budaatum:

See, Lord reed. Christ taught love compassion and empathy, but humans deified him, created a religion out of his simple teachings and worship him.

Christ Himself asserted His deity. He said "before Abraham I AM". He claimed to have power to forgive sins, something which only GOD can do. He received worship in the Bible.

He would turn in his grave, but even he knew they should be forgiven since they know not what they do. It seems they can't help themselves, and would always be amongst us.

Wrong! Christ rose from the dead. His disciples were eyewitnesses of His resurrection. He is in Heaven now, preparing a place for His people.

Surely you very much need forgiveness, because you know not what you do.

DoctorAlien:
Christ Himself asserted His deity. He said "before Abraham I AM". He claimed to have power to forgive sins, something which only GOD can do. He received worship in the Bible.

Jesu of Oyingbo said just about the same thing. Some treat his claim with the same ridicule they treated Jesus' claim. They both at least broke the command not to create other gods or bow down and worship them because "I am a jealous God".

DoctorAlien:
Wrong! Christ rose from the dead. His disciples were eyewitnesses of His resurrection. He is in Heaven now, preparing a place for His people.

I've heard it said that he rose from the dead and is in heaven, but I don't really trust such evidences myself. And I'm as likely to believe in heaven as apple pie in the sky. "Someone said" is hardly evidence. And the records you have for it is spurious at best.

DoctorAlien:
Surely you very much need forgiveness, because you know not what you do.

My sort must not be forgiven. I so know exactly what I do know that not knowing could not be accepted as an excuse from me. I'd have you kindly bear that in mind if you would. Some people have to go to hell if just to confirm that such a place exists.

budaatum:

Jesu of Oyingbo said just about the same thing. Some treat his claim with the same ridicule they treated Jesus' claim. They both at least broke the command not to create other gods or bow down and worship them because "I am a jealous God".

I'm not sure you were talking about Jesus of Oyigbo in the post I quoted. But I wasn't gonna let you say something wrong about Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Jesus broke no command. He is GOD. I wonder how shocked you'd be to discover that it was Jesus Himself speaking on mount Sinai.

I've heard it said that he rose from the dead and is in heaven, but I don't really trust such evidences myself. And I'm as likely to believe in heaven as apple pie in the sky. "Someone said" is hardly evidence. And the records you have for it is spurious at best.

We only believe what we want to believe. The Gospels are anything but spurious, even though, again, you can believe what you want to.

DoctorAlien:

We only believe what we want to believe.

True. Especially when we are children, and the tooth fairy and Santa Claus are cases in point. But when we grow up we should abandon our childish ways, be a bit more sceptical about our beliefs and develop critical minds.

I am incapable of believing, Doctor. I was brought up to be sceptical so believing is not a thing I do. I especially don't believe where gods are concerned since I know they are human creations. I love the way Christ is said to have put it, "In as much as I do for those here whom I see before me", the gods whom I see not should be pleased. As Lordreed said, some don't need gods or religion to learn the lessons of love, compassion and empathy, which I hope you agree as MuttleyLaff claimed, are the lessons of Christ.

Asking me to believe in gods is like giving stones to the hungry. It might take care of the so called after life, but my concern is more for the living here on earth who I see before me. I'm more concerned with mine and my neighbours three score and ten than an alledged eternity afterwards. The dead can concern themselves with their death. I am a "birds and the bees" who need not worry about tomorrow.

budaatum:

True. Especially when we are children, and the tooth fairy and Santa Claus are cases in point. But when we grow up we should abandon our childish ways, be a bit more sceptical about our beliefs and develop critical minds.

The only thing about growing up is that we should be ready to verify whatever we're told. That's all. And I can say that, for me, the Bible keeps standing up to scrutiny every blessed day.

I am incapable of believing, Doctor.

Again, this is what you believe. So...

DoctorAlien:

Again, this is what you believe. So...

I shall accept the above as confirmation that beliefs are irrelevant, be they mine or yours. So, let's deal with that we know, shall we.

DoctorAlien:
The only thing about growing up is that we should be ready to verify whatever we're told. That's all. And I can say that, for me, the Bible keeps standing up to scrutiny every blessed day.

I have verified that the the world would be a great place if we all learnt to love, be compassionate and have empathy for one another. I'd go as far as claiming that in such a world, the lion and the lamb would dwell side by side without either eating the other. If the world were Nairaland and we all accepted to love one another, be compassionate and empathetic, Nairaland would be heaven. But unfortunately, many think what people make up and believe in their heads matters more than the human being before them as if an almighty god would sincerely give a damn about what people believe. And this despite the Parable of the Samaritan.

Are you aware the Samaritans worshipped other gods? Yet, in response to the question "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" Christ said, "Go and do likewise." Surely, if "belief", as opposed to what one actually does, were more important, Jesus would have just said, "believe in me"! But to reiterate his point, he taught about the teeth gnashers who claim "lord, lord" but act in ways that belie their 'beliefs'. Or does "lord, lord" not imply 'believers' to you?

Do be aware that I have not so much disputed the Bible or the need for religion in all I've said on this thread. My position is in fact that without the Bible (and books of other faiths) and religion (which is how the contents of those books are usually taught), the majority of humans would not have evolved past animals and many would just eat one another. A time would come however, when we would become adults and abandon our childish and selfish beliefs about one's own existence in a supposed afterlife. When people accept Jesus in to their lifes as opposed to just 'lord lordism', the childish and selfish concern about their existence in an afterlife, which is merely believe, would be replaced with concern for those whom we see before us here and now and heaven would be created right here on earth for everyone.

It is my belief that this is salt worthy of any god. We would surely be in a much better position to go forth and prosper and be fruitful and increase in number if we sought to understand, instead of simply believing. It is after all what is meant when it is written that one should "seek first the Kingdom of God". The wise hear and add to their learning.

DoctorAlien:
The only thing about growing up is that we should be ready to verify whatever we're told. That's all.

P.s. There is also a school of thought that operates from the falsification of what one is taught. It helps one to resist the bias to confirm which seems inherent in humans.

You might want to learn about it here.

budaatum:

I shall accept the above as confirmation that beliefs are irrelevant, be they mine or yours. So, let's deal with that we know, shall we.

You can accept it as confirmation that yours beliefs, and probably my beliefs too, are irrelevant to you. But it is not a confirmation that my beliefs are irrelevant to me.

budaatum, you said

Surely, if "belief", as opposed to what one actually does, were more
important, Jesus would have just said, "believe in me"!

Let Jesus speak:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Jn. 3:16

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Jn. 3:18

"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Many more examples abound.

Note too that Jesus told the man to do what was written in the law to have eternal life. Luke 10:28. The man then asked who his neighbour was, and Jesus cleared him. Therefore "Go and do likewise" in v37 is part of a larger "do the law" in v28.

budaatum:

P.s. There is also a school of thought that operates from the falsification of what one is taught. It helps one to resist the bias to confirm which seems inherent in humans.

You might want to learn about it here.

You provided a link to an article on "falsifiability" on wikipedia. Inasmuch as I don't think that article is treating a school of thought that "operates from the falsification of what one is taught", but a concept(of falsifiability of statements), I wonder how that article is of help to me.

DoctorAlien:
You can accept it as confirmation that yours beliefs, and probably my beliefs too, are irrelevant to you. But it is not a confirmation that my beliefs are irrelevant to me.

Of course your beliefs are relevant to you. Moreso if you have sought to verify those beliefs. There are after all reasons why praying to a stone or a rat would give some the results they desire. Or how else would one explain those who continue to pray to stones or rats?

If one believes enough it becomes true to the individual but that in no way makes a thing true. I can cook up whatever I wish in my head and believe it, and I can provide tons of evidence (texts, for instance) to validate my beliefs. It is after all one's head and one can think up in it whatever suits one with references to justify it too, especially if one is limited in ones abilities, or selective of sources, or simply biased. But objectively? There might be issues there.

An example is "eternal life". There is no evidence for it whatsoever yet many appear to believe in it. One might as well read Alice in Wonderland and believe Alice truly fell down a hole or humpty dumpty is a real entity outside fiction. I'm afraid my attitude to such things is incredulity, and it applies to some things written in the Bible. Besides, the Bible itself warns me not to worry about such things. I can neither add an hour to my living and there's enough to worry about in this life, so why waste time on an afterlife of eternal existence that I have no evidence for?

Take "for God so loved the world" for instance. You would note in Bibles that use red to depict direct utterances of Jesus that John 3:16 et al is not depicted in red. Critical analyses would also make one consider Christ would never say such a thing. To start with, it is sheer hubris. Another is that it is just so unjesusy. If it all boiled down to believing in him as you claim, he wouldn't have bothered with so many other lessons about love, compassion and empathy which he taught. And even your own personal experience would show that Jesus is way more than mere belief. Yet here we are trumping belief over actual understanding. No wonder some claim Christianity has not yet been tried and tested; some are indeed in the infancy of mere believing and are yet to abandon childish ways.

My position, which I hope you get, is that, beliefs matter much less to me than the human being before me. One can Love the Lord one's God with all one's heart and with all one's soul and with all one's mind, but if I buda do not love you, my neighbor, whom I see before me, I worship my lord and god whom I see not, in vain, and dwell in the hottest part of hell. It is the portion alloted to buda. Or, shall I say, the belief cooked up in buda head. And there is no reason why the chef who does buda's cooking must be doing yours. Especially if you desire a menu different to buda's. For buda, there is no greater menu than this. So I ensure my chef is competent at cooking it.

I presented falsifiability as an alternative to your "we should be ready to verify whatever we're told". I shall not belabour the point except to state that one should equally be ready to falsify whatever one is told. I am certain even you don't just go looking for evidence to justify everything you are told. If you did, you'd have easily accepted everything I have written now, wouldn't you, after all, I have peppered it with numerous references from a text you find acceptable. Yet, as you say, they are my 'beliefs'. Mere seeds which I cast knowing some grow and some wither and die. And not necessarily because of a fault in where they may land, but even also because some of my seeds may be faulty.

I appreciate your time and consideration. We shared words and created! Do sleep well.

budaatum:

See, Lordreed. Christ taught love compassion and empathy, but humans deified him, created a religion out of his simple teachings and worship him.

He would turn in his grave, but even he knew they should be forgiven since they know not what they do. It seems they can't help themselves, and would always be amongst us.

budaatum:

But, so many years later, the majority still haven't got any closer to having them!

We got a new religion in UK called Mindfulness. It's the new in-thing, taught in schools, hospitals, church, and just about everywhere. It's old as fuq, but you'd think we'd only just discovered the holy grail.

As long as people are told that only the religious can develop love, compassion and empathy then the situation will persist. Add to that the issue were different religions exhort their followers to give priority to helping their own and to view unbelievers as the enemy, we continue to have an artificial divide that exacerbates the problems.

We need to educate people that love, compassion and empathy are all learnable human traits that transcend all artificial divides.

DoctorAlien:


You provided a link to an article on "falsifiability" on wikipedia. Inasmuch as I don't think that article is treating a school of thought that "operates from the falsification of what one is taught", but a concept(of falsifiability of statements), I wonder how that article is of help to me.

That dude is a master of red hearing.....he will read you out of context. Is found of that. Even that articule he presented as opposed to what should be the reply had been beaten to stupor.

vaxx:
That dude is a master of red hearing.....he will read you out of context. Is found of that. Even that articule he presented as opposed to what should be the reply had been beaten to stupor.

I think I agree. He certainly does read one out of context sometimes, and then multiplies words(sometimes very unnecessarily) to drive home his point, and in doing so he veers off the track all too often. I agree too that he has some degree of mastery over use of red herring.

DoctorAlien:


I think I agree. He certainly does read one out of context sometimes, and then multiplies words(sometimes very unnecessarily) to drive home his point, and in doing so he veers off the track all too often. I agree too that he has some degree of mastery over use of red herring.

sometimes I welcome his out of point premises just to make sure we have an intellectual discussion. But all do end up in futility. He brought an articule that he himself had little to zero knowledge about.. like I said earlier, that articule had been beaten to stupor.

budaatum:

Of course your beliefs are relevant to you. Moreso if you have sought to verify those beliefs.

I agree

There are after all reasons why praying to a stone or a rat would give some the results they desire.

Yeah. Probably they have verified it to an extent with which they are satisfied, and they think they are satisfied with what they found.

If one believes enough it becomes true to the individual but that in no way makes a thing true.

You mean it in no way makes a thing true to you? Is there any objective standard of trueness?

I can cook up whatever I wish in my head and believe it, and I can provide tons of evidence (texts, for instance) to validate my beliefs.

Solely your business. And I add that if your tons of evidence are compelling enough, someone else might believe same with you.

budaatum, you wrote:

An example is "eternal life". There is no evidence for it whatsoever

You mean evidence for it that appeals to you?

yet many appear to believe in it.

Yeah. Including me. That the Bible says it is enough evidence for me. The Bible always says things that are true.

One might as well read Alice in Wonderland and believe Alice truly fell down a hole or humpty dumpty is a real entity outside fiction.

Solely the person's business.

I'm afraid my attitude to such things is incredulity, and it applies to some things written in the Bible.

We believe what we want to. We also refuse to believe what we want to refuse to believe.

Besides, the Bible itself warns me not to worry about such things.

Wrong. The Bible warns you to seek first the kingdom of GOD, and its righteousness. How can you do this without belief in Christ? Besides the kingdom of GOD is made up of those who are deemed fit for eternal life. See Jn. 6:47

budaatum, you wrote:

I can neither add an hour to my living and there's enough to worry about in this life, so why waste time on an afterlife of eternal existence that I have no evidence for?

Here's where you have to watch it. The "enough to worry about in this life" maybe what Christ is cautioning against.

Take "for God so loved the world" for instance. You would note in Bibles that use red to depict direct utterances of Jesus that John 3:16 et al is not depicted in red.

Very poor argument. The coloring of Jesus' words in red is a modern invention. Moreover, it may be subject the editors beliefs. Besides, what do you make of Jesus saying "believe in me" in Jn. 14:1?

Critical analyses would also make one consider Christ would never
say such a thing.

Wrong. Christ said it.

To start with, it is sheer hubris. Another is that it is just so unjesusy.

Purely your opinion.

budaatum, you wrote:

If it all boiled down to believing in him as you claim, he wouldn't have bothered with so many
other lessons about love, compassion and empathy which he
taught.

Wrong! That He emphasized the need to believe in Him, while teaching the lessons (on love, compassion and empathy) shows that both are equally important.

And even your own personal experience would show that Jesus is way more than mere belief.

I would say belief comes first. In fact I cannot follow Jesus if I don't believe in Him.

Yet here we are trumping belief over actual understanding. No wonder some
claim Christianity has not yet been tried and tested;

Christianity has survived 2000 years of onslaught from every angle.

some are indeed in the infancy of mere believing and are yet to abandon childish ways.

Believing is not childish way. Not according to Jesus who said "believe in me" in Jn. 14:1

LordReed:


As long as people are told that only the religious can develop love, compassion and empathy then the situation will persist. Add to that the issue were different religions exhort their followers to give priority to helping their own and to view unbelievers as the enemy, we continue to have an artificial divide that exacerbates the problems.

We need to educate people that love, compassion and empathy are all learnable human traits that transcend all artificial divides.

They are uneducatable, would be my position. "The poor would always be amongst us", is how Christ put it. They are inducted with particular assumptions which they are incapable of questioning so different ways of looking at things is considered a "red hearing" and its presentation "out of context". There is hope yet however. The evidence strongly being on our side.

There was a time it was taught that Jerusalem was in heaven. Ma was amazed when on her way to UK in the 60s her plane stopped over in Egypt and they went sightseeing in Jerusalem. The same is happening with the Bible being the word of God, with many now understanding God does not have a printing press and that it was written by human beings with agendas here on earth. In more knowledgeable nations such thoughts are ridiculed out of existence. It is the reason why those who wish to maintain the ignorant status quo would first bastardize the education system. The less they know, the more controllable they remain, but with the democratising of information, their grasp is loosening. One just need see the many who are freeing themselves by the minute. In past times we would have been burnt as heretics.

I do believe new 'religions' would replace the old however. Not many are capable of individual thought and so would have to unquestionably accept what they are told. And religious institutions would always exist to capture the feeble minded and tell them what to believe.

Doc, we agree that everyone can believe what suits them, be it true or not, so it's ok for you to believe whatever view of me that best suits you. I wouldn't be the first to be accused of having demons in one nor would you be the first or last to make such a claim just because one has views that differ to your's.

buda is satisfied that buda stands in good company. The irony though, eludes me not.

Religion is a big scam...most esp Christianity and islamity... argue with your balls