₦airaland Forum

^^^ Na only him belle dat one sabi. "Give to pastor, give to pastor, give to pastor"!

He no see for Bible where Jesus say "as long as you give to (did it for) one of these . . . . "

Yeyeful.

And remember that what Daddy G.O. D, Apostle Goshen 360, is doing is reiterating a "spiritual principle"!

Ubenedictus: u knlw all d storiez

Bros, na wa oh! It's a long time ago now . . . . .

striktlymi: . . . . my grand dad (mothers side) was the Okumagbe (King) of Weppa and Uwanno who also was a 'strong man'. You can say, paganism ran in the family.

[Digression] The bolded takes me back some 20 odd years!!!! Litigation involving parties including the Okpegbulagbe (sp?) of Okpella and the Okumagbe of Wepa-Wano![/Digression]

Hmmm

1. The guy above makes the claim that John 1:1 was translated as "the Word was God" because of some "agenda" implying fraud; he was asked to provide proof; he has been all over the town trying to discuss everything else under the sun except to provide proof for the statement that he drew from his backside.

2. He produces a video on a matter wholly unrelated to John 1:1; and asks others to engage the argument being made in the video; when he has not engaged the argument on the thread; when the argument in the video has nothing to do with the argument on the thread; when he has not been able to defend or substantiate his claim that is in issue.

3. He omits to mention that the argument of the guy in the video was more than ably countered by a world renown expert; he of course does not engage those counter arguments of Dan Wallace but duplicitously asks others to engage Ehrman!

4. Now he is even ignorant of the scholarship of his hero from the video; e.g. his hero's view on the accuracy or otherwise of the translation of John 1:1 as "the Word was God."

5. He is also ignorant of his hero's scholarship to the extent that his hero accepts that in the technical field of textual criticism and despite his hero's sceptical position, his hero accepts that textual variants do not really affect any major Christian tenet. His hero has written this in a book; but of course he might not know that others were familiar with his hero's scholarship ever before there was any such thing as Youtube.

6. The guy is of course desperate to obfuscate ---- as ever. I have in the past pointed out to him that when he is defeated on the central issue of a debate, he seeks to widen it to nonsenses. https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/6#10872044

7. That link above is just one other example, as this, where the guy was discombobulated after grandstanding without realising that he was once again speaking through his backside. There are several others I could (and might) point to including one where the only person who bothered to respond did so with ---- a facepalm.

Ihedinobi: Ah, I'm so relieved you agree. I'm reluctant to carry on the "tenderly" without the "earnestly". I mean to cut him no slack wherever necessary.

Let us pray and look forward to the day when our brother to be will sing the below --- with tears in his eyes and true joy in his heart.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVBUyPNed0k

^^^ What he will become is not negatively affected by the way we treat him.

Some people think only the "softly, softly catch monkey" approach is "good evangelism".

They forget: "ye brood of vipers"; "ye stiff-necked people" etc etc etc . . . .

Ihedinobi: Oh he will, and I'm going to whip him along.

From Acts 9

10In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!”

“Yes, Lord,” he answered.

11The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.”

13“Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. 14And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”

15But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

Ihedinobi: Like, that was my exact reaction!

I think seyibrown is right: he is going to become ọmọ Jesu yet.

Even without him realising it, the Christian folk are already having an effect on him; now he knows that atheism ends up in the amorality/immorality morass, and that "humanism" borrows/steals its best from theism and is otherwise philosophically hollow . . . .



Edited (but only to add link)

^^^ Ah, so you've been suffering torment like the torment of "hell" since that my first comment ---- "the thing wey dey bite you dey for ya body, e no concern me".

You think I need videos to be familiar with Ehrman's scholarship?

Oh, and more, you think anything you post is going to bother me?

Mumuness!

^^ Understood; more grace through Lent.

It is to be noted however that some traditions suspend fasting on Sundays.

@ Ihedinobi

Very well said, bros.

SNCOQ3: @Anony, I think you should read the 'Amsterdam Declaration'. Its a confused document seeking to establish relativistic ideas in absolute terms. It also claims Humanism is an alternative to Religion by 'popular demand'. Atheism(a pointer to nihilism) as failed hence the the need to 'patch' it with 'godliness' without God. The rebellion of man.

+1

Got it in one!

That point is also made in this post on that other thread where the evangelical atheists did not realise in time that they were shooting themselves in the foot with the thread and their 'arguments' on it. https://www.nairaland.com/1210342/christians-agree/2#14553405

One more gem from that Ruse piece.

Far more explicitly than his grandfather, Julian Huxley saw Humanism (a word he did use) as an exact substitute for religion: a world-view based on evolutionary biology. ‘This new ideas-system, whose birth we of the mid-twentieth century are witnessing, I shall simply call Humanism, because it can only be based on our understanding of man and his environment. It must be organised around the facts and ideas of evolution, taking account of the discovery that man is part of a comprehensive evolutionary process, and cannot avoid playing a decisive role in it.’ In the spirit of his grandfather, he added: ‘it will have nothing to do with absolutes, including absolute truth, absolute morality, absolute perfection and absolute authority ...’

Interesting --- now that I've seen the video.

This thread should be linked to this other one https://www.nairaland.com/1210342/christians-agree

They complement each other and together they make the point beautifully.

@Anony

Thinking back to this post and also this post you might find the quote below interesting.

From here http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/michael-ruse-humanism-religion/

Per Michael Ruse --- an atheist for that matter

Today’s Humanists claim a lineage that stretches back into the classical world. They have no exclusive claim on the older humanist tradition of men such as Erasmus of Rotterdam, whose skill with ancient languages led, for instance, to better translations of the Bible. This broadly humanist world view may or may not have been religious but it did emphasise learning, human needs and human freedom. Indeed, all that is needed for a full and satisfying life, with an emphasis on reason and good sense. One would hope that every broad-minded person, believer or not, is a humanist in this regard.

What I am concerned with here is the self-proclaimed world-view of Humanism (which I capitalise to make this distinction). This is the movement that makes claims about science — and evolution in particular — that interest me. And it is this kind of Humanism that makes me uneasy. It doesn’t just define itself against religion; in some respects, it has taken on aspects of religion. Perhaps it is a kind of religion.

^^^Obviously, you are too daft to follow the argument; and you are blind to see my post that presaged the one you are addressing.

In any event, you are similarly too daft to realise that you are actually making the point that I have argued on this thread.

I'm also pretty sure that idiocy runs in your family and it shouldn't be difficult to guess who you inherited your idiocy from.

^^ If you want to engage in insult, carry on ---- it is standard for idiotic amoral atheists.

If you want to tell us that atheism and morality have no relationship. Come out with that.


Hmmm, no need for any exertion beyond that earlier post.

^^ If you want to engage in insult, carry on ---- it is standard for idiotic amoral atheists.

If you want to tell us that atheism and morality have no relationship. Come out with that.

Ihedinobi: I said that? My post ain't going anywhere, man. Feel free to quote it and mark where I said that.



Sure thing. So, you should have no difficulties answering Enigma's poser.

You are taking seriously someone who says atheists make moral decisions based on the effects of their actions on others ----- when they come here to insult, malign, blaspheme, troll like pinheads etc.

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]Lololol, it appears our in-house atheists on the whole don't like having any burden put on them at all. This is why so many of them don't want to admit they have any positive beliefs as well as being atheists. Often when asked what their positive beliefs are they can't even elucidate it properly.

It's always easier being on the offensive than defining your stance isn't it?[/quote]+1

The less the theists fall for the standard and unfailing chicanery of the evangelical atheists the better; intrinsically, evangelical atheists just cannot avoid being duplicitous; their position is that bankrupt and intellectually bereft.

Compare below from https://www.nairaland.com/715030/find-existence-god-threatening/1#8764904

Enigma: . . . .

Breeze5000:
. . . A lot of them just make mouth and ask all those kindergarten questions sometimes, Like lil kids who ask! ask! and ask without pausing to think or imagine if what they are saying makes sense. Since they are the ones that says there is no God, the burden of proof lies with them and I don't see them coming up with anything meaningful! . . .

Oh ho! Instead many of them, especially the evangelical atheists, would (a) rather play the sleight of hand that only the theists/deists have a burden of proof and/or (b) engage in childish sophistry asking the theist/deist to "define" "god" ---- pretending not, or too ignorant, to see the obvious ---- i.e. they can simply "define" or explain which "god" they are arguing does not exist or themselves simply "define" what a "god" is.

And they expect sensible people to engage them in debate --- and can't see why most sensible people just ignore them to their interminably boring rantings?

Cool!

Thanks; was having a busy day so I wasn't able to look in. I haven't even read every post --- at least not carefully yet.

@Ihedinobi

You are right, when a person says "nothing, absolutely nothing" can be immoral if a person holds to atheism, that means there is no morality in atheism and that means atheism is amoral.

Being amoral can even be worse than being immoral. So if our friends are arguing that atheism is amoral but not immoral, they are in an even worse morass.

Can anyone point to ONE SINGLE thing that is immoral due to atheism?

The same question in a different way: is there one single thing that is immoral on the basis of atheism?

Some say that a person who is an atheist can act morally. Agreed! That was never the point at all.

Or in another way, some say a person who is an atheist can be moral. Again, ok fine. That was never the point.

The question: what is the source or basis of the morality that an atheist person evinces.

The primary issue: atheism can never be the source of an atheist person's morality. The two are simply incompatible. The atheist person must seek the source of his morality beyond atheism.

Some say the source of morality, especially for an atheist, is such things as the law or obligations to society etc. The problem here as we have demonstrated on various threads (and later I will link some of them) is for example: then you would have to say that even cannibalism can be moral. If a society sees cannibalism as normal in 1988 but no longer sees it so in 2013 --- what does that tell us about cannibalism? Is it fundamentally or objectively immoral or not? And how do you decide that. As far as atheism is concerned there is no way you can so hold ----- beyond law or society.

The same arises when you say cannibalism can be ok in one society but not ok in another society. So which one of them is wrong? Or they are both right --- in terms of what each wants for its own society? Or do you need an objective basis for deciding on the morality or otherwise of cannibalism?

Now let us consider atheism in three basic respects.

1. An atheist is simply a person who lacks belief in god(s). Fine, then to that extent he is in the same category as a dog, a cow, a monkey etc. In that case it would be interesting to ascertain what is 'morality' and the source of the 'morality' for that category of entity or being.

2. A passive atheist: here we have a person who is essentially indifferent and in general has not followed a particularly thoughtful approach to settling into atheism. Again, atheism cannot provide the source of morality for that person. The person must look for the source of morality beyond atheism. Maybe in law, maybe in obligations to society etc. However trace the source of morality, i.e. objective morality, as may be found in law or 'obligation to society' and you will find the that the root is in some form of theism.

Specifically on the law: it is a fundamental mistake to regard law per se as a source of morality; law can seek to compel moral actions but it is not itself the source of determination of what is fundamentally moral or what is objectively moral. Hence, yesterday, it was unlawful to engage in homosex.ual activity, today it is not only lawful ,. . . .; homose.xual activity is unlawful in Nigeria but is lawful in the UK etc

So it is pretty inadequate to say people are moral because they have a legal obligation, that is the law, that is what society expects and such like.

3. You have the conscious and deliberate atheist. For this specie, it would be logically unsound or intellectually dishonest to say that atheism can provide the person a source of morality. This is where the statement that immorality is a natural corollary of atheism is most apposite. Beyond things like the law and obligation to society etc (which I have shown to be inadequate) there is no basis on which this animal can ground morality. Now you have some of their apostles resorting to daft arguments rooted in scientism. It is because those doing that know that atheism offers absolutely nothing in terms of morality and if followed through means there is nothing that is really immoral.

Some 'decent' atheists seek to ground a basis for morality in various things including "humanism" BUT it will be clear to discerning people that they are just borrowing or even stealing from other areas or 'worldviews' --- and what they are so borrowing or stealing ---- ultimately have their basis in some form of theism or other.

Some atheists accept the bare situation of atheism and point out that with atheism there is indeed no morality. I have provided various quotes and even arguments from atheist philosophers on this point in the past and may later c&p some of them to this thread.

To start to tease these matters, I will follow this post with a single question.

Logicboy03: Enigma didnt read the op or his own comment in the op. Fail.

I just advised Ihedinobi not to stress himself or waste his time addressing your ignorance and very very poor "logic".

I'm not about to waste my time either. Maybe some day, you and your supporters will bring something worthwhile to the table.

^^^ That is not the argument on this board/thread. Maybe you should try to understand the argument first.

^^ No too stress yourself or waste your time.

Ihedinobi: You just got further demoted promoted to Manager of Dundee United. Your dumbness is closer to hopeleas than ever.

Scottish football club names have always provided a good source of amusement.

For Yoruba speakers, Ayr United, if you pronounce it 'our' way can be extremely funny. Try Ayiri United aka Lunatics United.

Oh there is the unforgettable Forfar 5 Fife 4.

^^^ I've been chuckling at all this talk of polls because I was immediately reminded of the type of "poll" propounded by the immortal 'Sir Humphrey' in The Ministerial Broadcast.

By the way, I can't believe this!!!!

I got the spelling of 'corollary' wrong in that old post!