₦airaland Forum

lastmessenger:
If you can't pray for him then get of my thread.

I'm an atheist

PastorKun:
@OP
Yes there were actually over 30 books(gospels) written about Jesus Christ, however only four gospels made it into the bible.

and they were handpicked by "fallible men"...as the standard.

lastmessenger:
The guy is confused and he has a problem with Jesus. Recently he confessed that his days on this earth is numbered.i don't know what he did to God that made him to decide to be satanist. I really feel for him.. He is so annoyed with life, himself and his creator and with everybody( this is based on my close observation of him)
Please pray for him.

How do you know you aren't the one in need of help?

OLAADEGBU:
No. It's just you who is unable to discern it.

"But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).

what are the "things of the spirit"? and is the bible the only "spiritually inspired book"?

Samson Da Barbarian


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRh7W-Bsg5g

OLAADEGBU:
I know you don't understand spiritual things but let me just leave this verse with you to ruminate upon.

"Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth" (Ecclesiastes 3:21).

The spirit of man is the aspect of humans that communicates with God's Spirit, it returns to God at death. Animals do not have this.

So the bible contradicted itself?

Even jews don't know "jesus"

sinequanon:
You can't correct it. You are psychologically stuck.

You've assumed a conclusion a priori...

Terms do not define themselves. Authorities establish them, or people would have differing definitions.

I know terms do not define themselves...a language is chosen to define a term..it can also serve as an "authority" using that term loosely.

I can see that you are going to get dogmatic even about the obvious. So, not much point in going to and fro.

I clearly asked you to correct the perceived "assumptions" I made and you've failed to do that, not surprising.

The rest of your post is just repetition and spin, and misses all the points.

You made no point that I had not already addressed.

OLAADEGBU:
You don't just take one verse and run with it, you have to balance it up with other verses to get the whole picture. Now read the verses below:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (Genesis 1:26-28.)

You can see from these verses that humans possess a created entity, known as the "image of God," which is an eternal spirit capable of communion and fellowship with God, but if you deny the existence of God then you will have to live and die like animals.

Really?
That verse mentioned nothing about believing or not believing,it just said humans are no different than animals..

davien:
So you claim....and can you explain why this verse says humans are like animals?...

Ecclesiastes 3:18-20 New International Version (NIV)
I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that
they may see that they are like the animals. Surely the fate
of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate
awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the
same breath ; humans have no advantage over animals.
Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all
come from dust, and to dust all return.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%203:18-20
So how can you say humans aren't animals when it was established in your bible that every "test" is to show you that you are an animal?

sinequanon:
This is not absolute truth. It is a consensus, usually with appeal to some central authority. The "fact" depends on how the central authority was established and, to a lesser extent, on popular agreement.

It is not an appeal to any authority,but the definition of the term remains absolute therefore it is an absolute truth

No. Two people can agree on something without an objective method, e.g "blue is a warm colour" or "veal tastes good".

I don't think veal tastes good and blue is a "warm colour" because the term "warm colour" is definitional,so it can represent an absolute truth..

Not necessarily. "Straight" is relative. Try defining "straight" absolutely, and you will run into problems.

That is the point of using an objective method to define the terms..

The "fish" can define straight according to the bowl.

Again,this is the point of the example,that the fish also has a subjective view of what it perceives..

Humans define straight according to some (changing) MODEL of space. It falls into the category of definitions.

Can you mention a model where the definition of straight changes?

This is not about straight being absolute. It is much more complicated than you think, and is highly psychological.

Again,you are re-affirming my example that our perceptions of the mundane world cannot be justified by flawed senses....but empirical objective means..

For example, imagine that you are looking down a long, "straight" road. The two sides of the road seem to converge. Your perception is of two straight, non-parallel lines that never meet! But there is nothing "flawed" in your perception.

Your perception is flawed because your vision has presented that incorrect deduction....only through objective evaluation can you know if what is presented to you is infact true/real

The real problem is in how we "interpret" what we see.

Interpretation is of no relevance if you cannot show or justify it to be true.

Only those who agree with the method.

True,you cannot make one that does not apply logic to use it.

A lot of assumptions, here.

Kindly list my assumptions and lets correct that..

italo:
Atheists in Soviet Union killed millions in their bid to stamp out religion.

That was fascism with a dash of communism not atheism...atheists reject the concepts...not the followers of religion.
killing millions has nothing to do with atheism nor being an atheist....

Atheists in North Korea and China continue to do the same today.

North korea is a dictator-like regime....not atheist,china you could say secular....then again does not equate to atheism...the same way you can be humanist and still be a theist...
Again,killing has nothing to do with atheism nor being an atheist...

The crusades wasn't to wipe out heretics. It was to primarily defend Christians.

And they burnt people alive because?...why did crusaders burn entire families alive?

I guess if there was a crusade against ISIS today, satanists like you would claim 1000 years from now that it was to wipe out heretics...just to discredit the Church.

For my skepticism i'm a "satanist"?
This is ofcourse coming from a person who believes in an absolute moral standard
And christians were the ISIS back in the day....ostricizing anyone who doesn't think the same way or believe as they do...
Even now....according to you,i'm a "satanist" for not believing....

OLAADEGBU:
Human beings are tripartite. When their spirits are separated from the Spirit of God because of sin then they become deprarved and begin to live like animals and believe that they are just animals with no morals.

Being an animal has nothing to do with morals...but on general shared characters...like being heterotrophic and possessing a large body surface area only traversed by oxygenated/de-oxygenated blood..
Even still,that verse has already established that every "test" or event you experience is to show you that you are no different than an animal...

OLAADEGBU:
Their bodies were made by the same Grand Designer, the infinite uncreated Creator.

So you claim....and can you explain why this verse says humans are like animals?...

Ecclesiastes 3:18-20 New International Version (NIV)

I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that
they may see that they are like the animals. Surely the fate
of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate
awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the
same breath ; humans have no advantage over animals.
Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all
come from dust, and to dust all return.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%203:18-20

So how can you say humans aren't animals when it was established in your bible that every "test" is to show you that you are an animal?

OLAADEGBU:
No. Humans are created in the image of God.

Do humans have anything relating to them like animals?

OLAADEGBU:
I wonder.

You don't know what the book is about and yet you are directing people on how to "react" to it....?
Anyways olaadegbu I would like to ask you a question,are humans animals?

Absolute truths exists...those truths are definitional .e.g a square has four sides....
relative truths are based on everyone's unique worldview...to get anyone to agree with you....you have to develop an objective method that your conclusions can be error-checked...
Take for example a fish in a curved glass bowl,viewing a moving object like a baseball...
To the fish,the ball would have a curved trajectory...(because the fish observed it from a curved "worldview")
Now imagine a person also witnessed the baseball moving....he claims the ball moved straight...
Intuition would tell you the person is right when he is just as wrong as the fish is...
Why this is so is because the person has to also rely on his flawed senses...senses that are also distorted by external stimuli and middle-men(synapses) that process and pass the information in a specific way...
Since the fish and the person have subjective views...an objective method is the way to agree on their unique paradigms...and that method is science.
If brown is seen as green or blue....then a method is developed to determine what "brown" is,when this is done....everyone would agree on the objectively defined term of "brown"
Take for example I can taste the chemical PTC,and another person cannot...
I would claim PTC has a taste and the other person would deny this...
We then use a method to verify why I can taste it....we reach a conclusion that it is genetic.....
So PTC to us would be a chemical that can be tasted by certain people with a genetic anomaly...

He said he didn't write the bible...but it was "obvious"..that catholics aren't christians.
And that they don't even "believe in hell"....therefore they aren't christians...
If you are wondering how anyone would believe any of this you just have to take into consideration the contradictory nature of the bible...from the original vague texts that were compiled and handpicked by rome to the translations and re-translation....along the line any believer would come up with his/her own brand of christianity...
Catholics are christians....whether "hell" believing or not,whether "mary venerating" or not....there is no prerequisite in the bible to be called a christian....so far as the belief can be taken on the bible they can be called christians....
Many christians today think the original christian belief is "believe in jesus,heaven,hell and good works gets you nowhere" when it was the very opposite in the beginning of institutional christianity..

MrPresident1:
The predators weren't merciless, they are incapable of being either merciful or merciless, they only obeyed the rules by which they live, the instinctual rule of the wild.

And according to your brand of religion this attribute was their "design"...to kill anything else living on sight...

Unlike atheists and satanists who consciously and deliberately deny the existence of their creator, human hyenas, they deny because they want the freedom to act instinctively like the wild hyenas, free from the shackles of reason and conscious morality.

Linking satanism and atheism as though they represent the same clade is willfully dishonest of you.....
Atheists do not deny the existence of a creator/creators...as no such things as a "creator/creators" have ever been established from the onset.
It is the unvalidated claims of the existence of a "creator/creators" that is rejected..until such claims can be justified...
And simply because of this skepticism towards your theistic claims you've tagged atheists as "human hyena's" who you claim want to be free from the "shackles of reason and conscious morality"...
And yet these atheists that you claim want to be free from "reason and conscious morality" didn't fly that plane into the world trade centre, nor instituted a "holy crusade" to wipe out all heretics, nor restrained peoples rights.
It is a person like yourself who would claim a moral standard on issues and yet cannot differentiate when something is good from evil just because it was written to have been done by your "god" ...

No such things exist that are irresistible or immovable...infact...for reality to be consistent,everything is in motion and also tends towards attraction/repulsion,from atoms,to electrons,mass,etc

wiegraf:
So they suffer for our sins too?

I don tire...

Yup, "man's sin" doomed everything...animate and inanimate according to Christianity...

The excuse is that all animals ate plants before "the fall", "man's sin" brought death...

mumumugu:
yea, it depends on what we call christianity. For me christianity means "christ like"

i like d life of jesus christ and i try to emulate his lifestyle.that makes me a christian.

I dont go to church ,fast or tithe.

bible to me is another inspirational/history book, written by men

Do you chase church vendors out of churches with whips?

malvisguy212:
i culd'nt reply your post due to network problem.

There are many historical quote about jesus,but if i provide it, it will be the same excusses.

Author's Background About A.D. 52, Thallus wrote a history about the Middle East from the
time of the Trojan War to the first century A.D.[1] The work has been
lost and the only record we have of his writings is through Julius
Africanus (AD 221). Below Julius Africanus refers to Christ's crucifixion
and the darkness that covered the earth prior to his death. Reference To Jesus Christ "On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other
districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the 263 third
book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse
of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day
according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior fails on the day
before the passover [see Phlegon]; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at
any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new
moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should
an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost
diametrically opposite the sun?" - Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1
Conclusion
This reference reveals several key things:
1) Darkness covered the earth at Christ's death.
2) The key question was: "What caused it?"
3) The time of the darkness agrees with Matthew 27:45. 4) An eclipse cannot account for the darkness - this was a miracle.

I actually researched about this before replying...
From my findings,thallus was a samaritan freedman of emperor tiberius who wrote a history of greece and asia,and mentioned an eclipse of the sun. In 221 CE, a christian writer, sextus julius africanus notes that
"Thallus, in
the third book
of his
histories,
explains away
this darkness
as an eclipse
of the sun."
Thallus does not refer to a "jesus", only to an eclipse, which christians have used to bolster their mythical story.
So your claim of a "supernatural" event is just an eclipse of the sun....

arabmullar:
Lols common sense shud tell u dat both sweats nd carbondioxide r nt clean naturally. Das y science told us neva to breath on our food or drinks

And that same "common sense" should tell you that I'm referring to religious "cleanliness"

saxwizard:
sweating too is not good? ??
dat means I shud stop vigorous dancing in chu ba?

lol,he said "everything that comes out of the body is unclean"

paulGrundy:
Plain truth.

People are born gay the same way people are born straight get over it...

arabmullar:
As far as I knw everything dat comes out of d body are fith nd unclean dis include urine farth sputum blood etc so they shudnt b deposited in d house of GOD

Even exhaling is unclean...not to forget the unclean sweating pastor on the pulpit...

herald9:
Lolz Davien... Engaging Malvis is a waste of time...

All he does his squirm about throwing different portions of the Bible at you Which do not even correlate with the matter at hand...


Dude need total brain overhaul .

I like to be objective to threads like these, at the long run if he avoids the questions.........I would have established his position as unjustified.

malvisguy212:
there are many historical quote about jesus that prove the christians are his follower

I am referring to records about "jesus" existence....not his followers...

the major doctrine of christianity is the death and ressurection of jesus which judaism deny,

Correct

psalm11 say if the foundation is faulty what can the righteous do?

What is the relevance of reciting a bible verse to explain the account of "jesus" existence'

On many occation bible say jesus is our solid and new foundation.

Again,what am I to do with what the bible claims regarding "jesus"...can the claim regarding the same claim justify the claim....
can the claim that santa uses chimneys justify santa?

malvisguy212:
then my first statment in the op was correct.

To your question.
Judaism says that the Messiah is coming,
Christianity says that He has come and died for our sin,authormaticaly judaism dosent belivev in the free gift of God in christ jesus which is salvation to mankind.

So the difference is that one claims the "messiah" is yet to come and the other one claims the "messiah" had already appeared..okay
So how do you know that the "messiah" indeed appeared if nobody(historians) recorded it apart from the bible that claims it and other hearsay accounts?
And if such a man as "jesus" were true...would the "divinity" around "jesus" also be true?
Even still....if christianity has core foundations in judaism doesn't that imply that jews too are somewhat the intended audience...herego the use of "yahweh" a.k.a "god of the jews"

urheme:
Still beleive God exist but i don't see religion as a way to God.

But you believe the bible?