₦airaland Forum

[quote author=x_Theorist link=topic=268762.msg3824733#msg3824733 date=1241531903]I am an intellectual, I am a theorist and I have written views and opinions that both of you combined can never have the capability to produce. I say this because you are limited in your mind capacity to contemplate outside of concepts that you are familar and comfortable in.[/quote]LMAO. You? An intellectual? Try structuring a sentence properly and adding a bit of logic to your theories. I've seen Yahoo boys with higher intellectual capacities.

Your ignorance is only matched by your arrogance, you cretin.

The quote below just goes to show what a buffoon you are:

Innovation and creativity require that you delete old ideas and contemplate theories for what possibilities exist in human interaction and what policies should be formulated to respond to that.

Believe it or not, there are many "old ideas" that are rock solid in their construction. To "delete" them and try to formulate a crackpot theory purely for the sake of it is peurile idiocy. To then justify those deluded theories by stating that their novelty gives them credence is totally ridiculous.

I've seen turds floating in a toilet bowl which could lay claim to being more intellectual than yourself.

[quote author=x_Theorist link=topic=268762.msg3823702#msg3823702 date=1241520126]I will ask you again before I care to educate you on the legal argument about gay rights and same sex marriage.[/quote]Small boi - you do not have the mental capacity to "educate" me.

Which country do you reside in?

I now live in the UK after having travelled all over the world. What does that have to do with anything?

If you can not engage me in a logical argument for or against it then I suggest you do not respond at all to the post with emotional outbursts.  Understand?

I understand that you are an idiot. You can't see the logic in my counter-argument?
Let me put it this way so that even a slowpoke like you can understand it:

Incest and pedophilia have been going on since time immemorial. Go back in time and you will find that in some cultures they were even accepted acts within society. They are not today and never will be accepted again - society has completely changed it's outlook and there is no going back, whatever a slowpoke like you may suggest.
To suggest that gay rights mean a reversion to those old times is just plain pathetic. It shows you are nothing but a hollow man with no argument - just a hater who talks shit.

LOL. Go back a few hundred years and you will find incest and beastiality were much more prelevant. Yet back then, they were lynching gays. According to your own logic, lynching gays and stamping down on gay rights would mean beastiality and incest would become more rampant!!!
I suggest that you study the weakness of your own argument before spouting more crap.

toneyb:
I was just wondering about the original sin argument that Christians postulate most of the time.

Original sin is a Catholic thing.
Most non-Catholics don't believe in it - those that do adhere to it in some form, believe that Christ wiped the Sin away with his Crucifixion and Ressurection.

Beastiality has resulted in pregnancy?

You're talking crap again guy.

Pedophilia and incest have always been about and have often resulted in pregnancy - it's not some new phenomenon that's just suddenly appeared with a liberal society.

Even if you could prove a link to the modern era (which you can't), you still can't provide one to link that onwards to gay marriage.

Your argument is double-bleeped.

epi:
I really like to listen to them becase they are beyond funny.  what channel they on?

3 minutes into this video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka-s-PY5gd8&feature=related

and the beginning of this one:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCrK5n_7zBM&feature=related


William Shakespeare - "Undoubtedly black!!!!".

No.
I don't deny the deity of the idea of Christ.

But who is to say if Spong is a Christian or not?

ElRazur:
Zap you man. Where are you employing common sense?

It is a common misconception for people - especially ignorant ones - to draw a parallel between paedophiles and Homosexual. Jeez, that is like comparing Apple and a frog.

Read my post again.

[quote author=x_Theorist link=topic=268762.msg3820909#msg3820909 date=1241458184]Jut food for thought![/quote]No it's not. It's complete crap.

How can one compare gay rights to people screwing animals?

I'm no fan of homosexual marriages but to state that they may open the floodgate to incest, pedophilia and beastiality is just bullshit.

SeanT21:
Why is she adopting all these black babies sef??

Adopted babies from Africa or Asia are the latest thing for the Hollywood set.

Prior to that, the ignorant pricks just resorted to sticking small dogs in their handbags.

My bet is that she got pregnant in prison as a way to get out of the firing squad.
The forced mule argument could be a believable one if she was smuggling drugs in, but she was smuggling them out.
Quite simply, it looks like she was muling through the Netherlands, onto Bangkok and then picking up another assignment at Laos. That looks way more like a professional mule than someone being forced to carry.

I doubt very much wether she will be executed but will probably get a life term. Even if she were to be executed, they would wait for the child to be born. On the other hand, it is possible that she was raped in jail and that the Laos authorities want to get the trial over before the accusations start coming out. If she wasn't raped, it says a lot about her character.

By the way - Google her name and you will see that every news report states that she is British. Her family were granted asylum and she was given citizenship when her uncle was killed in Naija. Trying to read racism into this is crass.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=268467.msg3819585#msg3819585 date=1241446368]We belong on that list.[/quote]Maybe. But there are also a lot of other countries who are far worse who aren't on there.

Saw these guys on TV a couple of nights ago.

They claim that a whole bunch of white guys are or were really black.

Tom Jones, Mozart, Einstein, Isaac Newton.

When asked if Abraham Lincoln was white or black they said "Jury's still out".

bleeped up thing though - if you're dark-skinned but your father was white, they don't classify you as black. If your mother was white and your father black, that's OK though. Even if you look white

huxley:
Ignoring the myriads of other problems with this comment for now, you seem to fail miserably with what you claim to care about - the literature.

I find that a little insulting. Never once have I tried to shove Christianity down your throat or tried to defend the undefendable.

1) The biblical literature conveys that direct continuity between the OT and NT gods.

Really? A couple of very dodgy prophesies? I think that if there really was a direct continuity, we'd see a helluva lot more than just a couple of sentences in the OT, don't you? Or are you going to run away from logic?

2) Jesus himself associates strongly with the OT gods and commandments. See Matt 5: 17-22

Jesus was a Jew. Did you expect him to never refer back? The fact remains though, that he broke plenty of Jewish laws. Enough to distinguish himself as a thinker outside of the box.

What grand truth about the nature of reality does the bible (both OT and NT) reveal?

To me, the "grand truth" as you call it is only relevant to myself. I have no wish to preach it to you.

There was a time when the bible was used as the oracle for questions about reality and at such times no one objected that it was being used incorrectly. The bible was used to explain the origins of everything (universe, humans, matter, etc, etc) with god being the mastermind behind this.

So? It was the science of it's day.

Now, should we continue to hold the literal biblical narratives of the nature of reality? If not, why not?

It's all down to your own personal belief, Huxley. There is no "we" in this matter - only "I" when discussing this aspect of reality. That's part of the grand truth.

These are things pertinent to the matter you claim to care about - the literature. Basically, how should we read the literature and how would you justify objectively your approach?

I've already answered. Take into account history, sociology and politics. If you read a newspaper, you don't swallow every story do you? You look at who owns the newspaper, how reliable it's sources are, what other newspapers are reporting on the same subject, etc.

Is Jesus Christ a man, or is he God?

Who cares? Seriously.

I don't care if Christ walked this Earth or not as a man or god. I don't care about physical miracles, physical virgin births or physical resurrections.

What matters is the idea.

Huxley.

Understanding is not just about being able to quote Bible passages. One has to study the history, sociology and the politics of the time.
When I debate you on the Bible, I don't do so on the pretext of defending Christianity - I do so on the basis of the literature itself and the context it was written in. One has to take into account the evolution of the god in that book.

If I were to give you the purely Christian argument, I could say that Christ bought the New Covenant and that he brought a totally new approach to god's relationship with man, thereby negating the passages in your opening post. That's a very difficult answer to argue with as it is borne out by the NT.
But to me, that is a cop out and running away from the history, sociology and historical aspects.

When we look at the Bible, we have to look at it as a book of it's time. A book written by many people over a long period and where the god evolves in it's pages. To begin with, we have a universal god who creates, this then evolves to the wrathful war god of the Jews and finally, into the loving God of the NT.
Is it all the same god? The answer is yes and no. To a degree it is the same god (omnipotent and eternal) but he has also been changed so much by the writers of the Bible as to become indistinguishable. The trick is to look behind the politics, sociology and history.
Go to the vast mojority of churches and you will see god preached in this way - the authorities quite often look behind the atrocities and look for the goodness of the god of the OT. The god has evolved yet again only this time not in the literature but in the preaching.

Does Christianity not claim that Jesus is God and identifies him with the God of the OT?  Or am I mistaken?

Some do. Some don't. In fact there was a very strong movement that totally discarded the OT and regarded the god as evil in the early days of Christianity. These days, the movement is coming back in a more casual and informal way -  a lot of Christians don't tend to dwell on the OT god and see the only link to the NT god being omnipotence. It only tends to be the fundamentalists who rabidly cling onto every aspect of the OT god.

My personal belief is that the OT is a book that is not relevant to Christianity in any way other than as a historical marker. It has done it's job.
It was used to sell the new religion to it's new converts and those converts needed something familiar to help them change from one belief system to another. I see it as a stepping stone that was used to give early Christianity authority. But I also believe that the river has been crossed and that the stepping stone is not needed any more.

You call me an apologist for Christianity. That simply isn't true. I have no need to apologise, and truthfully, if you were to write that my God is all the bastards under the Sun, I wouldn't mind. I am comfortable with my beliefs and don't feel the need to defend them. The reason I pick you up on these points, as I've already stated, is to defend the literature alone - not the god it's pages contain.

I'm a Christian and I don't.

Huxley.

Yet again you come across as the rabid, fanatical type who goes on the attack merely for the sake of it.

The title of your thread is not only misleading but to tell the truth, it makes you look pretty despicable. It seems like just a desperate, badly thought out attack on some of the Christian posters here.

You are well aware that the passage refers to the Jewish OT god and was written for the Jewish people in the context of those times and you would also be well aware that Jesus was the antithesis to that god in word and deed according to the NT.


I don't feel the need to defend Christianity but I do feel that it is only right to point out that you should try to be more truthful in future, if only for your own sake.

LOL.

There is so much ignorance in his post, it's waste of time even bothering to rebutt it. Literally every sentence stinks of falsity, arrogance and imbecility.

This fool drivels on about the Carbioneri and the French Grand Orient.
Go read up idiot - neither are recognised Freemasonry.
If you can't even get a simple point like that correct, how can anyone expect to believe a single word you write?

The Holy Roman Church has never "believed, professed and preached" that the Earth was flat

Oh no? Flat Earthism was dogma until well into the Renaissance. It wasn't until Magellan that the Catholic Church renounced it. Up until then it was OK and believed by just about everyone on the planet. So you're telling me that the Catholic Church believed in a spherical Earth all the time but never preached it or put to rest the fallacy of Flat Earthism? A statement that is just utterly laughable.

And I suppose the Catholic Church didn't believe that the Earth was the centre of the Universe too? Go look up Galileo, fool.

We receive insults far worse than this on daily basis

That doesn't suprise me in the least. Ignorant people tend to get short shrift.

ElRazur:
a recent example is the Piracy issue off the somali coast. If memory serves me right, companies and nations have been paying up, until the US special forces took some decisive actions.

Just a point but it was the French who took the first decisive action.
They even sent commandoes to mainland Somalia to capture some pirates who had attacked a French vessel.

[quote author=ok.gerald link=topic=264293.msg3810308#msg3810308 date=1241223448]What baffles me about christaianity is that a god dies, was tortured,dragged on the floor, nailed to the wall and u call that God? Haba,[/quote]No more baffling than creating a religion around the Jewish god, hardly changing it at all and then hating Jews.

LMAO.

Catholics don't get divorced.
They just stop being married to one another.

[quote author=x_Theorist link=topic=253861.msg3808874#msg3808874 date=1241195510]Thank you Horus, I agree with you. The aid is an impediment to our ambition for self realization and blocks our resourcefullness for competition.[/quote]What utter bullshit.
If the West cut aid to Africa, millions would die.
The problem is not with aid. The problem is how it's used and the attitude towards it. That is something that only Africa can deal with.

Someone said Africa needs trade not aid. But if you've got nothing to trade and no money to buy with, statements like that are purely a pipedream. Sure, industries could be set up by Africans but look at how successful they've been in the past. Within a couple of years, they've been destroyed by corruption or fallen prey in civil strife.

It's not a case of the West giving with one hand and taking with the other, it's the African mind-set of holding it's hand out all the time and just wasting good money.

That problem isn't caused by the West. They don't cause the poverty that kick-starts the process. It's tribalism that's the cause.
Look anywhere in Africa and you will see tribalism causing corruption, violence and leading onto poverty and circulating back round again. That cannot be blamed on the West - it's an African problem that has been around long before colonisation.

Shit, the West was even dumb enough to export it to it's own shores during slavery. Look at the US cities now with the black gangs. Nothing more than another form of tribalism that keeps the black people down. But who's fault is it? Whites didn't start the gangs. Sure, US negroes would say it's caused by poverty but they're simply doing nothing more than reverting to their African roots.

Deal with tribalism and then you can start solving the problems. Until then, Africa will always rely on handouts. Stop the aid and you just go into a vicious circle of more poverty, more corruption, more violence and more tribalism.

The only way out for Africa is for the African to stop shitting on his brother. Once he realises that, he can start to build.

RichyBlacK:
Obama should not deal with those evil tyrants that use religion to subdue the masses.
Even Saddam's kids did not torture a human in this way.

Saddam's kids were just as bad, if not much worse. Uday was said to be such a cruel sadist that even his own father was disturbed.

But I agree with you that the West should distance itself from these regimes.


That said, where is the general Muslim outrage over this case? They riot in the streets when US water-boarding is mentioned but when something like this which is far, far worse occurs, there is nothing but silence.

LMAO.

Torture? Throwing a bit of water over someone is torture?

Shit. What do the Yanks know about torture?

Real torture is dismembering your opponent - cutting off his limbs one by one. Or beating the soles of his feet with wire. And how about placing the terminals of a car battery on his testicles and electrocuting him? What about sticking tissue paper down between his collar and neck and setting fire to it - that's always a good one. If all that doesn't work, a plain old beating with steel tipped boots and rifle butts is always a good one.
Now that's proper torture.


And guess what. Those are the methods used every single day by the nations who are complaining about the Yanks and their water-boarding. Shit, they don't even need an excuse of endangering national security - torture is commonplace. Anyone smell the bullshit of hypocrisy?
Oh yeah, if some guy is planning to blow me up and the Yanks catch him, I couldn't give a shit if they want to dunk him in a bit of water for a few seconds to get information.

And look at who the Yanks are supposedly "torturing". I know I'd sure as shit prefer to have water thrown in my face rather than the acid that these scum throw in the face of school girls.

The Ezekiel "vision" describes cherubs.
These are found elsewhere in the Bible long before Ezekiel.

To say that they describe aliens is a stretch when you look at the actual passages.

3 The winged creatures were standing south of the temple when the man walked among them. A cloud filled the inner courtyard,

4 and the brightness of the LORD's glory moved from above the creatures and stopped at the entrance of the temple. The entire temple was filled with his glory, and the courtyard was dazzling bright.

5 The sound of the creatures' wings was as loud as the voice of God All-Powerful and could even be heard in the outer courtyard.

6 The man in the robe was now standing beside a wheel.

7 One of the four creatures reached its hand into the fire among them and gave him some of the hot coals. The man took the coals and left.

8 I noticed again that each of the four winged creatures had what looked like human hands under their wings,

9 and I saw the four wheels near the creatures. These wheels were shining like chrysolite.

10 Each wheel was exactly the same and had a second wheel that cut through the middle of it,

11 so that they could move in any direction without turning. The wheels moved together whenever the creatures moved.

12 I also noticed that the wheels and the creatures' bodies, including their backs, their hands, and their wings, were covered with eyes.

13 And I heard a voice calling these "the wheels that spin."

14 Each of the winged creatures had four faces: the face of a bull, the face of a human, the face of a lion, and the face of an eagle.

15 These were the same creatures I had seen near the Chebar River. They controlled when and where the wheels moved--the wheels went wherever the creatures went and stopped whenever they stopped. Even when the creatures flew in the air, the wheels stayed beside them.

Two things to note:
One: the creatures are described as flying themselves - not with the aid of a space-craft, they were winged.
Two: they were supposedly depicted on the lid of the Ark of the Covenant.

Ezekiel is making a description of his vision when he approached the Ark - the place where his god was supposed to reside.

OMG I expected much from u. You mentioned an Airplane. And even if it comes from an unknown origin (doesnt apply to UFO's definition ), it is an Airplane because you can identify it. Men UFO's exist and i've seen one.

I've gotta admit that made me laugh. UFO believer dissing god believer as if one of them has a monopoly on the truth.

sancta:
Yes, for the Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that freemasonry is evil.

The Holy Roman Church also "believed, professed and preached" that the Earth was flat.
I care about as much for their opinion as for yours - ie: zero.

Freemasonry is anti- catholic and worst of all anti-Christ

Actually my uneducated friend, it's the other way round. The Catholic church is anti-Freemasonry. The Freemasons themselves couldn't give a flying shit about the church and accept Catholics amongst their ranks. Although it must be noted that any Catholic who joined until recently risked ex-communication. It just goes to show how rabid the Catholic Church is. For it's stance on Masonry, it is matched only by Nazism and Stalinism - two other deluded persecutors.
As for being anti-Christ? You're spouting more deluded conspiracy clap-trap. Freemasonry contains what are known as "The Christian Degrees". These are only open to those who believe in the Trinity and Christ is as adored as much by Freemasons as by any other Christians.

If you infer that I am rude. So be it.

Nah. You're not rude. You're just ignorant and stupid.

mazaje:
it wasn't "prophesising" anything. . . the book is just the rants of a disturbed man. . . with ideas, imaginations and fantasies that fit only a disturbed and deluded individual. . .

Actually it was "prophesising".

It's about the downfall of the Roman Empire.

Take it in the context of the times it was written in. The author was a Christian at a time when Rome was set against Christianity. It wasn't until the 19th century that it became to be considered as a "vision of the future" as modern day fundamentalists look upon it now.

I'm not suggesting for one second that it is accurate - although Rome eventually fell, it did so without fulfilling any of the "prophesies" in Revelation.

Good link below describing how and why Revelation was written:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/revelation/white.html

Well said! Different tactics but it's not too far from the MEND cause in the Delta.

It's totally different.
MEND aren't funded by wealthy foreign businessmen who take a cut of every ransom.

oyb:
denial is a bitch, isn't it ?

Denial may be a bitch but running from a question is yellow.

Where is there a Islamic civilisation in the world today?