viaro:

Yes, it did - especially as it comes from a friend who should have known better. That was why I had to 'rewind' and show the sequence of our dialogue before the joke gets out of hand.

Lol!  You mean you had to re-rewind selecta.

I can't think of that without thinking of playing against Arsenal.  This was about 7 years ago when Van persie had that rape charge on his head.  Every time he got the ball all our fans would start to sing

Van persie
If the girl say no, molesta
Van persie
if a girl say no, molest her

^^^Gosh! You guys are such a crack! I'm recovering now from my bad day.

BTW, I'm looking forward to opening a thread for light-hearted chit-chats in the Religion Board. . nothing serious, just to laugh off some way-off kinda healthy jokes. What say you?

^^^ Bring it on, viaro!

viaro:


2.  If TOE has left the domain of science to now argue religion, something is terribly wrong and TOE should consequently no longer be recognized as a science based pursuit.

You know what --- I totally agree with you on that one.

@ Viaro. So basically, for you, the origin of our species is a religious issue and not a biological/scientific one? Thus no need to reconcile? Am I mistaken?

mavenbox:

^^^ Bring it on, viaro!

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-367385.0.html#msg5126830  

Krayola:

@ Viaro. So basically, for you, the origin of our species is a religious issue and not a biological/scientific one? Thus no need to reconcile? Am I mistaken?

No, not like that. The origin of species is considered in various contexts depending on who's looking at the subject. Some look at it from a religious perspective (like creation); others philosophically (like panspermia, etc.); others in one of the biological sciences, etc.

For me, the origin of man traces back to creation.

Ok. . .

What does "creation" mean to you? (biblical creation, literal or non-literal, or is there something I'm missing?)

Are u basically saying science, for you, does not/can not explain your origin?

Now, if u just say you are not curious, or interested in knowing the origin of our species, that is fair enough. But when u say "creation" explains it for you, that sounds like faith, and that is religious. So ,. . . I'm asking again .  FOR YOU< is our origin as a species a religious issue?

I just wanna know what u really think Viaro. I get a sense u think I'm trying to get u cornered and I'm honestly not trying to do any such thing.

But I think now I can say u're being evasive.

Krayola:

I just wanna know what u really think Viaro. I get a sense u think I'm trying to get u cornered and I'm honestly not trying to do any such thing.

But I think now I can say u're being evasive.

No, I'm not being evasive - although if my replies hitherto need clarification, I could oblige.

Krayola:

Ok. . .

What does "creation" mean to you? (biblical creation, literal or non-literal, or is there something I'm missing?)

Biblical creation.

Are u basically saying science, for you, does not/can not explain your origin?

No, that is not what I am saying. Let me break them into simple answers:

1. 'Does not' - what you put forward as 'explaining' my own origin may not be science; and therefore, it 'does not' offer any explanation for my origin.

2. 'Can not' - if someone just expects me to accept without question that my origin is 'explained' by what you put forward, I am willing to hear them out; until then, I hold no conclusions about whether or not it 'can' explain my origin.

I just want to be careful here so that you don't misunderstand me or where I'm coming from.

Now, if u just say you are not curious, or interested in knowing the origin of our species, that is fair enough.

Why would I then have been discussing thus far with you?

But when u say "creation" explains it for you, that sounds like faith, and that is religious.

Maybe, but are there no 'faith' statements made by evolutionists themselves? Not everyone would see the faith-statements of most evolutionists, so what is wrong with me stating what I believe?

So ,. . . I'm asking again . FOR YOU< is our origin as a species a religious issue?

No, it is not all a religious issue ALONE, nor is it all about evolution.

As I have said before, it all depends on what perspective anyone wants to discuss the subject. Not everything about our origin can be explained religiously or scientifically. . or even philosophically. And our origin cannot be fully explained merely by evolutionary assumptions. Why then would someone assume that it is either of the two positions in mutual exclusivity?

Most people know not everything about evolution can be explained. I doubt everything about anything can be explained. . .

I think equating "faith" statements of TOE with those of religion is kinda intellectually dishonest. Just my opinion though. But I think critical engagement of both will show that they ain't the same thing.

That ^^ is not a critique of your views, just my opinion on a statement u made. I gotta go out for a lil bit but We'll continue later. ciao. 

Krayola:

That ^^ is not a critique of your views, just my opinion on a statement u made.

I understand. Laterz then.

aletheia:

Better make your arguments from outside the bible, for your can never defeat the word of God. Again the bible answers your bolded statement above.
Act 1:6-9  So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.


The problem with you atheists is that in your vaunting pride and worship of your flawed intellects; you can not even distinguish between what the bible actually says and what other fallible men say the bible says. It is a book. Read it for yourself and stop presenting third-hand fictions about what the bible says.

This doesn't qualify. . . Jesus NEVER ressurected, any statement credited to him after his death is clearly fabricated.

Tudór:

This doesn't qualify. . . Jesus NEVER ressurected, any statement credited to him after his death is clearly fabricated.

You are assuming that a man named Jesus ever said any of the things people said he said. . . .The stories about jesus were written very long after he died by unknown authors, how are we really sure that a person named Jesus really said any thing that was ascribed to his name? How do we sure that it wasn't some gentiles that were trying to create a new religion out of the Jewish religion that wrote those gospels? He(Jesus) never wrote anything by himself and the stories written about him were written very long after he died and are completely contradictory to the actual history or historical events at that time. . . .The stories about Jesus is nothing different from the stories about Hercules.  The stories of the wondrous deeds of Hercules are indeed fantastical and magical like that of Jesus.  They spark the imagination, but outside of the stories themselves, there is little to no evidence that those deeds were ever performed, or that most of the characters even existed.  There may be good lessons to be learned through the story of Hercules and Jesus (bravery in the face of danger, the strength of the human spirit, the power of love, etc.), but it is obvious to anyone who looks at the evidence that these stories are not based on reality.

There is absolutely no indication that Jesus did anything the bible said he did.  There are indications that other men did similar things. . . .  apocalyptic preachers in that area of the world at that time were pretty much every where.  All of them are attributed stories of miraculous healing, resurrection (themselves and others). . . .No one has ever found the empty tomb of Jesus and there is no record of its location.  His miracles are no different than those reported by other (and many popular) religious figures of the time.  Appolonious of Tyana is a good person to start with. . . . .

Practically all the people behind the AIG(answers in Genesis) site where Olaadegbu draws his inspiration from are fraudsters in respect of their exhibited educational credentials.

Their credibility has been destroyed by people who had the time to check them out.
Most of the degrees and doctorates in relation to science oriented courses are either honorary(not earned) or from schools that are not recognized as schools.

mazaje:

You are assuming that a man named Jesus ever said any of the things people said he said. . . .The stories about jesus were written very long after he died by unknown authors, how are we really sure that a person named Jesus really said any thing that was ascribed to his name? How do we sure that it wasn't some gentiles that were trying to create a new religion out of the Jewish religion that wrote those gospels? He(Jesus) never wrote anything by himself and the stories written about him were written very long after he died and are completely contradictory to the actual history or historical events at that time. . . .The stories about Jesus is nothing different from the stories about Hercules.  The stories of the wondrous deeds of Hercules are indeed fantastical and magical like that of Jesus.  They spark the imagination, but outside of the stories themselves, there is little to no evidence that those deeds were ever performed, or that most of the characters even existed.  There may be good lessons to be learned through the story of Hercules and Jesus (bravery in the face of danger, the strength of the human spirit, the power of love, etc.), but it is obvious to anyone who looks at the evidence that these stories are not based on reality.

There is absolutely no indication that Jesus did anything the bible said he did.  There are indications that other men did similar things. . . .  apocalyptic preachers in that area of the world at that time were pretty much every where.  All of them are attributed stories of miraculous healing, resurrection (themselves and others). . . .No one has ever found the empty tomb of Jesus and there is no record of its location.  His miracles are no different than those reported by other (and many popular) religious figures of the time.  Appolonious of Tyana is a good person to start with. . . . .

This ^^ , my dear friend, is BOLLOCKS!! At least most of it . . . . ok,   about half of it, or a lil more/less. Basically there's some truth mixed in with some bulls.hit. I don't have a scale here so i'm not sure what the exact ratio is, but I'll try to get back to u on that 

Krayola:

This ^^ , my dear friend, is BOLLOCKS!! At least most of it . . . . ok,   about half of it, or a lil more/less. Basically there's some truth mixed in with some bulls.hit. I don't have a scale here so i'm not sure what the exact ratio is, but I'll try to get back to u on that 

I will be waiting. . . .

Tudór:

This doesn't qualify. . . Jesus NEVER ressurected, any statement credited to him after his death is clearly fabricated.

really? and whats the basis of this assertion? ur proof, evidence or analysis to back u up?

mazaje:

You are assuming that a man named Jesus ever said any of the things people said he said. . . .The stories about jesus were written very long after he died by unknown authors, how are we really sure that a person named Jesus really said any thing that was ascribed to his name? How do we sure that it wasn't some gentiles that were trying to create a new religion out of the Jewish religion that wrote those gospels? He(Jesus) never wrote anything by himself and the stories written about him were written very long after he died and are completely contradictory to the actual history or historical events at that time. . . .

the above is very unobjective mazaje.

1. u dismiss the biblical accounts on the basis of Jesus not writing them. . . but u give credibility to other historical accounts of Jesus (which Jesus also did not write) by comparing it with the bible.

2. All the above are simply innuendos u CANNOT prove. Jesus died, was buried, resurrected and is alive today. He was seen by over 500 people as recorded in the bible. many today attest to seeing Him in visions and revelations and some physically. how do u intend to explain away these sights?

The stories about Jesus is nothing different from the stories about Hercules.  The stories of the wondrous deeds of Hercules are indeed fantastical and magical like that of Jesus.  They spark the imagination, but outside of the stories themselves, there is little to no evidence that those deeds were ever performed, or that most of the characters even existed.  There may be good lessons to be learned through the story of Hercules and Jesus (bravery in the face of danger, the strength of the human spirit, the power of love, etc.), but it is obvious to anyone who looks at the evidence that these stories are not based on reality.

again u refuse to allow the evidences speak for itself.
how do u explain the spiritual potency associated with the name of Jesus 2000 years after His death?

There is absolutely no indication that Jesus did anything the bible said he did.  There are indications that other men did similar things. . . .  apocalyptic preachers in that area of the world at that time were pretty much every where.  All of them are attributed stories of miraculous healing, resurrection (themselves and others). . . .No one has ever found the empty tomb of Jesus and there is no record of its location.  His miracles are no different than those reported by other (and many popular) religious figures of the time.  Appolonious of Tyana is a good person to start with. . . . .

ur assertions are contradicting and ur position comes across as confused. first u claimed that there is no indication that Jesus did anything said in the bible. . . yet u claim others did the same thing as He did. thats 2 opposite positions.
Its either He did it or He did not. . . . .

The evidences and facts abound as to the actions and life of Jesus. . . . but facts do not say anything. . . . , any deductions from facts can imply anything.

It is in lieu of this that I state that ur above assertions was FALSE but ur opinion is respected.

noetic15:

the above is very unobjective mazaje.

1. u dismiss the biblical accounts on the basis of Jesus not writing them. . . but u give credibility to other historical accounts of Jesus (which Jesus also did not write) by comparing it with the bible.

2. All the above are simply innuendos u CANNOT prove. Jesus died, was buried, resurrected and is alive today. He was seen by over 500 people as recorded in the bible. many today attest to seeing Him in visions and revelations and some physically. how do u intend to explain away these sights?

I just said that how exactly do we know that Jesus said that He is the son of God or that God sent him to save mankind? Jesus did not write any word in the bible did he? All what is written in the bible were only second had accounts beside the authors of these books remain unknown till today. . . .How do we know that it wasn't some gentile somewhere that were trying to get around the Jewish laws that put those words into Jesus's mouth. . . .All what we have about Jesus were words that were ascribed to him. . . .He did not write anything by himself did he? I am not saying that He MUST write anything himself to make what was written about him credible, I am only trying to state that how do people know these things for sure, Since during the time or period when the gospels were written so many other people were writing about anointed men ascending into heaven for example Josephus wrote about one emperor whom he called the messiah and said that the guy ascended into heaven alive just like the bible said Jesus did. . . .

As for the 500 people recorded in the bible what makes you feel that it might not be a false statement? If you read the story of Joseph Smith you will read about eye witness account who said that they saw when the angel Moroni from heaven came and gave him the golden plates. . .Even in our world today eye witness accounts are so unreliable that they are almost useless, Talk less of some account 2000 years ago where NON of the so called eye witness was mentioned. . . .

again u refuse to allow the evidences speak for itself.
how do u explain the spiritual potency associated with the name of Jesus 2000 years after His death?

It says that the tradition was passed on from generation to generation and it became the system for so many people that bought into the story. . .The same could be said of (Siddhārtha Gautama)Buddha and his teachings. . . . . .

your assertions are contradicting and your position comes across as confused. first u claimed that there is no indication that Jesus did anything said in the bible. . . yet u claim others did the same thing as He did. thats 2 opposite positions.
Its either He did it or He did not. . . . .

The evidences and facts abound as to the actions and life of Jesus. . . . but facts do not say anything. . . . , any deductions from facts can imply anything.

I said others were also recorded to have done what Jesus did. . . .All of them like Jesus did not write most of the things themselves it was their followers that wrote about them long after they died. . . . .How do we really know if they really said what was ascribed unto them?

It is in lieu of this that I state that your above assertions was FALSE but your opinion is respected.

Nothing do you. . .I never claimed that my assertions were true. . .I was just making an observation. . . . 

noetic15:

really?  and whats the basis of this assertion? your proof, evidence or analysis to back u up? 

it is impossible. People don't rise up from the dead three days after being killed, embalmed and buried.

Any claim to such is a lie.

mazaje:

Since during the time or period when the gospels were written so many other people were writing about anointed men ascending into heaven for example Josephus wrote about one emperor whom he called the messiah and said that the guy ascended into heaven alive just like the bible said Jesus did. . . .

You peddle falsehoods. It is obvious you have probably never read Josephus just parroting something you heard or read somewhere. Josephus wrote no such thing. I challenge you to back up that assertion with chapter & verse. I have my copy of Josephus ready and I am waiting for you to prove me wrong.

Tudór:

it is impossible. People don't rise up from the dead three days after being killed, embalmed and buried.

Any claim to such is a lie.

Granted that people don't rise up from the dead, but one man did so. His name is Jesus of Nazareth. One needs to consider the evidence and decide whether to believe this or not. Remember he was crucified by the Roman authorities in collusion with the Jewish hierachy --- all they needed to shut up forever those proclaiming the Risen Christ was to produce the body. They never did.
People are willing to die for what they believe to be true but never for what they know to be false. Yet all but one of the twelve apostles died violent deaths because of their message.

aletheia:

Granted that people don't rise up from the dead, but one man did so. His name is Jesus of Nazareth.

Your evidence to show that a man named Jesus died and rose again after 3 days beside the stories you have accepted as true is what? According to the bible Jesus was not the only person to have died and risen so your statement here is false, the bible has so many tales of people dying and rising from the dead.

One needs to consider the evidence and decide whether to believe this or not. Remember he was crucified by the Roman authorities in collusion with the Jewish hierachy --- all they needed to shut up forever those proclaiming the Risen Christ was to produce the body. They never did.
People are willing to die for w

You are making a very tall claim here, Which body exactly are you talking about? Where is your evidence that people were requesting for the body of a risen Jesus in the first centuary palestine? The Jews HAVE NO record of Jesus any where. The roman's also do not have any record of any Jesus that was crucified during the reing of Pilate. You will first of all have to produce just ONE writing where the Jews believed that some one named Jesus died and rose from the dead and tired to dispute that claim out side the bible, produce just ONE peice of writing outside the bible from the 1st centuary palestine were the jews of that time believed that a man named Jesus died and rose from the dead. The Jews do not have to produce any body because there was NO body to present, because the Christians started telling their stories long after Jesus was allegedly killed.

hat they believe to be true but never for what they know to be false. Yet all but one of the twelve apostles died violent deaths because of their message.

Your evidence that all the 12 apostels died violent death is what? Apart from the church writings which claim that some of the disciples of Jesus were martyrs what other evidence do you have beside the church propaganda? Where is your evidence to show that luke died for his beliefs out side the church propaganda? Dying for your belief means nothing, Joseph Smith also died for his beliefs, The Cathars were completely wiped out for their beliefs, some of the early followers of mohammed died and suffered persecutions in battles for their beliefs so this is a moot point.

@ Mazaje I think you are wrong here, Josephus only wrote that Emperor Vespasian was the messiah, He did not say that he accended into heaven. The Roman Emperor Augustus Caesar was the one that was written to have ascended into heaven I think.

haha. Mazaje is wrong about a lot of stuff. But I'll admit right about a lot of stuff too.

Krayola:

haha. Mazaje is wrong about a lot of stuff. But I'll admit right about a lot of stuff too.

What are the things you feel he is wrong about?

Claiming that everything Christian has no historical connection to the actual Jesus. That is just total nonsense IMHO.

Krayola:

Claiming that everything Christian has no historical connection to the actual Jesus. That is just total nonsense IMHO.

I also agree with his position because you can not show who the actual Jesus is, what he did and what he said. There are some very clear evidence that show that some of the things that were written about Jesus was later additions, Like the story of the adultrous woman, The NIV on its foot note agrees that the story does not appear in the earliest manuscripts and it has been shown that the story begins to appear on the 4th centuary manuscripts. If Jesus did not really say him without sin cast the first stone and the passage was a later addition by a scribe or priest, what else did he not say? I guess no one can really know, because knowing about the historical Jesus himself is a big problem because there is nothing about him beside the stories that were written in bible.

I'm not disputing that stuff,  But that does not mean the whole thing is based on a lie. That is bullsh.it

there is a lot that can be known about Jesus outside the gospels

Krayola:

I'm not disputing that stuff,  But that does not mean the whole thing is based on a lie. That is bullsh.it

there is a lot that can be known about Jesus outside the gospels

I am not saying that the whole thing is a lie(There might be a man behind the whole legend), but I doubt if you can show that the story around the Jesus figure is true.

toneyb:

I am not saying that the whole thing is a lie(There might be a man behind the whole legend), but I doubt if you can show that the story around the Jesus figure is true.

The stories are stories with a message, They are not historical in today's sense. But a first century reader/ hearer would have understood them differently. I think we should start a new thread for this. This is way off topic.

But we live in a different world from first century Israel and we impose our time on their's in our critique, which is unfair to the authors, and detrimental to our understanding of what was actually going on when those books were written. I'm out and hate posting on my phone cause I spend more time fixing typos than typing so I can't add more till later. But u can make another thread and we'll discuss what we can know about the real Jesus.