₦airaland Forum

But despite the natural and cozy fit of atheism and feminism, the much-ballyhooed “New Atheism” that was supposed to be a more aggressive, political form of atheism has instead been surprisingly male-dominated. The reason has, in recent years, become quite apparent: Many of the most prominent leaders of the New Atheism are quick to express deeply sexist ideas. Despite their supposed love of science and rationality, many of them are nearly as quick as their religious counterparts to abandon reason in order to justify regressive views about women.

Sam Harris, a prominent atheist author who has previously been criticized for his knee-jerk Islamophobic tendencies, recently came under fire when he added women to the category of people he makes thoughtless generalizations about.

At first blush, it would seem that an atheist movement would be exactly the sort of thing that would attract many women. After all, much of the oppression of women—from forced veiling to restricting abortion rights—is a direct result of religion. Unsurprisingly, then, feminism has a long tradition of outspoken atheists and religious skeptics within its ranks.Suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton preferred “rational ideas based on scientific facts” to “religious superstition.” Major feminist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir argued that belief in God exists in part to “repress any impulse toward revolt in the downtrodden female.” Modern feminist writer Katha Pollitt received the “Emperor Has No Clothes” award from the Freedom From Religion Foundation in 2001, where she said that religion is dangerous because “it connects with very terrible social energies that have lain in civilization for a very long time.”

This article can be found here: www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/

sonmvayina:
Religion of which christsisnity is one of it is EVIL..no politte way of putting it..the information contained in the religious books is for us to know and leave accordingly not to build high rise buildings, clap, dance and collect peoples money...that is wickedness of astronomical proportion...

Read James 1:27 to see the only sense in which Christianity is a religion.

Sarassin:
We have preconceived misconceptions about Spirits in particular, this is due mainly to the Christian concept that everything in the unseen realm is bad, or demonic.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The main reason why men deny GOD and refuse to acknowledge Him is because they love sin. In the Bible is portrayed a just and holy GOD, who abhors sin greatly, and reproves men for their evil deeds, while providing a way of escaping from the clutches of sin. Men don't want a GOD who tells them to stop fornicating, lying, being greedy, cheating and engaging in riotous living. They therefore begin to convince themselves that such a GOD does not exist.

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Jn. 3:19

The good news is that GOD has provided a help in Jesus Christ. He will accept anyone, no matter who they are. As many as will remain stiffnecked and choose not to repent, upon them will the anger of the LORD be visited on that great day.

"Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge? ... they have not called upon God." Psa. 53:4

"Now consider this, ye that forget GOD, lest I tear you in pieces..." Psa. 50:22

PS: Ignorant skeptics on Nairaland and the internet at large have made it look as if belief in GOD undermines appropriate reasoning. They have not been able to show how belief in a loving GOD who is willing to save man from this sin-cursed condition is foolishness. That is beside the fact that without a just GOD in the picture, evil has every reason to exist, reign and become arbitrary.

Ignorant skeptics have also made it look as if the Bible is opposed to science, when, in fact, GOD commanded man to fill the earth and subdue it. Many a great scientist has testified that the ideas that led to the great discoveries they made were from the Bible, GOD's word. An example is the discovery of ocean currents(paths of the sea) by Maury, who was inspired by Psa. 8:8.

Mementoes,

And we can trust the Bible as a guide to GOD because a careful study will reveal that it is 100% truth. The Bible contains prophecies that have been fulfilled exactly as it states and prophecies that are being fulfilled exactly as it states it too.

In the Bible, and in the Bible alone can one discover the true identity of GOD(which has been misrepresented so much), what He really demands, what He has provided and what He will do for anyone who will accept Him.

So, my sincere advice to you is to come to GOD through Jesus, and you will see that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, as opposed to what skeptics think, that wisdom is living one's life without acknowledging the giver of life. I recommend no pastor to you, I recommend no book to you, I recommend no church to you(for now). The only thing I recommend to you is the Bible and prayer.

You can ask me any questions you have about anything.

GOD bless you.

Mementoes,

As such, my sincere advice to you is to pick a copy of the Bible, preferably the King James Version, and begin to study the Word of GOD prayerfully. As the LORD GOD sees your desire to know Him, He will send the Holy Spirit to illumine your heart, and make you understand how much GOD loves you. He'll also expose to you the folly of skepticism, and you will find joy and peace.

I personally was at that point when all that concerned religion was tasteless to me. Even then, I knew that GOD was in Heaven. I just felt that I could not connect to Him; at least not through the system of things being peddled as Christianity. I would not go to church on Sundays(I later found out the truth about Sunday), my parents could even notice that I had no zeal for all those religious stuff.

That was when the truth about Jesus hit me. I saw that much of today's "Christianity" far from what it should be. The desire to worship Him was rekindled in me.

Mementoes,

"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." Jer. 29:13

The first qualification for having a life-changing encounter is being totally willing to find Him. As the verse above states, the LORD is not found by those who search with half of their heart, or even 99% of their heart: the LORD reveals Himself to those who are totally in for discovering GOD.

This all-consuming desire to discover the LORD GOD of hosts, and the truth about His nature is what keeps the soul searching and searching until he eventually finds GOD, because, as a rule, any body that desires and searches for GOD with his whole heart must find Him.

The next factor is where you search. Even though I desire with my whole heart to find an orange, I cannot find it if I continue ransacking a mango tree. Even so, GOD cannot be encountered when one searches for Him in the wrong place. Reading and meditating on the Bible, and praying are the avenues through which we can encounter GOD.

Mementoes:
What made you change from Atheism?
Have you ever had an encounter with 'God'?

The article was not written by me. The source is there.

And yes, I've had an encounter with GOD.

"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" Amos 3:3

We Christians can never believe in the koran since it says that Jesus is not a GOD.

And before you quote me, be prepared to tell me who David calls his Lord in Psa. 110:1.

Jesus said "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." Jn. 12:32

Jesus makes it clear that He will draw all men to Himself, not just Jews.

Jesus was sent as a Saviour to the whole world.

"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust." Matt. 12:17-21

So it is really the atheist who makes the same category mistake as the ancient pagan who explained lightning by the will of Zeus. The atheist uses a merely material thing to explain a spiritual thing. That is a far sillier version of the category mistake than the one the ancients made; for it is possible that the greater (Zeus, spirit) caused the lesser (lightning) and explains it; but it is not possible that the lesser (molecules) adequately caused and explains the greater (morality). A good will might create molecules, but how could molecules create a good will? How can electricity obligate me? Only a good will can demand a good will; only Love can demand love.

Because morality is more like Zeus than like lightning. Morality exists only on the level of persons, spirits, souls, minds, wills— not mere molecules. You can make correlations between moral obligations and persons (e.g., persons should love other persons), but you cannot make any correlations between morality and molecules. No one has even tried to explain the difference between good and evil in terms, for example, of the difference between heavy and light atoms.

¤"Society" is a popular answer to the question of the origin of morality "this or that specific person" is a very unpopular answer. Yet the two are the same. "Society" only means more individuals. What right do they have to legislate morality to me? Quantity cannot yield quality; adding numbers cannot change the rules of a relative game to the rightful absolute demands of conscience.

¤The universe, evolution, natural selection and survival all fare even worse as explanations for morality. You cannot get more out of less. The principle of causality is violated here. How could the primordial slime pools gurgle up the Sermon on the Mount?

Atheists often claim that Christians make a category mistake in using God to explain nature. They say it is like the Greeks using Zeus to explain lightning. In fact, lightning should be explained on its own level, as a material, natural, scientific phenomenon. The same with morality. Why bring in God?

The only other possible sources of moral obligation are:

¤My ideals, purposes, aspirations, and desires, something created by my mind or will, like the rules of baseball. This utterly fails to account for why it is always wrong to disobey or change the rules.

¤My moral will itself. Some read Kant this way: I impose morality on myself. But how can the one bound and the one who binds be the same? If the locksmith locks himself in a room, he is not really locked in, for he can also unlock himself.

¤Another human being may be thought to be the one who imposes morality on me—my parents, for example. But this fails to account for its binding character. If your father commands you to deal drugs, your moral obligation is to disobey him. No human being can have absolute authority over another.

3. But the idea that God commands a thing because it is good is also unacceptable, because it makes God conform to a law higher than himself, a law that overarches God and humanity alike. The God of the Bible is no more separated from moral goodness by being under it than he is by being over it. He no more obeys a higher law that binds him, than he creates the law as an artifact that could change and could well have been different, like a planet.

4. The only rationally acceptable answer to the question of the relation between God and morality is the biblical one: morality is based on God's eternal nature. That is why morality is essentially unchangeable. "I am the Lord your God; sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy" (Lev. 11:44). Our obligation to be just, kind, honest, loving and righteous "goes all the way up" to ultimate reality, to the eternal nature of God, to what God is. That is why morality has absolute and unchangeable binding force on our conscience.

2. God may be thought of as the inventor of morality, as he is the
inventor of birds. The moral law is often thought of as simply a product of God's choice. This is the Divine Command Theory: a thing is good only because God commands it and evil because he forbids it. If that is all, however, we have a serious problem: God and his morality are arbitrary and based on mere power. If God commanded us to kill innocent people, that would become good, since good here means "whatever God commands." The Divine Command Theory reduces morality to power. Socrates refuted the Divine Command Theory pretty conclusively in Plato's Euthyphro. He asked Euthyphro, "Is a thing pious because the gods will it, or do the gods will it because it is pious?" He refuted the first alternative, and thought he was left with the second as the only alternative.

There are four possible relations between religion and morality, God and goodness.

1. Religion and morality may be thought to be independent. Kierkegaard's sharp contrast between "the ethical" and "the religious," especially in Fear and Trembling, may lead to such a supposition. But (a) an amoral God, indifferent to morality, would not be a wholly good God, for one of the primary meanings of "good" involves the "moral"—just, loving, wise, righteous, holy, kind. And (b) such a morality, not having any connection with God, the Absolute Being, would not have absolute reality behind it.

If we are the products of a good and loving Creator, this explains why we have a nature that discovers a value that is really there. But how can atheists explain this? For if atheists are right, then no objective moral values can exist. Dostoyevsky said, "If God does not exist, everything is permissible." Atheists may know that some things are not permissible, but they do not know why.

Consider the following analogy. Many scientists examine secondary causes all their lives without acknowledging the First Cause, God. But, as we have seen, those secondary causes could not be without the First Cause, even though they can be known without knowing the First Cause. The same is true of objective moral goods. Thus the moral argument and the various metaphysical arguments share a certain similarity in structure.

Thus God, or something like God, is the only adequate source and ground for the absolute moral obligation we all feel to obey our conscience. Conscience is thus explainable only as the voice of God in the soul. The Ten Commandments are ten divine footprints in our psychic sand.

Addendum on Religion and Morality

In drawing this connection between morality and religion, we do not want to create any confusion or misunderstanding. We have not said that people can never discover human moral goods unless they acknowledge that God exists. Obviously they can. Believers and nonbelievers can know that knowledge and friendship, for example, are things that we really ought to strive for, and that cruelty and deceit are objectively wrong. Our question has been: which account of the way things really are best makes sense of the moral rules we all acknowledge—that of the believer or that of the non-believer?

Let's consider each of these possibilities in order.

1. How can I be absolutely obligated by something less than me— for example, by animal instinct or practical need for material survival?

2. How can I obligate myself absolutely? Am I absolute? Do I have the right to demand absolute obedience from anyone, even myself? And if I am the one who locked myself in this prison of obligation, I can also let myself out, thus destroying the absoluteness of the obligation which we admitted as our premise.

3. How can society obligate me? What right do my equals have to
impose their values on me? Does quantity make quality? Do a million human beings make a relative into an absolute? Is "society" God?

4. The only source of absolute moral obligation left is something superior to me. This binds my will, morally, with rightful demands for complete obedience.

Now where did conscience get such an absolute authority —an authority admitted even by the moral subjectivist and relativist? There are only four possibilities.

1. From something less than me (nature)
2. From me (individual)
3. From others equal to me (society)
4. From something above me (God)

THE ARGUMENT FROM CONSCIENCE

Since moral subjectivism is very popular today, the following version of, or twist to, the moral argument should be effective, since it does not presuppose moral objectivism. Modern people often say they believe that there are no universally binding moral obligations, that we must all follow our own private conscience. But that very admission is enough of a premise to prove the existence of God.

Isn't it remarkable that no one, even the most consistent subjectivist, believes that it is ever good for anyone to deliberately and knowingly disobey his or her own conscience? Even if different people's consciences tell them to do or avoid totally different things, there remains one moral absolute for everyone: never disobey your own conscience.

randomperson:
I really don't get what you're talking about... But if this is your way of avoiding the thread, then Nice one!

Just leave me out of your madness okay? I have better things to discuss with intellectually sound people.

randomperson:
.

I thought you people swore never to discuss with Christians again?
Just mention only your cohorts and rejoice on the thread.

Acts 15:1-20 tells how Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to meet with Peter, James, and the other apostles. Galatians 1:18-19 says that Paul went to Jerusalem to visit Peter and James.

The Book of Romans was written by the Apostle Paul "to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints". (Romans 1:7) In Romans 16:1-15, Paul greets 26 people by name. He never mentions Peter. If Peter was the leader of the Church in Rome, then why didn't Paul mention him?

Paul wrote five letters from a Roman prison (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, and Philemon). He never mentions Peter. The man who stuck with Paul to help him and encourage him in Rome was Luke -- not Peter. (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11)

The Book of Acts is the history of the early Church up until a few years before Peter's death. It says nothing about Peter being in authority over the whole Church. It shows no connection between Peter and Rome.

Acts 28:14-15 tells how Paul met with the "brethren" in Rome, but it makes no mention of Peter. As we shall see, when Paul met with Peter in Jerusalem, Peter was identified by name.

Acts 2:14 and Acts 8:14 say that Peter was in Jerusalem. Acts 9:36-43 says that Peter went to Joppa, which is near Jerusalem. In chapter 10 of the Book of Acts, Peter is still in Joppa. Acts 11:2 says that Peter returned to Jerusalem.

Joppa is about thirty miles from Jerusalem. If the Book of Acts records this much detail about Peter's visit to a nearby town, wouldn't it tell us if Peter went all the way to Rome? Particularly since it does tell us that Paul went to Rome.

Benblaq:
bro have u taken ur time to read revelation chapter12 vs1 to 18..i believe when u du..u wil b convinced

LOL. Rev. 12 has only 17 verses. Anyway, is Rev. 12 talking about Mary?

1. When was Mary clothed with sun? When did she have the moon under her feet?

2. What crown of 12 stars was on her head?

3 Who was the dragon?

4. When did Mary flee into the wilderness?

5. When was Mary nourished a time, 2 times and half a time? Where was her husband?

6. When did a dragon cast a flood after Mary?

7. Who are the remnant of Mary which the dragon went to make war with, if that chapter is talking about Mary?

8. Even if Rev. 12 is talking about Mary, is there any place in the chapter that says that the woman has been taken to Heaven?