₦airaland Forum

where did the earth come from? The big bang? Where is the concrete proof?

There is nothing that has concrete proof. Nothing whatsoever.

But there are likelihoods and the likelihood that Evolution theory is correct and that Creationist theory is delusional clap-trap is just overwhelming.

One cannot compare a belief in Evolution with a non-belief (or a belief) in God. Evolution theory is based on science and comparison of the perceived physical. A belief in God is based in faith with no basis on science or the physical. To claim otherwise is peurile.

What amazes me is that Creationism is a relatively new phenomenon. Even in the early days of Christianity, nobody gave it any credibility. It is only with the rise of fundamentalism within the last century or so that it has come to the fore. It stands alone as being one of the only theories brought forward in recent times that has absolutely no basis in either science or the mainstream religious thought that it evolved from.

And therein lies the problem.

In Matthew, it's a crime against the Jewish authorities over which no Roman court has juridiction.

In Luke, it's a crime against the Roman state, in which case the Jewish Sanhedrin would have no say.

It's not a question of innocent or guilty. It's a question of wether or not it could have gone to court under those circumstances.

If we follow you line of reason and you knew then that these were trumped up charges, what verdict would you have given?

Trumped up charges is Not Guilty.

First define what you mean by good and evil and then show why my assertion that good cannot come from evil and vice versa is "empty and vacuous".

I think that in this case, we've got to say that good and evil are based on what we as human beings believe is morally right or wrong. It really is the only basis we have for comparison between the two. Agreed?

In that case there are plenty of goods that have come from evil. Take the ending of the 2nd World War by dropping the atomic bomb for example. An evil act, but by that act, countless lives were saved from further fighting.

I have not said that my views are based on the bible.

And I do respect your views - you've obviously thought them through and applied logic. But my problem with the premise you put forward is that, although you state they're not based on the Bible, a major part of them are. It can't be any other way as the Bible is just about the only literature we have regarding Jesus. Because of this, you fall into a trap if you just cherry pick pieces of the allegorical tale as you have. With the allegorical tale of Jesus, it's all or nothing. The tale we've got is that Jesus died for mankind and that it was prophesised. We don't have the evidence that he was here to spread the Word alone and that his death was the downfall of mankind. We can't take a little bit of the story and twist it like that because that's simply not how it's written and, as it is all we have, it's illogical to do so. It's like taking a Shakespeare play and giving it a different ending.
What we can do though, is look at historical evidence and apply that but in this case, as we're talking about the meaning of Christ's death and not the physical facts, it's irrelevant.


Returning to the question of good and evil and it's basis in morality, I would like to point you to a moral puzzle:

A mad-man has tied 4 people to a train track and there is a train coming down the line. The line forks and there are three people on the fork where the train is heading and one on the other fork. You are unable to untie them but you have the power to throw the switch on the tracks. Do you let the three people die or do you redirect the train so that just one dies?
Take that a bit further, imagine the one person is a child. What would you do then?
And then consider the same sort of scenario with a twist. You are on a bridge and there are a dozen people tied to the train track. This time you cannot reach a switch and the train is going to run them over. But just then, a fat man walks over the bridge. Your only way of stopping the train from killing those dozen people is by throwing the fat man over the bridge, onto the tracks and derailing the train. Would you do it?

My point is that good and evil are not always black and white. Sometimes they are interchangeable and sometimes the line between them is so blurred as for them to be indistinguishable between one another.

Do you think you exist?

I think therefore I am.
It is the only thing that I can be sure of.

I am simply asking you to play out both scenarios - 1) guilty 2) Innocent

And I am simply asking guilty or innocent of what crime and based on what evidence?
Your question cannot be answered until you've given a reply.

@ Huxley.

As far as I am aware it was just guilty or innocent - there was no leave to abstain under Roman Law.

And I stick to my guns here - it is impossible to know if someone is innocent or guilty unless you know what crime they are charged with.

it leaves the gaping hole like Mr nwankwo pointed out of using evil to achieve a good purpose.

No. That quote about nothing good ever coming out of something evil may sound grand but it's really empty and vaccuous.
Good comes out of evil all the time and vice verca. It's the way of the world.

The murder of Jesus is a literal as well as symbolic rejection of God by humankind, Had humankind not rejected the words of Jesus, Jesus will not be murdered and he would have lived to a ripe old age bringing to humankind the power and the truth of God,

Interesting theory but definitely not what the Bible is about - it's automatically assuming that a physical Christ existed who adhered to the Biblical description but if that's the case, the argument is fatally flawed. The Bible tells us Christ was prophesised to die for mankind. If he had lived, the whole thing would have been irrelevant. His whole story revolves around the fact that he had to die and be ressurected. Without those two elements, he's not the Son of God but just another man.

Are you sure you're not just suffering from a yeast infection?

Since you claim to be a "Christian" then no doubt Hitler must have been your kind of "Christian", in name only.

Nope. I'd say he was your kind of Christian - a blind, illogical fanatic who went out of his way to try and screw over anyone who disagreed with him.

You do know that Jesus is a very common name in Latin America where this ship was headed?
It has nothing to do with the name of Christ.

Ironically one of the Portugese ships that Hawkins plundered for slaves was called the Madre De Deus (The Mother of God).

See the link below to find out what kind of influence Charles Darwin made on people like Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot who were mass murderers. Remember to click on the hyperlink showing Darwin's impact - the bloodstained legacy of evolution and Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust.

LMAO. You hold Darwin responsible for the actions of Hitler?
Then your god is responsible for a far larger holocaust as his religion has been directly responsible for the murder of millions upon millions of men.

By the way - Hitler was a Christian raised in a staunchly Catholic household and Stalin trained to be a priest. Ironic huh?

Keep shitting in your straw brother. One day it may smell as bad as you do.

Although you were not there at the time, it is not hard to visualise the nature of the trial and the sides taken by followers of Jesus.

I totally disagree. The Biblical account gives nowhere near enough information to be able to make a judgement.
In fact, it looks in places to be in error - Jesus was tried by the Romans over a matter that had nothing to do with them, ie: Jesus screwing with Jewish law. The Sanhedrin would have been responsible for the trial and execution if the Biblical account were true.
How can one make a judgement when one doesn't have the facts?

Tell me. What would have been your verdict and on what basis?

why did Jesus choose him as an apostle then if not to fulfil that which he had been chosen to do?
Why did he kill himself?

Look at Jesus' life and you'll see that it is all about fulfilling prophesy. To my mind, Judas was merely another tool used to complete the prophesies. In that respect, he was chosen. Chosen for his weakness.

As to Judas killing himself? There are conflicting accounts in the Gospels. One says he hung himself and another says he fell to the ground and burst his guts open.

I don't see them as hard questions (although the 3rd doesn't really have an answer).

1) Probably trumped up charges of treason and sedition against the Roman state. Crucifixion was reserved for these crimes.

2) No. But then I don't see the Gospels as concentrating that much on the legal aspects of the trial.

3) That's unanswerable. But not for the reasons you are insinuating. Nobody can say unless they actually lived in those times and through the event. All we can do is give an answer as to what we would do now based on our present experiences thus making the question irrelevant.

It has nothing to do with being ignorant.

Ignorance is throwing logic out of the window and blindly putting your faith in contradictory scripture.

As already stated - if God can do anything and Jesus was God, then he must have had the ability to sin.
If Jesus was unable to sin, he couldn't have been God.
Pure logic that cannot be argued with.

the answer is YES! any problem with that?

Which Commandments? The 10 Commandments?

But Jesus knew he was going to betray him and yet he allowed it, is that not evidence Judas had his approval?

Not necessarily. Most views have it that Jesus "wanted" to be crucified as this was his purpose here on Earth. It was his destiny. But just because that is what he wanted, it does not make Judas' act any more reprehensible and he may have just seen Judas as a means to an end - an evil to make true an act of good. That is certainly the impression that the scriptures give.

Remember, what we're looking at here is the story itself, not the physical facts. Start looking for those physical facts and you run into an immediate brick wall - we can't even tell for sure that Judas existed let alone if a physical Jesus existed and was crucified. All we have is the story. We have to look at what it means and take the liklihoods from there.

I have to admit that I tread very warily around books such as the Gospel of Judas. These were likely written when the first great schisms appeared in Christianity and when there was a war between othodoxy and gnosticism. I believe that sometimes, authors reworked stories and made them the exact opposite of the original just so that they could distance themselves from the other side.

On the other side if Jesus could have sinned, how could he be truly God.

It seems logical that Jesus could sin if he chose to do so.
If Jesus is God and God can do anything, He can sin.

But look to the Bible and you will see examples:

When Jesus chased the money-changers from the Temple, he used violence. This is a sin. We may overlook it as we see the violence that he used as a justification - the money-changers got what they deserved. But violence against other human-beings is a sin nonetheless.

And then take a look at the god of the Old Testament. How many people did he order the Hebrews to murder? In supposedly direct contradiction of his own Commandments? Again, Christians will justify this as a means to an end, but there is no doubt that killing people (including innocent children in these instances) is a sin.

But returning to Jesus, the probability is that when the Bible says he is "Without sin", it means that he "Does not sin". Not that he "Cannot sin".

The major problem we have here is that there is no record of Judas Iscariot apart from the Bible and the Gospel of Judas.
My take on it is that we have to go on the Bible here and look at Judas as a villain - allbeit a complex one.

I agree with Huxley to a point but the question as to what would have happened if Judas had not played his part is irrelevant - there is no way of telling what would have happened. Jesus may have worked out another way to reveal himself to the Romans or it's even possible that one of the other disciples may have stepped into Judas' shoes. But like I say, that question is irrelevant and what has to be concentrated on is Judas' role.

The Bible states that he did what he did for money but the Gospel of Judas states that he did it for Jesus' grand plan. Looking at it logically, the money side wins and he was a villain. Otherwise, why did he not stick around afterwards? Why just take the money and run? Why take the money at all if he was innocent? The fact that money changed hands seems to over-ride any excuse that he was just following orders.
On this subject, I tend to sway more towards the Bible's interpretation than that of the gnostic scripture.

I believe it is because Hinduism was based around the Vedic belief system and is thousands of years old, whereas Sikhism is totally different - both in content and the fact that it is relatively new.
More than enough to make a distinction between the two.

Consequently, it does not require its adherents to accept any one idea like a dogma imposed on every one. It does not accept any dogmas or dictatorial religious guidance. It encourages every one to think, analyze, question and accept the faith with true knowledge and intuition.

Not true. There is man-made fundametalism and dogma within the beliefs of Hinduism just as there are with any other religion.

I didn't realise that there was anything such thing as Hinduism. I thought it was just a blanket term that the British used to describe all the various religious forms that they found in India.

Spot on.

They're all going to Heaven.

But only if they all agree with David Dylan. He's taken the keys of the Pearly Gates from St Peter.
It doesn't matter what you do down here on Earth as long as you bow down to dogma.

I, on the other hand, am going to Hell. Not because I've been bad, but through choice - I simply couldn't stand being cooped up in David Dylan's Heaven listening to his sanctimonious bullshit for all Eternity.

People like me dont hush anything up, that is why i spend hrs tackling the clueless claims on evolution by Huxley and co. When we have rigorous scientific debates i dont see loudmouths like you there . . . where do you hide your brain?

You have "rigorous scientific debates" defending Creationism? Quite simply - no you don't. They argue using science, you argue using complete and utter bullshit.

The reason you don't see me is that Creationism is a subject that is so laughable, so ridiculous, so utterly, utterly, incomprehensibly ignorant, that I find it a complete and utter waste of time discussing it.
Anyone who believes in Creationism is a grade 1 cretin. End of story.

it is a heartfelt relationship with God. You certainly DO NOT have that relationship

Typical, smug, arrogant, pompous "Christian" attitude. Yeah. I love the way you guys tell other people that they have no relationship with their God yet you crap your pants in fear around yours.

Read ur bible well.

Done that. Also researched the events surrounding it's creation and the history behind it. That's why I understand it, am comfortable with it, recognise it's fallability and don't have to swallow dogmatic bullshit.
Unlike you who takes the illogical and tries to make it logical, failing totally and utterly and making your God look like a dipshit in the process.

Our father of faith(Abraham) never argued on the integrity of God's word.

Yet again, another Christian spouting crap. Even the Bible directly contradicts that claim.
When God states that he is going to kill everyone in Sodom and Gommorah, Abraham has a major problem with it and he flat out tells him.

Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly? (Genesis 18:25)

The Pride of Self(mind) is a dangerous disease worst than Aids(HIV) because it goes beyond the physical body of a soul.

Pride of the Self is what I call the "Religious Disease". The number of Christians who sit there smugly claiming that they are the ones with the only truth is astounding. If that's not "Pride of the Self" then what is?

Are you a cultural christians or a believing-in-the-dogma and practising christian?

No. I have a brain and I use it. Unlike David Dylan and the rest of the "swallow it at all costs" imbeciles.
Neither am I just a cultural Christian following the herd.

The sheer venom and scorn that drips from the posts of duduspace, mazaje, bastage, huxley and co whenever they talk about christianity and the bible should be enough to tell you where the hate comes from.

See how dipshit includes my name in there even though he is aware I'm a Christian? That's because he doesn'tlike anyone who recognises the flaws in the religion. People like him like to hush them up and pretend that they don't exist. People like him are the reason why a lot of people see Christianity as a religion of thickshits.

Why is it amazing?
Throughout the ages, mankind puts a face on an image that is closest to him.
Look at images of the Buddha and you will see the same - there are Indian Buddhas, Chinese Buddhas, Thai Buddhas etc.

But take what you know using logic. Just as the Buddha was born in Northern India and so had Northern Indian features so Christ would have looked like a native of his area.

https://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_jesuslead-lg.jpg

There are no "Christain Missioneiries" due to be killed in Afghanistan.

And this link www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-469745/Taliban-extends-deadline-23-Koreans-kidnapped-Afghan-bus--again.html is just bullshit as they were all released 2 years ago.

I'm all for crapping on the Taleban but if this thread is just in the name of Christianity versus Islam you can suck my manhood.


Note that the OP posted "23 missionary families" though. That would probably amount to well over 100 people.
Nothing in the news either before or after. This thread is just bullshit.

My question is why are they worried about what they do not believe that exists?

But you do believe that God exists, right?

So why are you worried about what atheists think?

Are you worried that they have a better argument?


This is what I can never understand about Christians (even though I consider myself to be one): they worry about what atheists think, pursue them with what almost seems a hatred at times and treat all of their issues with contempt - even those that are founded within logic.

OP: My advice to you is to concentrate on your own faith. Let others concentrate on thiers. You're just as much of a worrier as they are.

I call bullshit.
Show me the link to the news report - especially where the child claims that Jesus saved her.

I'll let you have the last say to pacify you. Friend.

That's very kind of you.

Yanno, I've seen idiots like you come and go before. They throw in a statement thinking that they are so correct but then get blown apart and cry like pussies. Once they are exposed as empty-handed and empty-headed, all they can do is resort to smoke-screening and bullshit (take a look at your crap about Wiki to see how this works. I mean, what the feck does Wiki's relevance really have to do with Jesus' age?).

Then we get the typical "I won, you're so shit" retorts, even when it's really clear that the poster didn't have a clue what he was talking about.

"Where did I say or imply that adulthood starts in the late teens, erh?
Quote me, I dare you."

Bitch, I don't have to. Both you and I know for a fact that is what you were implying when you thought you were smart enough to gain points. You knew it was 13 right? Yet you never mentioned that Christ travelled to the Temple at 12 and could have turned 13 whilst he was there? You never mentioned that only adults could go to the Temple and debate priests? You used a quote from the Bible that actually shows Jesus was an adult yet you never even mentioned it? Why is that, I wonder?
I'll tell you why. It's because you didn't know. Pretend otherwise my friend, but you've been found sorely lacking.

Amusing to see how the buffoon descends into hypocrisy isn't it?

Mental capacity? Debate? . . . with plagiarism

Actually, there was no plagiarism on my part. I merely posted a couple of links to back up my statements. Those statements were based on sound knowledge which has been agreed upon by scholars the world over. And what did you post? Bible passages!!! That was the only proof or source you could offer!!! Pathetic. Accuse me of plagiarism for lacing an argument with logical sources whilst you throw in scripture without any recourse to backing it up. In fact, not only are you a hypocrite, but you've proven yourself to be a lazy hypocrite. The number of idiots who post scripture parrot fashion without having a clue of it's contents and meaning is amazing and you are certainly in there amongst them.

Please come back when you want to play again. But next time, bring some balls and some brains.

An oxymoron written by a total slowpoke.