Mr_Anony: Did you actually read the whole of my post or did you just quote-mine that bit so as to stretch the argument a bit further?

Sorry. I'm not feeling very well, so I will like to concede the argument for now. Thanks for being a good sport.

Logicboy03:


Jesus was not a rabbi, no one ordained him and he did not conform to the Jewish teachings put before him You are a liar and a remixer of the bible.
Jesus did not build that church/temple or synagogue neither was he an employed worker in that church. He had no authority to destroy property or chase people with a whip. Even if Jesus had the authority, he misused it. Selling of ice cream within church premises was banned in my church without violence. Simple church wardens warned the traders that they will face harsh treatment if they dont move


So because a victim is desperate and doesnt shout "racism" the racism doesnt exist? Also, thanks for admitting that I have a higher moral standard than your Messiah

Let me help Anony out a bit here.
John 3
1.Now there was a Pharisee, a man
named Nicodemus who was a
member of the Jewish ruling council.
2. He came to Jesus at night and said,
“Rabbi, we know that you are a
teacher who has come from God. For
no one could perform the signs you
are doing if God were not with him.”

I agree with your third paragraph though.

Logicboy03:
Jesus was not a rabbi, no one ordained him and he did not conform to the Jewish teachings put before him You are a liar and a remixer of the bible.

Lol, you really need to learn to keep quiet about things you are ignorant about. In Jesus' time Rabbis did not become Rabbis by ordination. It is also interesting that Jesus was not only recognized as Rabbi by his disciples but by pharisees too.

Jesus did not build that church/temple or synagogue neither was he an employed worker in that church. He had no authority to destroy property or chase people with a whip.

Lol of course he only conducted services in the synagogue. I am sure that if you have actually read a bible you will see Jesus preaching in the temple. So according to you he had the authority to preach on the pulpit but not to drive out greedy merchants. I hear you.

Even if Jesus had the authority, he misused it. Selling of ice cream within church premises was banned in my church without violence. Simple church wardens warned the traders that they will face harsh treatment if they dont move

Lol of course all your church wardens had to do was use the threat of violence. I wonder what would have happened if the ice-cream sellers refused to move. . . .would your church wardens have carried out their threat or would they have knelt down and begged the ice-cream sellers to go? Lol, I guess there are some things we'll never know on this side of eternity

Isn't it interesting how one man alone was able to drive out many merchants together with their livestock without having any such authority? I am quite sure the merchants will disagree with you because there was an authority they respected that made them to actually move. You have no points my friend.

What amuses me is how you immediately took the side of what you claim to despise in order to spite Christ. Lol. You are such a hypocrite aren't you?

So because a victim is desperate and doesnt shout "racism" the racism doesnt exist? Also, thanks for admitting that I have a higher moral standard than your Messiah

Lol, I never admitted any such thing but then seeing how you are so eager to claim it, what moral scale is this your "higher moral standard" based on or did you just evolve better?

Seun:
Sorry. I'm not feeling very well, so I will like to concede the argument for now. Thanks for being a good sport.

Thanks for the time as well. Hope you get well soon.

musKeeto:

Let me help Anony out a bit here.
John 3
1.Now there was a Pharisee, a man
named Nicodemus who was a
member of the Jewish ruling council.
2. He came to Jesus at night and said,
“Rabbi, we know that you are a
teacher who has come from God. For
no one could perform the signs you
are doing if God were not with him.”

I agree with your third paragraph though.

Anony is not talking about a "Jewish Teacher Rabbi" he is talking about a Jewish authority in a synagogue or religious organisation in biblical times.

Rabbi means "teacher".

"Jesus could not have been a Rabbi for a very simple reason: No Rabbis existed until AFTER the destruction of the Second Temple, around 50 years after Jesus died. Yep, Rabbi as a title did not exist at the time, and it being found in the gospels is an anachronism showing that the gospels were written (or heavily edited) long after the time fo Jesus, and by people unfamiliar with Judaism and Jewish life at the time of Jesus"

Found this gem on Yahoo answers

Deep Sight:

Point taken, but as one well acquainted with the views of M_Nwankwo, let me just inform you that he does not see God as merely free floating love. He also regards God as a definite but transcendental being. As such, his analogy is directed at indicating what he believes it takes to connect with God - that is love, no more, and no less.

Let me add personally that if you really believe God to be transcendental, you would realize that you are belittling God by thinking that he would insist on people knowing of or accepting a particular individual regardless of their cultural, religious and historical differences - whether this individual was God himself or not, or whether this individual was God's son or not - because the mind of God surely transcends such things and looks to the core - the heart.

Now this is not even touching on that which is meant by "acceptance" of christ. For the write-up by Nwankwo above actually shows us that "acceptance" is a mind-state of love and not merely declaration of belief in Christ as Messiah. That is nothing. Surely you know that.



You know, many non-Christians and even atheists; in fact, I dare say most - accept the generality of Jesus's teachings on love. Except of course misguided people like Martian who say that "love thy neighbour as thyself" is a bad teaching, I can safely say that the generality of people regard it as a sound teaching.

The problem lies with the more specific and cult-like teaching that one must accept Jesus the man in person, as personal lord and saviour, and also accept him as God, and only begotten son of God, and further believe that his death on the cross represents ritual sacrificial salvation and redemption for mankind. I do not believe any of these things: and many a sound man who has love for humanity in his heart would similarly disbelieve these things.

Does this amount to rejecting Christ?

I think the two of us need to discuss what it means to accept Christ. If you are willing that we do this, I have opened another thread here:

https://www.nairaland.com/1160317/what-does-it-mean-accept

This one is pretty muddled up already. What say you?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, you really need to learn to keep quiet about things you are ignorant about. In Jesus' time Rabbis did not become Rabbis by ordination. It is also interesting that Jesus was not only recognized as Rabbi by his disciples but by pharisees too.


Lol of course he only conducted services in the synagogue. I am sure that if you have actually read a bible you will see Jesus preaching in the temple. So according to you he had the authority to preach on the pulpit but not to drive out greedy merchants. I hear you.


Lol of course all your church wardens had to do was use the threat of violence. I wonder what would have happened if the ice-cream sellers refused to move. . . .would your church wardens have carried out their threat or would they have knelt down and begged the ice-cream sellers to go? Lol, I guess there are some things we'll never know on this side of eternity

Isn't it interesting how one man alone was able to drive out many merchants together with their livestock without having any such authority? I am quite sure the merchants will disagree with you because there was an authority they respected that made them to actually move. You have no points my friend.

What amuses me is how you immediately took the side of what you claim to despise in order to spite Christ. Lol. You are such a hypocrite aren't you?



Lol, I never admitted any such thing but then seeing how you are so eager to claim it, what moral scale is this your "higher moral standard" based on or did you just evolve better?

1) Jesus was not a Rabbi

Jesus could not have been a Rabbi for a very simple reason: No Rabbis existed until AFTER the destruction of the Second Temple, around 50 years after Jesus died. Yep, Rabbi as a title did not exist at the time, and it being found in the gospels is an anachronism showing that the gospels were written (or heavily edited) long after the time fo Jesus, and by people unfamiliar with Judaism and Jewish life at the time of Jesus

2) Jesus had no authority. He never worked as a church employee and he never built the church or had shares in it. First off, he was claiming an authority he didnt have. His only claim to such authority was his delusion that it was his fathers house. We are all children of God (according to the same bible) So, Jesus failed there


3) "harsh treatment" does not mean violence. Nice try to use Anonyism there. The wardens could call the police or lock the gates next time so that the sellers wont enter. Fail....Anony you fail

4) Jesus argued with other Pharisees and Jewish teachers in the synagogue, it doesnt make him an authroity in the synagogue. It doesnt make Jesus a clergyman.

5) Sorry, but you have admitted that your Jesus has a lower moral standard than mine-

Logicboy03:
1) Jesus was not a Rabbi

Yawn...

2) Jesus had no authority. He never worked as a church employee and he never built the church or had shares in it. First off, he was claiming an authority he didnt have. His only claim to such authority was his delusion that it was his fathers house. We are all children of God (according to the same bible) So, Jesus failed there

This is based on the false assumption that the Jewish synagogue of 30AD is very similar to the modern day church. You got it wrong.

3) "harsh treatment" does not mean violence. Nice try to use Anonyism there. The wardens could call the police or lock the gates next time so that the sellers wont enter. Fail....Anony you fail

Lol, I guess we'll never know what your church wardens would have done.

4) Jesus argued with other Pharisees and Jewish teachers in the synagogue, it doesnt make him an authroity in the synagogue. It doesnt make Jesus a clergyman.

Go find a bible and actually read it. Jesus preached sermons in the temple

5) Sorry, but you have admitted that your Jesus has a lower moral standard than mine-

I am sure I made no such admission but it is really interesting how you are so desperate for it to be true that I did. Perhaps the truth is that you just want to be seen as holier than Jesus. Is this what all this has been about?

Mr_Anony:
Yawn...


This is based on the false assumption that the Jewish synagogue of 30AD is very similar to the modern day church. You got it wrong.


Lol, I guess we'll never know what your church wardens would have done.


Go find a bible and actually read it. Jesus preached sermons in the temple


I am sure I made no such admission but it is really interesting how you are so desperate for it to be true that I did. Perhaps the truth is that you just want to be seen as holier than Jesus. Is this what all this has been about?

1) Jesus was not a rabbi. The title of Rabbi came about 50 years after Jesus died. Nice try. You fail. You can try to yawn away your failure if you like

2) Jesus had no authority in the church. I myself can walk to my catholic church and start a discussion group. All I need is to be articulate- which you know that I am.

3) The bible says ;
Matthew 4:23 ►
Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.


It doesn mean that he was an employee in those synagogues, does it? He went to different churches to preach not that he worked in a synagogue or synagogues.


4) I wouldnt abuse a woman just because she is of a different nationality before I heal her daugher if were a healer. So either you admit that I have better standards than your Messiah or shut up.

I am not holy, just more logical than the Jewish hippie.

Logicboy03:
1) Jesus was not a rabbi. The title of Rabbi came about 50 years after Jesus died. Nice try. You fail. You can try to yawn away your failure if you like

How exactly do you know this to be true?

2) Jesus had no authority in the church. I myself can walk to my catholic church and start a discussion group. All I need is to be articulate- which you know that I am.

Once again the false assumption that the ancient Jewish synagogue is very much like your modern day catholic church.

3) The bible says ;
Matthew 4:23 ►
Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.

On what authority did He do these things?

It doesn mean that he was an employee in those synagogues, does it? He went to different churches to preach not that he worked in a synagogue or synagogues.

But he had authority to walk into any synagogue and mount the pulpit didn't he?

4) I wouldnt abuse a woman just because she is of a different nationality before I heal her daugher if were a healer. So either you admit that I have better standards than your Messiah or shut up.

Lol, you must really want reverence badly

I am not holy, just more logical than the Jewish hippie.

Lol, it is a bad grammatical error to even put you and the logic in the same sentence.

Mr_Anony:
How exactly do you know this to be true?

Once again the false assumption that the ancient Jewish synagogue is very much like your modern day catholic church.


On what authority did He do these things?


But he had authority to walk into any synagogue and mount the pulpit didn't he?


Lol, you must really want reverence badly


Lol, it is a bad grammatical error to even put you and the logic in the same sentence.

Yawn, you have nothing.



Your Jesus was a racist and a private property destroyer. End of story.

I dont have time for you Anonyism......I'm on to better atheist things

Logicboy03:
Yawn, you have nothing.



Your Jesus was a racist and a private property destroyer. End of story.

I dont have time for you Anonyism......I'm on to better atheist things

Lol, I thought as much. When all else fails shout "anonyism" and walk away. You are quite a boring amusement really.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, I thought as much. When all else fails shout "anonyism" and walk away. You are quite a boring amusement really.

oxymoron

Logicboy03:

oxymoron

on purpose

Mr_Anony:
on purpose

Anonyism

Logicboy03:


Anonyism

Yawn....

Time to go watch chelsea's match. I wish your boys all the luck in the world tomorrow

Mr_Anony:
Yawn....

Time to go watch chelsea's match. I wish your boys all the luck in the world tomorrow

Na only miracle go save arsenal!

Logicboy03:



Na only miracle go save arsenal!

Ok job done. Chelsea 4 Stoke 0

I think you guys really need that miracle plus we need your boys to win so that we can close the gap on those Manchester chavs in light blue

Mr_Anony:
This can be summarized as "I think it is absurd therefore it is absurd". You haven't shown anything that is morally wrong with it.

If someone slaps you and you turn the other cheek, he will slap you again and take you for a weakling. . .If a person takes you car and you give him your car, you will end up with nothing as long as people realize that is how you operate people will continue to take your belongings and leave you with nothing. . .If I come and take what belongs to you, tell me why you will call the police on me or fight back instead of giving me another belonging of yours. . .

Good you brought that up. So is divorce only acceptable in cases of fornication and life-threatening physical abuse?

Nope. . .Example if you marry an unrepeantant criminal or if a person lied to you about himself and you later realized that he/she is not who he/she claimed to be you can divorce such a person. . .

I don't think it is a threat to a drowning man when you say to him "If you don't get into this life boat you will die"

Drowing?. . .Jesus was not talking to drowning men. . To the people he was talking to he was the one that was drowning. . .Telling people to believe your stories or suffer in fire is NOT something many people will consider a good thing. . .Threating people because they do not accpet your stories is not considered as a good thing to me and many others. . .

As usual you had to cap it up by quoting Christ out of context in order to make a failed point. Every Christian knows that following Christ and doing good like Him will automatically bring one at loggerheads with the world. Isn't it interesting how the verse you are quoting comes right after His command to the disciples to go out preach the gospel and heal the sick. Then he tells them not to be afraid of persecutions and not to fear for their lives? Of course you missed all that in your dishonesty.

Firstly there is NO good deed that he has done that others have not done. . .But the people did not claim to set people against each other. . .

Lol, essentially what you've just said here is that "Good" isn't real but it depends only on what a person chooses to see as good. You have successfully cut of the branch you were sitting on because now we can also say that all you have uttered is merely your subjective opinion of what good is and therefore you really have no case.

You said that any atheit that talks about being good should follow Jesus because he was all good. . .I am just telling you that what you consider as good acts of Jesus is considered as bad acts by many others. . .

mazaje:
You said that any atheit that talks about being good should follow Jesus because he was all good. . .I am just telling you that what you consider as good acts of Jesus is considered as bad acts by many others. . .

Therefore you are affirming that the definition of good is subject to each individual. Why then should I or anyone respect your opinion of what is good?

Logicboy03:





This is the thing that irritates me;


1) The theist gets debunked (I provided clear reasons why morals cant come from god but from evolution and logic to Uyi Iredia)
2) The theist then starts to ask questions rather than explain his own position (how does morality come from evolution)
3) The thiest gets answered (I answered; our basic instincts for survival form a basic morality then we also use logic to reason out good/evil things)
4) The theist knowing that he has nothing, makes some strawmen and accusations out of desparation (Evolution is false! Evolution has no will! Matter lacks morality!)
5) After being shown that his statements are strawmen, they ask questions that are either irrelevant, takes a whole article to explain or have no answer;

a)Useless question #1;When did the brain start to understand morality?
Fail. Badly worded question. You have been told that morality is a product of reasoning. You should ask about the reasoning developing in human brains.

b) Useless question #2; When did the brain start to use reasoning?
First of all, this has gone beyond our scope of discussion into deep evolutionary biology and psychology. Secondly, it is not an answerable question- scientists can only barely answer HOW the brain developed reasoning. Even if we couldnt explain this, this has nothing to do with the discussion and it doesnt make morality from God true.

c)Useless question #3; How did the brain develop reasoning?
- After denying evolution, the theist now asks a question only answerable by evolutionary biology! Ironic
-I gave both a scientific reason and an educated guess how- mutations in the brains of our ape ancestors and need for better communication to survive
-This question requires a whole article to be written and here I must ask, what does this question do to prove that morality can not come from evolution/logic?

=================================


Anony and Uyi Iredia, you guys are dubious and shameless. You have nothing to offer but lies, strawmen and irrelevant questions when your points have been refuted.

MTCHEW

Your post is highly misleading on how the argument actually went. I noted that matter lacks morality and from that made an argument that morality finds an origin in an intelligent God. You made the point that humans are more than matter and i asked what makes them more than matter and you said it's the reasoning ability of the brain. I asked how the brain got this ability and you gave a lame attempt at explaining it while admitting that there is no scientific consensus on the matter. I recall my argument being that morality is intangible and therefore couldn't have come about by physical processes, I also noted you failed to mention physical processes that account for the brain's ability to apprehend morality. that said i gave a reason as to why your precious survival instincts is no the basis for morality. i noted that some moral choices involved taking one's own life or some form of harm to the individual. Instead of rebutting it you simply condemned me and went about repeating what you said. Now you are here confidently spewing out lies about how the argument occurred.

What is morality? A standard of conduct to me. What's it to you?

It would depend on whether one suscribes to Hume's Sympathy theory on Morality or Kant's categorical imperative. I vary between both of them. Paul's view of morality is quaint and outdated on one hand, but similar to Plato's on the other.

Uyi Iredia:

Your post is highly misleading on how the argument actually went. I noted that matter lacks morality and from that made an argument that morality finds an origin in an intelligent God. You made the point that humans are more than matter and i asked what makes them more than matter and you said it's the reasoning ability of the brain. I asked how the brain got this ability and you gave a lame attempt at explaining it while admitting that there is no scientific consensus on the matter. I recall my argument being that morality is intangible and therefore couldn't have come about by physical processes, I also noted you failed to mention physical processes that account for the brain's ability to apprehend morality. that said i gave a reason as to why your precious survival instincts is no the basis for morality. i noted that some moral choices involved taking one's own life or some form of harm to the individual. Instead of rebutting it you simply condemned me and went about repeating what you said. Now you are here confidently spewing out lies about how the argument occurred.

WTF are you talking about. Morality is a human concept. So whwere does all your intelligent designer come in?

Logicboy03:

WTF are you talking about. Morality is a human concept. So whwere does all your intelligent designer come in?

Go through the posts again and find the place where I made the argument in question.

Uyi Iredia:

Go through the posts again and find the place where I made the argument in question.

Yawn.......address my question

obadiah777: HOW WAS THE DATE ? DID YOU BUY EACH OTHER FLOWERS AND TREAT EACH OTHER TO FIVE COURSE MEALS IN A ZAGAT RATED RESTAURANT ? OKO TI YAWO

mumumugu: Hope its only discusion u both did. I hope u didnt open your assses:-D

LWKMD!!!

Ishilove:
LWKMD!!!

Mtchew....this is the kind of thing you like

Logicboy03:

Mtchew....this is the kind of thing you like

But seriously,it sounded like you two were on a romantic date