₦airaland Forum

OLAADEGBU:
That is why you use blind faith for what you cannot see with the eyes of faith.

When will you learn that you are caught in an illogical trap of your own making when worrying about Heaven and Hell?

You worship your god because you want to avoid his hell and go to his heaven.You worship to avoid punishment and gain reward.
Let me tell you guy, that's not worshipping for his sake. You are worshipping for your own sake.

That's something known as self serving. It is not service to god and deeper down, it's serving the very thing that you fear the most.

Take a closer look man. If you're not serving your god, just who are you serving?

I guess the irony will fly totally over your blinkered head as usual though.

First my idiotic friend - I'm no atheist.
Secondly - I do not believe in the existence of hell.

It is merely a concept created to keep sheep like you in line.

Olaadegbu already lives in Hell.
His punishment is being forced to spout illogical bullsh!t here on nairaland.

You will probably find that some of those "nairaland ladies" are actually "nairaland guys".

You been talking dirty to a man.

There was no weekly day of worship for Ra.
He only had one specific day set aside - 26th May.
The instrument of torture that Brown refers to (obviously meaning the cross) was more connected to Horus and not Ra.

The main reason I can't stand Dan Brown is that he totally distorts religion but presents it in a way that makes gullible people swallow it.

davidylan:
Because heaven is NOT an islamic concept. Jaanat is NOT the same thing as heaven because it means "paradise".
In christianity, heaven and paradise are NOT the same thing. Dont confuse yourself.

LOL. Heaven isn't a Christian concept either. The idea was around thousands and thousands of years prior to Christianity. In Christianity itself the concept has evolved over the ages. Hell is no different - the churches are still redefining it right up to the present day.

As for Paradise and Heaven not being the same thing - it wasn't until the 2nd century AD when that biggoted oaf Irenaeus started destroying the original religion and replacing it with the power hungry monstrosity that it has become, that the two became separated.
Even now though, the majority of Christians equate them as one and the same.

[quote author=Missy ♥ B link=topic=525393.msg6887137#msg6887137 date=1286375298]Not all beliefs are false.
**I've always had a strong conviction/belief that elephants fly in the US, though without any concrete proof to fortify this notion. I actually visited the US last week and I saw flying elephants**. Was I wrong all along? No.
It's called true belief.[/quote]No. You you are getting mixed up between knowledge and belief.

There can be no such thing as a "true" religion.
Religions are beliefs. Beliefs are not truths.

Pastor AIO:
I'm sorry but no 'christians' on NL are in no position to cry when harsh criticisms are leveled against them.  People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.  The attitude of these NL christians has got to be the granddaddy of all hypocrisy.

For real!!

So olaadegbu? You hate yourself? That would explain a lot.

You're told that you're not worthy to keep you in line, slobbering at the feet of religion.

Doesn't the Bible also tell you that you are part of God? That He is within you and you in Him? By that logic, if you hate yourself, you also hate God.

It always amuses me how many times the New Testament tells us that money is evil, yet the churches are always saying that we must make money and give it to them.

Tithing is not a Christian concept. According to the NT it is utterly the opposite. Modern pastors try to justify tithing by pointing to it's origins in the Old Testament. What they always fail to mention is that the people in that book were Jews practicing ancient customs from older religions that they had adapted. Not once is tithing mentioned in the NT. All the evidence points to it being something contrary to Christianity.

If tithing is a part of Christianity, don't you think it would be mentioned just one single time in the New Testament? It isn't.

Of course there is. You only have to look at the way that Muslims dress their women to see that there is a relationship.

Women are covered up to hide their beauty so that men will not fight over her. This means there is less conflict and the religion can carry on unimpeded. Of course, Muslim men blame their own weakness on Allah by saying that it is his decree.

Judaism and historic Christianity were no different. In modern times though, it is really only the ultra-orthadox Jews who still require their women to cover.

Also do not forget that religious clothing can be looked at as a uniform. Again, ultra-orthodox Jews wear black suits with black hats. Wearing those clothes gives them a sense of belonging in the crowd and strengthens their religion.

MaziUche0:
Wrong venue though. But it shows that MEND means business. Our thieving politicians better be careful.

And you think that the politicians are going to be careful? You're sadly mistaken.
Tonight the orders will go out to the police and the army to round up suspects in Abuja. Most of those will be innocent. Do you think they will be handled gently?
Tomorrow or the next day, the army will pay a visit to some of the villages on the fringes of the ND. Do you think that the people in those villages will be treated well?

The politicians are not going to be "careful". They are going to do the same as MEND did. And it's down to MEND that the pot was stirred in the first place. No good can ever come of terrorism. Plain and simple fact.

playmode:
If that were the case, obviously I will be angry and hate MEND till the end of time. However I reiterated several and in my last post that I do condone the loss of innocent lives. That being said I want a situation whereby corrupt politicians in government will resign out of the fear of being attacked. The methods which MEND or other similar organizations will undertake to achieve this needs to be carefully thought out to ensure that not a single civilian is killed or injured.

So it's OK that they kill someone else's father, brother or son? Just so long as it's not yours?

Regarding your backtracking statement about innocents?

My GOD bless MEND, they are real patriotic Nigerians who can see through the farce of a president known as Jonathan. I hope they cause more havoc in Abuja, it is time for us to show support to those who are for good governance. There is nothing to celebrate in Nigeria and i am glad MEND has disgraced that baboon GEJ.

That was your first post. It is clearly supporting the bomb attacks today. It can not be read any other way.
It is impossible to applaud the attack and then in the next breath state that you believe innocents should not be targetted. The fact is innocents were targetted.

Gbawe:
Take it easy and see what Playmode is saying.

Nobody but nobody is saying that the governmental system in Nigeria is anything but corrupt.

But planting bombs to kill innocents is totally and utterly inexcusable. It doesn't matter how bad things are, when you start murdering your countrymen, you become the very thing you fight against - scum.

You seem to have issues with South Africa? Maybe you wish you were here.

My only issue with South Africa is that they allow retarded people to use the internet.

@ playmode.

As you such the big man, why don't you come back to Naija and take a walk around Eagle Square, whilst spouting the bullsh1t that you have here?
But you won't will you, small boi? You're the tough guy sitting in front of your PC monitor in South Africa but you'd cry like a girl when the chips are down.
What does a 12 year old kid like you know? Easy to talk a good fight but not brave enough to ever get involved in one.
"Revolution" LOL. What does an idiot like you know about revolution? Nothing. It's just a romatic word to a fool.
Hiding in the day, shouting from behind the locked door and only brave enough to come out in the dark. Nothing but yellow.

playmode:
.Yes people like me exist and we are called patriots ,dumba.z.z!

No. People like you are called cowards.

All this basically boils down to is an affirmation of Neo's character in the movie "The Matrix".

I'm not a Muslim either.
But Islam ran to the same formula when it started out.
Christians and Jews - People of the Book - were not looked upon as infidels who were going to hell.

* Not all of them are alike; a party of the people of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the Verses of God during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin Al-Ma'rûf and forbid Al-Munkar ; and they hasten in (all) good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those who are Al-Muttaqûn .(3:113-115)

* And there are, certainly, among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), those who believe in God and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before God. They do not sell the Verses of God for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely, God is Swift in account. '(3:199)'

* Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve . [Qur'an 2:6]

Of couse, these days, things have changed and any of us who refuse to slobber at Allah's feet are "infidels".

And you being the descendant of a guy made from clay and a woman created from that guy's rib who were both screwed over by a talking snake selling apples makes a lot more sense does it?

maclatunji:
So you are saying Christianity is a newer improved religion above that of the Jewish religion, Judaism (although they stay still practise it).

I don't say that as a personal view but you can bet your life that the vast majority of fundamental Christians and a fair proportion of practicing Christians believe that's the case. That's just the way that religion evolves. Look at the superior smugness of Islam which came even later - it's followers reckon that they're the new flavour.

Has it not occured to you that another Religion can claim to be better than Christianity because it came before medieval times and 'is outdated?

"Has it occured to me"?
LOL. I'm not a Christian and I study theology so a bit of a daft question there bro.
Nearly every religion reckons that it's the only true one - doesn't matter if it's old or new. The older ones argue that they're right because they've got the traditional backing and the new ones argue that they're right because they've managed to rework theory with a new twist (normally with a bit of "divine" approval).
The point is, the when a religion begins, it doesn't normally condemn everyone who came before to hell. In it's smugness it will claim that they were just ignorant and didn't know better. It's the guys who come after it's formation that it targets. After all, they're the people it needs to follow it - no people, no worshippers, no religion.
A healthy dose of fear is always on their menu.

LOL. The Jesus fable may be out there in the realms of fantasy but for a Jew to spout about it is ridiculous.

The Jesus story is no more unbelievable than a talking snake, a nomadic storm god wandering the desert or many of the thousands of other preposterous notions that make up the Old Testament.

From my understanding of Christianity, those born before Jesus were irrelevant as far as the new religion was concerned. As long as the earlier worshippers supported the Jewish god, they were OK. Let's not forget that Jesus himself was also purported to be a Jew so there's nothing unusual about this.

Christianity was basically a rewriting of the older religion. The only relevance is to what came after - not before.

An example - Formula One motor racing.
In the early days of the sport the cars were totally and utterly unrecognisable to the cars of today. The sport was also administered by a totally different governing body. But the big difference is that the drivers of today have to abide by the rules of the today. That said, we look at a Formula One champion as a Formula One champion - Fangio is mentioned in the same breath as Hamilton - they are both Formula One World Champions.

Christianity is much the same.
Judaism was the old Formula one with a different governing body. Christianity is the new Formula One. Both have different rules and the new has mostly superceded the old.

Christianity bought along the new covenant. It's those rules that matter now. The old drivers aren't condemned simply because they had different rules back then. But the new drivers are expected to stick to what the governing body says now.

Once again shows how European atheism is seething through the hearts of the mad and unstable. Mule.

LOL. Coming from an African who is a prime example of how a grovelling belief in an Arabian pagan god retards the mind, that's hilarious.

"Baaaaa, baaaaa, baaaa"

LMAO.

You haven't addressed anything. All you've done is spout lies and fabrication.

You burble on about Freud, you burble on about Nietsczhe yet I 100% guarantee that you haven't read a single one of their works. Not that they're even relevant here.

that is why it is called abelief cause there is a course to belief that the authorship of the quran is hardly human

I don't dispute the argument that the Q'ran itself may come from a "divine source" but you are a brainless sheep. You need other people to define it for you. Even with the book in front of you, you need other people to teach you what it means. The authorship of the book is therefore totally and utterly irrelevant. You made it irrelevant when you couldn't think for yourself.

You lie about the injustices and the persecutions of religions. You lie that you don't fear. You lie and accuse because you are a cornered, scared dog.

Now only a pig will claim that religion has not even for once done justice between people, now read his claim and ask yourselves if this is a rational mind

Who cares about "once"? The overwhelming, inescapable truth is that the use of religion has caused more wars, more pain, more harship and more misery to man-kind than nearly every other factor in human history.
You deny this, yet at the same time you started a thread claiming that Hitler was a Christian and because of his religion, the Holocaust came about. Do you realise that you are defeating your own argument you pathetic ignoramus? 

All you have are insults and weak denial. You have no argument. You are utterly defeated.

Keep bleating like the mindless, frightned sheep that you are.

"Baaaa, baaa, baaaa".

vedaxcool:
Now that is daft thinking  what this fool wants us to believe is that you can grow up in jungle and remain very civilized why bother only fools will make such claims and for one thing it is better to leave a dog mind like yours to wag its tong.

You say daft thinking but yet you can't say why. That's just another one of your empty rebuttals.

Now fools  like you are wont in quoting born fools like karl max, freud ect because your own beliefs are usually from deluded individuals take freud for example he was a drug user and had a coccain addiction mow how would I follow thoughts of a deluded man, whose thoughts emanated from drug use only cretins like you follow what your master's deluded mind thinks and finally you only confirmed you atheism since you do not fear God or whatever your master parrots and for one

Neither Marx nor Freud are the issue here. Neither is their work. The above is irrelavent.

I  prefer to follow what I think came from a devine source rather than parrot what other cocain sniffing men say.

And what "divine source" that hasn't come out of the mouths of men would that be then?

And as for fear of non - Muslims that goes to show why i called you daft, once your masters say a thing it must be the eternal truths and covers everysingle person but guess what you are very wrong as I have and still is an ardent supporter of non - muslims rights to believe in whatever as i have no need to go against Qur'anic statement where Allah clearly says there shall be no compulsion in religion for truth stands out clearly from falsehood

I have no master. You do. Your master is the mullah. Your master is their interpretation of the Q'ran. Your master is man.

again if you read the Qur'an you read statements like " would you force men to believe, " And again if you go through Islamic History Christians in Ethiopia offered protection to Muslims so the issue of fear of non muslims hardly hold water and one the Prophet hosted Christians in the mosque in Medina,so skeptics like you should open your minds and read IQRA

So you don't fear Allah? Then I call you an out and out liar.

It is you atheist that fear religion because it aims to establish justice, peace and repulse evil  on earth

And pray tell when has religion ever done that? In fact it's done the absolute opposite. Injustice, war and evil have been committed in it's name since it's inception and it still happens today. For someone to make the above statement shows just how out of touch with reality they are.

I have no reason to fear as I see things for what they are. You on the other hand, fear and have every reason to be afraid whilst you are controlled by others.

instead of parroting what your masters say have a closer look at religion and their stories , beliefs as they say it not as your master say I only hope your fear will let open pages of illuminatuion as people like you suffer great tragic reasoning as you try to judge religion as the product of politicians yet you have become their tools and workshop.

Pages? You're telling me to read books? I laugh in your ignorant, uneducated face. I am more educated than you can ever dream to be. Intellectually, I tower over your pathetic, blind ignorance. You read only one book, but even then you need a man to decipher it for you. You can't even put your own definitions to it. .

You think religion isn't a product of politicians? What a cretin you are. They've defined it through the generations. Or am I imagining all of these different sects? Do I imagine the daily changes in doctrines? Your stupidity is breath-taking.

Keep worshipping Shaitan, my friend. That's what you're doing when you try to worship Allah through fear.

vedaxcool:
Now, isn't saudi one of the so called Islamic state? yet Bin Laden remains their arch revial, the question remains why? since the islamic world is being controlled, man you just daft you have left your brain in the hands of others, so you are not capable of independent thinking. Most regims in the muslim world are mainly secular hence they do not operate Islamic laws.

You totally miss the point. To allow the state to operate as a purely Islamic regime would mean handing over power. That's not how they operate. As I've repeatedly said, to those in power, Islam is a tool. They give it as much influence as they need to control the masses. Too much and they lose a grip of power. Too little and it's use is impotent. Iran is going through problems because it has tried the Islamic state route. Although the masses swallow the propoganda (it's they who voted for Ahminedajhad), the intelligensia tried to revolt during the aftermath of the elections.

As for the Bin Laden question? He turned against the state because he disagreed with "Christian" US forces being deployed on Saudi Arabian territory. He saw it as being against the fundamentals of Wahabbism. And no wonder - this was merely what he had been taught in his controlled religious upbringing.
Saudi Arabia uses Wahibbism as a potent controlling tool. Too potent. It's why it has one of the largest numbers of fundamentalists and why the state has to deploy units such as the Mutaween. Because Saudi Arabia uses uncapped religious control, it needs the most draconian physical forces to keep it from backfiring and being used against the state. Sometimes it fails and people like Bin Laden emerge.

vedaxcool:
STOOGE! to be unable to contend with an argument is clearly no fault of mine, a slowpoke will always insist he is wise even when his foolery is staring at him, my claim will always remain consistent for Hitler not to have been influenced by the silly anti-semetism of those around him will have made him truly rare gem.

Your claim does not hold water. Hitler was not influenced by anti-Semetism. He used it.

He was clearly influence by the martin Luthers, the church fathers of this world only a lame brain will claim opposite. Now you talk of the meim kampf as if that was his influence or the only place he could write his Idea, only a stooge will believe that nonsense.

As you haven't read the book, you're arguing from a position of weakness. Go read it and then come back and maybe then I'll give you some credence. As I've already stated - Mein Kampf is the blue-print. He wrote it in the decade before grabbing power. Everything he wrote in there, he brought to fruition.

More importantly you said the he feared the jews or saw them as a rival now clearly you have hardly read most of my posts as I indicated earlier anti-semetism in Europe was born out of fear rather than mere dislike of the Jews.

It wasn't born out of fear or religion as you are insinuating. Anti-Semetism was born as a method to retain power over the rest of the population. Those that created it did so to create fear. They weren't afraid themselves. That's a huge difference. They created fear to control people like you.
Those that control religion thrive on creating fear. You can't see that because your fear blinds you. That is the nature of fear.

You fear Allah because you have been taught by those who control your religion that you must fear Him. You fear Hell because you have been taught by those who control your religion to fear Hell. You fear non-Muslims because you have been taught by those who contol your religion to fear them. You worship through fear.
Fear breeds ignorance.

You are simply afraid, my friend.

@Mudley313

True, religion is used, but it is only a tool. Anti-Semitism to those in power is only that.
Dictators aren't interested in the fabled execution of a mythical figure, two thousand years ago. What they use anti-Semitism for is as a means to gain and hold onto power. The religious aspects of it are only pertinent to those that they control - not to those that use it as a weapon.

If we look at the world today, we can see the same thing happening:

In the Islamic world, Islam is nearly always controlled by the state. It's enemies are therefore defined by the state. The state uses it as a tool. What most Islamic states do, is create enemies to Islam. They then tell their people that they are the protectors of Islam and that they will take care of the enemies. It's how they stay in power. If there was no enemy, the people would start looking at the authorities and wondering why they've got so many problems. That's how governments fall.

People like Vadaxcool are fed propoganda or pick up on it as their religion is a tool of that propoganda. He is part of the masses. He gets the propoganda that is meant to control him. He believes in Islam, but unfortunately, it's an Islam fed to him by those who wish to retain power. He can't see the forest for the trees. And unfortunately, because he can't see it, he ends up promoting, not Islam itself, but the agenda of those who wish to control.

And he is not alone. For hundreds of years, Christianity worked exactly the same way - those that controlled the religion, controlled the people. At some point though, the West diverged. It recognised that the Enlightenment loosened the power of religion and that it was not the powerful tool that it once was. It therefore moved on to different methods of control - now the enemies  are perceived as attacking economies, freedom and secularity rather than Christianity. Christianity as a tool still pops it's head up now and again but nowhere near as often as it once did. The fact that many of the old Christian societies are now secular means that it's power has been diluted.

Vedaxcool calls me an atheist. Again, he is wrong. I am not. But I am also not a follower of organised religion. Organised religion is only used as tool of control. I don't hate Islam. I don't hate Christianity. I hate those who use it as a means to control people.

Vedaxidiot.

You're good at quoting things but you've no idea what they mean.

I suggest that you go read a copy of Mein Kampf where most of those quotations come from.
If you can ever be bothered to educate yourself, you'll find that it contains many contradictions. In fact, it's amazing - Hitler will praise something in one sentence and a page later, he is vehemently condeming it.
It's not an easy book to read. Who would expect it to be? It's the ravings of a madman. But what it contains is a blue-print on how to start up a dictatorship and retain control. Total control. In this respect, it is one of the most educational books I have ever read. You can literally look at the world around you and see how that control is put into practice. It is as follows:

1) Pick the target of your control.
2) Release propoganda.
3) Eliminate opponents.
4) Take control.
5) Consolidate power.

The above is basically how all dictatorships work. Look at the world in the last 70 years and you will see it as plain as day.

Step 1 speaks for itself. You target is going to be society. But it can only be some of society. There are sections of it that you can never control. Those sections are a threat and will need to be dealt with.

Steps 2 and 3 are very important and are perhaps the most interesting. Step 2 involves propoganda. Propaganda is needed to get people to follow you. One cannot aim propoganda at the whole of the society that you are trying to control. Why? Because society is made up of two different types of people - the masses and the intelligensia. Aim the propoganda at the masses and the intelligensia are going to see right through it. Aim it at the intelligensia and the masses aren't going to understand it. As the masses are the engine room of any society, it is they who the propoganda is aimed at.

You therefore need to move onto step 3 - eliminate opponents. Those will be the people who the propaganda did not apply to -  the intelligensia. In Germany, the Jews were the most educated of society. As the propoganda was not aimed at them, they were free of it's control and therefore became a threat. They were already wealthy and powerful and having people with their capabilities outside the grasp of control was a danger to the new dictatorship. They were therefore eliminated. In the meantime, the propoganda is pumped out to the masses in ever increasing rates. And make no mistake - you lie to them. You tell them what they want to hear. But you also create fear. You create an imaginary enemy and you tell them that you are the only one who can protect them. In Germany's case, this was the Jews.

Sounds outlandish? No. Take a look at the USSR, China, Cambodia etc. When Stalin got into power, he eliminated the cream of society (incuding the most educated Army officers). When Pol Pot got into power, he eliminated all school teachers and intelligensia. His take on Step 3 was so extreme, even spectacles were seen as a sign of intelligence and if you wore them, you were executed. In China, Mao did the same thing. His method also contained the burning of all books.

Once you have eliminated opposition, you move onto Steps 4 and 5.
You take power and you consolidate it. To condsolidate it, you continue eliminating the group of society that the propoganda was not aimed at and you spread further afield for new enemies -  outside sources that may threaten your control. In Hitler's case, this was Communism. Mao and Pot continued eliminated interior opponents but recognised the dangers of moving further afield (Hitler got his butt kicked after all). They basically circumnavigated the danger by closing their borders. In China's case, a buffer zone was created, composed of Tibet and North Korea.

Stalin went about things a little differently. He took total control of the interior of his country, eliminated all opponents and then took over Eastern Europe. He was much more patient than Hitler. He aimed to slowly spread his control. This is how the Cold War began.

Further on in Step 5, you then start going back over your propoganda. You basically renege on any deal that you have made with anyone whom you have used to gain control. In Hitlers case, this was the Church. He used them in his propoganda to get his message over to the masses. What better propoganda could there be than "God is with us"? It was even on German Army belt buckles. But the problem is, once people start looking to God, you start losing control. You have a competitor, someone you have to share power with. Hitler recognised that the Churches had done their job, hence he then started closing them down and eliminating the clergy.

All of the above is contained within the pages of Mein Kampf. I recommend that you read it before quoting blindly in future.

@vedaxcool

Nice quotations. Have you actually read the book? Do you know that those passages are in there? Do you know in what context they were put?
The answer is no.

Like I said - you make me laugh. You accuse me of being an atheist missionary, yet here I am arguing in favour of both Christianity and Islam in this topic. What a joke you are. You're so blind with ignorant hatred, you can't even see that basic fact.

Pathetic.




@Mudley313

The anti-Semtisim in Hitler's time wasn't based on Christianity. It was based on economics and social welfare. Hitler blamed the Jewish media and the Jewish corporations for Germany's defeat in WWI. This was much the norm back then and is no different from many of the conspiracy theories that float around regarding "Jewish New World Orders" etc, today. Although this is normally based in anti-Semtism, it's not religous per se. Yes, the persecution target is religious but the reasoning behind the persecution isn't.

A good example of how it works can be seen today with the argument against Islam. Many of Islam's fiercest critics are atheists or agnostics. They're not worried about their religion or where it fits in. What they're worried about is how Islam seems to want to spread, crush their freedoms and screw up their societies. Europe back in the 20s and 30s was no different than today. Only instead of Islam screwing up their society, it was believed that the Jews, through their positions of powers had, and were, destroying Germany. This wasn't an attack based on religion, it was an attack based on a perceived threat to the status quo of society.

It's rather like the same reason why you don't like Islam. You see it as a threat. You don't need to be religious to see it as a threat.

Mind you, can't blame you when it's ambassadors are cretins like vedaxcool.