₦airaland Forum

@Mongue, I'm glad that we can now make a sagacious headway about the malady facing our beloved nation. However, GREED is rampant on every front - religion, politics, civil service, education, business, the public and private sectors of our economy, etc. Unscrupulous Politicians and Pastors outnumber the others, but it's a bit too suggestive to see them as the foremost problems we have as a people. 419ers will look for just about any means to make a fast buck; and we are responsible to follow after examples that make life worth its salt in our collective polity.

Many thanks for your rejoinder - you made good points as well.

Reverend:
I still personally believe that this is a dangerous hoax and that these so called miracle workers are greedy business men who are exploiting simple people who are looking to escape from the miserable daily existence.
You can get the same electric feeling at a football match or any other large event where there are many people!
If you are sick then you should go to a Doctor and not a false prophet in a suit who pretends to be able to perform miracles!
Problem is that people are very easily led, just like sheep. This is just another case of this human peculiarity!
Strange to see that Dr. Mike signed up to this forum just to praise Donnie

You know what surprises me? Are you not the same guy who runs the kinky[/b]church of mary magdaline or something like that? So, after boasting so much that your church makes a refreshing difference, your confidence in [b]your cannabis Jesus proffers no hope for any of your members who might seek healing? So, let me ask: you cannot duplicate the cannabis ointment for them to be healed? If anyone of them gets sick, all you have for them is "you should go to a Doctor"? Haa!! To say that I'm disappointed in your "Reverendship" is an understatement.

One thing I know is that God's power to heal is real - and I have experienced it for myself! If anyone was in my position when I was seriously ill, and all you could offer them is the weak phrase of your vernacular above, perhaps you'd be a smoother one of those "greedy business men who are exploiting simple people who are looking to escape from the miserable daily existence" in your kinky church. How many people have you personally healed with "the same electric feeling at a football match"? If it is true that it works in just the same way, does it make any sense for you to ask them to go and see a doctor instead? Why not ask them to go to a football match - and get healed?! Reverend, you surprise me. . . you should know better than that!

yeepa:
@ mekaozi
Please, I don't think you need to be anti islam to contribute to the thread. check out your first post

Danmasani:
@ mekaozi
Yeah, whatz Sharia and Islam got to do with this? It only show how intolerant people calling themselves xtians are. So u're religion is right and Islam is wrong abi. See one thing i hate are zealouts. These are the people who kill our societies.

For those of you worrying about what Islam and Sharia have got to do with this thread, sorry to say that you're taking a cushioned view about Nigeria's problems. I would agree with views like welborn's that the problem does not lie with merely Politicians and Pastors, but so many other people in the Nigerian populace that we have quietly and conveniently ignored - lecturers, businessmen/women, quack medical practitioners, the babalawos, bankers and financiers, immigration and customs officers, et al.

mekaozi's first post to me took the wind out of your sails by broadening the perspectives of the criminals we complain of. I fail to understand how the Sharia Governors have helped developed their states and people; or how the Imams that instigate religious crises in the north of Nigeria at the slightest instance have helped bettered the lot of their people. We can conveniently point fingers at pastors because most people are looking down south and conveniently taking their gaze off the north.

The handler of this topic asked more about the money donated by Church folks than about the mental capabilities of Nigerians - and that's the real malady with our folks. Hypothetically, do you think Nigerians would be the better for it if everyone got a grant of N500,000? NO! Why is that so? Because the problem is not in the money or the lack of it - the heart is the problem. True, there are dubious pastors on the rise in Nigeria; but tell me who is not dubious today in Nigeria? You don't have to be a politician, pastor, or Christian for that matter to taste the bitter strife that other folks would dish out to you on a whole different plata.

TRIBALISM & CORRUPTION

Just walk into any office today in search of a job or contract - you'd have to be an angel from above to be able to get that job or contract on a 'clean' slate. The 'oga' at the top wants his/her kick-back or nothing for you; one of the critical questions that has to be settled is whether you're Igbo, Yoruba or Hausa, etc. The perpetrators of these 'official' crimes we're ignoring are freely walking our streets each and everyday as "civil servants" without necessarily carrying out their games as 'politicians' or 'pastors'. If you want to apply for promotion or house maintenance, your personnel file will go missing!

DISTRUST OF OUR NATIONAL IDENTITY

Politicians and Pastors aside, do ordinary Nigerians trust each other? Do we have faith in our polity or national identity as a people? The north doesn't trust the south and the south doesn't trust the east. Pointing accusing fingers on politicians and pastors alone ("The Two Things" is crying wolf! We forget the level of selfishness we demonstrate in our everyday transactions. Just a micro example: a couple of years ago, because of the perennial water shortages we many times experienced in Abuja, we'd have to go far from home in search of some drops. Believe it or not, there was this woman who would not let anyone fetch even a cupfull from her tap unless they were igbo! She didn't need a pastor's blessing for that or needed to join a political party for same.

I suspect that some opinions voiced here are nothing more than a bias against Christians; and those who have not taken a good look at what's suggested by the topic are easily moved to applauding comments passed to cry down pastors. Often, such comments lump off all Nigerian pastors as culprits, or the generalizations are too broad as to allow even for a distinction between the good and the bad - and that simply shows the bias. As bad as some politicians and pastors have become, so bad are the various other elements in society that we often conveniently ignore - such as lecturers (who won't let students rest with "handouts" everyday on just about any assignment - and who is asking these lecturers to account for the money they make on handouts?), unscrupulous bank managers, unprincipled customs and immigration officers, tribalistic employers and contractors, fanatical Imams of the north who do nothing to quell religious disturbances until thousands have died (usually non-muslims), corrupt police officers, and so many others in the warp and woof of our great nation.

I think the greatest challenge Nigerians face today is not some politicians and pastors - the bad eggs among them certainly contribute to the malady, but they are not "the" two biggest issues holding back Nigeria. When we learn to take care of our own individual prejudices and begin thinking intelligently and critically, we would have taken care of the initial problems of our hearts before anything else. The corruption is not in how many Christians there are in Nigeria - it is in your own heart and mine. Blaming pastors and politicians alone as "the two things" holding Nigerians back is beggarly to say the least. If you cannot take care of your own heart, don't blame it on someone else. Think of what Nigeria would be in the next few months if each one of us would be committed to righteousness and integrity - whether we are pastors, politicians, Muslims, Igbo, Hausa, Yoruba, men or women.

There are lots I won't regret.

I won't regret some choices I made by God's grace, especially having to stand for my faith in the face of being denied a promotion at my work place. There's no regretting letting the past go in order to make sense of the future.

I do have regrets, though. My weak commitment to Christ in the first five years of my conversion is an example. However, I'm so thankful that He didn't leave me dawdling about; and since He healed me of a terrible illness, I've always woken up rejoicing and thankful for the gift of a new day and renewed hope.

gbade. x:
what everyone here, Catholics and Protestants alike, must realize is that this thread is not a means of judging Catholics but questioning certain aspects of Catholicism.

@gbade, you make sense to me and I especially like your being specific - "Catholics and Protestants alike" - rather than vague or polarised.

Idekeson:
The subject of the thread is "Please Catholics, Avoid These Arguments" and I'm heeding to it. I'll rather not engage my anointed fellows in frivolous arguments on Catholic practices, while such valuable time can be spent teaching non Christians the virtues of Christ.

You should've told that to biggjoe from the onset. You didn't need to keep coming back with comments polarised towards Catholicism if you're avoiding an argument. How do you go round avoiding an argument after describing non-Catholics as "mushroom religious outfits" and think you'll be applauded for such sarcasm? Be encouraged - do the same thing you asked 'born again Christians' to do - "go preach to the Shiites and Sunnis to become Christians" and don't just sound it. . . go to the very Al Queda cells yourself and preach to them as you advise those mushroom religious outfits to do.

@gbade, I share the same keen observation as yours. It's also amazing that not up to 20 views were recorded after biggjoe posted his missive; however, following welborn's rejoinders ('word for word' - as you rightly observed it), I returned a few times to find that over 127 new views were recorded in a single day alone! Even so, not a single reaction or response to welborn's. Is something missing somewhere? To me, the gentleman really knew his onions and intelligently put his views across.

I hope U've asked that question sincerely, and that would be a more sane way of putting things than you've done in the past.

Read up Acts 2 and I Cor. 12-14 for a start, and ask yourself: what is God telling you in those scriptures?

Perhaps this: http://www.watchtower.org/bible/index.htm ?

Very interesting observations. I actually went to Mark 3:35 (not verse 5) where Jesus said: "For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother."

Since Jesus is God (I do not doubt that for a second) and He said whosoever does the will of God is His brother, and His sister, and mother, I have a question for Catholics.

Question:
Do Catholics do the will of God? If yes, then according to Mark 3:35 -

     --  can any Catholic man who does the will of God be called the 'brother of God'?

     --  can any Catholic woman who does the will of God be called the 'sister of God'?

     --  can any mother who does the will of God be called 'mother of God'?

If not, what has happened to the syllogism on the Catholic Answers' website? And why did the church fathers shy away from Mark 3:35?

In the Bible, Mary is called the mother of Jesus, but never for once 'mother of God.' I think the distinction is important for the following reasons:

(1) as welborn has rightly pointed out, it is important to understand that scripture is inspired and tradition is not. God who inspired the scriptures would have given Mary the title of 'mother of God' if He so wanted her to be called so that no one would be left guessing or forcing an interpretation of their own into it.

(2) Jesus is God, no doubt; but to call Mary 'mother of God' is to neglect the fact that the other divine Persons of the Trinity are the same one God. The title 'mother of God' is too broad a term as to suggest that Mary existed before Jesus (which is not true); and it would also suggest that Mary gave birth to God - which is what the church fathers have erroneous implied. But when you look at those verses in scripture that speak simply of 'God', you find that God the Father is there spoken of besides Jesus the Son. Examples:

 (a) Matt. 27:43 - He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

 (b) Mark 11:22 - And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

 (c) John 14:1 - Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

 (d) Act 2:32 - This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Now to deliberately refer to Mary as 'mother of God' neglects the full meaning of who is God. Could these same church fathers have argued that Mary is the 'mother of God' in Acts 2:32 and several other passages where God is referring not just to Jesus the Son but to the Trinity?

(3) when Mary brought forth her firstborn son (Jesus) she did not call Him by any other name than what the angel had communicated to her - JESUS (cf. Luke 2:21). This shows that she did not assume the exalted title of 'mother of God' upon herself.

(4) In the magnificat, Mary did not say that all generations would call her 'mother of God' but simply 'blessed' (Luke 1:48). And the rest of Scripture calls her 'mother of Jesus' or 'Mary his mother' - speaking more about the humanity of Jesus than about His deity. Jesus never ceased to be God at any moment; but it is in His incarnation emphasizing His humanity that Mary is addressed as the 'mother of Jesus' rather than 'mother of God (see Rom.1:3-4 and Gal.4:4-5).

This is not to drag on an argument, but I would agree from the point of view that we draw our conclusions from the Bible rather than from traditions. Mary is a 'blessed' woman, the blessed mother of our Lord Jesus Christ in the flesh - she who is called 'Mary, the mother of Jesus', honoured in God's Word as such and no more than what is written. I'm not a Catholic, but I know that Mary is called 'blessed among women' but not the 'mother of God.'

If you have something to contribute for all to learn, simply do so. It seems to me that some who are complaining about "overzealous Christians of our time" and "too much letter, too much sense knowledge" are just experiencing a complex (inferiority or inadequacy). The Word of God was given to teach, shapen and edify us - and it should be quoted whenever applicable. I enjoyed the comic relief ("The grammarians are here" and the "muhahahahha" and others. . . but the complaints about this and that - wetin happen?

Pastors in da house, praise God for all you're doing - keep it up.

nferyn, many thanks for being a gentleman at this point. Do have a wonderful evening

Perhaps if you had stated, "for all intents and purpose, unless someone brings evidence to the contrary, I lack a belief in God" I might not have been led to make the inference earlier of your summation about the non-existence of God.

Let me make another thing clear to you: atheism proper is not agnosticism. The latter term is a recent coinage by Huxley who could not properly identify himself as an atheist even though atheism was many years in use before his time. Atheism questions the existence of God, not the lack of belief in God; whereas, agnosticism simply does not question the existence of God but rather lacks a belief in God. Why is this distinction important? One deals with the EXISTENCE of God ("God does not exist" - atheism); and the other deals with a LACK OF BELIEF in God ("I do not believe in God, whether or not He/She/It exists). I'm quite aware that many atheists today have this revisionist acquiescence with agnosticism, and that's why they want us to believe that atheism proper has NEVER been defined as the belief that God does not exist. There are so many examples of this distinction if you do a careful search on the net yourself (just so you won't think I'm biased, here's an example from a website antagonistic to Christianity:  http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm ). The debate here does not seem to have started off being about lack of belief in God but rather about the existence of God.

Sometimes, some individuals are in the hilarious habit of trying to make such sweeping definition of atheism based on what they want the public to feel about them. An example is Dean W. Austin (http://www.galah.org/myreasons.html ) who says that "Belief that God does not exist" is the definition proffered by theists. NOT TRUE!! Some others have therefore asked that we ceased quoting such Christian apologists as C. S. Lewis because theists are the ones who proffer such definitions, as Dean Austin suggests. Austin is making a biased claim. Atheists themselves of no mean stature defined atheism as pointing to a claim that God does not exist, ala Doug Jesseph. Expantiating on his definition of atheism, Doug said: "Someone who simply lacks theistic belief, a small child who has never been taught about God, or someone who simply rejects God as an act of rebellion does not count as an atheist." His own claims runs like this: "I claim that there is no rational justification for the belief in the existence of God. I also claim that the evidence is strongly against it; that the rational conclusion to draw is that there is no God. I do not believe that agnosticism is necessarily a stable middle position. I believe that if you add the evidence up and start drawing conclusions, there is about as much reason to believe in the existence of God as there is to believe in leprechauns." http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph2.html.  (emphasis mine).

Notice that Doug does not argue for merely the lack of belief in God, but rather against the belief in the existence of God. Further, he even mentions that he did not believe that agnosticism is necessarily a stable middle position.

And then again, take a good look at elbaron's topic: he loudly states that "God does not exist" - that is worlds apart from stating "a lack of belief in God". And what you have stated for all intents and purposes is, "God does not exist" - which is not the same as stating that for all intents and purposes, "I lack a belief in God". The former is categorically denying the existence of God; and the latter is a lack of belief in God, whether or not God exists.

The definition promoted by the Positive Atheists website and the American Atheists group as well as many individual atheists is "the absence of a belief that there is a deity or God" - and perhaps, that's what you assent to. In which case, your generalizations are too narrow that "atheism is simply the lack of God- belief. Atheism only deals with the belief in deities, not with knowledge about the existence of deities."  

nferyn:
Let me state it once more: atheism is simply the lack of God- belief. Atheism only deals with the belief [/i]in deities, not with knowledge about the existence of deities. I, as an agnostic atheist claim that even though I do not [i]believe [/i]in the existence of God, I can not achieve positive [i]knowledge [/i]about the (non-)existence of a deity, unless that deity is defined in such a way that it becomes falsifiable.

This is why I said that your definition is revisionistic and too narrow for applicable reasons of this discussion. Atheism proper works on one premise: the (non)[i]existence of deity/deities; which is what Doug Jesseph as an atheist has encapsulated in his claim: "the rational conclusion to draw is that there is no God".

Nferyn, the point of entry to the discussion or debate about atheism must be founded on what exactly makes atheism what it is - the belief in the non-existence of deity/God. There is admittedly no consensus among atheists themselves as to the definition of atheism and each individual or group scuplts their own ideas of what it means. To the extent that the topic is about the denial of the existence of God ("Refuting Monotheism: God Does Not Exist", this definition forms the working hypothesis for discussion here (as I suppose), and as has been seconded in your statement: "for all intents and purposes, unless someone brings evidence to the contrary, God does not exist."

nferyn:
I was actually hoping you would respond to that You forgot to embolden for all intents and purposes, obviously you rather ignore the parts that don't suit our purposes.
I clearly and explicitely said that I consider the non-existence of God a reasonable [/b]working hypothesis. I will stand by that hypothesis, unless someone bring convincing evidence of the contrary. To date, [b]not a single theist has been able to do that.
Anyway, you continue in your relentless zeal of misrepresenting my positions and ignoring everything that does not support your case. This is a clear example of out-of-context quoting. What about the rest of the argument? Do you ingore that in your galant don quichotesque charge against the strawman of atheism?

You amuse me nferyn - in just the same way I anticipated you'd come back with that glib quip of "misrepresenting my position and ignoring everything that does not support your case." But do you not do the same by churning out only partial quotes from websites that guarantee your own position? Certainly, your definition of atheism is narrow and based on only those concepts of the term that props up your own view. I've heard quips like yours a thousand times from other apprentice atheists, (no harm meant) and you fell for your own noose.

I respect your position as an agnostic atheist (which is hardly what we're discussing here); but let me make it simpler for you: in everything you have said, I wanted a succinct statement that summarizes your position - and you posited that:

"for all intents and purposes, unless someone brings evidence to the contrary, God does not exist."

Now if Mr. AD hypothesized about an idea, for example, that certain events make the belief in the existence of God a viable option, and finally puts his points across at the end of his arguments in everything he would have said (in just about the same way you did about your position), what would you be led to believe about this statement:

"for all intents and purposes, unless someone brings evidence to the contrary, God actually exists."

You wouldn't think me unfair to draw from this statement that Mr. AD's position is 'God actually exists', would you? So, in the same way, if you claim that for all intents and purposes God does not exist, why has that become a misrepresentation of your postion, when afterall that was your summation?

nferyn:
Therefore, only if you make your God falsifiable in one way or another can we talk about him, but for all intents and purposes, unless someone brings evidence to the contrary, God does not exist.

There you have it nferyn - you have just arrived at the very thing you claim to deny: atheism proper comes to the conclusion that "God does not exist", as you have clearly stated. So, where do you begin to pull strings with all that strawman revisionist definition about agnostic atheism? Just as you argued above in one of your references, "the atheist who denies the existence of God is by far the rarest type of atheist". . . do I take it you fall into this category?

You gentlemen surprise me on this Forum. A labelling exercise??. . . only an ellaborate intellectual construction? Do you want us to go through the whole gamut of atheism all over again? Intellectuals don't talk the way you do.

Seun:
God: man's greatest creation!

Seun and all my gentlemanly felas who just want to get noticed on the ridiculous side, there just is no need for all this shakara called atheism. To you, God may be defined as man's greatest creation - and that's alright if you created your own god. You have all the right to say so or worse on Nairaland, afterall its your brainchild. Ever heard of respect for others' worldview even if you don't believe in them? I remember that inflamatory statements are not encouraged on the forum; yet how would you class your statement above? You make rules and break them! Applause!  

God may not be definable or explanable. Perhaps, the handler of the topic might have wanted us to share from our own experiences and points of reference about who God is to us. 'Definition' may not be the word he/she might have wanted to use; but I think the sense is that he/she would have liked to read responses that are uplifting about our experiences of God.

God is who He says He is. . . the "I AM WHO I AM". . . the uncreated Creator of all things except evil. . .the best Friend there is to the helpless, hopeless, and hapless. . . the only One ridiculed by those who understand Him not. . . loved by millions who have found peace and reality in Him. . . highly exalted on His throne. . . whose qualities and attributes exhaust human language and dwarf all learning. . .

             I d'not  not satisfied ooooohhhh!!![/b]__ abi make I continue??

Of all I could ever say of Him, this one na super - [b]God is God!!

KAG:
By the way the Adam and Eve story is mythical, and yes many christians accept and believe that.

KAG,

Did you say that 'the Adam and Eve story is mythical?' You want proof? Don't make me laugh. Just go to your bedroom, take off your clothes, bend down, and look at your middle region. What do you see? If you're married, ask your husband (or boyfriend) to do the same. If you both have the same 'thing' as Steve, then Eve didn't exist and she's only a myth! Yes, then I would be one of those so-called miss-road 'Christians' who would believe that when God made Adam and Eve as male and female, it was all a myth.

Wow! Have you considered that your speech reflects what's going on in your heart before God? In Christianity, what you say with your mouth is equivalent to the thoughts of your heart and mind: "Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer." [Psa.19:14]. In Matt.15:8, the mouth, lips and hearts go together, or everything is a waste of time.  Just a thought.

It's a difficult situation, and as choice.A noted, may God not let us see such bad things. If I ever find myself in any situation to choose between God and the devil, I'll choose God. I daily pray for the faith to stay unshakable in my commitment. Job was in a bad situation, and the same thing we're asking about happened to him - his wife asked him to curse God and die! [Job 2:9]. I've once had 'cold metal' (gun) pointed at my temples, but thank God the robber didn't ask me to choose between God and death or the devil. He only asked me not to move or bang-bang! For hours after the incident, I was in shock. Okay, first time experience - but thank God I survived. My faith was made stronger by that incident, and I could say that I'll have the confidence to choose God again if I face a dire situation like that.



A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. - James 1:8.

"Call unto Me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not." - Jer.33:3

Abba Father, thank you for the mercies we have received from You as a nation. The wounds in many hearts today threaten to break up Nigeria. Oh, we plead the power of your love to heal lives, restore hope, and keep us together as one strong people - that the Name of your Son, Jesus Christ may be glorified. Amen.

wahalaman:
you shouldn't expect eckankar to have reference in the bible, or any other religious book. it is a totally new thing and has no connections with Christianity. ,,, if u are satisfied where you are just stay and enjoy it don't judge others but wish them luck and send them lots of love.

My post was in response to Ceekay's enquiry: "Please, is the 'Eckankar' we sing of in our Christian songs the one that exists today?" My last line is a summary of the 3 points in my reply: "This is my submission - Eckankar and Christianity have no connection."

If, to you, it sounded like judging others, then you missed my point and probably did the same as judging others in your reply: "it is a totally new thing and has no connections with Christianity."

I wish you luck and send lots of love

4gt_m.

exu:
I would love to simply point out that the argument that you have presented works both ways. However there is a problem with that; religion has been a cause of tension, killing and social problems since the dawn of civilisation. Unprovable claims made in the name of a being no man can see.

"If atheism is what this thread is about, I'd like to keep it simple by focusing on just that."

4gt_m.

Amen.

elbaron,

It is unfortunate that your language went a bit too far and uncalled for. If you felt insulted by my expressions, I'd have expected you to have pointed that out, in which case I would apologise. I did not take a personal swing at you as you claimed. But if you felt that way in reading my replies, I offer my apology. However, to openly call me a bastard was not being 'reasonable' or 'sensible' on your part, was it?

However, I'm sorry to note that you still failed to see the answer to your question in my explanations of the Gen.6:19-20 and Gen.7:2-3. It sounds like you simply refused to check the facts for yourself - and that is why I was left with no other option than to surmise that you had other motives than a genuine concern.

elbaron:  Did it not occur to you that for your explanation to apply God would have said "take 7 animals
                           of a kind and ensure that there is a male and a female".

If that is the kind of statement you want, then you ought to have checked it out for yourself in the Bible. And that is precisely the sense in Gen.7:2 - "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female,,," How does that statement differ in meaning from "take 7 animals of a kind and ensure that there is a male and a female"?

elbaron: "What you believe here is immaterial, what is material is that you attempt an explanation of the contradictions."

Which is precisely what I have done. If you're not reading inputs before you draw conclusions, you'll keep making incoherent statements that have no bearing on the subject being addressed. I don't think I imposed my beliefs on you by explaining what you considered a contradiction. There were no contradictions in the verses and that's what Gen.7:2 points out. If my contributions or explanations are only valid on the grounds that you require me to concur with your views, would that sound like you are genuinely open to the views of other people and sincerely inviting a genuine concern and search for rational or reasonable discussions? It is quite unfortunate that you put up such an attitude and at the same time expect people to make reasonable inputs. That was why I asked if you were seriously seeking truth and reason or you were hell-bent on a personal campaign against Christianity. So, you wanted an explanation for John 3:13? How is anyone's attempts at explaining that going to be of 'material' benefit to you if you're not open to reason?

elbaron: "What I am saying is that the premise under which god is held is wrong because no god can exist and be so inherently contradictory."

There are many contradictory statements that you make in your own posts, while trying to point out that an 'omnipotent and omnipresent god ought not to have contradictions and ambiguities'. On the one hand, you wrote that "the premise under which god is held is wrong", which to me supposes that, at least, there should be a "right or correct premise", and which you made no attempt to proffer. But to come back and say that "the concept of god is an illusion" runs directly opposite to your own earlier statement. This is like saying that "God does not exist" and at the same time say that "God is dangerous" - as, in fact, you've done on another thread. How is it possible that the God who does not exist is at the same time dangerous? Pardon me, but this is why this whole exercise of yours is as ambiguous and irrational as you accuse the basis for faith.

The whole drift of your purpose has little to do with seeming contradictory Bible verses. One question that anyone reading your experience about being formerly a born again is: why are you so bitter today? If abandoning your formerly held beliefs in a god makes you happy, how come you sound contrary to the spirit and drive of your new emancipation? An honest thinker who feels like God is an illusion does not need to be so virulent as you've proven yourself to be.

Even so, let me ask you: where is your own incontestable proof that God is an illusion? That should have been the first thing on the front page of this thread - but no, you've only posted verses which to you seem to be contradictory. Granted, at least, anyone with a cursory interest in the Bible might find "contradictions" as you did. For me, there is not one contradiction after several years of study. Second, how is it that your own small experience (if I may call it that in contrast to everyone else's) is sufficient to sustain your claim for every single person who has faith in God? It just simply does not measure up. For example, just because you wallowed in fear of eternal damnation does not set the precedence or basis for any other person's faith in God. I believe in God, and I have experienced for myself that there is no fear in God's love - as precisely as is stated in I John 4:18. I have never had to live in the torment or fear of eternal damnation: NEVER, not even one single time since becoming a Christian. Don't get me wrong: there have been various trials that came my way, but I never for one time lived in the fear you described. That alone tells me something is seriously lacking in your premise that God is an illusion. He may seem so to you; but that has no substance whatsoever in the experiences of those who know the fact of the reality of God's love.

I'm honestly sorry for you; perhaps you didn't get the facts right. You don't need to be vitriolic especially when you're on the wrong side of the road. 'Fear' was never the basis for faith in Jesus Christ, if that was your working thesis. If you never experienced the love of God for yourself, it does not prove that such a love is an illusion. Rather, it is real - I know this for myself. It is still available to everyone who would receive it by the one condition God offers - faith in Jesus Christ.

4gt_m.

Quote from: nferyn February 26, 2006, 11:08:35 PM
That's why the strawman of atheism, as if it were claiming that no God can possibly exist, is just that, a strawman.
Be very much aware that atheism only implies the lack of god-belief, not the belief in the non-existence of God. That's why you have agnostic atheists, people that do not believe in God, but state that they're not in the possibility to have knowledge of God. I'm one of them.

What you call the 'strawman of atheism' only goes to buttress my piece - atheism's claim that 'God does not exist' cannot be sustained even by the atheist himself. But to attempt a fresh definition of atheism as only implying 'the lack of god-belief' is purely revisionist. Atheism proper has always claimed that 'there is no God' - that's the sine qua non that makes atheism what it is.

atheism:
n. belief that God does not exist;
the doctrine or belief that there is no God;
disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods;
godlessness; immorality.
Etymology: from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god.

(References: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheism and Cambridge Dictionary)

If there is anything else to atheism it would be an appendage to the basic claim. Assuming that the dictionaries are wrong, why do atheists make it such a big deal upon themselves to fight a belief system that they cannot satisfactorily prove to be false? Look at it this way:
Is 'Frances' a name for boys or girls?
Mr. A says it's a boy; Mr. B argues it's a girl. Mr. C could say, "I don't know." And Mr D. says, "Frances, infact, does NOT exist!"

The answers of C and D are worlds apart: the former is not sure whether or not 'F' exists, while the latter categorically states that Frances does not exist. Atheism proper reflects D's position - and that is what my replies on this topic have been focused on. elbaron states clearly for all to see that 'God does not exist' - that is not the same thing as saying, 'I lack a belief in god.' Many who go by the various appellations of atheism with adjectives give me very little to worry about. Pardon me, but I'm not one of those who take my definition of atheism by a clause or appendage, even though I have great respect for whatever anyone wants to be called: agnostic atheist, buddhist atheist, or Christian atheist (whatever that means). If atheism is what this thread is about, I'd like to keep it simple by focusing on just that.

To the point that the atheist categorically makes the claim that God does NOT exist, he is required to prove his assertions. So far, I have not got any line in the replies to that effect; and that's why my submission is that no believer owes any atheist any proof in as much as the atheist himself is unable to validate his own claims in any concrete way other than with his mouth.

nferyn, many thanks for your reply; but pardon me, it's a bit tedious to make much point out of your style of commenting on almost every line of my previous post - and I don't want to tow that line so that I don't inadvertently complicate issues all the more. That is not to say that I'm necessarily dictating how you ought to make your presentation. Perhaps it might have helped if you gave me a summary of your own views to serve as guidelines in my replies. Nonetheless, there are a few observations I'd like to make:

1. I'd agree with you that false beliefs can have harmful effects; but I don't think it is rational to make a sweeping statement like that in context of examining the claims of Christianity, unless you can 'prove' that the Christian faith belongs to that class of 'false beliefs.' Just because you don't like a belief system does not necessarily mean that it is false and harmful - you ought to show proof for that claim in exactly the same way that you require believers to do.

2. Now, that is precisely where the problem is - providing 'proof' for the atheistic claim. At best, an honest and rational thinker would say, "I do not know whether or not God exists", and he would not be required to prove his statement - for the simple reason that he has not made a categorical claim; he just does not know. This is closer to the agnostic, rather than to the atheistic, view about questions of the existence of God. On the other hand, when someone makes a categorical claim that "God does not exist", of obligation he ought to prove the legitimacy of that claim. He has made a claim that purports that he knows for a fact in the entire universe that God actually does not exist; and this kind of view takes center stage of acting like the atheist knows everything in the entire universe.

It is sad that many atheists have come up with an escapist theory that someone cannot 'prove' a negative statement. Is that true in every field of learning - including science? Let's go back to the history of philosophy and science for an illustration:

        Until the 5th century BC, many thinkers and philosophers, in speculating about the natural world,
        were of the view that the earth was like a flat disk. Later, a few others came up and categorically
        claimed that the earth was NOT flat. So, who was right? Notice that the views of the former were
        speculations, and as far as we know, they had no experiential or experimental basis that confirmed
        their position. But the refutation of those who claimed the opposite view were based on seeking to
        provide proof for their claim. Explorers, voyagers, astronomers, and various others came up with a
        plethora of 'evidence' for the contrary claim that the earth was in fact NOT flat. Today, we know better -
        the earth is not flat but spherical or geoidal.

What does this go to show? It shows that the idea that negative statements need no attempted 'proof' is wrong. Therefore, the atheistic claim that 'God does not exist' requires more than refutation by statement or criticism - it requires the atheist to go beyond his mouth to his own experience in order to come up with a rational, experiential and experiemental proof or evidence that indeed God does not exist. However you look at it, the atheistic claim cannot be sustained - at least, not until the atheist himself is able to provide evidence for the non-existence of God. It is a weak excuse to say that a negative statement cannot be proven when stating it as categorically as the positive claim. If one cannot validate an opposite statement, he does not need to state it in the first place. In making an assertion that God does not exist, elbaron is required to provide evidence to that effect.

4gt_m.

Phonic:
Well, to my understanding, God and Allah are the same thing, the only different there is the language and they way people understand it, some said allah sound like god.

The question is not about what name you call 'God' in your or any language. Arabs (whether Muslims or Christians) call Him 'Allah', Swedes call Him 'Gud', the French call Him 'Dieu'; in German He is called 'Gott', and in Spanish He is 'Dios.' If it was merely a question of language, you could well have over 2,000 names for God in the more than 2,700 languages of the world.

But the question is about the identities of the deities in both faiths: Is the Allah of Islam the same as the God worshipped in Christianity? Or, to put it another way: Is the 'God' of the Islamic faith the very same as the 'God' of the Christian faith? In addition to previous threads, there are reasons why some of us would not agree that they are the same:

1. Muslims never call God "Father" in the Qur'an because they do not confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God as the Bible states - "And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." (John 6:69). Notice that in the Bible, God was in fact acknowledging Jesus Christ as His own Son, but in the Qur'an, Allah does not recognise Jesus as His Son:
   Bible - "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matt. 3:17)
  Qur'an - "The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God,,,far be It from His glory that He should have a son," (4:171)

2. Christians are called by God to love everyone regardless of race, beliefs and gender; but in the Qur'an, Allah stipulates that Muslims should go all out to kill Christians and Jews:
    Bible - "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" (Matt. 5:44).
    Qur'an - "So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them" (4:89).

3. Many times in the Bible, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was promised as the basis for the redemption of man - even Jesus Himself knew beforehand that He would be put to death and would rise from the dead. However, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is one fundamental tenet that the Qur'an denies:
    Bible - " "For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day" (Mark 9:31).
    Qur'an - "And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them;,,,they slew him not for certain." (4:157)

Now, my question is: If Allah in Islam is the same God in Christianity, why does He say two different things in the Qur'an and the Bible? There is only one rational answer to that: regardless what you call them in any language, they are simply NOT the same 'God.'

4gt_m.

simmy:
Yeah, God never claimed the earth he made was perfect, did He?.

Not every Christian would subscribe to that view - at least, not me. I believe the earth God created was 'perfect' in the sense that it had no defects as issuing from His Hands in creation. I don't see how a loving God would have created an imperfect earth and put His crowning work of creation - man - on such an environment (see Isa.45:18). The poor state of the earth today results from the impact of man on his environment, and in that sense the earth is presently in an 'imperfect' condition. We believe His promise of new heavens and a new earth, the home of righteousness (II Pet.3:13).

simmy:
My ghanian guy 4get all the grammar wey we dey blow o, God dey o! youre threading dangerous grounds man!

I'm not about grammar, but it is sad that some skeptics or atheists think they know it all when they make claims they cannot sustain. On the strength of I Pet.3:15 and Jude 3, I make my contributions towards a rational presentation of the Christian faith as far as I understand it. My aim is not to win arguments, for some self-styled atheists have one working thesis: to deny the rational for faith in spite of any evidence to the contrary. I do believe and hope that some can be helped and see that faith in Jesus Christ makes real sense; but if anyone who confesses to skepticism takes a position of staunch unbelief regardless of any conceivable proof, there's little that any other person can do to help him or her. Skepticism and atheism and all the '-isms' out there cannot change what is factual experience in the Christian faith: the Bible clearly states that, and from what happens many times I believe it is true -

"For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?" (Rom 3:3)

But wait o, how did you figure out my location, that I am in Ghana? ? Em,,, er,, Seun, I don't know if my ISP is exposed for everyone to see! I hope not. Otherwise, simmy has some inexplicable prophetic powers

4gt_m.