₦airaland Forum

KingEbukasBlog:
Its your opinion

You can't show that they are factual.

KingEbukasBlog:
so we are safe to say that there is no such thing as macro -evolution ?

I don't believe in macro evolution.

KingEbukasBlog:
@ dalaman - so what about stories of cavemen and aliens coming to earth to engineer our DNA ? Aren't they fictitious too?

Sure they are.

KingEbukasBlog:
Mythology and fiction are not necessarily part of religion . Different tribes even in Nigeria have different stories for the genesis of life , do these stories have anything to do with their religion ?

The story of creation in the bible, koran, Hindu Verdes, Sumerian reigious scriptures ,Yoruba traditional religion etc are all fictitious.

KingEbukasBlog:
This is what happens when someone fails to understand the role of religion and science in life

Religion is seen as backwardness , barbarism , an agent of the dark ages while science is seen as advancement , enlightenment and an agent of modern age

Religion basically is the worship of a supreme being or superhuman (in some cases )
Science basically is the study of nature

Why relate these two ... do you want me to overwhelm you with examples of the use of science in the bible ?

What we don't know is God but what we know is science. Religion dwells on fiction and mythology while science tries to explain reality as it is.

What are muslim fundamentalist afraid of?

Magic.

Religions can never be banned. Radical extremism should be checked.

winner01:
I dont mention names cos im not your stupiid....Give one verse where he proclaims to love unbelievers and urges them to get saved by moving close to him.
.. all gods give orders, only God offers salvation....
go back to the jungle where you belong kid.

Allah says there is no God but him alone. According to him human beings are his slaves who are to submit to his will at all times. He isn't in any loving relationship like your God. He doesn't have to come down and sacrifice himself to himself to show humans he loves them. He is the master of all and there is non like him according to him. Allah doesn't need to offer any salvation by killing himself as a sacrifice to himself. All he needs to do is say it and it will be done.

trapQ:
Op you need not worry, I'm with you. Everyday signs and wonders and prophecies become fulfilled, yet they turn blind eyes. Archeologists have discovered that the red sea crossing actually took place as they have found the remains of the chariots deep in the red sea- but the atheists continue to argue and cuss GOD. Last year, the river Euphrates just dried up as prophecied in the bible too.

No one is forcing anyone to believe but to go about insulting others beliefs is uncalled for.

Stop spreading lies. Archeologists have discovered no such thing.

winner01:
All the hatred up there are from the devil and Like I said, The God of salvation and redemption, not death and condemnation has given an order. Through his love the gospel will continue to spread to all nations...
You and the other pathetic lot on the other hand will continue to wail in discontentment till your hairs turn grey, while more people will come to a true realization of God.

Allah has given an order that he is the only true God and Mohammed the prophet is his last messenger. What are you waiting for? You have no excuse. Keep spewing hate against Allah and his last messenger. You'll burn in hell.

malvisguy212:
when I argued with muslims is because I was brought up that way,I understand the book.

Same way, I was a Christian through most of my life, so I also understand the bible very well.

Jagoon:
It's not clear from the bible that most of those laws are from God. They are called mosaic laws cause they were attributed to moses it's only the ten commandments that are clearly said to be from God.

There is nothing Christians will not say. People like Scholar8200 and malvisguy22 are trying as much as possible to justify ridiculous absurdities, this one comes with his own theory that most of the barbaric laws in the bible did not come from God. I have seen other christian apologist use that line of thought when challenged. They say maybe the people were mistaken and didn't get those laws from God. Christians and dishonesty are bedfellows.

malvisguy212:
oh!! You think you can understand the WHOLE context with a single verse ?

When Muslims try to explain the Koran for you by trying also to explain things in context you say the are lying. But when clear absurdities are found in the bible you throw 20 verses and claim context.

malvisguy212:
so you know the verses was not actually talking about slaves? You guys are the one who bring leviticus 25 first, the context of leviticus 25 was actually talking about the YEAR OF JUBILEE, now my response was from the same book of leviticus and you defence was "the verse was not talking about slavery ? You are NOT qualify to interpret the bible.

And you are qualified in interpreting the Koran? You are a joke. You can't find what you stated written inside the bible. Even the verses you put up have nothing to do with what you are saying. Non of them says that people buy and sell each other because of poverty. Until you provide such a verse do not expect me to take you seriously.

malvisguy212:
Hebrews commonly became slaves through poverty
Leviticus 25:35
And if thy brother be waxen poor, and
fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a
stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee

Slavery was allow in order to pay off
debt or provide a basic subsistence. God did not intend for Israel to have poverty:
Deuteronomy 15:4
4 But there will be no poor among you;
for the Lord will bless you in the land
that the Lord your God is giving you for
an inheritance to possess

A poor man could sell himself to a richer man if there was famine and the poor man had no way to provide for himself.

Why do you keep lying? I asked you to show me any bible verse that says that all the slavery conducted was because the people were poor.

You brought a verse that has nothing at all to do with it. Lets look at the verse from a clearer translation.

Leviticus 25:35New International Version (NIV)

35 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you.

Again , where does it state that slavery was because of poverty. It says you can buy and sell slaves, nothing about poverty was mentioned. It remains your own prevarication.

winner01:
God is the author of the Bible. The men He used were inspired, over 40 of them over different centuries. Many of the authors God used didnt even know each other, and they wrote in cohesion.

They didn't write in cohesion that is why there are many contradictions in the bible.

The totality of the Bible focuses on a particular plan. Jesus.

The Jews do not believe that the old testament has anything to do with Jesus.

Dont limit yourself to common sense, everything is never as it seems just like owl city sang in fireflies. Get out of your cage and explore understanding. You will surely find something. Bless you.

Just show me any part of the bible that could not have been written by men that lived at that time.

malvisguy212:
what are the law guiding the slaves in this past centuries ?why are you guys chose to remain like this ? I do not deny slavery in the bible , but this slavery is different from nowadays own , the slavery in the bible was due to poverty, the Jews cannot die in starvation the op was not even talking about slavery.

Psalm 68:6
God sets the lonely in families, he leads
out the prisoners with singing; but the
rebellious live in a sun-scorched land

Where is it written inside the bible that all the slavery was due to poverty?

winner01:
Sir Ambrose Fleming was a very intelligent inventor, he recognized that the Bible was written by divine inspiration...Congratulations to you if you think otherwise...if most of the quotes are false, then probe it with facts or shut it.

Show me any part of the bible that could not have been written by people that lived during that period.

Scholar8200:
And there are NLers today that stand no where in rank,intellect,means, training or exposure to these named above, who claim, 'contradictions', 'myths' in the Bible,etc!!! I think those NLers are a graphic illustration of being wise in your own conceits!

Most of the quotes above are mostly false or out-rightly ridiculous. For example

Sir Ambrose Fleming (1849-1948)
"There is abundant evidence that the Bible, though written by men, is not the product of the human mind. By countless multitudes it has always been revered as a communication to us from the Creator of the Universe".


This is demonstrably false because there is nothing written inside the bible that could not be written by people that lived at that time. Take the bible and any religious scripture or any book of philosophy from that era, compare them and you'll see that they are just the same. The bible reads exactly as the work of the period in which it was written.

malvisguy212:
I will not bother myself explaining this to you, every christians and even non christian know the meaning.

And the meaning is?

malvisguy212:
did Jesus command us to even revenge talkless of own a slave ? Those who fight and kill for Jesus are not following the teaching of Jesus.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34

malvisguy212:
in other word, it is good for you , this people had died in starvation rather than work for there master ? Good for you.

The African slave trade was perpetrated by christians who got their inspiration from the bible. The first slave ship that left the African coast with slaves to England in 1562 was called the "The Good Ship Jesus".

johnydon22:
Yes very much equal to men

Men and women deserve equal rights but men and women are not equal. Even men are not equal to one another, same with women, women are also not equal to one another. Men for example are usually bigger than women, stronger than women physical and emotionally. Men and women don't even see things the same way, the things that interest women are very different from the things that interest men and on and on.

Scholar8200:
You accuse me of assumptions but thank GOD you cannot deny the antecedence of the principles being referred to. Besides, there were a number of practices that are no longer in use today!

Therefore, it will be anachronistic to analyse these genealogies with the eyes of today's principles! The principle below is no longer in practise today:
Genesis 3:7,8

7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him.

8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
Also:
Deuterenomy 25:5,6



Per vs 8, the child (if he had been born) will be named in Er and Onan's genealogy as the son of both men for genealogical and inheritance purposes! (This practise is key to understanding issues like Salathiel and Zerrubabel in Luke and Matthew's genealogy etc)

Another example is Obed the son of Boaz; Obed the son of Elimelech:
Ruth 4:5-10
5 Then Boaz said, “When you acquire the field from Naomi, you must also acquire Ruth the Moabite, the wife of our deceased relative, in order to [size=14pt]preserve his family name by raising up a descendant who will inherit his property[/size].”
6 The guardian said, “Then I am unable to redeem it, for I would ruin my own inheritance in that case. You may exercise my redemption option, for I am unable to redeem it.”
7 (Now this used to be the customary way to finalize a transaction involving redemption in Israel: A man would remove his sandal and give it to the other party. This was a legally binding act in Israel.)
8 So the guardian said to Boaz, “You may acquire it,” and he removed his sandal.
9 Then Boaz said to the leaders and all the people, “You are witnesses today that I have acquired from Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech, Kilion, and Mahlon.
10 I have also acquired Ruth the Moabite, the wife of Mahlon, as my wife to [size=14pt]raise up a descendant who will inherit his property so the name of the deceased might not disappear from among his relatives[/size] and from his village. You are witnesses today.”

[size=13pt]Meaning Obed's name will appear in both Boaz and Elimelech's genealogies and the reason is crystal clear. Furthermore, if we were to trace Naomi's genealogy, Elimelech will appear in her place and next will be Mahlon and Chilion and then Obed! People today will rejoice at the 'contradiction' but rather they will be expressing there ignorance of peculiarities of that epoch![/size] Note that unlike the first example, the person, Boaz was not a blood brother but a relative from the same tribe.

Having established that principle, I wont be wrong if I say that the same thing accounts for Salathiel and Zerrubabel. If you call this an unfounded assumption too, give us your reasons based on principles from the same epoch

Lots of assumptions and argument from silence in here, but I'll accept the explanation as plausible and cogent.

Scholar8200:
Certain practices suited the realities of the era in which they were practised, as things change, technology advances and civilisation progresses, some of such practices either metamorphose or are totally abandoned.
The modern day employer and employee relationship is one of such metamorphosed practices. Some similarities are:
1. An employee's time for a particular period of the day is bought hence that time will be used only for the employer's purposes ;
2. Except in idle times, an employee needs the approval of the employer before embarking on personal agenda within the time bought;
3. The employee offers his skills and time for use of the employer and hopes the latter accepts his offer.
4. There are some outsourcing firms that accumulates such employees and sends them out to their clients as the demand arises in exchange for a fee paid not to the employee but to the outsourcing firm (these firms may get jumbo fee and pay peanuts to the employees)

For one who lived around 1300 BCE, the practise above will be unacceptable! The labour-intensive situation then meant you had to be sure of your work force unlike the high labour turnover recorded in some places today, focus was labour security. Today, given the advancement in technology and the continual redundance of human labour,focus is job security.

There was a time when you could hunt down any animal and use firewood lavishly and fell trees indiscriminately and fish from any water body. But today, you could even be arrested for doing some of these things in some places!{ Interestingly, the same law(1300 BCE given) you are castigating already advocated Natural Resources Conservation!!} At those times, it was normal, things were generally primitive and labor-intensive meaning no matter how many people exploited these things there could be no issue of extinction or ecological imbalance but as technology began to advance and mass production became possible, restrictions on these practices became necessary!

Corollary? Consider history in the context of its epoch, not yours!

The difference between me and you is that I see all these things for what they are but you are stuck in the ideas and conceptions of primitive Jews. You rely and accept the ideas and way of life of primitive Jews as something sacrosanct. These men that lived at that time and wrote down these things were living in a very different era from ours. Their culture should not be promoted and viewed as something spectacular because they used God(an idea they invented) to cover up for everything. Slavery was OK to them and there was their God giving out injunctions on how to go about it.

Morality did not come from any God. It came as a result of human experimentation and consensus, a lot of people used God as an enforcing mechanism but in reality it did not come from and God but Humans.

Jesus in the bible we are told gave a story of the good Samaritan that went out of his way to help another person. The Samaritan wasn't a Christian, he wasn't even a Jew. But he still did good, that is enough to show that morality didn't come from the bible God as the OP is trying to say. Were the ancient Jews killing, pillaging, raping and stealing from each other before Moses decided to drop the ten commandments from the mountain assuming the story was true? Were the ancient Egyptians doing same? Didn't they have an organized society?

The way you guys throw everything away in order to make the writings of ancient people that see nothing wrong in stoning their disobedient children to death for disobedience and drunkenness is actually ridiculous to me. The bible is the simply the expression, conception and reasoning of primitive men including their moral principles, you are supposed to accept the expression, conception and reasoning of 21st century humans and their moral principles not that of the primitive men.

malvisguy212:
All you have to do is to proved to me , biblical slavery is the samething of nowadays own. Does modern day slave put law to guide slaves ?

It's actually worse. Those that practice slavery today know there are doing a bad thing so they hide their business away and conduct it in the dark. Your God saw nothing wrong with people buying and owning each other as slaves.

KingEbukasBlog:
bro , its a c++ infinite loop ... it prints "I dont understand the bible because I'm an atheist " non-stop ( relates to what sportsmaster was saying )

We have shown better understanding of the bible much more than you can ever show. Why is there two different genealogy of Jesus in Matthew and in Luke? Can you simply answer it without obfuscation and prevarication?

Delusiongirl20:
All these faking and twisting is the major reasons i left Christianity. Trying to justify the unjustifiable.

If it were Islam this shameless malvisguy22 will come and be splitting hairs and telling us how it is all wrong, but as long as it is christianity then he will find the weirdest of lies to explain away absurdities and craziness.

malvisguy212:
again, read my post once again, I do not deny slavery in the bible,what I say is this" slavery in the bible is different from slavery practice in the 17th century" do your research.

Back in the days of Leviticus slavery was
sanctioned due to economic reasons.
Back then, there were no such thing as
bankruptcy laws so people would sell
themselves into slavery to rectify debts.

From the Old Testament:

“Whoever kidnaps someone, either to
sell him or to keep him as a slave is to
be put to death.” – Exodus 21:16

From the New Testament:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is
neither slave nor free, there is neither
male nor female – for all of you are one
in Christ Jesus. –Galatians 3:28

Do these two verses sound like condoning slavery?

Israel was prohibited from territorial
gains beyond what Yahweh had
promised to Abraham (Deuteronomy
2:1-23). Moreover, Israel was prohibited
the practice of “forced slavery” as seen
in Exodus 21:16, “Whoever kidnaps
someone, either to sell him or to keep
him as a slave, is to be put to death.”
In another passage Moses declares, “If
any of you kidnap Israelites and make
them your slaves or sell them into
slavery, you are to be put to death. In
this way your nation will get rid of this
evil” – Deuteronomy 24:7. In the first
one, there is a general prohibition
against slavery of anyone and in the
second, a specific order against slavery of Israelites.

Voluntary slavery is a completely
different situation. Voluntary slavery
arises when a person becomes so poor
that they cannot make a living, cannot
provide for themselves, and sell
themselves into a relationship with a
person who has money and can provide
for the poor person. The Hebrew word
for this is “ebed.” meaning servant, or
bondman. The Bible describes Israel as
the Lord’s bondservant, or slave, the
same word ebed.

“If any Israelites living near you become SO POOR that THEY SELL THEMSELVES to you as a slave, you shall not make them do the work of a slave. They shall stay with you as hired workers and serve you until the next Year of Restoration.” – Leviticus 25:39-40

The issue of poverty was one of the
reasons that people sold themselves as
servants. There were also provisions for
freedom. They could be bought back by a relative, or by their own money. Working for someone else did not mean that they received nothing.“By their own
money” meant a certain freedom to gain money and buy their own freedom.

We have no reason to believe that the
same was not true for the foreigners in
the land. The verse says, “Purchase the
children of such resident foreigners,
including those who have been born in
your land,” (Leviticus 25:44) and these
were probably people like the Hebrews
who fell on hard times and were poor.
Being a servant in another household
was better than starving. The rights are
spelled out for the Hebrews but they
would also apply to the foreigners who
were welcomed into the land. The people were commanded: “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner; remember that you were foreigners in Egypt. Do not mistreat any widow or orphan.” – Exodus 22:21-22
“Suppose a foreigner living with you
becomes rich, while some Israelites
become poor and SELL THEMSELVES AS
SLAVES to that foreigner or to a member of that foreigner’s family.

After they are sold, they still have the
right to be bought back. A brother or an
uncle or a cousin or another close
relative may buy them back; or if they
themselves earn enough, they may buy
their own freedom. They must consult
the one who bought them, and they
must count the years from the time they
sold themselves until the next Year of
Restoration and must set the price for
their release on the basis of the wages
paid hired workers. They must refund a
part of the purchase price according to
the number of years left, as if they had
been hired on an annual basis. Their
master must not treat them harshly. If
they are not set free in any of these
ways, they and their children must be
set free in the next Year of Restoration.
Israelites cannot be permanent slaves,
because the people of Israel are the
LORD’s slaves. He brought them out of
Egypt; he is the LORD their God. –
Leviticus 25:47-55

The central issue here is that slavery
was initiated BY the slave, NOT by the
owners, DEFINITELY not by forced.

You are just shameless, you go to Christian apologist sites to copy all the lies and propaganda they share just so that the religion will be promoted. But despite all their lies the bible is always there to embarrass you all.

How can you own a person and even his family, buy and sell them and claim that it is not forced?

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 )

johnydon22:
Lying to cover God's asss is not a sin bro

am not sure he even read your post before copying and pasting a reply because if he did he wouldn't have shamelessly mustered up such obvious stupendous and clear lie as a defence.

Most times i really just feel shame for these guys when i see these clear lies and mumuish defence busted like this.

Makes me wonder if religion rids people of their wits

I once used to do the same here on this board. So I can understand where they are coming from.

malvisguy212:
honestly , you guys are missing the points, let try this way:

What is slave in this context ?"Slaves" in this context are debtors (mortgage holders, for instance), employees, and tax payers. We still have slavery. You are probably a slave unless you are an entrepreneur with no debt.

Why do you like lying shamelessly? Let me put it again.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)


Please tell, where does it state that the slaves are debtors? It clearly states that you may purchase slaves. Are you trying to say it means you may purchase debtors? What the hell is wrong with you guys? don't you have any shame? Christian altaquiya.