₦airaland Forum

Apart from the India helmet thing, these are all examples of how religion is holding back the human race. How it dulls people's brains and stops them from thinking rationally.

The most annoying of them is the abortion bans. Restricting abortions is such a stüpid, sĕnseless thing to do that it still amazes me that it is so widespread. Even if you are against abortions, it still makes no sense to ban it.

The country with the lowest rate of abortions in the world is Holland (0.6 per 100 women) but there it is legal, free, and you don't even have to give a reason first. Yet women there hardly ever have them. The same thing happens in countries like Canada and the UK. On the other hand, a deeply religious catholic country like Chile has the highest abortion rate in the world (1 in 3 pregnancies). And this is despite it being totally banned. Nigeria's abortion rate is 40 per 1000 women which is more than 60x the rate in Holland, yet we are all pretending to be born agains and devout muslims.

The vast majority of illegal abortions are done by untrained butchers in dirty environments leading to the death of thousands and the maiming of thousands more. On the other hand, in the UK where abortion is legal, there were exactly zero (0!) deaths from abortions last year. Then there's all the social problems caused by having so many unwanted babies (street children, increased crime, poverty).

The worst thing is that religious people are always the first to oppose the measures that we know can actually reduce the abortion rate. When Lagos state tried to introduce comprehensive sex education in primary and secondary schools a few years ago, the born agains came out screaming. The same people have practically banished condom ads and all the good anti-HIV commercials from TV with their holier than thou preaching. If the crazy Catholics have their way, virtually all forms of contraception will the banned.

Gaddem religious people with their stone age mentality!

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/civilize.html

dheaven: People are afraid to buy from the sites because of scam. Dats all

Exactly!

I once tried buying a second-hand phone from there and all the sellers I spoke to insisted that I pay money into their accounts before even meeting them or seeing what I was paying for. Plus one guy I spoke to didn't even have a basic knowledge of what he was selling, yet he insisted that I pay first to "prove you're serious" before arranging a meeting. Imaging paying >30k to someone I've never met and have no way of tracing!

And the guy sounded so convincing, like he was preaching to me to accept Jesus or something. "Don't worry, nobody can 419 you long as you believe."

Yeah right. Nice try ässhole.

ayoku777: This is a footnote commentary from my Amplified bible.


Scripture is not explicit on whether Jepthah sacrificed her as a burnt offering or not. Personally, i think he didn't, coz the daughter mourned her virginity, not her life (judges 11v38)

But if Jepthah ended up sacrificing her as a burnt offering, it would be out of his pious but uninformed conscience. Coz during that era in Israel people did what was right in their eyes coz there was a partial breakdown of the priesthood and no administration, as it were. Judges 25v25 says "In those days, there was no king in Israel, every man did what was right in his own eyes" (not God's eyes)

So which ever side of the story is true. God was never the reason it happened. Infact God would have given Jephtah the victory without the vow.

Modern bible scholars are notoriously eager to twist the facts to fit their purposes. The truth is that the unanimous interpretation od this passage among the Jews and early Christians was that Jepthah burnt his daughter. It's only recently that modern apologetics have felt the need to try and paper over the crazier parts of the bible.

Unfortunately for them, we all have bibles and we all know how to read. It's only sheep like Olaadegbu refuse to use their brains and think independently that can read an obvious passage like this and claim the the girl wasn't burnt. Sadly, for some people, the truth is less important than defending their world view against all odds.

Kabieosi: @Evil Brain @mazaje

Evil Brain on this subject matter, again. SMH

Slowly read Judges 11:31 because I am hoping you will spot and detect the dichotomy in the verse

Then it shall be, that whatsoever comes forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD'S,
and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
- Judges 11:31

Jephthah made was a coded or as it were a pregnant or loaded vow

#1: "whatsoever comes forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD'S"

#2: "and I will offer it up for a burnt offering."


It is like this:

Referring to #1: Whatsoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me shall surely be the LORD'S (i.e. dedicated or vowed to God)

Referring to #2: Better still, if it happens to be an IT (i.e. an animal and not a human being) then I will offer IT, the animal up for a burnt offering as a bonus.

Father and daughter knew the fate of the daughter is now a lifetime of celibacy and dedication to God (i.e. as per #1)

Please do not hit under the belt with "it" is used for a human being

(i.e. please recognise and understand that the "it" in the verse is referring to an animal and not a human being or Jephthah's daughter)

Semantics.

First of all, the grammatical distinction between he, she and it does not eexist in the original Hebrew. Jepthah wasn't speaking queen's English.

Secondly, even if he was speaking English, he clearly didn't know whether what would meet him first would have been a man, woman, child or goat so he (or rather, the translators) would, of neccesity, have used the gender-neutral pronoun, it. (Just to remind you again, he wasn't speaking English).

Third, he clearly vowed that he would give whatever came out as a burnt offering. And it clearly states that he did to his daughter as he vowed, therefore he burnt her. There is no wriggle room for you here, it's written plainly in black and white. You can read it slowly if you like, you can read it backwards if you want, it's still going to say he burnt her.

Third, there were no convents nuns in that time. Neither the Torah nor Jewish customs, nor the customs of the peoples in that area at that time contain anything of the sort. The idea of a nubile young woman refusing to marry for religious or any other reason would have been laughable in those barbarous times. Such a woman would have been seen as a whöre and nothing else. Your bullshít celibacy hypothesis is bullshít.

If you were a real Christian, you'd accept everything the bible says without question instead of twisting it to fit your preconceived ideas about whether burning young women as sacrifices is wrong.

*Edited for clarity.

OLAADEGBU: Evil Brain, you cannot think crooked and walk straight.

What the hell does that have to do with the subject of the thread?

Now please explain to us why you are deceiving people by twisting the meaning of the scriptures to fit your own purposes. Why are you telling bare-faced lies?

When you've finished explaining that, you can feel free to open another thread about by username and it's effects on my gait.

There you go again copying and pasting from nonsense sites like answersingenesis and refusing to use your own brain.

The bible is very clear and completely unambiguous that Jepthah sacrificed his daughter by burning her. That you didn't quote the two verses that show this is evidence of how dishonest you and the apologetic hack that originally wrote that post is.

For the sake of those who are willing to think instead of just swallowing what they are told, I'm going th post the relevant passage below.

From Judges chapter 11:
" 9 Then the Spirit of the LORD came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”
32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.
34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break.”
36 “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.” 38 “You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry.
39 After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.
From this comes the Israelite tradition 40 that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite."

Science according to Islam

What you people refuse to understand is that there is no official atheist position on anything. We have no dogma or creed. The only thin we have in common is that we reject the unfounded claims of religion. Many of us admire Dawkins for his brilliant scientific work and his efforts to combat the silliness and harm religious superstition causes. But that doesn't mean we agree with him on every point. There is no GO of atheism, and even if there was, it certainly wouldn't be Dawkins.

And you religious folks keep accusing us of being rude. You conveniently ignore the fact that your coreligionists are not only just as rude, but also add death threats, violence and disincrimination into the mix. It's very hard not to be rude to people who threaten to kill you.

@OP

Make sure you take your drugs. They may take some time to start working, but they are very effective. The voices should go away soon as long as you don't skip doses. If you're not satisfied, go back to your psychiatrist and complain. He can help you adjust your dose or change to a more suitable drug.

What you are experiencing is an illness just like malaria or the flu. It is far more common than you realize and it is very treatable. The fact that you know the voices are abnormal and you are asking for help is a sign that you are likely to do well on treatment. Trust your doctor and don't lose hope.

Please don't listen to those who are telling you to go to church and pray because that stuff doesn't work. Most Nairalanders are ignorant and superstitious. They'll tell you anything except for what can actually help. And Nigerian churches are worse than useless. They may promise you a magic cure, but in reality they'll just waste your time, take your money and delay you from getting proper treatment.

Instead, Google your condition and find materials written for people suffering from it. They can help understand it better and give good advice on how you and your family can cope and adjust. You can also ask your doctor to link you with a support group of people with the same problem so you can share advice and help each other.

Remember, take your drugs and don't give up hope. You can get better.

Beretta92: The gay thing is implied from how the centurion cared about the sick servant.He went out to seek Jesus himself.I mean,what kinda master does that?

Also, while homosexuality was a normal thing among Romans, it was considered shameful to be the bottom (or bend-down) partner. Because of this, high class, gay Romans usually didn't often sleep with each other, at least not openly. Instead, they'd sleep with their male slaves. That way even if the Roman likes being the bottom during sex, he can tell people that he's the top and nobody can prove otherwise (other than the slave who wouldn't dare embarrass his oga if he wants to live long).

The gay centurion hypothesis is very plausible.

Sarassin: I do not believe it is a safe assumption to make that Jesus never existed historically. Clearly Paul never met Jesus but he did meet the likes of James (brother of Jesus) titular head of the Jewish Christians as well as the likes of Peter, both of whom he had huge disagreements with, with respect to delivering the message of Jesus to the Gentiles.

You are referring to the "Incident at Antioch" where Paul supposedly disagreed with "James" and "Cephas"? That comes from Galatians chapter 2 and there is absolutely no indication that the James mentioned there was the same "James the brother of Christ". James was an extremely common name back then, two of the twelve disciples were called James for instance aside from "the brother of Christ". Then of course, there the fact that Paul only referred to "Peter" as Cephas, a name which Simon Peter was never called anywhere else. Plus there was at least one other apostle called Cephas so there's no reason to think it was the same Peter in the gospels other than wishful thinking. So basically Paul wrote that he had a disagreement with two people, one of whom shared a name in common with three people mentioned in the gospels (and countless others history has forgotten) and another guy called Cephas. And christians have jumped to the unfounded conclusion that these were Simon Peter and James "the brother of the Lord" even though they could easily be any number of other people.

The earliest of Paul's writings, the letter to the Thessalonians written around 49CE less than twenty years after the crucifixion of Jesus gives us the clearest indication of what Paul's beliefs were about Jesus.

Thess 4:15-17 "For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord by no means will precede those who have died………then we who are alive, who are left will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air"

This is Paul, prior to his redemption theology, he clearly believed the kingdom of God was imminent and expected to be one of the chosen ones. This was exactly Jesus' teachings. Lastly, the oldest biblical manuscript now available to us are papyrus fragments of the Gospel of Mark referred to as P45, they are pre-constantinian and dated to the second century. P45 gives us a good insight into later additions to the Gospels by Bible writers, for instance Mark 16:9-20, as well as other alterations which do not exist in the original manuscripts, most importantly it does go a long way to establish that on the balance of probabilities, Jesus likely did exist, however much his teachings have been distorted.

There is nothing in the quoted text (or anywhere else) that suggests that Paul knew that Jesus had lived recently which was my point. Let me quote some bible for you: Hebrews 8 vs 1-4

Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.

3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law.

It says if Jesus were on earth. Not if he was still on earth, or if he was back on earth, it says if he were on earth! Now while no serious academic believes that Hebrews was written by Paul, it is accepted that it is also one of the oldest New testament books and it clearly shows that to the early Christians, Jesus was not a real live person who walked around on earth during their lifetime. They didn't even mention that he was something as mundane as a carpenter or that it was the priests that killed him. They showed no knowledge of the miracles he worked or the fact that when he died, there sky went dark and the inner sanctum of the temple got scattered. That is very strange considering that the letter is addressed to Hebrews many of whom would have been adults when Jesus was making headlines in their home town. To them, he was a mystical, heavenly being and not someone who died recently and whose family and friends were still walking around.

My point stands.

axion: You get good brain no be evil brain, me I no fit shout

All na Wikipedia.

igbeke: who told u dat?
do u hav any proof?

The history and culture of ancient Rome is well known and thoroughly studied. We have countless letters, laws and inscriptions. There's mountains of gay Roman art and artefacts, including sėx toys. There are Roman buildings still standing with 2000 year old dirty pictures scribbled on them. There are Roman statues and engravings depicting explicit gay sex. There are Roman statues of shėmales and other weird gay stuff in museums all over Europe. Romans wrote about homosexuality in a matter of fact, "by the way" manner as if it was a normal thing.

Even Julius Caeser was known to have had relations with men and it didn't diminish his reputation in any way. Also, his successor, the great Caeser Augustus was a flaming homo and nobody cared.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Nisos_Euryalos_Louvre_LL450_n2.jpg/170px-Nisos_Euryalos_Louvre_LL450_n2.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Warren_Cup_BM_GR_1999.4-26.1_n1.jpg/220px-Warren_Cup_BM_GR_1999.4-26.1_n1.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Warren_Cup_BM_GR_1999.4-26.1_n2.jpg/180px-Warren_Cup_BM_GR_1999.4-26.1_n2.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Anasyromenos_statuette%2C_Rome_art_market.JPG/170px-Anasyromenos_statuette%2C_Rome_art_market.JPG

Its good that you're asking for proof sha. Hopefully, you'll apply the same level of scepticism when next you think about your religion.

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

Too bad! The stuff has historical significance even if the religious aspect is all nonsense. I hope they catch the thieves.

In the mean time, they can get a plastic replica, let a priest do abracadabra over it and tell the people it has transubstantiated into the real thing. I doubt if anyone will challenge them.

Saucy is so boring!

I mean its definitely faster, less buggy and feels more stable, but hardly anything has changed. And the new lenses are annoying.

If I didn't need the better hardware support for my Ivy Bridge laptop, I probably wouldn't have bothered upgrading.

There isn't much evidence in favour of it, but its plausible enough.

Homosexuality was a widespread practice back then and was considered to be normal or even expected behaviour by the Romans. The Romans were actually a very liberal and inclusive culture back then, that why they were so successful. While they were officially pagan, they tolerated all religions, races and creeds. The only thing they didn't allow was anything that fomented social strife or encouraged rebellion which is why the Jews kept getting into trouble with them.

The Roman empire only became intolerant when the Christians took over and started killing and burning people. The world still hasn't recovered since then.

PAGAN 9JA:
I think SUnday has more to do with Sol Invictus , rathar than Mithra.

They were both derived from the same original source, just like Sango and Amadioha.

Religions are like languages, they evolve over time. And when they spread too far and parts get isolated from each other, they split apart and become new religions.

Look at the long list of religions and sects that have arisen from Christianity. Imagine how much longer the list would bave been had Christians not been burning people as heretics for 1600 years.

OP is actually slightly wrong.

The similarities between Jesus and Mithra are because both of them are derived from older pagan religions. Christianity was derived from gnostic christianity which was a mix of Essene and Zealot judaism, older pagan religions and astrology (which is what passed for science at the time).

The Roman authorities, led by the newly converted Emperor Constantine, were the ones who historicized Jesus in the fourth century and turned him from a mythical figure in to a real live person who actually existed. Then they went about killing and torturing anybody who contradicted them and burning all writings that said otherwise. The reason they did this was because religion is one of the most effective ways of gaining and maintaining political power. And for 1600 years, the catholic church and its successors dominated world politics and silenced all dissent until they finally lost most of their power about two hundred years ago.

The oldest and most credible books in the new testament are Paul's epistles which were written between 10 and 30 years after the supposed date of the crucifixion. Yet if you study Paul's letters carefully, you'll see that Paul apparently had no clue that Jesus was a real person who had lived and died recently. He never mentioned any details of Jesus's life or ministry, he never quoted him, and he always spoke of Jesus as a kind of abstract idea, not like a person who was walking around and wowing crowds when Paul was a teenager.

If Paul didnt know that Jesus was a real person and nobody else ever mentioned him anywhere until a century after, I think its safe to assume that he never really existed. And given that the life and ministry of Jesus is so similar to those of Mithra, Perseus, Dionysius, Krishna and Horus we all know where the christians got the story from.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88GTUXvp-50

How are any of these religions any less ridiculous than Christianity and Islam? How are their claims any less valid?

All the established religions have going for them is age and the fact that people have forgotten the circumstances in which they were invented.

Rosalind Franklin would likely have shared the Nobel prize had she been alive by the time it was awarded. Sadly, she died of ovarian cancer a few years before and the Nobels are never given post-humously. Watson, Crick and Wilkins got it instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88GTUXvp-50

fsb: Now people are lamenting, when doctors go on strike everybody calls them 'HEARTLESS'. This is just a tip of the iceberg, at least they even had a rechargeable lamp with fluorescent light to work with.

While I'm not proud of it, I have also had a similar experience at a government hospital. Surgery started with generator power unfortunately the generator developed a fault and there was no light and I had a patient with an exposed abdomen on the table.The logical thing was to continue surgery...Intestinal Resection and Anastomosis with a Nokia torch light phone. Thankfully, the patient did quite well with no complications and was discharged home subsequently.

These are the realities on ground. Doctors are clamoring not for higher salaries but for more government funding for postgraduate (residency) positions, better training, better working conditions, etc Ultimately, all this doesn't translate to a better existence for the doctor but better healthcare for the system. If you don't support their cause, you or someone you know may suffer from the collapse of the system.

Unfortunately, too many Nigerians don't analyze issues to a depth they deserve but are passive thinkers and they end up with twisted views and opinions after several issues of national interest.

And you'd be amazed at some of the results we get despite the difficult circumstances. Some nigerian doctors are just too gangster. They don't know when to quit.

A few years a go, there was a small boy in the ICU of one of our teaching hospitals who had had surgery and wasn't breathing well afterwards and there was no paediatric ventilator in the hospital. In most countries, this boy would have died. But our Nigerian doctors and nurses voluntarily took shifts and manually ventilated this boy non-stop for a whole month. Nobody stopped because they were tired, nobody went to urinate, nobody refused because it wasnt their job. 3 minutes without breathing would have given him brain damage, but for a whole month, there was always someone squeezing the bag and ignoring the pain in their hand.

Gangster.

Logicboy03: What? What so wrong about her wordliness?

If Oyedepo is free to have material things like Private Jets and SUV's......I see no wrong in what Rihanna is doing....she is dancing and singingaout money + sex

And she's earning her money and feeding herself rather than exploiting the poor and weak-minded.

Rihanna is contributing positively to the world economy and making people's lives a little better by entertaining them. Meanwhile men like Oyedepo are just parasites. If he and his whole organization were to explode today, nothing of value would be lost.

@Okeyxyz

Babies aren't born believing in God any more than they are born believing in Father Christmas. It's their parents and society that fill their heads with that nonsense. If nobody tells a kid about Father Christmas, then he won't believe in him. It's the same with Jesus, Jehovah, Allah, Krishna, Sango and Thor.

If atheists are people who don't believe in God, and babies don't believe, then babies are atheists. QED.

It doesn't matter you are able to reason out your lack of belief. It may surprise to you that not all atheists are smart or articulate. It doesn't even matter if you are aware of the fictional nonsense other people believe. The only prerequisite is that you don't believe in any such fictional nonsense. Babies don't, therefore they are atheists. At least until they start assimilating the bullshït their parents inevitably feed them.

Edit: Didn't see your last few posts. It seems that your argument is based on changing the definition of atheism. Well since you're not the custodian and arbiter of the English language, I put it to you that you're not allowed to do that. The definition stays the same, babies are atheists.

Right now, Rihanna is the epitome of womanhood. Christian chicks need to watch and learn.

If you want to keep your relationship strong you better start doing what's necessary to hold your man's attention. Otherwise, while you're busy getting fat, reading Christian marriage guides and only having sèx in the missionary position with the lights off; your husband will be fantasizing about sticking it in someone like Riri.

I grew up here and have only lived abroad briefly. I got indoctrinated here, first read the bible myself here and came to the realization that it was all bullshït here. The time I spent abroad actually delayed my abandonment of religion. There religion was hardly mentioned and most of the other kids took it for granted that believing in it was stùpid so being a secret believer made me feel different and special.

Then I came back to Nigeira and got to watch an endless stream of pastors defraud my older relatives. I've never actually thanked them for speeding my enlightenment along.

Thanks guys.

The reason is that Christianity is all about cherry-picking the parts of the bible that your like and ignoring the non politically correct statements and the violent and barbaric parts.

Christians don't want to believe that their apostle Paul was a misogynist and a bigot, so they gloss over the passages where he shows that side of his personality. They don't want to believe that their god is a violent, sadistic psychopath so they ignore huge sections of the old testament.

Nobody talks about the untold numbers of people including babies that God drowned in the flood. They've turned the horrible story of how Abraham nearly killed his son as a human sacrifice into a fairlytale. Nobody talks about how the "righteous man" Lot wanted to push his two daughters out to be gang ráped by a mob. They ignore all the innocent Egyptian children that God murdered himself just to prove a point to a a ruler they had no role in choosing and no influence over. They forget about Moses ordering the death of thousands of Israelites for breaking the 10 commandments that he hadn't even shown them yet. They ignore the part where Moses specifically ordered the massacre of children and non-combatants and the ràpe of the underaged female victims of Israelite violence. They forget about Jepthah killing his daughter as a human sacrifice to God. Or Elisha killing a bunch of kids for laughing at his gorimapa.

Then there's all the sexist laws telling us how women are so unclean especialy when they give birth to female babies. Or the law ordering the death by stoning of ràpe victims who don't scream loud enough. Or the law forcing rápe victims to marry their attackers (I'm sure plenty of women would prefer to be stoned, but there's no option for that).

Everybody like to tell themselves that Christianity is a nice candy-coated religion and that God is good all the time. They've managed to ignore all the bloodshed in the old testament and convince themselves that a God that plans to burn most of his children for all eternity is somehow "loving" and "good" (as if we don't know what those words mean). I don't see why anyone should be surprised that they ignore Paul telling women to STFU like a pïmp in a Snoop Dogg video.

Christianity means cherry-picking.