonged arguments otherwise. Which was the reason why I often try to clamly ask questions, as at the beginning of our discourse (see again post#39). do you see it as acceptable for women not to enter the temple of god when they are menstrating? Yes - for the simple reason that was provided in the same chapter you quoted but did not carefully examine in its context. i believe you still go to church even when you are having heavy flows as long as the flow doesnt make you sick. I do - and that is because I'm not a Jewess, which makes a whole world of difference. what do you mean that child birth is not deemed foul to the hebrew god? the hebrew god clearly showed his contempt to menstrating women and women that have given birth by ordering people to ostracize them and not touch them or anything they have touched. Again, He did not demonstrate any "contempt" for anyone. will you accept if people refuse to touch anything you have touched or ostracize you just for menstrating? Trying to inject the idea of "ostracizing" anyone in that chapter simply begs the question - for that again was not the case. by the way what have the two innocent doves done that requires their sacrifice to an all powerful and all knowing god? How does the rites of doves depreciate His omnipotence and/omniscience? why does he love blood so much? Where did He state it so? these are not the words of an all loving, all knowing and all compassionate god but the words of 1st centuary normards who had little respect for women at that time. If you say so, why then would you direct your accusations against God Himself since they are not His words? Perhaps one could say that your arguement is misdirected against the nomads but you would rather apply them to God. So which is which, mazaje? |
|
|
|
|
|
Zino Ben
|
I guess i have been officially invited to this party and i love parties. I wont miss this for the world: ok let's go, starting with papa, dim I have read through the whole post and it really baffled me that a man at this age and time could deny or refuse to believe that hell/heaven exist. h\Have you ever asked yourself how the whole earth came into existence? How the stars, the moon, the sky and also the chemistry behind day and night. I know you all havnt I am not going to say i am totally in support of evolution because it does have its own hiccups and scientists are honest enough to say it is a never ending search to get to the bottom of the truth but it is a far cry from what creationist tend to put out as the source of the universe. It is too ludicrious to say the least that man just popped out from no where because god said so without providing any form of evidence to back this assertion up except sheer belief that it is true. This is sensless to say the least. At least scientists are still trying to discover fossils hidden across the various parts of the world and trying to make sense of its geology and history but the bible offers nothing intelligent what so ever except errant belief that it just happened like that. Did the bible ever tell us how many planets are there? who discovered them man or the authors of the bible. Did the bible explain the number of stars out there? nope science did. All you believe in is that god said let there be light and voila! Light! How sensible is that  The Genesis story of creation is certainly not an historical event, as modern science has revealed, as well as the Flood of Noah's time. This flood has been conclusively demonstrated to be a piece of mythology, borrowed from the Assyrians, and probably built up upon a real, localized flood (the Black Sea flood of about 5000 B.C.E. has been proposed as the original model). There NEVER WAS a global flood, it did not happen @poster, to your question, i can't really convince you otherwise cause you have really reached a point of no return. if you don't believe in spirit, then what powers the real you? Is this a trick question  Of course water and blood, duh! In the book of Gen 11:1-9,
it speaks about man trying to build a tower which can reach heaven so that they can see God, but God destroyed their plans. That singular act gave birth to the numerous languages we speak today. if their was no heaven would God have stopped them? NO, since today airoplanes fly in the sky.
Hmm, talking about those that saw god! Trust me you ignorant bible readers, do you think no one has seen god. Of course people in the bible have seen god so why are you alluding to the fact that the tower of babel was destroyed because they wanted to see god. these people have seen god face to face Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face."
Exodus 33:11 "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."
Isaiah 6:1 "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple."
Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee." There you have it right from the bible, so wuz up with the nobody has seen god crap? Beside the story of the tower of babel is too unbelievable to say the least. What is the height of the tallest building on the planet today. Despite the fact that these men were crude illiterate men who didnt have access to modern day technology, according to the bible, they built a tower that was almost getting to heaven. Despite the money and technology accessible to man today, no construction company can still boast of such a feat talkless of savages who werent that technologically adavnced, pssff! Also read Gen 6 - Gen 9.
This place talks about God destroying the earth through flood. God spoke to Noah telling him to preach and convince the world that he would rain judgement upon the earth. but they all laughed him off. It truely came to pass. So God now decided that he would send his son JESUS to prepare the way for the final judgemnt.
Please don't let me murder you on this subject because your going to be shamefully embarrassed if i begin to methodically destroy the noah's ark story. Only one question though. How did the koala's, kangaroos and wombats found mostly in newzealand and australia get into the ark and back to australia in record time? How did noah get the eurachypus leaf that only koalas eat and can only be found in australia? When god destroyed the world and let the animals to go and multiply, did it occur to you that the herbivores amongst them couldnt find any food since the flood destroyed all form of plants and since the carnivores could only eat meat, wont they have eaten the other species of herbivores hereby making it difficult to reproduce again? Abeg don't tempt me to white wash you on this subject. You would passionately fail and cover your eyes in shame for your bible and god. BUT lets go back to the beginging of creation.
LUCIFER (satan/devil) was God's right hand man, but greed overtook lucifer and he wanted to be like God, so God pushed him out of heaven and sent him into the bootomless pit together with his followers.
SO God decided to make man in GOD's image (Gen 1), but before then God created the whole UNIVERSE, and put man to have dominion over all creature and beast (lucifer and his followers) as a continiuos punishment for lucifer (devil/satan), But lucifer decieved eve and man literally gave his authority to the devil.
This passage is what they call insertionism. Where is it stated that satan was god's right hand paddy in the bible?  kai you christians sha, na wah! Also if god allowed lucifer to tempt eve, if he was so powerful, why didnt he destroy satan before he made his famous creation man. If he knew lucifer would come and spoil his work, why didnt god prevent satan from spoiling his handwork? What kind of cosmic imbecile creates something that he calls "perfect" and later childishly destroys all of them through a flood and later apologizes for destroying his perfect creation. Doesnt that sound like a script from a dumb king kong movie? After the second coming of jesus, those that are alive and were found wanting would suffer tormentation and affliction from the devil for seven years and those who still fail to obtain the mark of the beast would escape the final judgement upon the earth, which is eternally BURNING Second coming my foot. How is he or she or it going to come? using a plane, okada, ferrari or scream "Geronimo" all the way from heaven wearing a cape like super man? Is he coming as a white man, chinese, mongolian, south american or hebrew? What is he going to wear, jeans, prada sun glasses, kangol or what? am very curious because we no longer wear jerusalem slippers and swadles. Its out of vogue since 3,000 years ago in case you forgot. How is he going to look like, will he have a model hair like a hollywood actor or low skin hair cut? will there be tatoos on his body and earrings on his ears with big 50 cent chains weilding a bible, oops i forgot the timber land shoes Pssff!!, abeg grow a life and stop living in a delusional world that is only fit for believers of a harry potter novel sorry i am a slow writer but next up is pilgrim |
|
|
|
|
|
pilgrim.1 (f)
|
My words or accusation you call it your hebrew god is no better than hitler, sadam hussien, george bush, musulini, osama bin laden etc he has killed and ordered his footsoldiers(prophets) to kill innocent people so many times in the bible. These are tired exculpations that have been circulated by those who play the convenience game. I'm trying to see if infact you have any substance to your assumptions apart from the typical slurs. |
|
|
|
|
|
mazaje (m)
|
@mazaje,
Actually, Zino asserted it could not have been the case; whereas, it really is - which was why I pointed it out earlier with the case of Jeremiah 13:22, and following same in post#46. No?
Anyways,
On the contrary, not. It's easy to see that if something is said which was not intended by the authors, there could be no prolonged arguments otherwise. Which was the reason why I often try to clamly ask questions, as at the beginning of our discourse (see again post#39).
Yes - for the simple reason that was provided in the same chapter you quoted but did not carefully examine in its context.
I do - and that is because I'm not a Jewess, which makes a whole world of difference.
Again, He did not demonstrate any "contempt" for anyone.
Trying to inject the idea of "ostracizing" anyone in that chapter simply begs the question - for that again was not the case.
How does the rites of doves depreciate His omnipotence and/omniscience?
Where did He state it so?
If you say so, why then would you direct your accusations against God Himself since they are not [b]His words? Perhaps one could say that your arguement is misdirected against the nomads but you would rather apply them to God. So which is which, mazaje?[/b] The 1st century normads created the hebrew god in their own image and likeness, they and him are one and the same just as mohammed and his cohorts created allah in their own image and likeness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
pilgrim.1 (f)
|
The 1st century normads created the hebrew god in their own image and likeness, they and him are one and the same just as mohammed and his cohorts created allah in their own image and likeness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Can you discuss at all without the slurs? You haven't made any sense at all if your arguements are misdirected. |
|
|
|
|
|
mazaje (m)
|
These are tired exculpations that have been circulated by those who play the convenience game. I'm trying to see if infact you have any substance to your assumptions apart from the typical slurs.
Here are the substance God’s episodes of murdering innocent individuals for the faults of their leaders, fathers, or other ancestors are not uncommon in the Old Testament. Jephthah asks for God’s assistance in killing the children of Ammon and promises him the first person out of his house upon his return as a burnt sacrifice if he will agree to aid with the massacre. God concurs and lethally delivers the children of Ammon into Jephthah’s hands. When Jephthah returns, his daughter, an only child, makes her way outside to welcome him home. Two months later, Jephthah regretfully fulfills his promise by burning his daughter as a sacrifice to God (Judges 11:29-39). Why would God allow a man to offer an innocent person as a reward unless God also intended for certain people to be mere possessions? While David is King, he decides to conduct a census: a horrendous sin in God’s eyes. As punishment for his poor decision, he is to select among seven years of famine, three months of fleeing from his enemies, and three days of pestilence. Unable to choose from the offered catastrophes, God picks the three days of pestilence that result in the deaths of 70,000 men. Women and children weren’t mentioned, not that the Bible considered them to have any real value in the first place. Again, God murders enough people to fill a sizable city for the “sin” of one man. David subsequently cries out to God and asks him why he wants to murder innocent people who had nothing to do with the decision to execute a census. Of course God doesn’t provide an impossible answer for this sensible question, but his reasons scarcely seem morally or ethically justifiable (2 Samuel 24:10-17). David also desires a woman named Bathsheba even though she’s married to one of David’s soldiers. Driven by his lust, David orders her husband to the front lines of a battle so that the enemy will take care of his problem. God then becomes extremely angry with David for this relatively petty crime. Once the new couple has a child, God afflicts it with illness for a week before watching it die (2 Samuel 11, 12:14-18). Yet again, God exterminates an innocent baby for the actions of the father. At one point, God sends a famine upon David’s followers. When he makes an inquiry to God for a justification, he’s told, “It is for Saul, and his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites” (2 Samuel 21:1). Saul died years ago, yet God just now decides to punish people who had nothing to do with the decisions of their former leader. David’s new son, Solomon, turns away from the Hebrew god and decides to worship other deities. Solomon’s decision infuriates God, but he isn’t punished because God recently came to like David. Instead, he punishes Solomon’s son by taking away part of his land when he comes to power (1 Kings 11:9-13). Once again, we see the impossibility of being free from God’s anger even when living in total obedience to him. In essence, Solomon’s son was divinely punished before he was ever born. Next in the line of father-son reprimands is the account of King Josiah. “And like unto him was there no King before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him. Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath…because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal” (2 Kings 23:24-26). The passage speaks for itself. Yet again, God punishes a seemingly perfect person for someone else’s transgressions more to come. . . . . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
mazaje (m)
|
Can you discuss at all without the slurs? You haven't made any sense at all if your arguements are misdirected. what slurs are you talking about? here are more of the hebrew god's way of justice Instead of directly murdering people or using his followers to execute similar commands, the apparently insatiable God begins sending animals to kill those who displease him. On one occasion, he has a lion kill a man because he refuses to hit someone (1 Kings 20:35). God sends his lions out again to kill a group of people who were new to Samaria. The reason for this atrocity is their lack of worship, even though they were never informed of the proper worship methods (2 Kings 17:24-26). However, this supposedly insignificant detail didn’t halt God from killing them. He had to have known that he would eventually murder this party, but instead of properly instructing them, God just kills them. There’s not even a miniscule resemblance of justice in the Hebrew god. In an exploit of inconceivable irrationality, God sends forth two bears to kill forty-two children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head (2 Kings 2:23-24). Why would the omnibenevolent God feel the necessity to have two bears viciously maul little children for acting like…children? This is supposed to be the same “wonderful” and “loving” God who promises us eternal life, but an entity capable of these inane activities could certainly change his mind and banish all of his worshippers to Hell. Christians never have to justify such passages because, of course, they never read them |
|
|
|
|
|
davidylan (m)
|
The Genesis story of creation is certainly not an historical event, as modern science has revealed, as well as the Flood of Noah's time. This flood has been conclusively demonstrated to be a piece of mythology, borrowed from the Assyrians, and probably built up upon a real, localized flood (the Black Sea flood of about 5000 B.C.E. has been proposed as the original model). There NEVER WAS a global flood, it did not happen
But there was a global ice age no? And that ice didnt just disappear into thin air no? It must somehow have melted no? |
|
|
|
|
|
pilgrim.1 (f)
|
Here are the substance God’s episodes of murdering innocent individuals for the faults of their leaders, fathers, or other ancestors are not uncommon in the Old Testament. Thanks, mazaje. I'm waiting for simple answers to the questions I offered. |
|
|
|
|
|
mazaje (m)
|
Here are more of the hebrew god way of administering justice Later in Genesis, we learn of a man named Judah who has three sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah. Seeing as how Er is “wicked in the sight of the Lord,” God kills him. For what reason God found him too evil, we could only speculate. Of course, there’s no reasonable guarantee that Er would have incurred a death sentence from an impartial jury. Following the slaying, God dictates Onan to impregnate and marry Er’s wife in order to continue Er’s family line. Since Onan seemingly believes in freewill and doesn’t feel that he should be required to do something he doesn’t want to do, he spills his seed on the ground instead of finishing intercourse inside of her. “And the thing he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also” (Genesis 38:7-10). Again, the omniscient God should have known that Onan would fail to comply. Because God should have also realized that he would have to kill the disobedient Onan, why did he order him around in the first place? Does he now feel the need to have an excuse before murdering an innocent person? Was Onan destined to exist only as God’s slave? Are we all God’s oppressed pawns, created only to be shifted around for his amusement? Onan’s fate hardly seems just by enlightened standards.
The Ark of the Covenant was a sacred item that God demanded everyone to refrain from touching. The ancient Hebrews commonly believed that God even played the part of a genie by residing in the ark on occasion. Thus, when the Philistines steal this precious piece, God obviously becomes enraged. As they’re carrying it through different cities, God inflicts severe cases of hemorrhoids on all the inhabitants. Why God doesn’t just zap these thieves and return the ark to the Israelites without harming additional innocent bystanders is beyond me. Unbelievably, 50,070 people eventually die at the hands of God because they simply look into the ark (1 Samuel 4-6). That’s the equivalent of a moderately sized modern city dropping dead just for looking at something God didn’t want them looking at. It’s difficult to imagine a creature that can unleash punishments more evil than that, but God is continuously setting new standards for himself.
Once we see the ark in transit again, the cart and oxen transporting it move over a rough spot in the path and nearly shake the prized object to the ground. Out of what we could only consider pure reflex, Uzzah, who was accompanying the ark, places his hand on it to keep it steady. Uzzah’s instinctive, split-second decision to prevent God’s home from falling angers God enough to eradicate him from the earth (2 Samuel 6:6-7).
Since God commits scores of violent acts randomly throughout the remainder of the Old Testament, let’s look at a few examples. After delivering the Amorites into the hands of Joshua, he sends down a hailstorm in order to kill a large portion of the people who flee from battle (Joshua 10:8-11). God assists in the war between Barak and Sisera by surrounding Sisera’s army and forcing them to dismount from their chariots. Because of his intervention, Sisera’s entire army faces imminent death at the hands of Barak (Judges 4:14-15). God causes the Midianites to kill one another (Judges 7:22-23). He confuses the Philistines and causes them to kill one another (1 Samuel 14:20-23). He inflicts a number of people with blindness because Elisha asks him to do so (2 Kings 6:18). He causes a seven-year famine without specifying a reason (2 Kings 8:1). God kills Jeroboam because he’s the leader of the enemies (2 Chronicles 13:20). He kills Nabal without specifying a reason, but it’s probably because David desires his wife and other belongings (1 Samuel 25:38). God sends an angel to kill 185,000 men in an Assyrian camp because they’re enemies of his people (2 Kings 19:31-35). He plagues Azariah, a man labeled as a good King, with leprosy for the remainder of his life because he allows people to burn incense in a location displeasing to God (2 Kings 15:1-5). This is another great example of an overbearing punishment for breaking an asinine law. Some of our fellow humans were obviously destined to meet death early in life without any chance of redemption in God’s eyes.
Counting just the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Red Sea incident, the ark gazers, the plagues, the census, and the battles in which God directly participated, I estimate that this terrible creature claims to have murdered one to two million people. Regrettably, we still haven’t discussed any of the instances in which God orders his people to kill others or when he “delivers armies” into the hands of the Israelites to be annihilated in battle. By this point in our discussion, God has already joined the elite company of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Zedong as the largest mass murderers in history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
davidylan (m)
|
Please don't let me murder you on this subject because your going to be shamefully embarrassed if i begin to methodically destroy the noah's ark story. Only one question though. How did the koala's, kangaroos and wombats found mostly in newzealand and australia get into the ark and back to australia in record time? How did noah get the eurachypus leaf that only koalas eat and can only be found in australia? When god destroyed the world and let the animals to go and multiply, did it occur to you that the herbivores amongst them couldnt find any food since the flood destroyed all form of plants and since the carnivores could only eat meat, wont they have eaten the other species of herbivores hereby making it difficult to reproduce again?
Did you know that Lions are not native to Africa and Asia alone? That North America actually once had large numbers of lions and the tiger that is today localised only to dense forests in Asia? Did you also know that the story of Noah's ark did infact mention the presence of plants just after the flood? Did it also occur to you that because the bible says Noah was to bring the animals TWO OF EACH KIND does not mean he STRICTLY brought only 2 cows and 2 goats? |
|
|
|
|
|
davidylan (m)
|
Mazaje just shamelessly copies and pastes long stories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zino Ben
|
@davidylan
You asked what a freethinker is and i will gladly tell you. I belong to a group that deals with the rationality and logical reasoning of man. So i will pull out a script from our website to educate you more.
What Is A Freethinker?
free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.
No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.
How do freethinkers know what is true?
Clarence Darrow once noted, "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose."
Freethinkers are naturalistic. Truth is the degree to which a statement corresponds with reality. Reality is limited to that which is directly perceivable through our natural senses or indirectly ascertained through the proper use of reason.
Reason is a tool of critical thought that limits the truth of a statement according to the strict tests of the scientific method. For a statement to be considered true it must be testable (what evidence or repeatable experiments confirm it?), falsifiable (what, in theory, would disconfirm it, and have all attempts to disprove it failed?), parsimonious (is it the simplest explanation, requiring the fewest assumptions?), and logical (is it free of contradictions, non sequiturs, or irrelevant ad hominem character attacks?).
Do freethinkers have a basis for morality?
There is no great mystery to morality. Most freethinkers employ the simple yardsticks of reason and kindness. As author Barbara Walker notes: "What is moral is simply what does not hurt others. Kindness . . . sums up everything."
Most freethinkers are humanists, basing morality on human needs, not imagined "cosmic absolutes." This also embraces a respect for our planet, including the other animals, and feminist principles of equality.
Moral dilemmas involve a conflict of values, requiring a careful use of reason to weigh the outcomes. Freethinkers argue that religion promotes a dangerous and inadequate "morality" based on blind obedience, unexamined ultimatums, and "pie-in-the-sky" rewards of heaven or gruesome threats of hell. Freethinkers try to base actions on their consequences to real, living human beings.
Do freethinkers have meaning in life?
Freethinkers know that meaning must originate in a mind. Since the universe is mindless and the cosmos does not care, you must care, if you wish to have purpose. Individuals are free to choose, within the limits of humanistic morality.
Some freethinkers find meaning in human compassion, social progress, the beauty of humanity (art, music, literature), personal happiness, pleasure, joy, love, and the advancement of knowledge.
Doesn't the complexity of life require a designer?
The complexity of life requires an explanation. Darwin's theory of evolution, with cumulative nonrandom natural selection "designing" for billions of years, has provided the explanation. A "Divine Designer" is no answer because the complexity of such a creature would be subject to the same scrutiny itself.
Even a child knows to ask: "If God made everything, then who made God?"
Freethinkers recognize that there is much chaos, ugliness and pain in the universe for which any explanation of origins must also account.
Why are freethinkers opposed to religion?
Freethinkers are convinced that religious claims have not withstood the tests of reason. Not only is there nothing to be gained by believing an untruth, but there is everything to lose when we sacrifice the indispensable tool of reason on the altar of superstition.
Most freethinkers consider religion to be not only untrue, but harmful. It has been used to justify war, slavery, sexism, racism, homophobia, mutilations, intolerance, and oppression of minorities. The totalitarianism of religious absolutes chokes progress.
Hasn't religion done tremendous good in the world?
Many religionists are good people--but they would be good anyway.
Religion does not have a monopoly on good deeds. Most modern social and moral progress has been made by people free from religion--including Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Charles Darwin, Margaret Sanger, Albert Einstein, Andrew Carnegie, Thomas Edison, Marie Curie, H. L. Mencken, Sigmund Freud, Bertrand Russell, Luther Burbank and many others who have enriched humanity.
Most religions have consistently resisted progress--including the abolition of slavery; women's right to vote and choose contraception and abortion; medical developments such as the use of anesthesia; scientific understanding of the heliocentric solar system and evolution, and the American principle of state/church separation.
Do freethinkers have a particular political persuasion?
No, freethought is a philosophical, not a political, position. Freethought today embraces adherents of virtually all political persuasions, including capitalists, libertarians, socialists, communists, Republicans, Democrats, liberals and conservatives. There is no philosophical connection, for example, between atheism and communism. Some freethinkers, such as Adam Smith and Ayn Rand, were staunch capitalists; and there have been communistic groups which were deeply religious, such as the early Christian church.
freethinkers agree in their support of state/church separation.
Is atheism/humanism a religion?
No. Atheism is not a belief. It is the "lack of belief" in god(s). Lack of faith requires no faith. Atheism is indeed based on a commitment to rationality, but that hardly qualifies it as a religion.
Freethinkers apply the term religion to belief systems which include a supernatural realm, deity, faith in "holy" writings and conformity to an absolute creed.
Secular humanism has no god, bible or savior. It is based on natural rational principles. It is flexible and relativistic--it is not a religion.
Why should I be happy to be a freethinker?
Freethought is reasonable. Freethought allows you to do your own thinking. A plurality of individuals thinking, free from restraints of orthodoxy, allows ideas to be tested, discarded or adopted.
Freethinkers see no pride in the blind maintenance of ancient superstitions or self-effacing prostration before divine tyrants known only through primitive "revelations." Freethought is respectable. Freethought is truly free!
|
|
|
|
|
|
debosky (m)
|
Beside the story of the tower of babel is too unbelievable to say the least. What is the height of the tallest building on the planet today. Despite the fact that these men were crude illiterate men who didnt have access to modern day technology, according to the bible, they built a tower that was almost getting to heaven. Despite the money and technology accessible to man today, no construction company can still boast of such a feat talkless of savages who werent that technologically adavnced, pssff!
Please don't let me murder you on this subject because your going to be shamefully embarrassed if i begin to methodically destroy the noah's ark story. Only one question though. How did the koala's, kangaroos and wombats found mostly in newzealand and australia get into the ark and back to australia in record time? How did noah get the eurachypus leaf that only koalas eat and can only be found in australia? When god destroyed the world and let the animals to go and multiply, did it occur to you that the herbivores amongst them couldnt find any food since the flood destroyed all form of plants and since the carnivores could only eat meat, wont they have eaten the other species of herbivores hereby making it difficult to reproduce again?
Do you know that 'savages' built the Macchu Picchu in Peru probably even more 'savage' the so called 'savages' that built the tower of Babel? How do you define or measure 'getting close to heaven'? Are you so dense as to be unable to imagine that that term would mean different things to different people? Even a 3 storey building in some villages would be described as being close to heaven, so you have no point there. PS - its called eucalyptus not eurachypus - at least be correct when trying to make claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
davidylan (m)
|
yawn . . . another boring copy and paste job. @davidylan
What Is A Freethinker?
free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.
Fantastic definition. Now what evidence have you that a christian is unable to form an oppinion based on reason, independent of tradition, authority or established belief? Is that not the very basis for the split between protestants and the catholic church? No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.
That would have been better if you had said "no one can be an athiest . . ." You deceitfully force a narrow definition of who a freethinker is that makes nonsense of your initial definition. A christian grounded in the word of Christ can be a freethinker . . . I'll give you a scenario . . . culture demands you to conform to a particular lifestyle . . . does that make you a non-freethinker? |
|
|
|
|
|
pilgrim.1 (f)
|
Most freethinkers consider religion to be not only untrue, but harmful. I wonder why this recycled idea still holds sway in the minds of those who haven't checked it out carefully. That is what "most freethinkers" consider about religion (and often they mean "Christianity"). I just wonder that even the professor of public understanding of science in Oxford failed to understand that Oxford University was founded by Christians. That surely must be harmful! |
|
|
|
|
|
mazaje (m)
|
Did you know that Lions are not native to Africa and Asia alone? That North America actually once had large numbers of lions and the tiger that is today localised only to dense forests in Asia?
Did you also know that the story of Noah's ark did infact mention the presence of plants just after the flood?
Did it also occur to you that because the bible says Noah was to bring the animals TWO OF EACH KIND does not mean he STRICTLY brought only 2 cows and 2 goats?
see this stupid lair grasping at straws to make meaning out of nothing no wonder you have over 30, 000 sects of christianity fighting and slandering each, the bible fable says two and two it was, the bible isnt davidylan, you have completely discredited your self, now you are using you make beliefs assumption to imply it is from the bible LAIR. . . . . . . . . what the hell do you mean by he did not STRICTLY bring two kai na wah ohhh Mazaje just shamelessly copies and pastes long stories.
shamelessly you call them but that doesn't make them untrue'according to you bible, at least your hebrew god and his footsoldiers(prophets) carried out all those attrocities not me. . . . . . . . . . . the only shameful thing here is the act that were perpetrated by your hebrew god and his footsoldiers(prophets). |
|
|
|
|
|
pilgrim.1 (f)
|
Mazaje, if indeed freethinkers are "moralists", would you say you fit your own theory? Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zino Ben
|
Do you know that 'savages' built the Macchu Picchu in Peru probably even more 'savage' the so called 'savages' that built the tower of Babel? How do you define or measure 'getting close to heaven'? Are you so dense as to be unable to imagine that that term would mean different things to different people? Even a 3 storey building in some villages would be described as being close to heaven, so you have no point there.
PS - its called eucalyptus not eurachypus - at least be correct when trying to make claims.
@debosky Rubbish post. iJust because i hurriedly mispelt the eucalyptus leaf, you brought that as the whole highlight of your defence, pssff! Also your own stupidity in ascribing a 3 storey building as heaven to people so much differs from the ordinary meaning in the bible. Weren't they dispersed by god because they tried to build a tower to get to heaven to see god? Is that what is written in the bible or do you read cosmo mags and term them to be bibles. Whenever you apologists are boxed into a corner, you now begin to differentiate between the literal meaning of the biblical passage and the metaphorical part. You have no defense to this argument, your just a meddlesome interloper trying to get your voice heard, sorry mate but your a drowning fella, support your arguments with scriptural passages and stop relying on insertionism and grammatical excuses. @davidylan told you the group i belong and i posted it from our website. I didnt claim to write it but to educate you, so why the yawn, at least i am honest enough to show you that i pasted it or would you prefer me to lecture you on a one on one basis? But you xtians will never be honest enough to accept that the bible if filled with so many errant passages and unintelligent parts of the scriptures I'll give you a scenario . . . culture forces demands you to conform to a particular lifestyle . . . does that make you a non-freethinker? I can choose to leave that culture and move unto another one that pleases my life style. I don't have to be boxed by culture and accept it wholesomely, that's the difference between a believer and a freethinker. The right to choose! |
|
|
|
|
|
mazaje (m)
|
Do you know that 'savages' built the Macchu Picchu in Peru probably even more 'savage' the so called 'savages' that built the tower of Babel? How do you define or measure 'getting close to heaven'? Are you so dense as to be unable to imagine that that term would mean different things to different people? Even a 3 storey building in some villages would be described as being close to heaven, so you have no point there.
PS - its called eucalyptus not eurachypus - at least be correct when trying to make claims.
If you study the history those building were not as old as the time of the tower of bable story myth the embarrassing tale is completely nonsensical according to the bogus legend everyone on earth spoke the same language when the erection of the tower began. Because the people of earth had a great desire to catch a glimpse of God, they built this supposed tower intending to breach the sky. As God didn’t like the possibility of people spotting him, he confused their languages to prevent the architects from understanding one another. Unable to continue construction, everyone with different languages went separate ways. This story is unfeasible for many reasons. The first problem with the incredulous account is the incongruency of the common language theme. We know that many different languages existed centuries before the story’s setting around 2500-2000 BCE(China and india were pretty much in exsistance at that time just to mention a few civilazations that were already existing). Not only that, but another Pentateuch author had said Noah’s sons separated according to their own tongues in the previous chapter (Genesis 10). At the very least, we have a major timeline discrepancy in need of an acceptable resolution. Furthermore, the notion that nineteenth century man had the architectural knowledge to build a tower even a mile high is ridiculous. To fathom that a group of ignorant ancient Hebrews could make an equivalent accomplishment is ludicrous. Interestingly, no divine inspiration is available as a possible excuse for the illogical story because God wasn’t siding with his people on this occasion! If he didn’t wish for the people to see him, he wouldn’t have provided the means for them to do so. Of course, the most obvious blunder is God’s supposed fear of us actually reaching him in the sky. To suggest that an omniscient god would destroy a building because he felt he was in danger of humans catching a glimpse of him is an equally ludicrous proposal. The aspects of this story once again go back to the ancient Hebrew belief that God eternally resided on top of a dome covering the earth. Since an omniscient deity would know that the people could not possibly reach him, he would not have stopped the tower’s construction for the specific reason provided by the Bible. The story cries of a myth. The mordern man has built taller buildings than the mytical tower of bable and also went into space but the hebrew god didnt and couldnt stop him stop him. . . . . . . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
debosky (m)
|
Ok, let me break it down for you Zino, your lack of comprehension is shocking
They attempted to build a tower reaching heaven - had they succeeded? No. Were you given any specific information as to how tall the tower was before construction was stopped? No.
Those two pointers alone give you enough room for speculation, the building might have been one storey or 15 storeys tall, there is no evidence pointing to its specific size, so if i say 3 storeys, it may be valid in its own context.
There is no attempt at metaphoric interpretation here - no specific details were given as to the height. For all we know, there might have been intense fog or low lying clouds in the building area which gave the impression that once you touch the clouds, you have touched 'heaven'. Or are you categorically telling me you know how high the building went?
Genesis 11
The Tower of Babel
1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved eastward, [a] they found a plain in Shinar [b] and settled there.
3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
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."
8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel [c] —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.
No mention of its height or dimensions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
davidylan (m)
|
I can choose to leave that culture and move unto another one that pleases my life style. I don't have to be boxed by culture and accept it wholesomely, that's the difference between a believer and a freethinker. The right to choose!
That's your own idea . . . infact the bible repeatedly has this to say - "to everyone that believeth . . ." Nowhere do we read that you are forced to accept the gospel of salvation, it is not by force but by choice just exactly the way you have a choice to choose cultures. I have chosen christianity, you havent . . . so what really is the bone of contention here? Has the bible boxed you into accepting it by force? Why are you bothered about hell? By the way you failed to acknowledge your LIE earlier that there was NEVER any global flood in history - that an ice age occured (well proven scientifically) is evidence that you don't seem to have a firm grasp of your science. see this stupid lair grasping at straws to make meaning out of nothing no wonder you have over 30, 000 sects of christianity fighting and slandering each, the bible fable says two an two was it, the bible isnt davidylan, you have completely discredited your self, now you are using you make beliefs assumption to imply it is from the bible LAIR. . . . . . . . . what the hell do you mean by he did not STRICTLY bring two kai na wah ohhh
you know i like to go to the bible to disprove your mindless rants - Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.Ok so now we know Noah was specifically ordered to take some animals by 2s and the vast majority by 7s. But this does not tell us EXACTLY how many animals of each type Noah took on board. What if he took cows by 7s on board and then took along 50 more because he owned them? I thought the idea of "freethinkers" was the ability to do independent reasoning? you certainly arent showing that with your DELIBERATE attempts to read things with the narrowest of ideas so as to force your own warped conclusions. |
|
|
|
|
|
Zino Ben
|
@davidylan
Funny enough i have been trying to be civil with you when i post things but it seems you actually like the torture of ridicle which i am extremely good at.
Ok let the war of words begin. So far pilgrim seems to be the only one trying to be civil but i guess it is a free for all and i want to play too!
Lets face the real issue of the bible, why are you guys trying to run away from a simple fact. We boldly say that the bible is a rotten book not fit for the human mind and you are here trying to dodge that fact with imbecilic excuses of freethinkers and "copy and paste" defenses. Even if they are copy and paste, why don't you copy and past a valid defense instead of gloating endlessly in another manner, pssff!
p:s: I never stated anything about the ice age, you did, you defend your own assertion. I state the noah flood did not occur and i can back it up with all forms of examples and evidence. You back your own ice age theory
bottom line the question is hell is a bundle of lies, prove otherwise!
If you can't defend your god that you swear to to defend in church and during your midnight prayers, you have no right to claim your a strong christian, rather your a weak christian hiding behind a computer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
pilgrim.1 (f)
|
@Zino, Even if they are copy and paste, why don't you copy and past a valid defense instead of gloating endlessly in another manner, pssff! Actually, it is quite unhealthy in a public forum to schlepp on the ideas of others and recycle them endlessly without having the ability to reason for ourselves. This is why I have tried to wait patiently for mazaje with the few questions I have offered him amicably. . . and so far I haven't seen how the idea of rational thinking has been demonstrated here if all we would rather be occupied with here is the rank-xeroxing at large exercise. bottom line the question is hell is a bundle of lies, prove otherwise! It's easy to allege it so - but even those who have tried to quiote endlessly from the same source (the Bible) have not been able to make a concrete point in their interpretations. @mazaje, please refer to the same simple query earlier on this issue. If you can't defend your god that you swear to to defend in church and during your midnight prayers, you have no right to claim your a strong christian, rather your a weak christian hiding behind a computer. Defending God is not what a Christian is called to do. Rather, if ideas are put across with reason, it becomes more defined in itself as to what the discussion so far has been about: worldviews. |
|
|
|
|
|
Zino Ben
|
@debosky Haaaaaaaa, boy! I love seeing christians squirm whenever they are boxed into a choice of explaining a passage either literally or metaphorically. All of a sudden the tower of babel story now squarely rests on the height and width of the building which no pastor had alluded to until this very moment. I remember when i used to attend those boring church services, the way the pastor would gloat about how high the tower was used to astonish me but since you have spelt it out that it could probably be a 3 storey building, then i would remind my christian brothers what pastor debosky taught me tonight, lol P:S: I just looked up the word tower online and this is the defination i got: . A building or part of a building that is exceptionally high in proportion to its width and length I guess the world's defination is much different from pastor debosky's own Lame defense, abeg stop clutching unto straws, a tower is a tower and those fools according to the bible tried to build it all the way to heaven, where ever that is, lol |
|
|
|
|
|
davidylan (m)
|
@davidylan
Funny enough i have been trying to be civil with you when i post things but it seems you actually like the torture of ridicle which i am extremely good at.
Ok let the war of words begin. So far pilgrim seems to be the only one trying to be civil but i guess it is a free for all and i want to play too!
I can't remember ridiculing you, i only point out the flaws in your own arguments. Is it true or not that a global flood once occured?Lets face the real issue of the bible, why are you guys trying to run away from a simple fact.
While facing the "real issue of the bible" we shld not lose sight of the need for honesty in our discussion. See my question above. We boldly say that the bible is a rotten book not fit for the human mind and you are here trying to dodge that fact with imbecilic excuses of freethinkers and "copy and paste" defenses. Even if they are copy and paste, why don't you copy and past a valid defense instead of gloating endlessly in another manner, pssff!
p:s: I never stated anything about the ice age, you did, you defend your own assertion. I state the noah flood did not occur and i can back it up with all forms of examples and evidence. You back your own ice age theory
bottom line the question is hell is a bundle of lies, prove otherwise!
If you can't defend your god that you swear to to defend in church and during your midnight prayers, you have no right to claim your a strong christian, rather your a weak christian hiding behind a computer.
The bible is rotten - your oppinion. Hell is a bundle of lies - your oppinion The God of the bible is a tyrant - again your oppinion. Since christianity is not by force, i'm wondering why you are whingeing over the bible, hell and God. Surely you would just change cultures to suit your lifestyle no? As to being a weak christian or not . . . i also happen to think there is also the need for wisdom in dealing with folks who are not out for the truth and are not below outright lying and misrepresentation to forcefully push their claims. Since the bible is not by force, i hereby submit to you that you simply go on being a freethinker and not bother about hell. |
|
|
|
|
|
Zino Ben
|
@pilgrim 1. I didnt post any thing except from my organization's website that i actually stated i was going to post because it was too long and i was too lazy to write it all out. So please correct that assertion that i copy and past my posts. 2. It's easy to allege it so - but even those who have tried to quiote endlessly from the same source (the Bible) have not been able to make a concrete point in their interpretations.
I have quoted two sources from the bible relating to the nauseating passages about women and the issue of those that have seen god face to face. How then have i not been able to make my point about god and his issues with women? 3. Defending God is not what a Christian is called to do. Rather, if ideas are put across with reason, it becomes more defined in itself as to what the discussion so far has been about: worldviews. I don't understand this post , please clarify ! |
|
|
|
|
|
davidylan (m)
|
p:s: I never stated anything about the ice age, you did, you defend your own assertion. I state the noah flood did not occur and i can back it up with all forms of examples and evidence. You back your own ice age theory
this was your assertion and i quote - There NEVER WAS a global flood, it did not happen |
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
