₦airaland Forum

Without intending to derail this thread, it is necessary to make a couple of things clear.

1. Challenging WoF false doctrine is not a personal matter about Joagbaje or even Oyakhilome. Personally, I have been arguing against WoF doctrine outside this forum for many many years before hearing of Joagbaje or Oyakhilome ---- and on this forum since 2005 despite my relatively low number of posts. Today, there are still people in various parts of the world arguing against WoF doctrine without having heard of either Oyaks or Jo. As was (still is now to a lesser extent) the case with me, their main targets are the tutors of the Oyakhilomes of this world i.e. Kenneth Copeland etc. Just google the following words for example: 'word faith doctrine'.

2. Those who defend word of faith doctrine really do not have a good understanding of either the Christian faith or the Bible. In fact, quite often they don't really understand word of faith doctrine itself and its ramifications.

JeSoul:
Thanks for the heads up Enigma.
But I must say there's really nothing new there. Plus you would be opening a couple other cans of worms if you were to be using the above scriptures as basis or justification for the practice.

In all of those cases, the issue under address is not baptism - so why take a foreign verse and apply? To me this is indicative of over-reaching to try to justify a something that is not present. Rm 11 is talking about us believers being grafted into God's tree hence the quote "if the root is holy, so are the branches" - not that children by extension become holy if their parents are saved . . . can of worms. 1 Cor 7 - what does the "sanctified" mean? Do family members really become "holy" because one of the parents is? what does "holy" in this context mean?" . . . can of worms. And they brought infants to Jesus - to pray for them, not baptize them.

All in all I know you don't want to tussle this matter. I still believe Baptism is a biblical directive to those who have come to believe - you believe otherwise and that's fine .

No problemo.

One interpretation of the "baptism for the dead" issue is this: it is not a Christian doctrine and was not mentioned by Paul as a Christian doctrine; rather Paul was referring to the (mistaken?) belief and practice of the people practising "baptism for the dead"; he was using that as part of a much more important and bigger argument ----- i.e. the resurrection of Christ and of the saints. He was arguing that people were getting baptised for the dead in the hope of resurrection of the dead, if that is the case your own faith in the resurrection should not be weak.

Krayola:
. . .

If someone asks "is Pedophilia unbiblical"? what will an adequate, bible supported, response look like? I've seen some Christians give a lot of Muslims stick for this and I don't think I've ever seen a biblical quote supporting their rejection of the practice.

That is all well and good! How about when some non-Christian (and even some Christian) ignoramuses say e.g. the "Trinity" is not 'biblical' and so is not true?

{Some of them even insist on the proven daft and idiotic view that it was formed at a council meeting.}

On reflection, I think it is of wider benefit to quote footnote 1067 too.

1067 Genesis 17:7, 9. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee,  And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

Galatians 3:9, 14. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham, That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Colossians 2:11-12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Acts 2:38-39. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Romans 4:11-12. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

1 Corinthians 7:14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Matthew 28:19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Luke 18:15-16. And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Romans 11:16. For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

Attention JeSoul

Following on from here  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-549736.32.html#msg7146877

please see below (and footnotes as well) :

Q. 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered?

A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers
from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him,1066
but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in
Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.1067

From http://www.puritanseminary.org/media/Larger_Catechism.pdf

^^^^ You know, I was thinking precisely that!

^^^ Some of the people on this thread have previously said, with some amount of seriousness when trying to define "god", that a footballer e.g. Messi can be a 'god'.

Thanks InesQor and excuse my laziness of foisting on you the task of finding the pdf.

I actually don't tend to sweat the issue of baptism as a matter of debate ---- it's just good to understand the other perspectives.

PS @InesQor

In relation to that thread on infant/child baptism, please see article 95 of the Shorter Catechism and its accompanying footnote.

Joagbaje really ought to be ashamed of his strategy of trying to spread the writings of a spiritual vagabond -- as he himself described it. In fact, if he was sufficiently enlightened biblically he would simply be ashamed of the writings of the spiritual vagabond (Chris Oyakhilome) altogether.

Look at today's 'word' for example which reveals either ignorance of the scriptures or trickery/chicanery by the writer. Anyone who understands the gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the apostles would easily recognise the opening post as baloney aka tosh aka nonsense. The thing does not even work for members of the charlatan's congregation which is why there are many examples of them going to steal other people's money and properties.

Yẹyẹful!

thehomer:
It was not my definition. It was one I picked out of four from a satisfactory site for the purposes of this discussion.

You supplied the definition saying, inter alia, that the definition may be closest to what you wished to say! If you now want to refute the definition which you supplied, then say so patently. Otherwise, I repeat that evangelical atheism fits in properly within the definition of "religion" that you supplied and therefore evangelical atheism is a religion on that definition.

thehomer:
The conclusions have to be your business because they are direct implications of your interpretation. If you also agree that communism and others are religions too then that is fine since you're being consistent with it.

The conclusions do not necessarily have to be my business. It is not for me but for those who claim that communism etc fits in with your supplied definition of "religion" to show the proof. No one has so far done so; they are still very much welcome to do so. In my case I outlined clearly how evangelical atheism fits your definition --- that is all I needed to do.

Actually, I am going to use this point to make a direct allegation of double-standards against you: in our old debate on faith versus reason you pointedly omitted to make a similar acknowledgment or to do a similar exercise in relation to the question that if you accord to certain philosophical theories the status of an intellectual discipline, why deny the same status to Christianity in particular.

thehomer:
You may also note that I actually did tentatively come up with my own description of what I think describes a religion in my previous response to you on my post #178 with some other points I made about the concept of highly valued actions being considered religious

Oh, I did not bother with that because the points you repeated there had been destroyed directly or indirectly in earlier posts by me and others on the thread e.g.

(a) you said religion needs 'sacred texts': we asked you for the sacred texts of Amadioha, Shango, Obatala etc and you did not have a satisfactory answer.

(b) you say religion needs ritual: not necessarily so as not all religions have 'ritual' unless the definition you wish to provide of 'ritual' is as fluid as the definition you provided of 'religion'.

(c) still relating to 'ritual', you describe it as repeated acts in expectation of a response from a deity: this is an exemplar of the problem you have in (b) above: not all religions necessarily have a 'deity' as is certainly arguable with Buddhism, maybe even ancestor worship (and I think Uyi Iredia was probing you on one or two; I can't be bothered to go back and check which); not all 'ritual' is necessarily directed at eliciting a response from a deity e.g. some 'rituals' may be done for self motivation or edification.

You see the problem you have you have yourself partly identified: you state that religion is difficult to define ---- perhaps that is indeed the reason why you should be cautious about arguing that evangelical atheism is not a religion when that "movement" as you acknowledged (or prefer to call it) actively carries out several activities akin to religion including evangelisation and proselytising which are normally seen as quintessential religious activities!

thehomer:
The points were in forms of questions I'll state them here.

OK, I'll deal with them as numbered.

thehomer:
1. What is your description or definition of "militant atheism"?

(a) "Militant atheism" is an old expression and definitions are extant; google the expression and you will have an idea; I think even wikipedia has an entry on it.
(b) Much much more importantly, my primary focus has been evangelical atheism and I have provided enough on what is meant by that; I referred to aggressive/militant atheism secondarily - incidentally, you haven't asked for a meaning of "aggressive" so I wonder (not really) why the  insistence on definition of "militant" as a prefix to atheism!

thehomer:
2. Do you consider discussing or promoting one's views about God(s) publicly a highly valued religious practice on par with e.g the practice of regular communion, regular prayers at certain times of the day etc?

Your definition required proof of practices, beliefs and teachings that are highly valued: it did not necessitate let alone require proof of parity of practices, beliefs and teachings. So this question is really neither here nor there. I have pointed to practices, beliefs and teachings that are highly valued in evangelical atheism; if evangelical atheism chooses to place a high value on daft and idiotic things, that is its own look out; other religions may of course choose to place a high value on better things such as spiritual things.

thehomer:
3. Do you think rational thoughts or actions are wrong?

No, I do not think rational thoughts and actions are wrong! I think and act rationally all the time; in fact, I am doing so right now. I think the more pertinent question is whether you think/believe all non-rational thoughts and actions are wrong?

@thehomer re post 184

The fact is that on one definition - your own definition - evangelical atheism is a religion. You are the one who picked that definition. Whether others want to fit communism etc within that definition is not presently my business.


Meanwhile I really don't know what points you say I avoided.

@thehomer regarding post no 178

I went by your preferred definition of religion, which you supplied which I even hinted was intellectually inadequate.

I believe that I have proven adequately that evangelical atheism is a religion ----- according to your preferred definition of "religion" which you supplied.

@  Deep Sight

I think I have expressed my view on the thread subject clearly enough. Naturally, others are entitled to different views.

Oh, by the way, if you want an example of evangelical atheism in action try this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7813812.stm

^^^

1. This is the breakdown of your own preferred definition of religion. Religion is

(a) A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued; OR

(b) A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are sacred.

That is the importance of the "or" that you referred to.


2. I made a distinction earlier between "passive" atheists and evangelical (if not indeed aggressive and/or militant) atheists. It is patently clear from this thread that the focus is primarily on the evangelical (if not indeed aggressive/militant) atheists. Thus the case is really that evangelical (if not indeed aggressive/militant) atheism is a religion.

3. Here are are some of the practices, beliefs and teachings of evangelical atheism

(a) the practice of actively seeking to convince others that there is no god
(b) the practice of actively seeking to 'debunk' Christianity and/or religion
(c) the practice of actively challenging Christian and/or religious doctrine
(d) the belief and teaching that rationalism is supreme and that anything that cannot be proven by rational or scientific methods is unsustainable or not true (remember our debate on faith and reason?).

I can list more but these are enough.

4. You ask that the practices, beliefs and teachings be consistent across atheist groups; well, they are certainly consistent among evangelical (if not indeed aggressive/militant) atheist groups. What is more, beware of falling into double-standards since not all religious groups (not even all Christian groups) have wholly consistent practices, beliefs and teachings.

5. Here are samplings of what evangelical atheism means:

From here http://evangelicalatheism.org/

"Evangelical atheism": Sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it? But "evangelism" literally means "bringing of good news." I believe that strong atheism, the belief that there is no god, is not only true but is also good news. I also believe that the world would be a better place if there were more atheists. Unless you already are one, I believe you would be happier and the world would be a better place if you were an atheist.

There are already a number of resources on atheism: books, web sites, movies, you name it. Most of them patiently deal with the rational. This is as it should be; atheism is the only rational response to the question of whether there is a god. What I want to focus on, though, is the emotional. I believe that emotion, not reason, is the moat between the fantasy of religion and the reality of atheism.

Life is hard, and religionists take comfort in "knowing" that it's all according to God's purpose. But, if true, would it really be comforting? That a benevolent, loving god could think of no better way to do what he needs to do by causing so much suffering along with joy?

Life ends in death, but wouldn't eternal life be worse?

Many people go to religious services to reinforce their love of God, but isn't that palpable feeling really the love of each other?

We all are lonely, but aren't six billion of us, most of whom are really fine people, enough?

and from here http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=evangelical%20atheist

An evangelical atheist is one who not only believes there is no god or other supreme being, but is obsessed with convincing everyone around them to become an atheist too, usually through hard-line intolerance (the kind they accuse other religions of). When cornered they usually try to put down their opponent's religion and bash them for 'blind faith', not realizing that their belief that there is no god is no more or less valid or provable than the other guy's belief that there is one. Not to be confused with normal atheists/agnostics, who for the most part just dont talk about religion and accept the beliefs of those around them as their perogative. Evangelical atheists are particularly common on the Internet, as organized religion is generally accepted as part of 'the system' of global human society, and lately it's become cool on the Internet to hate 'the system'. Mostly teen angst if you ask me,

Conclusion? Evangelical atheism is a religion ----- especially according to your own preferred definition of religion.

So you fellows should stop denying what you are i.e. members of the evangelical atheism religion.

^^^ So you cannot see that by your own preferred definition the beliefs and teachings do not have to be "sacred"?

Here is your own preferred definition again:

A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued [size=16pt]or[/size] sacred.

Actually, there is a point to what Olaadegbu said though perhaps it is preferable to substitute "rationalism" for evolution (EDITED: though we can actually stand atheism on its own without necessarily relating it to either evolution or even rationalism). For example, let us take thehomer's own preferred definition of "religion" (even though Jesoul has already shown the intellectual inadequacy of sticking to one of four definitions offered by the same source):

A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred.

I will pause to let that sink in!

olojoro:
Talking snakes, messiahs that do magic tricks, human sacrifice for redemption , etc just don't do it for me. Especially when these happened thousands of years ago and I just have to believe some book that I don't even know where it came from. Why not just believe our own African folk tales if we're going to trust ancient minds with our fate?

Believe what you like - whether African folk tales or something else. Just don't make empty assertions like proof for one thing is scattered across the earth and there is no proof for the other thing.

Yet your "compelling" evidence that religious people are "missing the plot" is scattered all around "across the earth"?

Veeeeeeeeeery clever indeed.

Joagbaje:
Thanks, I understand you. Maybe I didn't present it in a clear way. I will repackage it so as not to be misunderstood.

You are going to repackage what a whole "pastor chris" wrote?

olojoro:
Scattered across the earth. I'm pretty sure you may have stumbled across some in your lifetime. Or haven't you?

And you have not yet stumbled across the truly compelling arguments for Christianity and for the existence of God?

olojoro:
Man is men and women and children living together. Political, arguably so. Religious, not necessarily. In fact I can say religious, NO!! It's just hard for one to change a world view that is really all they know.

Imagine someone trying to convince you that what you have known and referred to as blue your whole life is actually yellow. That will make you, and every reference you have made to the color almost nonsensical. That could be somewhat traumatic. I think that's how hard it is to convince some religious that they may be missing the plot. It's not that the arguments are not compelling, it's just really difficult for people to accept that they have been living a lie the whole time. It's very very difficult. All sorts of defense mechanisms spring up and it will most likely just end up causing fight.

Where are these compelling arguments?

"Man is a political animal"

"Man is a religious animal"

Discuss.

thehomer:
. . .

I think for a movement to get to the level of religion, I think it needs sacred texts, rituals (acts that are repeated in a certain way expecting some response from the deity it's being directed at), poor evidence of efficacy of said acts and some other things. These were just on the spur of the moment and may still need to be modified.

Where are the sacred texts for Amadioha, Ogun, Shango, Obatala etc worship?

^^^ I don't see how any of that justifies the encampment by atheists in the nairaland religion section or how it justifies poking nose into discussions among Christians to work out/trying to understand their own faith, or how it justifies starting numerous threads to show that God cannot exist, Christianity cannot be true, Christian doctrine is man-made, made up etc. Accordingly, the obsession of some of the atheists here with the religion section and their activity or 'activeness' is not that distinguishable from practising a "religion".

^^^ Things like 'nuance', 'subtlety' etc are not easily appreciated by quite a lot of {our} people

InesQor:
LOL LOL LOL!

My point exactly, bro!! Thankfully at least ONE person understood it

De thing na waaa o jare  

The 'evangelical' atheists here (some of them even aggressive if not militant) are obviously proselytising: seeking to prove that their own 'faith' {in godlessness or in lack of god, if they prefer} is right or trying to 'debunk' Christianity and other religions; basically they are trying to prove that their own belief or faith or religion   (sarcasm alert!) is better than anyone else's. Now that's interesting, isnt't it? I would say it shows at least two forms of insecurity: (a) they do not know that their own belief, faith or religion   (sarcasm alert) is right and thus need the reassurance from attacking 'weaknesses' in others; (b) they are ashamed to admit that they are indeed basically doing that which they accuse others of ---- practising a 'religion'  (sarcasm only partly alert!!!). What with all the contention, criticising, proselytising etc?

There are (let's say "passive" atheists who just exist day to day; do not even think about God let alone to consider or ponder his existence, yet let alone to consider discussing his existence with others, yet let alone to try to persuade others of his non-existence. These atheists just live, they just exist. God is not even in the picture at all for them.

Compare those with our evangelical (aggressive if not militant) atheist friends who are indeed obssessed with this same God that they claim do not exist. Of all the threads and discussion on the forum they encamp in the religion section!

InesQor:
If Atheism is not a religion, pray tell, what are all these dudes doing in this section?   

i[b]LOL[/b] 

The obsession of the atheists with {the} religion {section}, especially Christianity . . .  

Well . . .