₦airaland Forum

A true free thinker will not depend on somebody else and will not need somebody else to prove the existence or non-existence of God.

OLAADEGBU: You don't have to twist the meaning of Ad Hominem even though you've been armed with your favourite wikipedia. Ad Hominem is directing an argument against the person making the claim rather than the claim itself. Either you are saying the person is an idiiot as a conclusion has no bearing on the position of the person making an argument. It means "to the man" that means you are directing your argument against the person making a claim rather than the claim itself, and your reason for doing this as we can see in your posts here, is that you are hoping that viewers would reject your opponents claim simply on the basis that there is something objectionable about the person making the claim. Name calling is name calling either abusive or circumstantial. So you have to learn what a logical fallacy really means before you start to shoot yourelf in the foot.



This is a typical poor attempt of your use of circumstantial Ad Hominem. You assume that he attended a local school his interpretation of the law would not be tenable.



It is even pathetic that you have to resort to the claim that he relies on the Holy Spirit to interprete the law. Did you see how Deep Sight agreed with his interpretation? Who has to eat his humble pie now?

@Olaadegbu

I let most of those (as well as others) go because I thought they weren't really worthwhile.



Edited

Well, I think we can now take it that my friend Kay17 recognises that the Bible does describe Jesus in the terms that I have set out on this thread.

Of course, I don't particularly expect him to accept the Bible's description of Jesus. All we needed to establish so far was whether the Bible does describe him as I set it out.

Sign post in a hospital:

For Family Planning, use rear entrance.

JeSoul: This isn't true.

[b]Seun the owner and head admin is an atheist [/b]and Mukina the second in command is a muslim. They pick the topics that go on the FP. And if you pay any attention to FP topics, they are mostly controversial towards christianity because it gets more attention & drives more traffic. So on the contrary your topic would be a good candidate.

From what I recall from the early days, Seun was already an atheist when he started the forum.

Deep Sight: The First Amendment

In the United States, the religious civil liberties are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The "Establishment Clause," stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is generally read to prohibit the Federal government from establishing a national church ( " religion " ) or excessively involving itself in religion, particularly to the benefit of one religion over another. Following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and through the doctrine of incorporation, this restriction is held to be applicable to state governments as well.

The "Free Exercise Clause" states that Congress cannot "prohibit the free exercise" of religious practices. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example, in the 19th century, some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy, yet in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law banning polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court stated that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." For example, if one were part of a religion that believed in vampirism, the First Amendment would protect one's belief in vampirism, but not the practice. This principle has similarly been applied to those attempting to claim religious exemptions for smoking cannabis[6][not in citation given] or, as in the case of Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the use of the hallucinogen peyote. Currently, peyote and ayahuasca are allowed by legal precedent if used in a religious ceremony; though cannabis is not.

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

This says it all.

In short, Enigma is right.

However from a jurisprudential point of view, my personal thought would be to throw this to you both:

Is there a difference between -

"Congress may make no laws regarding AN establishment of religion." AND -

"Congress may make no laws regarding THE establishment of religion."

Just a thought.

Finally. Pastor. If you really think about it you would recognise that reading the first amendment the way you do would lead to absurdity. It would mean that religious establishments are ungovernable by law. That they can do absolutely anything, and that their activities cannot be regulated by law. Think about it.

By the by, please read very carefully the text in red above.

Cheers.

Well, well, well . . . .!

Interesting. Funny, I don't recall having seen this thread before; or maybe I did and just didn't pay sufficient attention at the time.

^^^ You are of course free to continue in your daft ignorance.

And NO I will not school you on examples even though I have plenty.

^^^ First of all, work on the concept and try to understand it ----- that Congress can pass a law which does not establish a religion or interfere with freedom of exercise of religion. Then it would be easy for you to find examples.

Pastor AIO: Okay, now you could put a swift end to all of this by just posting an example of Congress passing a law affecting the practice of religion.

I'm already getting bored and I have a busy program for later today.

I am not posting llareggub!

Those who know me know how I react to gratuitous rudeness.

Expected, NID.

OK, after what I have written, who's been going on like a muppet?

The issue you have debated with me is about Congress passing a law concerning religion.

Simples.

Now who is the muppet?

In truth (no irony meant) you do not understand! Let me try again.

Congress shall make no law respecting [size=14pt]an establishment[/size] of religion . . ."



Edited: previously ballsed up the coding.

deleted double post

^^^ I had noticed this about you a long time ago: when you are defeated on the central issue of a debate, you seek to widen it to nonsenses.

2good: That is why I said holy books including Bible and Quran are confusion document on every subject in life. People should be free to live their life they way they want to.

NO! I will put it differently.

That is why Holy books like the Bible should be understood properly for what they truly teach.

^^^ My friend you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.

You are also exposing your ignorance and illogic. It is sad to see.

You cannot understand a simple concept that a law can be passed which (a) does not establish a religion and (b) does not interfere with free exercise of religion. Extremely simple concept, yet you go on and on about "intellectual discussions".

There are specific examples of such laws even in the American legal system but I will not teach you that. Even more pathetic, you couldn't do a simple googling exercise which will bring up examples for you.

Look, my friend, you were maligning Olaadegbu's "intellectual capacity", you went further saying he does not have two brain cells to rub together. Yet on the specific intellectual issue of "separation of church and state" he has demonstrated vastly superior understanding and intellectual perception than you". What does that say about your intellectual capacity?

Oh and about the daft reference to Covenant University, I don't even know where it is.

Oh, regarding the Holy Spirit: yes the Holy Spirit does teach the Christian of course; we cannot speak for non-Christians.

gst101: women can get married to as many husbands as they like even though i do not understand the institution of polyandy.
I am from a polygamous home, i am christian but it is really anoying to see that christian leaders make their followers think they cannot be saved if they are polygamous. They even tell you to divorce one of your wives to be seen as true christian. Thats suprising since they are the ones who condemn divorce. They do not even exempt those who were polygamous before becoming devout christians. It is so anoying

You have a huge point here. In fact, several years ago, I put exactly the same point to some American "fundamentalist" Pentecostal Christians and it totally stumped them and stopped them in their tracks.

Some of the questions I put to them then were based on this hypothetical scenario: we have a non-Christian man who has four wives and children by each wife; they all live together under one roof (yes, it is possible and actually happens still in Nigeria); he and his family become converted to Christianity. What are they now to do? In particular, what is the man to do?

1. Which wife should he divorce?

2. Let's say he keeps the senior wife and divorces the rest, what about what the Bible states that God "hates divorce"?

3. So, is he to kick the other wives out of the household?

4. So is he to kick the children by the other wives away from the home, away from under his roof?

5. Is it conceivable that he and his family can be welcomed into the church and accepted just as they are?

Pastor Kun: . . . the bling bling apostles due to their greed are also diving a lot of people away from the faith cos of the twisted and manipulative "gospel" they peddle.

In the specific case of Nigeria at least, the lunacy called the Prosperity "gospel", with its false miracles, thieving & stealing through tithes, first fruits etc and blatant falsehoods/nonsenses/illogicalities, is a major reason why thinking (though not necessarily right-thinking) people in Nigeria are increasingly being attracted towards agnosticism and atheism.

Kay 17: I'm trying to understand it from you.

Awwww, I'm flattered.

However, let me say something first about "learning" (or "epistemology" to use a 'big' word which people seem to value/esteem here). In order to learn properly or to be assured of what one learns, it is extremely helpful to learn from the original source or as close to it as possible.

For our purpose, we can take a decent English language translation of the Bible for "as close as possible to the original source"; (for the proper original source/s we will need to go back to the original autographs at least, which we don't even have, and even possibly beyond that).

What does this mean? It means that for practical purposes we (me and you) need to go to a decent English Bible to verify the accuracy of what you are "trying to understand from me"!

So I have already given you an explanation and thus you at least have a basic or initial understanding from me.

Are you willing to at least cross-check the understanding I've given you with what the Bible says to confirm if I've presented a reasonably accurate understanding to you?

^^ But you don't deny that the Bible teaches this though ---- in particular as I have set it out twice now.

OLAADEGBU: Who said that?

It has been on the Internet for some time though I never looked into issue of its original author.

Secondly, it has also been on Nairaland quite a few times; see one example in link below.

https://www.nairaland.com/765094/heard-there-different-kinds-atheism/3#9247101

Like this one from here https://www.nairaland.com/940554/jesus-did-not-die-forgive/1#10854585

[quote author=Mr_Anony]. . . . please take the time to read through what I have written. The intent is not to argue scripture and show who is smarter or who knows the bible better but so that we may be enlightened. . . .[/quote]

@Mr_Anony

Your quote below is being nicked for use here: https://www.nairaland.com/744813/religion-section-funny-memorable-quotes

[quote author=Mr_Anony]. . . . please take the time to read through what I have written. The intent is not to argue scripture and show who is smarter or who knows the bible better but so that we may be enlightened. . . .[/quote]

@ OP

Incidents of 'miracle' healing and recovery are actually often reported as having occurred even in hospitals in Western countries.

There are several examples but below are just two.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1306283/Miracle-premature-baby-declared-dead-doctors-revived-mothers-touch.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024086/Harry-Potter-actress-13-comes-dead-priest-puts-holy-water-head.html

At the moment, I am focusing on the central issue of the thread: "who is Jesus"?

The point so far is whether what I have portrayed is true of what the Bible says about Jesus

I think that needs to be clarified before any widening of the issues.

@ Kay17

I take it that you cannot honestly deny that the Bible teaches what I summarised in that my last post directed to you?

Repeated below for your convenience.

Enigma:

Kay 17:
Jesus not God is the creator of everything, while Jesus wasn't created by God, right?

Consequently, there three deities in Chirstianity. And we nor Jesus can't be Creations of God, since God didn't create anything.

No, my good friend, there is only one deity in Christianity. The Bible is emphatic that God is One.

Nevertheless, though God is One, He has revealed Himself in three persons i.e. The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

Accordingly, Christians do not have a difficulty accepting the following passages, inter alia, from the Bible.


1. Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2a. John 1:1-4

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

2b. John 1:14,15

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”

3. Hebrews 1:1,2

1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he {God} has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

4. Hebrews 1:3

3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his {God's} being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

OK, the passages I've quoted reveal the following.

1. God created the heavens and earth in the beginning.
2. Jesus was in the beginning.
3. Jesus was with God in the beginning.
4. Jesus was God
5. Through Jesus all things were made and without Him nothing was made {(edit) and God appointed Him heir of all things and God made the universe through Him}.
6. Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us
7. Jesus is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of God's being!

Now, I can understand if you say you do not believe all these or if you say you do not believe in the Bible. However, can you honestly deny that the Bible teaches what I have just summarised?

^^^ Very well said.

That post suggesting a person should "pay tithes" first instead of paying for medical treatment of a child was of course particularly striking.

Another thing in your post that is not so realised is that really "tithing" for many is ultimately a superstition on which the wolves prey and which the misguided abuse deliberately/indeliberately.

Hope more people will come to knowledge of truth about this issue.

shadrach77:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cMB8ktCT8

Let me make clear that I do NOT agree with the man in the video. If Obama says he is a Christian, I will take that at face value.

OLAADEGBU: That is what we call the enemies within, they are lethal.

Since reading this post. I've had some thoughts/pictures in my mind; now I can't resist any longer, I must succumb!

1. Picture this: a group of us go out camping and set up a tent; later one of the chaps goes outside the tent, he sees a stranger, a rascal boy, and he joins the boy in pissing into the tent; he says the tent is smelly afterall because of our socks and boots. What an ingenious solution to the problem of the smelly tent!

2. In Yorubaland, I have heard use of the expression: 'adurositasọkosile'.

Score and Keep aka Work and Eat

F'Ọlọrun ṣọ'le

Over stone

buzugee: lol hey my brother Enigma how body. That logicboy na the perfect punishment for serial killers in america. put serial killers in front of the computer and make them read logicboys questions for 2 weeks. they will eventually hang themselves and save the taxpayer money for lethal injection