₦airaland Forum

Pastor AIO: I agree that religious bodies and any other lobbyists can make their viewpoints known and, even further, attempt to to get them implemented and there is nothing wrong with that. They can also use the vote and any other means that is allowed in their democratic system. However I do not see where 'atheist mumus' are trying to stop religions from having any voice. Or how Obama telling religious people to pray at home makes him an atheist?

Well, if you are familiar with First Amendment jurisprudence and litigation as well as the activities of the evangelical atheist mumus in America, you will understand the statement that they are trying to prevent the Church from having any voice in American politics and policies.

Pastor AIO: I would understand if Obama got voted in by a lobby of christians because he said that he was a christian and they now find that they have been hoodwinked. However a lot of the things in the videos such as his supposed 'mocking' of the Sermon on the Mount or other parts of the bible were said before he was president.

Well, you may have noticed that I have not particularly concerned myself with whether Obama is a Christian or not

Pastor AIO: And I already know too many christians who do not even consider the Sermon on the Mount as that essential to their christianity. I even recall someone here on Nairaland saying that Jesus just taught those things to show how impossible it would be to keep the law and he didn't really expect us to adopt the teachings. Such an attitude is extremely common.

Again, I am sorry this is not an issue in which I have been involved.

Pastor AIO: I personally do not see how christianity can be mixed with politics and remain christianity. But then that would just be my own understanding of christianity and not another man's understanding of it.

Again, my involvement on this thread is no suggestion that Christianity should be "mixed" with politics. Afterall I am the same person who previously posted this (second point on link): https://www.nairaland.com/523483/come-now-let-us-reason#6869388

and this (penultimate point of post): https://www.nairaland.com/523483/come-now-let-us-reason/1#6872310

and this (point 9 or so in link): https://www.nairaland.com/523483/come-now-let-us-reason/2#6875916



EDITED - Links

Religious bodies can make their view points known. The "secularists" and the evangelical atheist mumus are trying to prevent "religion" from having any voice ----- and ensuring that the only voice that is heard or that is relevant is that of secularism and, to be explicit, of atheism.

Even in the UK where there is an established church the UK government is "not based on religion". Rather, constitutionally and institutionally, the voice of the Church can be heard through among other things representation in the House of Lords and the recognition of such important offices as Archbishops and Bishops. Nowadays voices of other, i.e. non-Christian, religions are given hearing as well.

None of these makes the UK government to be based on religion; not even the fact of an established Church does that.

And about temporal/secular, it is not in this instant an important issue for me other than its use in the article as part of demonstration of the intent of Jefferson's letter and his use of the expression "wall of separation between Church and State".

Nevertheless the distinction between Lords Temporal (i.e. secular) and Lords Spiritual (i.e. Church) is expressed here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Temporal

In the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Lords Temporal are secular members of the House of Lords. The term is used to differentiate lords—who are either life peers or hereditary peers, although the hereditary right to the House of Lords was abolished for all but ninety-two peers in 1999—from the Lords Spiritual, who sit in the House as bishops in the Church of England.

^^^ I don't recall anybody on this thread arguing or saying the US government should be based on "religion".

I should add the following paragraph because of the references to deletions from an earlier draft of Jefferson's letter.

It seems likely that in modifying the draft of the Danbury Baptist letter by eliminating words like "eternal" and "merely temporal," which sounded so uncompromisingly secular, Jefferson was motivated not merely by political considerations but by a realization that these words, written in haste to make a political statement, did not accurately reflect the conviction he had reached by the beginning of 1802 on the role of government in religion. Jefferson would never compromise his views that there were things government could not do in the religious sphere -- legally establish one creed as official truth and support it with its full financial and coercive powers. But by 1802, he seems to have come around to something close to the views of New England Baptist leaders such as Isaac Backus and Caleb Blood, who believed that, provided the state kept within its well-appointed limits, it could provide "friendly aids" to the churches, including putting at their disposal public property that even a stickler like John Leland was comfortable using.

@Olaadegbu

You will find this one too interesting.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html

During the presidential campaign of 1800, Jefferson had suffered in silence the relentless and deeply offensive Federalist charges that he was an atheist. Now he decided to strike back, using the most serviceable weapon at hand, the address of the Danbury Baptists.

Jefferson's counterattack is contained in the circled section of his draft and in the inked-out lines. . . .

The unedited draft of the Danbury Baptist letter makes it clear why Jefferson drafted it: He wanted his political partisans to know that he opposed proclaiming fasts and thanksgivings, not because he was irreligious, but because he refused to continue a British practice that was an offense to republicanism. To emphasize his resolve in this matter, Jefferson inserted two phrases with a clenched-teeth, defiant ring: "wall of eternal separation between church and state" and "the duties of my station, which are merely temporal." These last words -- "merely temporal" -- revealed Jefferson's preoccupation with British practice. Temporal, a strong word meaning secular, was a British appellation for the lay members of the House of Lords, the Lords Temporal, as opposed to the ecclesiastical members, the Lords Spiritual. "Eternal separation" and "merely temporal" -- here was language as plain as Jefferson could make it to assure the Republican faithful that their "religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine."

One of the nation's best known advocates of religious liberty, Leland had accepted an invitation to preach in the House of Representatives on Sunday, Jan. 3, and Jefferson evidently concluded that, if Leland found nothing objectionable about officiating at worship on public property, he could not be criticized for attending a service at which his friend was preaching. Consequently, "contrary to all former practice," Jefferson appeared at church services in the House on Sunday, Jan. 3, two days after recommending in his reply to the Danbury Baptists "a wall of separation between church and state"; during the remainder of his two administrations he attended these services "constantly."

Jefferson's participation in House church services and his granting of permission to various denominations to worship in executive office buildings, where four-hour communion services were held, cannot be discussed here; these activities are fully illustrated in the forthcoming exhibition. What can be said is that going to church solved Jefferson's public relations problems, for he correctly anticipated that his participation in public worship would be reported in newspapers throughout the country. A Philadelphia newspaper, for example, informed its readers on Jan. 23, 1802, that "Mr. Jefferson has been seen at church, and has assisted in singing the hundredth psalm." In presenting Jefferson to the nation as a churchgoer, this publicity offset whatever negative impressions might be created by his refusal to proclaim thanksgiving and fasts and prevented the erosion of his political base in God-fearing areas like New England.

Jefferson's public support for religion appears, however, to have been more than a cynical political gesture. Scholars have recently argued that in the 1790s Jefferson developed a more favorable view of Christianity that led him to endorse the position of his fellow Founders that religion was necessary for the welfare of a republican government, that it was, as Washington proclaimed in his Farewell Address, indispensable for the happiness and prosperity of the people. Jefferson had, in fact, said as much in his First Inaugural Address. His attendance at church services in the House was, then, his way of offering symbolic support for religious faith and for its beneficent role in republican government.

thehomer: Your posts say nothing actually relevant. They all sidestep the issue. I have asked you directly several times yet in your dishonesty or confusion, you give irrelevant responses. Let me try again.

Is the phrase "so help me God" a legal requirement for taking an official government position in the U.S? Yes or no?
Note that saying something along the lines of "it is a legal requirement except when the person just doesn't want to say it" shows that you do not understand what a legal requirement is. Please go back to school or look it up online.
I'm tired of dealing with such poor language comprehension. When you've finally figured out what a legal requirement is, you can come back for some more instruction.

I think so help YOU God indeed!

If you cannot understand a simple thing like a statutory prescription i.e. a legal prescription i.e. a legal requirement --- albeit subject to the possibility of an exception allowing an alternative then indeed so help YOU God.

I have tried oh! I even linked to the statute i.e. the specific law that prescribes the legal requirement --- I would have thought that would be helpful for most ordinarily thick people - but well . . . !

^^^ You see now why I keep making reference to your ignorance and poor comprehension (unless of course your problem is dishonesty and/denial)?

OK try again and read the following earlier posts of mine and see if you can honestly repeat the nonsense above.

https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/8#10922083

https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/8#10922192

https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/9#10922334

^^^ Just go and learn the meaning of "legal requirement" - even as another poster pointed out indirectly and, by the way, whose point you promptly misunderstood naturally.

And from the second link regarding use of the metaphor in the US Supreme Court.

http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-constitution-faq.htm

Use by the U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court highlighted the phrase “wall of separation” in 1878 by declaring in Reynolds v. U.S. “that it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment.” Since that time, the phrase has become common in American jurisprudence.


Controversy over use

The use of the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” has been controversial, even among members of the Supreme Court. In 1962, Justice Potter Stewart wrote that jurisprudence is not "aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the 'wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution." In 1985, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist called Jefferson’s phrase misleading, stating "unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years." Many Americans believe that relying on a vague metaphor penned by a partisan politician who was not present when the Constitution was written, rather than the words of the Constitution as drafted in compromise by people of varying political views and ratified by the states, is grossly inappropriate and allows the courts to declare unconstitutional many practices which are not actually unconstitutional.

One decent and concise perspective on the issue of "separation of church and state" at these two links.

http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm

http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-constitution-faq.htm

Separation of Church and State - The Metaphor and the Constitution

"Separation of church and state" is a common metaphor that is well recognized. Equally well recognized is the metaphorical meaning of the church staying out of the state's business and the state staying out of the church's business. Because of the very common usage of the "separation of church and state phrase," most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution. The phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state" was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.

The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.

However, currently the implied common meaning and the use of the metaphor is strictly for the church staying out of the state's business. The opposite meaning essentially cannot be found in the media, the judiciary, or in public debate and is not any part of the agenda of the ACLU or the judiciary.

This, in conjunction with several other factors, makes the "separation of church and state" metaphor an icon for eliminating anything having to do with Christian theism, the religion of our heritage, in the public arena. One of these factors is the use of the metaphor in place of the actual words of the constitution in discourse and debate. This allows the true meaning of the words in the constitution to be effectively changed to the implied meaning of the metaphor and the effect of the "free exercise" clause to be obviated. Another factor facilitating the icon to censor all forms of Christian theism in the public arena is a complete misunderstanding of the "establishment" clause.

Separation of Church and State - The Establishment Clause in Context

In addition to the "Separation of Church and State" metaphor misrepresenting the words of the establishment clause, the true meaning of the establishment clause is also misrepresented. The "establishment" clause states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." Before these words can be put in context and the true meaning of the clause can be correctly identified, we need to examine the word "religion" and put it in America's historical context at the time the constitution was framed. In addition, we need to examine the previous European historical background of the founders of our country to identify what specifically motivated them to place the "establishment" clause in the constitution.

To accomplish this, we need to add more specificity to the word "religion" to clarify both the American and European historical backgrounds and put the word "religion" in proper context. We need to delineate between doctrinal and denominational religion. We also need to understand that the doctrinal religion being discussed is Christian Theism, which is defined by a belief in the Bible. We know what specific Christian denominational religions are.

Separation of Church and State - Constitution Framers Historical Context

The "Separation of Church and State" metaphor blurs the distinction between a doctrinal religion and a denominational religion. This places the doctrinal religion we have embraced in the same basket as an organized denominational religion with potential to merge with the state. The documentary evidence of the doctrinal Christian religion origin of this nation is voluminous. The Supreme Court thoroughly studied this issue, and in 1892 gave what is known as the Trinity Decision. In that decision the Supreme Court declared, "this is a Christian nation." John Quincy Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was, it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." The founders were definitely Christian for the most part. At least 90 to 95 percentage of them were practicing, Trinitarian Christians. This and the additional supporting evidence below show conclusively that the concern that motivated the framers to include the establishment clause in the constitution was definitely not fear of the doctrinal religion of Christian Theism. It was understood that Christian Theism was the default state doctrinal religion. As opposed to being something to fear, it was something believed to be vital to the success of our government. Consequently, the framers feared a state denominational religion not a state doctrinal religion! Some additional evidences that indicate Christian Theism was the national doctrinal religion are listed below:

Emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words "In God We Trust."

The Supreme Court building built in the 1930's has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments.

God is mentioned in stone all over Washington D.C., on its monuments and buildings.

As a nation, we have celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior's birth for centuries.

Oaths in courtrooms have invoked God from the beginning.

The founding fathers often quoted the Bible in their writings.

Every president that has given an inaugural address has mentioned God in that speech.

Prayers have been said at the swearing in of each president.

Each president was sworn in on the Bible, saying the words, "So help me God."

Our national anthem mentions God.

The liberty bell has a Bible verse engraved on it.

The original constitution of all 50 states mentions God.

Chaplains have been in the public payroll from the very beginning.

Our nations birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, mentions God four times.

The Bible was used as a textbook in the schools.

[quote author=t.grimesmarissa]Pandit rajendra swami is an expert in solving all kind of problems like astrology solutions, mangalik dosh nivaran,kaal sarp dosh nivaran. Get recommendation for forthcoming events, decisions, investments, relationships and alternative aspects of life.[/quote]It seems you are trying to attract people who are like erm, Gunna Falfarit?

Something I had wanted to put up for the benefit of my student here but couldn't be bothered previously.

Scenario A

Teacher: It is a legal requirement to swear an oath if appearing as a witness in court.
Student: No, it is not.
Teacher: Why do you say that?
Student: Because some people can choose to make an affirmation instead.
Teacher: Sigh!


Scenario B

Teacher: It is a legal requirement that graduates in Nigeria undergo the NYSC.
Student: No, it is not.
Teacher: Why do you say that?
Student: Because some people are exempt from NYSC
Teacher: facepalm!!!


Of course a better student would also have heard of the saying concerning the exception proving the rule!

^^ Maybe one day, you'll understand maybe one day! Maybe one day you'll find a more patient teacher.

For me I say "Ebenezer"!

@thehomer

Let me add one thing more to your education after which I won't bother anymore as (a) I'm bored already and (b) I would prefer a quicker learning student.

Why didn't your "separation of Church and State" prevent Congress from adopting the Pledge of Allegiance in the terms below including reference to God?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Ostrich --- head ---- sand. It is of course a legal requirement subject only to the exception allowed!

Let's try again, here:

“An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services shall take the following oath: ‘I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.’”

Go and find a lawyer to explain the "shall" that I bolded for you. Come to think of it, I wouldn't really expect an intelligent and honest person to need a lawyer to understand even the entirety of that provision.

^^^ So is it in the law or not?

Is it on the statute books or not?

Why didn't your "separation of Church and State" prevent it from being a legal requirement albeit with the possibility of an exception?

Are you so ignorant not to be aware that many legal rules and/or legal requirements make provisions for exceptions ---- exceptions which may not even have anything to do with religion necessarily?

^^ He told you that the founder of the scientific method was Francis Bacon --- a Christian.

Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon

Extract

Bacon has been called the creator of empiricism. His works established and popularised inductive methodologies for scientific inquiry, often called the Baconian method, or simply the scientific method. His demand for a planned procedure of investigating all things natural marked a new turn in the rhetorical and theoretical framework for science, much of which still surrounds conceptions of proper methodology today.

thehomer: This too is plain ignorance which can be rectified by reading or just dishonesty. Please rectify it by reading. You may begin here.
When you're through, I hope you will then understand that the "so help me God" phrase is not a legal requirement. It is optional for the very reason I gave you.

^^^ See how you make a mumu of yourself and show your poor comprehension again.

Read my post again and what it says about the President.

Then read this (if you can understand it and its effect): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331

Then go read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office

Then go and read your link.

Then go back and read my post.

After that come and talk.

^^Look, continue in your ignorance e.g. conflating "no religious test" with legal requirements concerning oath of office . If you are wise, you will go and read up and cross-check what I wrote.

As has been shown already, "separation of Church and State" is not a US constitutional concept as such.

The expression in the American context originated in a letter in which Jefferson responded to some Baptists, who were congratulating him on his appointment, basically assuring them of his support for the idea that the State should not interfere with their religious freedoms.

Basically, the duplicitous atheists have hijacked the expression and bastardised its use into a context different from its origin --- this occasionally with the assistance of the American Supreme Court. A major impetus of the First Amendment was the protection of religious minorities, in fact minority Christian groups, so that they will not suffer persecution by majority religious groups, in fact majority Christian groups. In various settlements, some "denominations" tended to predominate e.g. Catholics in some places, Anglicans in others etc. The concern about domination and persecution of the minority groups was also fuelled by the experience of many of the early pilgrims who had fled to America because of religious persecution in Europe.

Nowadays, every evangelical atheist mumu shouts "separation of church and state" either in ignorance (among most) and in duplicitous chicanery by the smarter ones. They have benefitted from a generally sympathetic judicial system.


Hmmm, food for thought:

The oath of office that must be taken by various US government officials including congress men/women, senators, cabinet members and even the Vice-President requires them to declare "So help me, God." By convention even appointees to the office of President have usually made the same declaration.

The "Bacon wrote Shakespeare" thing is a known suggestion largely seen as a conspiracy theory. There have even been a couple of documentaries on Shakespeare touching on the subject on TV here years ago.

See also (sorry it's only Nairaland's favourite) here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question

Oh by the way, there is also the little matter of the below.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Meditationes_sacrae#10

OF ATHEISM.


"The fool hath said in his heart there is no God."

First, it is to be noted, that the Scripture saith, "The fool hath said in his heart, and not thought in his heart;" that is to say, he doth not so fully think it in judgment, as he hath a good will to be of that belief; for seeing it makes not for him that there should be a God, he doth seek by all means accordingly to persuade and resolve himself, and studies to affirm, prove, and verify it to himself as some theme or position: all which labour, notwithstanding that sparkle of our creation light, whereby men acknowledge a Deity burneth still within; and in vain doth he strive utterly to alienate it or put it out, so that it is out of the corruption of his heart and will, and not out of the natural apprehension of his brain and conceit, that he doth set down his opinion, as the comical poet saith, "Then came my mind to be of mine opinion," as if himself and his mind had been two divers things; therefore the atheist hath rather said, and held it in his heart, than thought or believed in his heart that there is no God; secondly, it is to be observed, that he hath said in his heart, and not spoken it with his mouth. But again you shall note, that this smothering of this persuasion within the heart cometh to pass tor fear of government and of speech amongst men; for, as he saith, "To deny God in a public argument were much, but in a familiar conference were current enough:" for if this bridle were removed, there is no heresy which would contend more to spread and multiply, and disseminate itself abroad, than atheism: neither shall you see those men which are drenched in this frenzy of mind to breathe almost any thing else, or to inculcate even without occasion any thing more than speech tending to atheism, as may appear in Lucrecius the epicure, who makes of his invectives against religion as it were a burden or verse of return to all his other discourses; the reason seems to be, for that the atheist not relying sufficiently upon himself, floating in mind and unsatisfied, and enduring within many faintings, and as it were fails of his opinion, desires by other men's opinions agreeing with his, to be recovered and brought again; for it is a true saying, "Whoso laboureth earnestly to prove an opinion to another, himself distrusts it:" thirdly, it is a fool that hath so said in his heart, which is most true; not only in respect that he hath no taste in those things which are supernatural and divine; but in respect of human and civil wisdom: for first of all, if you mark the wits and dispositions which are inclined to atheism, you shall find them light, scoffing, impudent, and vain; briefly of such a constitution as is most contrary to wisdom and moral gravity.

Secondly, amongst statesmen and politics, those which have been of greatest depths and compass, and of largest and most universal understanding, have not only in cunning made their profit in seeming religious to the people, but in truth have been touched with an inward sense of the knowledge of Deity, as they which you shall evermore note to have attributed much to fortune and providence.

Contrariwise, those who ascribed all things to their own cunning and practices, and to the immediate, and apparent causes, and as the prophet saith, "Have sacrificed to their own nets," have been always but petty counterfeit statesman, and not capable of the greatest actions.

Lastly, this I dare affirm in knowledge of nature, that a little natural philosophy, and the first entrance into it, doth dispose the opinion to atheism; but on the other side, much natural philosophy and wading deep into it, will bring about men's minds to religion; wherefore atheism every way seems to be combined with folly and ignorance, seeing nothing can can be more justly allotted to be the saying of fools than this, "There is no God"

By the way a lawyer joke for you.

A judge was hearing a case in one court one day; in the court next to him Bacon VC was hearing another case. The first judge decided the case against a woman. The woman was unhappy and threw an egg at the judge which missed, fortunately. The judge immediately said: "that must have been meant for my brother Bacon.!"

Per Sir Francis Bacon "the genius". http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Meditationes_sacrae#Of_Atheism

OF THE MIRACLES OF OUR SAVIOUR.


"He hath done all things well."

A true confession and applause. God when he created all things saw that every thing in particular and all things in general were exceeding good; [b]God, the Word, [/b]in the miracles which he wrought, (now every miracle is a new creation, and not according to the first creation,) would do nothing which breathed not towards men favour and bounty: Moses wrought miracles, and scourged the Egyptians with many plagues: Elias wrought miracles, and shut up heaven, that no rain should fall upon the earth; and again brought down from heaven the fire of God upon the captains and their bands: Elizeus wrought also, and called bears out of the desert to devour young children: Peter struck Ananias, the sacrilegious hypocrite, with present death; and Paul, Elymas, the sorcerer, with blindness; but no such thing did Jesus, the Spirit of God descended down upon him in the form of a dove, of whom he said, "You know not of what spirit you are." [b]The spirit of Jesus is the spirit of a dove; those servants of God were as the oxen of God treading out the corn, and trampling the straw down under their feet; but Jesus is the Lamb of God, without wrath or judgments; all his miracles were consummate about man's body, as his doctrine respected the soul of man: the body of man needeth these things; sustenance, defence from out ward wrongs, and medicine; it was he that drew a multitude of fishes into the nets, that he might five unto men more liberal provision: He turned water, a less worthy nourishment of man's body, into wine, a more worthy, that glads the heart of man: He sentenced the fig-tree to wither for not doing that duty whereunto it was ordained, which is, to bear fruit for men's food: He multiplied the scarcity of a few loaves and fishes to a sufficiency to victual an host of people: He rebuked the winds that threatened destruction to the seafaring men: He restored motion to the lame, light to the blind, speech to the dumb, health to the sick, cleanness to the leprous, a right mind to those that were possessed, and life to the dead. No miracle of his is to be found to have been of judgment or revenge, but all of goodness and mercy, and respecting man's body; for as touching riches he did not vouchsafe to do any miracle, save one only, that tribute might be given to Cæsar.
[/b]

By the way the same Francis Bacon is also being discussed here: https://www.nairaland.com/926406/christ-foundation/1#10758552

@Olaadegbu

You may find line 9 (especially) of the following amusing.

https://www.nairaland.com/6539/shakesphears-name-king-james-bible/1#10895937

Well, it's all good and life goes on.

To clear one thing up.

There is NO "cabal"; as with almost very other poster, I agree with davidylan and Olaadegbu on some things and disagree with them on others. That's just the way it is.

One thing that I can say for sure that I and davidylan have in common (from reading his posts) is that we detest arrogant sciolism and have little more than contempt for self acclaimed "intellectuals" and "paragons of knowledge" who in fact peddle a lot of rubbish here; some repeat long discredited information ad nauseam. One can give a litany long list of examples: Nicene Council & Trinity, Paul vs Jesus, that book of the Bible was not written by that person, even hoaxes like King Leopold letter & Willie Lynch letter. Yet, they use these rubbish to insult Christians (especially) on the Board. The most idiotic of them have said Jesus was a bastard or was gay and other rubbish.

Well, colour me bad; why would I want to engage in "intellectual discussions" with such people? And of course it is quite easy to show such people up as fools, (yes, fools) when one can be bothered.

^^^ To suport the above, here is one I made earlier

Enigma: Yep, but we must first humble ourselves.

To be honest, "all" that we really need to know to relate with God are very simple.

The "intellectual" stuff are additions really; they can be very good if we handle them carefully; but they can be stumbling blocks if we handle them wrongly -------or if we fail to do the first thing i.e. to humble ourselves.

italo: . . . . Be humble and ask God to reveal himself to you. The answer might not be immediate or audible, but God will reveal himself to you because he loves you as much as he loves me.

Nice.

@Olaadegbu

I understand. Also, I have now edited my earlier post accordingly.

@cyrexx

Forgive me one more post before resumption of the debate.

Do you realise that my little exchange with you has demonstrated how to ascertain a true free thinker?

Look at this: for the definition of "free thinker" you needed a dictionary; whereas I didn't but simply looked to intrinsicness.

Which one of us has demonstrated "free thinking"?

Let me run away from here with the statement below.

"A truly gay man can be a heterosexual".

I have not derailed the thread.

I know how "freethinker" is defined from various sources. The fact that an expression has been or may be hijacked does not mean that its fundamental and intrinsic meaning should be forgotten. Oh just like we know what the term "gay" now means!

My post did not seek to prevent the ongoing discussion and only made a germane observation which I maintain: a true free thinker does not need anyone to prove the existence or non-existence of God to him.

I am happy to leave things at that and let you continue your 'debate'.

^^^ I have not attacked your person. All I have done is to make a factually accurate statement which I repeat: a true free thinker does not need anyone to prove the existence or non-existence of God to him.

Let me put it in another and perhaps simpler way: a true free thinker can believe in God and be a Christian, for example.