Enigma: Jefferson who originated the phrase "separation of Church and State" must have had a different idea of what it means compared to what many mumus shouting the phrase nowadays use it to mean.

Hundreds of years ago that there are secular states.
No one has discovered it yesterday.
Ironically, some Nigerians talk about a topic, and do not put the example of Nigeria, but the United States ... (some people love to live on your knees to their masters).
Before you comment on a subject, it is important to learn what it is.
Writing is free, but not good to lose self-respect.

Pastor AIO: Actually it wasn't a jibe. If you felt jibed on any level then it was unintentional and I'm sorry to have made you feel that way. I thought that your reference to wikipedia, having nothing to do with what I wrote, was a jibe. If it wasn't then I'm sorry.

My reference to Wikipedia wasn't a jibe. If anything, it was a part reflection of my view about Wikipedia.

Wikipedia can be very good for general information, introduction or general/beginner's idea about a subject. But sometimes, it is lacking in important technical detail. The post that the British Constitution consists of "vague" court rulings and traditions is the kind of thing that you sometimes see in Wikipedia and which can mislead people not versed in the subject and which irks people with better knowledge/information.

The line "their students as mumus" et seq was more what I had in mind anyway. As I have said before, it is all good. My attitude is simple: 'respect begets respect' and 'deal with each poster according to your reasonable perception of their attitude'.

okay, my reference to 'their students as mumus' is about the way threads are reduced to slanging matches rather than making pertinent points about the subject being discussed. Yes I engaged in these not too long ago, but now it appalls me. Mostly because it reminds me of how immersed in it I was. My point was to say enough of that and lets move on to what we have learnt from this thread.

Your view about wikipedia had nothing to do with what I wrote so the less said about that the better. In fact I don't think you can find anything I wrote in the wikipedia entry on the british constitution.

^^^ Well the line about the British Constitution reminds of Wikipedia entries (and gaps in them) and it crossed my mind that it might have been from Wikipedia.

About slanging matches, the question to ask is who starts it. Also, from my perspective, it seems that when the militant/evangelical atheists and other non-Christians throw even the vilest of abuse at us it is not an issue; it only becomes an issue when we repay them even if only mildly ---- and quite often after having overlooked their obnoxiousness for a considerable time as is the case with the "ant (or was it fly?) hunting the eagle" on this thread.

Enigma: ^^^ Well the line about the British Constitution reminds of Wikipedia entries (and gaps in them) and it crossed my mind that it might have been from Wikipedia.

Well it wasn't. If you must know, the first time that I was aware of that point was while I was sitting watching television as a child with my mum and my dad, and someone on the tv said that the british constitution wasn't written. My mother made a surprised remark, and my father calmly told her that it was true, that they were only a set of traditions. So I hope that puts that to rest for you. And also note that I didn't state it as a fact but put it as a question (in line with my promise to myself to take a more humble position).

Enigma:
About slanging matches, the question to ask is who starts it. Also, from my perspective, it seems that when the militant/evangelical atheists and other non-Christians throw even the vilest of abuse at us it is not an issue; it only becomes an issue when we repay them even if only mildly ---- and quite often after having overlooked their obnoxiousness for a considerable time as is the case with the "ant (or was it fly?) hunting the eagle" on this thread.

Personally I would take this as a great opportunity to practice the teachings of Jesus. Matt 5:39

Pastor AIO: Well it wasn't. If you must know, the first time that I was aware of that point was while I was sitting watching television as a child with my mum and my dad, and someone on the tv said that the british constitution wasn't written. My mother made a surprised remark, and my father calmly told her that it was true, that they were only a set of traditions. So I hope that puts that to rest for you. And also note that I didn't state it as a fact but put it as a question (in line with my promise to myself to take a more humble position).

My first reference to Wikipedia was also a question - a passing question in brackets ---- in particular bearing in mind the frequent use of Wikipedia here.

Second, one thing I know is that many issues are far far far more complex than the discussions here; in fact, that is why I keep out of a lot of discussions.

Pastor AIO: Personally I would take this as a great opportunity to practice the teachings of Jesus. Matt 5:39

Well, let everybody deal with the situation as they feel appropriate and even biblical. When necessary, neither Jesus himself, nor John the Baptist, nor Peter nor Paul spared fools.

By the way, perhaps you had not realised this, but you are in fact one of those who strengthen and encourage the people throwing the vile abuse at Christians all over the Board. I have quite often shaken my head in sadness at this.

Oh yuck. Having descended into the pit, let no man seek perfumery.

Pastor AIO: Yes I engaged in these not too long ago, but now it appalls me.

It seems you swing between being appalled at such and gleeful at such as often as there are mosquito bites in the tropical rain forest.

Enigma:

. . . and 'deal with each poster according to your reasonable perception of their attitude'.

. . . or according to the level of malicious pent-up hatred and bitterness you have for the poster.

Poster boys for good conduct!

Deep Sight:
Oh yuck. Having descended into the pit, let no man seek perfumery.



It seems you swing between being appalled at such and gleeful at such as often as there are mosquito bites in the tropical rain forest.



. . . or according to the level of malicious pent-up hatred and bitterness you have for the poster.

Poster boys for good conduct!

Guilty as Charged. I have been gleeful and now I am appalled. I don't think I swing that often though. Anyhow, this (change of attitude) is really a matter between myself and my conscience and not between my and anybody else.

Pastor AIO:

Guilty as Charged. I have been gleeful and now I am appalled. I don't think I swing that often though. Anyhow, this (change of attitude) is really a matter between myself and my conscience and not between my and anybody else.

Of course, of course, I was just heckling una.

Can you authourize me to from time to time test you in this regard by being terribly obnoxious in my posts?

That way, Daniel-son, ye shall learn patience and fortitude. . . . .

Deep Sight:

Of course, of course, I was just heckling una.

Can you authourize me to from time to time test you in this regard by being terribly obnoxious in my posts?

That way, Daniel-son, ye shall learn patience and fortitude. . . . .

I would ask you to lead I not into temptation but to deliver I from Evil (by calling me up on it whenever you see me sliding down the slippery slope).
I and I should be able to do this for I so that I and I can continue to grow in righteousness. Or is it I-ighteousness.

Pastor AIO:

I would ask you to lead I not into temptation but to deliver I from Evil (by calling me up on it whenever you see me sliding down the slippery slope).
I and I should be able to do this for I so that I and I can continue to grow in righteousness. Or is it I-ighteousness.

LOLZ!

Enigma:

My first reference to Wikipedia was also a question - a passing question in brackets ---- in particular bearing in mind the frequent use of Wikipedia here.

Second, one thing I know is that many issues are far far far more complex than the discussions here; in fact, that is why I keep out of a lot of discussions.

Wikipedia is one source of information. It has it's faults. There are also many other more academic sources of information which also have their faults. The issue shouldn't be whether the source is wikipedia or not but rather whether the information is right or wrong, or backed up with good arguments or not.

Often when I try to find links to back up what I'm saying and google some key words the first links to come up are wikipedia links. They provide the easiest access to information. And of course anyone that wants to study something further could just scroll down to the bottom of the wiki page and follow the sources that Wiki itself cites.


As for the complexity of issues being discussed, this is a public forum where people are discussing various issues with various levels of understanding according to the individual perspectives. As such every opinion is valid in it's own way. The idea that some ideas are too complex for certain people to discuss is very dangerous even if it were true.
For instance I've heard the argument that Democracy can never work in a country where the population are uneducated or uninformed, or MISinformed about the issues that they are voting over. Since Nobody has absolute knowledge democracy is fatally flawed.
Should the vote be withdrawn from people who have little understanding of the issues that the government is dealing with?
Should they be forbidden from having an opinion over what to do about those issues that affect them though they have little understanding of the issues?
I believe it is called Technocracy. Rule by the Experts. However I'm not sure how we are to determine those who are the experts and fit to rule and those who are not, especially as the rest of us non-experts lack the knowledge to make the required appraisal.

What about Christianity? For centuries the catholic church interpreted doctrines for christians. The movements spearheaded by people like Tyndale had at it's aim bringing the bible and it's contents to the common man. Would you say that the right to be a christian and to have christian beliefs or opinions should only be allowed for those people who can understand theological concepts such as the Trinity, or the various mechanisms of redemption put forward by the catholic church, or Martin Luther, or John Calvin?
A lot of theology is very Complex. Should we therefore say that those who haven't studied it deeply with all it's complexities cannot be a christian?

I say NO! Everybody can bring their opinions to the table backed with their arguments. Those that are more knowledgeable can then help to correct the opinions of those that are less knowledgeable. Again they will do this by providing evidence and laying out superior arguments. There is nothing wrong with being wrong in an environment where everybody is learning. However sneering and jibing at someone you don't agree with without attempting to provide a counter argument is unhelpful to put it mildly.

Simplistic opinions can be squashed simply by providing facts or examples that contradict it, or by extending the argument/opinion to the point of absurdity. Then even without offering an alternative opinion you can show the person you are discussing with how simplistic his standpoint was.

Enigma:

By the way, perhaps you had not realised this, but you are in fact one of those who strengthen and encourage the people throwing the vile abuse at Christians all over the Board. I have quite often shaken my head in sadness at this.

For me there are only two positions. Truth or Deception. I have always sought to seek and express the Truth of a matter. Where I am wrong I am open to correction. If at any point the Truth is making you to shake your head in sadness then you have to figure out how you are going to deal with it.

If I point out that the bible was compiled by the Catholic Church then that statement is either True or False. If the Truth of it is giving outsiders ammunition to attack your beliefs then you need to question why your beliefs are at odds with historical facts.

If I point out that most pentecostals cannot make claim to an Apostolic tradition that too is either True or False. If it is False then show me the pentecostal pastor that was ordained in such a lineage.

If I point out that the current practice of Tithing one's income has no basis in the bible and that Malachi made no reference to it then that too is either True or False. If True and it is giving atheists an opportunity to sneer at your 'christian' practice then where does the fault lie. What needs to change? The Atheist or the false practice?

When any sort of criticism is viewed as an attack rather than an opportunity to grow then such a person's position is very precarious indeed.

^^^ The whole of the above is very well said indeed and resonates strongly with me.

Particularly -

Pastor AIO:

When any sort of criticism is viewed as an attack rather than an opportunity to grow then such a person's position is very precarious indeed.

I really think that this is something that our friend really needs to take to heart.

Pastor AIO: Wikipedia is one source of information. It has it's faults. There are also many other more academic sources of information which also have their faults. The issue shouldn't be whether the source is wikipedia or not but rather whether the information is right or wrong, or backed up with good arguments or not.

Often when I try to find links to back up what I'm saying and google some key words the first links to come up are wikipedia links. They provide the easiest access to information. And of course anyone that wants to study something further could just scroll down to the bottom of the wiki page and follow the sources that Wiki itself cites.

Let everybody make of and do with Wikipedia what they prefer.

Pastor AIO: As for the complexity of issues being discussed, this is a public forum where people are discussing various issues with various levels of understanding according to the individual perspectives. As such every opinion is valid in it's own way.

The religion forum used to be like that in the early days ---- and I have said this before e.g. here https://www.nairaland.com/849403/45-questions-skeptics-ask-christians#9997369

There is also no question that some came on the scene claiming to be "intellectuals" etc and to a considerable extent they are responsible for making the religion section what it has become.

Pastor AIO: The idea that some ideas are too complex for certain people to discuss is very dangerous even if it were true. . . . . Should we therefore say that those who haven't studied it deeply with all it's complexities cannot be a christian?

No one, at least not me, has ever prevented anyone from discussing whatever they like at whatever level. It is up to each individual to decide whether it is worth his/her while to get involved. One thing I know is that many of the self-acclaimed "intellectuals" seem to suggest that they know it all when quite often we can see that they are simply, erm "bloviating" (thanks to davidylan). People discuss issues as if they are experts when we can often tell that they have not even read 1/10 of the scholarship on the subject.

Pastor AIO: Everybody can bring their opinions to the table backed with their arguments. Those that are more knowledgeable can then help to correct the opinions of those that are less knowledgeable. Again they will do this by providing evidence and laying out superior arguments. There is nothing wrong with being wrong in an environment where everybody is learning. However sneering and jibing at someone you don't agree with without attempting to provide a counter argument is unhelpful to put it mildly. Simplistic opinions can be squashed simply by providing facts or examples that contradict it, or by extending the argument/opinion to the point of absurdity. Then even without offering an alternative opinion you can show the person you are discussing with how simplistic his standpoint was.

Well, here the only thing you have going for you is your stated intended change of attitude. This thread itself is a good example of my point on this. Who started the sneering and jibing? Who first maligned another's "intellectual capacity"? Only it turns out that the maligned were actually the more knowledgeable. The very point is that some were going on as though they had all the knowledge and the others had no brain cells etc Is that an atmosphere for everyone to bring their own opinions to the table?

Pastor AIO: When any sort of criticism is viewed as an attack rather than an opportunity to grow then such a person's position is very precarious indeed.

There is "criticism" and there is idiocy.

When someone says that "Jesus was a bastard" for example you can call it "criticism" if you like, just recognise that others are also free and entitled to see it differently.

Whistlle. . .

logicboy:

Doesnt the bible teach you not to judge? Where is your proof that Obama is a satanist? Do you think its fair to just accuse someone without any shred of evidence?



Matthew 7
New International Version (NIV)
Judging Others

7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you"

Here is a man of God who has given reasons why Obama is a non-Christian. Watch this videoclip that shows what Obama said in the picture you posted above.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyjUFhiaGcc

This is John Piper's response to Obama's declaration on Abortion.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O68MByaMVdM

Per John Gray from http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/01/09/3213725.htm

Also http://www.investigatingatheism.info/johngray.html

Nowadays most atheists are avowed liberals. What they want - so they will tell you - is not an atheist regime, but a secular state in which religion has no role. They clearly believe that, in a state of this kind, religion will tend to decline.

But America's secular constitution has not ensured a secular politics. Christian fundamentalism is more powerful in the United States than in any other country, while it has very little influence in Britain, which has an established church.

Contemporary critics of religion go much further than demanding disestablishment. It is clear that he wants to eliminate all traces of religion from public institutions. Awkwardly, many of the concepts such critics deploy - including the idea of religion itself - have been shaped by monotheism. Lying behind secular fundamentalism is a conception of history that derives from religion.

Ibid.

. . . evangelical atheists have positioned themselves as defenders of liberal freedoms - rarely inquiring where these freedoms have come from, and never allowing that religion may have had a part in creating them.

Among contemporary anti-religious polemicists, only the French writer Michel Onfray has taken Nietzsche as his point of departure. In some ways, Onfray's In Defence of Atheism is superior to anything English-speaking writers have published on the subject. Refreshingly, Onfray recognises that evangelical atheism is an unwitting imitation of traditional religion:

"Many militants of the secular cause look astonishingly like clergy. Worse: like caricatures of clergy."

More clearly than his Anglo-Saxon counterparts, Onfray understands the formative influence of religion on secular thinking. Yet he seems not to notice that the liberal values he takes for granted were partly shaped by Christianity and Judaism

Also:

In seeking universal conversion, evangelical atheism belongs with Christianity and Islam.

Enigma:

Per John Gray from http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/01/09/3213725.htm

What will fundamentalist atheist evolutionists do without Christianity just as Muslims cannot survive without the Bible. Remove Christianity and the Bible and you will find out that Secular humanism and Islam will no longer be relevant.

Exactly.
Obama is very respectful of the Bible and that makes it a perfect Christian.
God in the Bible always asked the people of Israel to destroy their enemies .... Obama does with the Islamists .... persecutes, tortures in Guantanamo violates women in Iraq ... He defends the word of God.
He was elected President of USA because God chose him!
It was God who wanted Obama, his son Christian elite ruled the most powerful country in the world.

SO MR GAY WEDDING OBAMA IS A BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN?.............................THIS IS DELUSION AT IT'S FINEST!!!

DID OBAMA HAVE TO KILL DONALD YOUNG,NATE SPENCER AND LARRY BLAND TO BECOME PRESIDENT?..................LIES FROM THE CHURCH WILL ALWAYS BE USED TO BACK UP MURDERERS WHO ARE THEIR MEMBERS!!!

THE GUY WHO WAS BORN IN KENYA AND THEN TOLD ALL THE GULLIBLE FOOLS THAT HE WAS BORN IN AMERICA?I KNOW OF 3 PEOPLE WHO DISCOVERED THIS LIE!!!SADLY THEY ARE ALREADY DEAD!!!

i once watched a YouTube video of him denouncing God. My take on him is he's a fake OR he's way out of wack as a Christian.

I insist. Jesus himself had appeared to Obama, has chosen the name of God. He is an anointed ...
Understandably, some bad Christians feel envious of him ... But envy is a sin!
How Obama deny Christianity, if even Christ has been recognized as the best Christian in the universe?
As a good Christian, Obama suffers the horrible torture knowing that right now practiced in Guantanamo prisoners, with the continuing violations of the innocent Iraqi women ... But Obama is serving a mission for our Lord ...
Loving God is not only pray and read the Bible, and Obama, as a chosen, anointed of God knows what is the sacrifice!. He received directly the message that gays are creations of God and should have the same rights as other ... Its decisions are the decisions of God ... Soon, abortion is free in the united states ... the executor may be Obama, but the divine command of our Lord Jesus Christ is.
Whoever denies Obama is a bad Christian, a servant of Satan!.

tell me,did you suck obama's dick?whoever denies obama is a servant of satan?do you worship him?he legalized sex with animals and you have the guts to say he receives advice from jesus?

Encore per John Gray

It is unlikely that Mao, who launched his assault on the people and culture of Tibet with the slogan "Religion is poison", would have agreed that his atheist world-view had no bearing on his policies. It is true he was worshipped as a semi-divine figure - as Stalin was in the Soviet Union. But in developing these cults, communist Russia and China were not backsliding from atheism. They were demonstrating what happens when atheism becomes a political project. The invariable result is an ersatz religion that can only be maintained by tyrannical means.

Uyi Iredia:

i once watched a YouTube video of him denouncing God. My take on him is he's a fake OR he's way out of wack as a Christian.

He is also a supporter of Aleister Crowley as you can see in the picture. This will surely impress satanists in the November elections.

olaadegbu,the photograph says it all,for it was crowley who once said and i quote...............'i pluck out the eyes of jesus as he hangs on the cross',he also said that only lunatics believe in the bible.