₦airaland Forum

The difference been the creationist and evolutionist is simple; belief in God Who creates.

No it isn't.
The difference is that an evolutionist takes a look at scientific evidence and makes a logical assumption.
A Creationist, on the other hand, gets his "evidence" from a Book of Fairytales and then completely defies logic and understanding.

As for proof of evolution? You need to look no further than your own body.
What is a coccyx?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx

In humans and other tailless primates (e.g. great apes) since Nacholapithecus (a Miocene hominoid)[2], the coccyx is the remnant of a vestigial tail

This question is an absolute no-brainer.

The British were totally, utterly and absolutely relieved that Obama beat McCain. In a national radio phone in on the most listened to radio station here, a mock election was run asking who UK people would vote for. Well over 80% of the thousands and thousands of people voted for Obama. Talk to the man in the street here and you're very, very unlikely to find a single McCain supporter amongst them.
The UK government itself got into trouble when it inadvertently said it wanted Obama to win and had to backtrack to remain an air of impartiality.

UK didn't want Obama to win? An absolute joke statement made by someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.

The US as less racism than any white dominated country.

You're joking right? I've lived in both countries and can tell that you haven't. Try visiting the South or the Bible Belt area of the US. You live in a dream world. Granted, the US is not as racist as any African country, but it's still pretty near the top of the table.

Quite simply, Muhammed is not mentioned in the Bible because the Bible was written hundreds of years before he was born.

Hell is a human creation.
Nothing more, nothing less.

There is no such thing as "blaspheming". It's a corruption passed down through the ages.
It came about because of the commandment "Thou shalt not take the name of the lord god in vain".
People thought this referred to blaspheming. It doesn't.

To the Jews it quite literally meant "Do not say the name of God". Back then, the name of god was thought to have magical properties and somebody who used it would have strong juju. So the commandment quite literally means "Do not say god's name".

There was no such thing as blaspheming. There didn't need to be. The Jews believed that if you blasphemed, their god would strike you down immediately anyway.

What does reproducing have to do with leaving money to their partner?

So two gay people who live together all their lives have no right to inherit like heterosexual people without paying huge taxes?

I don't agree with gay marriage being in the same class as a real marriage between man and wife, but there needs to be some sort of legal recognition so that gay people aren't just cynically ripped off by greedy government.

Bleep them.
The people named are the extreme far right racist mofos. Complete and utter cranks.

For example, Don Black of Stormfront is a Nazi sympathiser and ex-Grand Wizard in the KKK. All white people I know who have heard about him here in the UK think he is a mental patient.

It's strange anyway because the US/UK were egging Nigeria to punish drug pushers but they are considering legalising cannabis

That's simply not true in the UK's case.
They're talking about classing Cannabis as a Class A drug, the same as heroin.

The reality is that currently the wealthy pay most of the tax which Anglo-Saxons nations like the US and the UK survive on.

Perhaps. Some of the wealthy go dodge through loop-holes. The middle-class probably make up the bulk of the tax here in the UK.

But that shouldn't overlook the fact that wealth is a merry-go-round. The wealthy make money from the poor. The poor receive money back from the wealthy. For the wealthy to say "I shouldn't pay my way" is just pure greed.

Significant chunks of the populace pay zero,zilch net tax.

And whose fault is that? It's not the poor who dictate which way society goes.

I reserve judgment and comment because I don't want to speak out of ignorance

Then your silence is proof of your ignorance.

It doesn't matter what this girl did or how old she was.
Being stoned to death in the name of religion is evil. Nothing more. Nothing less.

An Obama win will have a positive effect on the whole world.

Not just Africa.

huh yes she has

huh no she hasn't.

Residing in the US in violation of immigration law is not a criminal offence and such cases are therefore handled outside the criminal court system

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7704052.stm

Is not a matter of hating himself, but a matter of gaining political advantage. That is what this is all about.

It's a matter of fairness. How many people do you know earning $250,000 a year?
Do you comprehend what a vast sum of money that is? Even for Americans (and yes I know you live there). Americans bandy that figure around as if it's nothing, but you've really got to be a high flyer to earn that sort of cash.
And to earn that sort of cash, you'd have had to have screwed the little man on the way up. It's unavoidable.

To my mind, people who complain about that are just selfish and have no compassion at all for their fellow man.
This ingrained mentality that it doesn't matter how you earn your money, you can screw anyone, once you've got it there's no payback is all that's wrong with the US today.

I know racism is playing an important role their

The polls always tighten towards the end of the campaigning.
And do not worry about the racism factor. The states that are full of racists (the midwest bible belt) were lost to the Democrats long before the first polls and they are not a factor in any of the polls you see now. In those states they would vote for Satan before voting for a black man or a Democrat. The redneck, evangelical vote is already factored into the polls that you see now. Likewise, the states where reverse racists (those who would vote for Obama purely because of skin colour) are already accounted for. Sure, some have slipped through the polls but the majority are already visible.

Obama will win. There is no question about that. The only question is by how much?

It has not been proven that she is there illegally yet.
And even if she is, she has not committed a criminal act.

One thing to remember though. Obama did not know she was there. If he had, he would easily have been able to pull her citizenship.

Families are families. Some are close, some are not so close. I talked to my mother the day before yesterday and found out that my aunty has been here in the UK for 6 months!!! How do I feel about that? Well, me and my aunty aren't really close. I don't really know her apart from when I was a small boy. Maybe I will go and visit her, but probably I won't.

Does that make me a bad guy? Does that make Obama a bad guy?

Another left-hander here. We're hardly unique on nairaland are we?

I was one of those whose parents were forever trying to turn me into a rightie by taking stuff out of my left hand. It never worked though - I always reverted.

And to tell the truth, I like being left-handed. It's a pain in the ass sometimes and when I write with ink, I have to write upside down so I don't smudge my work and can openers always fox me. But those are small prices to pay for being just that little bit different.

lease get to understand what apologetics is - it is not to "apologise"

No it's definition is to defend. Read the bit afterwards where I mention "defending".

But I gotta laugh when you don't see that your having to defend is having to apologise.

Christian apologetics

That about sums it all up.

You have to apologise for what you believe is right. Nobody needs to apologise if they're telling the truth. You wouldn't need to defend your god if he wasn't imperfect.

The fact that I share and point things out from Scripture (as others do) does not mean that I "defend" God. If I never existed, He knows just how to draw others to Himself. But just so that people get to understand that some of the ideas they hold are not quite what the Bible states, that's why I engage them in discussions.

LOL. A discussion means that both parties interact. Not with you. You preach. You don't share. The other party has to sit and listen because you, and only you, are correct.

pilgrim.

To tell the truth it didn't suprise me that you've reacted in the way you have. People don't like admitting weakness.

just imagine if I came across alleging things about you which I don't know.

I wouldn't give a shit. Honestly. I'm so comfortable with my God you can throw anything you like at Him and it won't stick. I won't defend him either - He's big enough and ugly enough to take care of himself. Whereas you feel the need to run around after yours like someone running around after a puppy taking a crap.

But like I said, I'm not assuming. Your words speak volumes.

I have to deal with such issues in sharing the Gospels

You don't share girl, you preach!!! Like every other fundamentalist, you ram it down people's throats. That's not sharing.
The fact that you have to keep defending your god and pushing your views onto others shows your fear. If you weren't afraid, you wouldn't need to do that. You'd realise that God can take care of himself. Or do you think that by offering "advice" and "preaching" you're on the fast-track to Heaven? If the latter, that's a little too close to "service to self" and Satanism for my liking.

His death and resurrection is beyond mere talk.

Beyond mere talk but then you comment.

In a nutshell, it was to grant the gift of eternal life for all humanity.

In all the fears I may have, however or whatever they may be, they do not constitude the reason for my believing in God.

Two ways to look at this. You're either lying through your teeth or you're too dumb to recognise that you're on the end of a damn big stick.

Demons have always violently responded to that affirmation, and been subsequently cast out.

The one thing nobody can accuse you of is humility. Unfortunately, that accusation can be levelled at the vast majority of shallow fundamentalists.


Ciao for now!!!

OK Huxley.

Since you've revived an old thread and seem to want to discuss it, I'll give you my opinion.

Hell is a man-made concept. As I've stated elsewhere, it was the stick needed to get Christianity off the ground. But like a lot of man-made concepts it ran away with itself. It is synonomous with Fear. This led onto the creation of Satan. The King of Fear or the King of Terror as he's sometimes popularly known. In a way, it's ironic, but Heaven and Hell have actually become the overwhelming factor in Christian worship. Hell has therefore become a reality for Christians, rather than just a concept (as we've got to admit that Fear exists). But the good thing, in my opinion, is that because it is man-made, it can also be destroyed. Knowing how to destroy it is a different matter altogether.

One could turn arounds and say that I'm wrong. Hell does exist. God created it. But I don't believe that the Christian god would create Fear and use it as a weapon. And even if he did, it's up to the individual man or woman to take that fear on board in whatever amount and it's still therefore man-made to some degree. So even if it can't be destroyed totally, it can be minimilised.

The OP's comment also illustrates what I've already said in that other thread:

If you lived in the period of the Old Testament, you would have had NOTHING to fear about burning in the eternal flames of hell.

They had a different kind of Heaven and Hell. Their god was the Heaven and Hell. He was the carrot and the stick. And as they believed that they lived on in their children, their punishment was just as eternal.

Heaven and hell are just concepts that had to be invented because the harsh truth of reality is that we are not always rewarded for being good.

My personal opinion is that they were actually invented to do the opposite. Like I said, the carrot and the stick.

You've got to go right back to the beginning of Christianity. It was a new religion and like any new religion, to be successful you've got to gain followers. Judaism doesn't really have a concept of Heaven and Hell - whenever Heaven is referred to, it normally meant the sky and the stars. They instead relied on their god to be the carrot and the stick. Take a look at Yaweh and you'll see he's capable of extreme acts of violence but also acts of compassion. His character was the means of making people follow him. He was the carrot and the stick in himself.

But Christianity didn't have that when it came along. All it had was the carrot - a loving, compassionate god. They needed a stick so they created Hell. But then God couldn't be considered the carrot as he would be on the same level as Hell (albeit at the opposite end) so the concept of Heaven was put up to counterbalance. You then had your carrot and your stick to start converting and keeping followers.

But I believe that they didn't think it out properly. They didn't realise just how important the concepts of Heaven and Hell would become and they ran out of control. By then it was too late to do anything about it. People had become hooked and the fear set in.

To my mind, it doesn't matter if anyone believes in the two concepts or not. It doesn't even matter if my theory on how they came about is right or not. It's all down to how much you let those two concepts rule over you and wether or not you can control the fallout they bring with them.

I could tell you, but not in the atmosphere that you guys are often too reactionary. I mean, what was all that joke supposed to mean in reading things into my rejoinders that I never hinted about?

It wasn't meant as a joke. Seriously. With the greatest and utmost respect to you pilgrim, you're afraid. Maybe you won't admit it here, but if you look deep, deep down into yourself, you'll see fear there. Believe me, I'm not trying to insult you. I'm going on what I see in your words here in Nairaland. That's what Heaven and Hell does to you.
And it's just so damn hard to kick the habit of being afraid. But if you can kick it? Try. You don't have to throw the concepts of Heaven and Hell away, but try redefining their relevence. Don't get me wrong, I'm human too. I don't pretend to be something I'm not. I feel fear. But the first step is recognising it for what it is.

You want to see God, right? Do you think that fear is going to let you see Him?

The saying goes that "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". Do you know how true those words are?

So when I said to you "Why do you think He died for you?" The answer I was looking for was "So I don't have to be afraid any more". When I said "Heaven and Hell are irrelevant" I was saying "Cast out Fear".
If you can do that, all you're left with is God.  

OK. I'll take that as you don't want to answer. But I'll also point out that what I had in mind was about as relevant to this topic as anything could be. I respect your wish not to tell me.

If you don't believe in God, I have no problem with that.

You're right. I don't believe in God. I don't have to "believe". I know there is a God. You don't have to believe something you know.

And I'll tell you why I know.
At the end of the day there is only one certainty apart from "I think, therefore I am" and that one certainty is God. God just IS. He is the only IS And that's why I worship him. He is the only Truth. So you see, when I was talking to you about Heaven and Hell and saying that they're irrelevant, I wasn't joking. There is only one IS. One Truth. Nothing else matters.

Too many times, we're blinded by the side issues and we can't see the wood for the trees.

It's not a joke. Why be so defensive? Seriously?

I'll ask you a question then and we can take it from there. If you don't want to answer it then fine. I'm not asking for a long answer or a rebuttal that says I'm not being serious. If you don't want to answer then just say "It's none of your business".

Here's the question.

"Why do you believe in God?"

Hell is not an imagination - and that is why I knew that as soon as I posted any responses, so many people would inundate this thread with remarks and wise-cracks.

Up on that soap-box again, Pilgrim?

Shall I tell you something about Hell? Here are your words:

It is only when Judgement takes place that Gehenna becomes operative for the wicked dead. May our hearts and minds trust Jesus Christ while we are alive.

Trust in Jesus so we don't go to Hell? Worship so we aren't punished? Then on the other hand, there's Heaven. Trust in Jesus so we're rewarded? That's not worshipping for the sake of God. That's called "Service to Self". Do you know who you're really worshipping when you partake in "Service to Self"? Go away and have a think about it.

If there is a Hell - so what?
If there is a Heaven - so what?

They are totally and utterly irrelevant. One is a carrot and one is a stick. Get rid of them. You don't need them. It's what is behind that carrot and stick that is relevant.

If Hell exists, you will never be able to avoid it by trying to avoid it. If Heaven exists, you will never get there by trying to get there. You're working too hard and all you're doing is digging yourself in deeper. Give it up. Believe in your god. That's all you need to do. Why do you think He died for you?

your chances of being amongst the 144000 is infinitesimal.

Not unless your name is pilgrim.1!!! 

But why stop there?
We've heard from the boss of the Catholic Church, but what about the others?

Protestant founder Martin Luther at first considered Revelation to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and stated that "Christ is neither taught nor known in it", and placed it in his Antilegomena. John Calvin believed the book to be canonical, yet it was the only New Testament book on which he did not write a commentary.

In the 4th century, Gregory of Nazianzus and other bishops argued against including this book in the New Testament canon, chiefly because of the difficulties of interpreting it and the danger for abuse. Christians in Syria also reject it because of the Montanists' heavy reliance on it. In the 9th century, it was included with the Apocalypse of Peter among "disputed" books in the Stichometry of St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople. In the end it was included in the accepted canon, although it remains the only book of the New Testament that is not read within the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

And let's not forget:

The seer of Patmos, identified with the apostle, is granted a series of visions meant to reassure the Christians of Asia amid the persecutions and trials of the end of the first century." - Pope Benedict XVI, 23 August 2006

Not only does he recognise that it's a text for the first century but he doesn't even bother kidding himself that John wrote it.

LOL. Fear isn't an issue in Revelation? The whole book is riddled with it. Please Pilgrim, belittling the amount of fear that the book exudes to those who read it is very, very misleading. It was written by a bitter, exiled Christian (not John) who had one hell of a big axe to grind against the Roman Empire. And like I said, a lot of people agreed that it shouldn't even be in the Bible.
But it's relevance is what I'm mainly referring to:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

The historical-critical approach, which has become dominant among scholars of religion since the end of the 18th century, attempts to understand Revelation in its first century historical context within the genre of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature. This approach considers the text as an address to seven historical communities in Asia Minor. Under this view, assertions that "the time is near" are to be taken literally by those communities. Consequently the work is viewed as a warning not to conform to contemporary Greco-Roman society which John "unveils" as beastly, demonic and subject to divine judgment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/texts/revelation.shtml

So it seems that the Book of Revelation is not prophesising the end of the world but is a polemic against the Roman Empire.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb5b.htm

Most of the events in Revelation have already happened, perhaps during the persecution of Christians during the reign of Emperors Nero or Domitian before Christianity was tolerated early in the 4th century CE.

Nobody is in Hell-fire simply because it doesn't exist. It's a Christian scare-story invented to frighten people.

Early Christians believed that they were living through the end-times. The whole book of Revelations is about Roman oppression and what is supposed to happen when the Empire falls. It's already supposed to have happened. Get over it.