₦airaland Forum

syrup:
@huxley,

I tried to go through quite a number of your threads and came to the conclusion that most of the articles were actually lifted from other sites, as I've seen them well debated in other fora as well. I was actually looking forward to your own contributions, as it would be counter-productive to embark on debating articles from authors who are not here on this Forum to respond directly. Perhaps this was why it struck me that you often really didn't stay on to face up to the answers provided in some of those other posts you raised - probably because you were not well prepared to examine the claims you lifted from other authors.

To this end, I'm inclined to agree with this one-liner:

. . . and that is something I observed for myself in going through most of your threads. If you'd stay on a particular thread and sustain your own arguments (if they could be called "yours", then I'd have the enthusiasm to take you on several of them quite seasonally. If that is not the case, it would be of no use slaving on any one of them.

Let's see you go back and actually provide detailed responses of your own to the answers which have been offered by a few - including imhotep, stimulus and 4Him. The disclaimer would be meaningless as an excuse which is what some others often resort to as an easy escape and a first aid.

However, in the spirit of sharing as to give you the confidence that I'm not glibly ducking away from any one of your assumptions (so you don't suppose I have nothing at all as a response), let me take your last query:

It was not a failed prophecy. If you take time to understand the hermeneutics of Scripture, you will indeed find that the prophecy was pointing to the substance of what He was in Himself rather than a mere calling of names.

The Name 'Emmanuel' means 'God with us' (Matt. 1:23), and Matthew points out that this was a prophecy alluding to Jesus when He was born: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet" (Matt. 1:22, see Isaiah 7:14). This sheds some very profound light on the nature of the prophecies relating to "Names" of the Messiah. Simply put, the fulfillment of that prophecy was in its substance, rather than bearing the name 'Emmanuel' (or 'Immanuel'). The substance of that prophecy is that God had indeed come to be with His people ("with us" in the Incarnation in fulfillment of the many prophecies alluding to this event.

What other prophecies alluded to the Christ as "God with us"?

There are several of them. Let me give you a few examples more.

Several OT verses speak of God being with His people: (a) Psa. 46:7,11 - "The LORD of hosts is with us . ."; and (b) Isa. 8:10 - ". . speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us". Such proclamations of the confidence that the Divine Presence was with His people abound in the OT.

However, when you carefully examine the prophecy relating particularly to the promised Messiah (Christ), you find that it was specifically called a "sign" -

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive,
and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Those who know the significance of prophetic language have no problem understanding that "a sign" goes far beyond the mere calling of the name - it stood rather for the substance of what He really IS in Himself when that prophecy would be fulfilled: the substance was that God would actually come in the flesh to be with His people - to identify Himself with them for the prupose of redemption.


Since this is a prophecy, is it corroborated by other prophets?

Certainly, for that would be the substance of Biblical hermeneutics ("Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." - 2 Peter 1:20). One should be willing to exercise the discipline to look at other verses of Scripture that point to the same event. Did Kenneth E. Nahigian ever try to do this? If he was failing in doing this, you can be sure that he was deliberately doing eisegesis rather than exegesis.* The first is "pre[/b]text", the second is "[b]con[/b]text".


_{*[b]eisegesis} - reading one's biases into Scripture by refusing to consider the context in other verses
*exegesis - exposition of the Bible by careful attention to contextually reading

It hardly matters whether the ideas are my own or not as long as the arguments are valid. I have read alot around the subjects in all sorts of media (books, journals, internet, videos, etc) so it is not surprising that I would be influenced by some of these material. That is generally how knowledge (or falsehood, for that matter) gets transmitted.

If you look at the history of my thread, where I have used material for known sources, I have endeavoured to say so by quoting the references. Where there are no references, I have simply phrased some of the questions I had about religions and Christianity as best I can. Some of these questions may already exist out there. Others are purely my own. In either case, these questions may be due to my lack of knowledge in the text and doctrine; or they may be because I find the text inconsistent and therefore not worthy of being believed.

I challenge you to show where on the internet (or other media) you think I have copied my questions that have not been referenced!

On the question of starting many threads, I had to resort to this for two reasons;

1) I had a lot of issues to present to the forum.

2) Each time I started a discussion, a number of disccusants (4HIM, Stimulus, Imhotep etc) had the tendency to spin it off into another direction. So I went off and started a thread to cater for the new direction they wanted to go and leave the original thread to stay on the main topic. That was my strategy to keep each thread on topic.


If you peruse the threads I have started, I have always stayed around to field responses, where the responses were on topic and relevant to the thrust of the argument.

What are endogenous retroviruses and could they help us in ascertaining our origins?

What percentage of our genome is comprised of ERVs?

Do we share these same ERVs with other animals?

Are the locations of the ERV in our genomes coincident with the location in other animals?


Interesting Reference

http://vwxynot..com/2007/06/endogenous-retroviruses-and-evidence.html

Any round of answers this time?

Why was Jesus never called Immanuel as prophesied in the OT. Was it a failed prophecy?

syrup:
It seems rather curious and out of place that you posit queries and are unable to hold your ground when answers are given. Has it always been that way with you? Just wondering, because most of your threads seem to follow that pattern.

It would have been more interesting if you had really tried to answer the question. No answers have been forthcoming on this thread so far!

syrup:
It would be interesting to see you identify what exactly is the 10 Commandments.

Why is it for me to do that. I do not subscribe to this reprehensible dogmatic text from nomadic tribesmen from the desert. Your worldview is built around this text, so it behooves you to master the material, if you want to be reasonable and intelligent about your religion.

If you want to be spoon-fed, the so-called 10 commandments are given in Ex20, Ex34 and Deut 5. Interestingly, Ex20 is never referred to as commandments in the bible. But Ex34 is, as per the below;


11 But you, on your part, must keep the commandments I am giving you today. "I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.
12 Take care, therefore, not to make a covenant with these inhabitants of the land that you are to enter; else they will become a snare among you.
13 1 Tear down their altars; smash their sacred pillars, and cut down their sacred poles.

Once again, see the action of your loving god, ethnically cleansing a piece of land to install the Jews on it.

Have there been any developments in discovering when Jesus was born?

Anyone to try this one now?

Please, pay heed!

syrup:
@huxley, _{(forgive me, I didn't know you were therationa)}

Nothing new - there are as many atheists who are too uncomfortable reading what might threaten their assumptions. That simply demonstrates that what you were applauding here was unhealthy and falls far below an intelligent manner of reasoning out issues.

They did not have anything to fear other than that some misguided leaders acted outrightly contrary to what they claimed they were preaching. That much we can understand - but is that what the Bible taught them to do? I could as well remind you of so many incidents that are unpleasant among the behaviour of some atheists as well - would you justify those same incidents?

That is a personal assumption that I could as well turn on its head and give you direct quotes and references of atheists who remained non-believers but were sad to observe the implications of their arguments.

It is on record that Richard Dawkins himself in his early debates could not match the intelligence of those he had taken for granted as dullards. He was too assuming - a very foolish thing for a man of his learning! Thankfully, when he sat down in Oxford and discussed with Alistair McGrath, he could have the opportunity to understand that merely ranting against religion did not put him across as an intelligent man! (Incidentally, both profs are products of Oxford).

Try not assuming a default position against religion - you really have no clues if prejudice is the first aid you seek to apply to issues like this.

thanks for your responds. I cannot really respond now point-for-point as am working.

As you are new to the forum, you may want to know that me previous pseudonyms were therationa and tpaine.

I have resurrected some of my old threads, if you care to see my past record on this forum.

How about this one Syrup?

For the attention of Syrup who may be interested in some of my threads on the forum!

Another origins thread!

For those interested in origins!

syrup:
@therationa,

This is a very, very poor assessment of an equally important subject. Let me quote a section again:

This does not represent Christianity at all - and to rely on such a sorry frame of mind from just one person is to manifest an unintelligent attitude. First, let me remind you that there are far more many Christians who are not "automatons" as in the case described above. Second, even Richard Dawkins himself (whose site you posted as a link) does not take such anecdotes seriously - so why does this one supposedly appear on his website?

Just apply the same standard you favoured here to your group. Are there not many people who would rather not read books by Christian authors and thinkers? Just as the 'anecdote' you offered, I also know of some that have assumed an irrational bias against the NT even without first having read it! Why? They also have no rational bases for such a position and have become the same "automatons" to their atheistic highpriests who do the thinking for them.

If religion is the "surgical-less lobotomy" as you intone, perhaps you may help yourself with a bit more broader perspective to understand that often times, it is those 'atheistically' inclined thinkers as Richard Dawkins who are often too quick to shy away from discussing religion - please make a search, it is on record.

Thankfully, not every non-believer and atheist is as brash - I've had honest and friendly discussions with quite a few.

For a start, I was simply relying what I thought was an interesting article about a certain community of christians. This guy is by no means unique. There are millions of Xians like him who would rather not read any thing that might "threaten" their faith. Have you forgotten the centuries when the Christians authorities ban the reading of the bible and other critical books. What did the authorities have to fear?

In my experience, the majority of atheist and doubters of religions have been through the rigmarole of religion and already are familiar with most religious texts. The have found religions to be intellectually unsatisfying and find most religions material particularly unsatisfying too. (I tried reading Alistair McGrath's Dawkin's Delusion, but struggled to get past the first few pages.) Such is the intellectual vacuity of most religious material.

TYPOP:
Is it possible to ignore Huxley? He does not really want to learn. He just wants arguments.
What do you people think?

You may ignore if you must, but such action is reminiscent of the proverbial ostrich that buries it head in the sand. I am will to argue and to learn. These two sometimes come hand in hand. But you have got to convince me that you have the right epistemic methodology for investigating reality.

syrup:
Well, I don't know if he is seeking only to argue. But ignoring him probably may not be a better option - especially because there are answers to be offered. I may be wrong - you guys have been following the forum longer than I have.

Hoorah, to your approach.

It is universal amongst cultures of the world to have a mythology about origins. In a pre-scientific and pre-evangelistic world, there would have been thousands of such creation mythologies, each claiming to possess the truth about origins. Evangelism by the Abrahimicists have largely destroyed these various mythologies, replacing them with its own version of origins. In pre-scientific societies, these myths were simply accepted on faith. But today, we have the technologies to verify the truth-value of these myths. To that end, I ask the following questions;


1) Might it be possible to use the successful track record of genetic investigation to resolve the questions definitively? Could genetic tell us where the first humans lived, how long ago, the average longevity of humans then, and the migration patterns used by humans to populate the globe?

2) Might geology, astronomy, cosmology and physics be able to cast some light into the question of the formation of the earth, its age and its evolution.

3) Might archeology and paleontology cast some light on these?

Is it likely that the outcome of such investigations would contradict or corroborate the accounts from our various mythologies?

4HIM and Syrup,

You guys are doing bible-verses lashing again, slapping your favourite bible verses on each other's faces in the hope of converting the other side to your point of view.

Do you guys think there might be an independent source, extrabiblical, to verify your various side of the story? Might the scientific method have something to say about origins;

1) Might it be possible to use the successful track record of genetic investigation to resolve the questions definitively? Could genetic tell us where the first humans lived, how long ago, and the average longevity of humans then?

2) Might geology, astronomy, cosmology and physics be able to cast some light into the question of the formation of the earth, its age and its evolution.

3) Might archeology and paleonotology cast some light on these?


If yes, why are you not appealing to these for succor for your points of view?

4 Him:
Read my earlier post, i put a semi-detailed analysis of why i think Adam and Eve were not the first humans.
You seem to be more interested in posing silly questions that actually looking for answers.

Far from that charge. I am interested in uncovering the truth of reality by questioning all going worldviews that claim to possess such truth, in the hope of separating the sheep from the goat.

Genesis 1: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Why would God add the qualifier in highlights? Could it be because some other men had previously existed who were NOT created after the likeness of God?

From that statement as given, you cannot draw a link from that phrase to the existence of pre-Adamite humans. You seem to have made an adhoc connection.

Would it be right to postulate that photographic imaging technology was in existence in Adam's time, based on the above phrase?

If there existed pre-Adamite "man", would they have been called "men".

BTW, what purpose is served by having pre-Adamite men?

4 Him:
Ques 1 - There are angels in heaven. God is not alone there.

How does this support the view the Adam&Eve were not the first human?

The is-lamic world was once pre-eminent in philosophy and scientific inquiry. Then at the turn of the first millenium a new philosophical outlook ushered in a new distrust of all scientific inquiry. This new outlook was leader by the leading is-lamic theologian of the time, Al-Ghazali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali). His opus, "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers) was an attack on intellectual investigation. This new climate precipitated the decline of scientific investigation in the mu-slim world, a decline from which they have not recovered.

4 Him:
Syrup, i don't agree that Adam was the first created being for two reasons:

Genesis 1: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Who was god speaking with? Was it with some pre-humans (on earth or in heaven). If so, did these pre-human have the same likeness as us?

How did god's conversation come to be recorded in the bible?

syrup:
@huxley,

Now that you have sought to disccuss rather than be first accusative, I am willing to consider what you post. Was it too much to ask for sincere appraisals from others? Anyway. . .

Indeed I responded to some initially and was going to come back and address some more and then finally deal with a few. Olabowale engaged me and kept me on the jolly side of things, which was no problem. But your outburst was uncalled for, and I hope it will end there.

To tell a "lie" and to "bear false witness" in my view are not the same thing. Let me explain. If you had done nothing wrong and I bore false witness against your innocence, what life would I be saving? We have to be careful to distinguish issues before lumping them up as in a bag of generalizations.

It wasn't long ago I read a similar discussion in another forum - interesting and spirited it was. Afterwards I asked myself what point was being made by someone who was constantly being disparaged by those who disagreed. Going back, I saw his point - he had only sought to argue that "rape, incest, bestiality, pedophilia" are all pointing to sexual intercourse - but they are not exactly the same thing simply because they are all sex!" The poor guy was constantly and virulently disparaged by others who refused to see his point.

Why did I narate this incident? Because it made me think outside the small box of generalizations, which many people make. On the present subject, however, I would not be so generalistic (if there's a word as such); for bearing false witness also involves putting lives at risk. What we have not considered is the other side of the implications - and it would not help to just assume things on a single stroke.

Agreed. But why "Christian" in particular? Was that the motive for your thread afterall? I would rather say that no group is exempt - shame on all those who expect too much on others when they themselves have dirty hands - religion or none!

I would take the latter side of the inference. I price integrity, even if it hurts me personally. But what happens when someone tells "a little white lie" to risk my integrity. This happens so many times where I work - but I'm happier that for me it has always gone well, because later others come to see that I was falsely accused. Still others were sometimes angry that I did not "blast the shameless liars". . . my answer has always been that I had nothing to fear, for in due course the truth would be open to all.

For yet other people, things may be tougher. Would I be judgemental towards them if they do not remain calm? Not at all.

I respect your preference - although I know others who are philosophically inclined otherwise than yours.

This was why I appealed for context rather than generalizations. The concept of neighbour in the OT was not always "the Jew next door" as opposed to the "stranger dwelling in your midst". There were times when "neighbour" included others who may not have been Jewish. Examples abound - for instance, while the israelites were still in Egypt, those who were referred to as "neighbours" were not just Israelites but rather those who were close to them without ethnic distinctions (see Exodus 3:22). Again we read a general rule of life in Prov. 14:21 - "He that despiseth his neighbour sinneth" - which is not a matter of if a Jew despised another Jew. No one should despise another - whether Jew or Gentile.

Does accusing a discussant of dishonest represent "fair attempt" especially where you largely ignored my initial response?

I apologize for my charge. I felt you were deliberately and willfully being evasive with the question, when it is obvious that you are well equipped mentally to deal with them.

I appreciate your renewed attempt to deal with them now. I would tend to agree with most of your post here, except to say that I am leaning on the side of moral subjectivity.

The main sub-text of my question was whether there exists any such things as absolute moral values although I coughed it rather obliquely around the commandment from the bible. I was hoping that people would be able to read between the lines and appreciate the main thrust of the post.

Like I said, professional philosophers (theistic and atheistic) are divided about the nature of morality.

huxley:
Imagine, you were one of the refugees. What would you rather the good German did?

Would you rather your host gives you up by being truthful? What if the refugee was your beloved son? Would your position change?

4 Him:
I see Huxley's questions are still unanswered . . .

The Nazi question - The bible is clear, thou shalt not lie even in the face of death. Stephen could so easily have chickened out and not died a painful death at the hands of his stoners.
If i were the German i'd have told the truth, if its God's will that the jews be spared He is powerful enough to do so if not . . .

- The other question as regards illegal immigrants . . . they can go to church all they want, they are still sinners merely assuaging their guilty consciences with church activity.
The bible is clear that we are to be subject to those in authority over us, that includes obeying the immigration laws of the country you reside. To remain in the country on false grounds is already a violation of biblical principle.

Thanks for facing up to the questions directly. I agree and disagree with your positions on these questions.

On the Nazi question, I think the morally correct thing to do is to tell a lie to save the refugees lives. I think the ideal you take, while commendable in other situations would be reprehensible in this one. Imagine, you were one of the refugees. What would you rather the good German did?

On the other question, the immigration one, I am one your side 100%

D-reloaded:
You skipped most of his questions though, syrup.
What do you have to say about the Nazi situation he offered, you ignored most of that and went off on a different tangent that a simple passerby like myself sincerely couldnt understand, shouting at him and saying "he loves lies" because he's showing you how you barely responded to his question is quite ridiculous.

You say in regards to "who is your neighbor", all you said is "I take the Biblical view", why couldnt you go in depth?

Thank you. Thank you, Thank you.

My main post contain a number of simple questions, which if you had really wanted to respond to them rather than equivocate you could have dealt with them thus;

Should he tell a lie, thus saving the Jews from certain death? Or should he be truthful about the fact that he is harbouring the Jewish citizens?

Yes, he should tell a lie because human lives are at risk in this case . . . . . . ,

As Christains, how many of you were/are 100 percent truthful with your visa applications to stay or to enter into the USA?

As a matter of principle, and as there is really no lives at risk, I would be 100% truthful in my application . . . . . . ., . Shame to those who proclaim the Christian precept of honesty and yet violent this principle in their personal lives . . . . . . ,

I sometimes wonder what the response of the above questions would be if asked in one of the African Christian church congregations in London, Manchester, New York, Maryland, Frankfort, Paris etc. Would I get an honest answer? Or would the majority of the congregation desert the questioner?

You would get a wide range of responses; some honest and some dishonest . . . . . . . , To some the matter of earning social and economic advantage at the expense of a little white lie is a small price to paid for the integrity. To others, the injunction not to lie is absolute . . . . . . .

The crucial question is whether this commandment is meant as an absolute injunction against telling lies. Or are there situation were it be actually be morally right to tell a lie?

This is a central subject in modern philosophy; the existence or otherwise of absolute moral values . . . . . , Personally, I lean on the side advocating no such thing . . . . . . . ,

BTW, who is your neighbour? Is it OK to bear false witness against someone who is not "your neighbour"?

The biblical concept of your neighbour has undergone enormous redefinition from the Old Testament understanding to the present day. In the OT, a neighbour to a Jew would have been another Jew, not a Hittite or an Egyptian . . . . . . . . ,


Does the above not represent a fair attempt at responding, rather than the equivocation and evasions I got?

Who/What is god? Given the prevalence of the notion of god in the Abrahamic sense of the word, who or what really is this character?

Those who claim to be in communion with god, can they give a definition of this character that is logical, consistent and lacking in contradiction. How does one come to obtain information about god, and is it possible to know god's wishes?

====================================================================================

The atheist does not say "There is no God, but he says, I know not what you mean by God. I am without the idea of God; the word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear and distinct affirmation." - Charles Bradlaugh

syrup:
Interesting exchanges. However, the ideas advanced for humans before Adam are not solidly founded on the Bible. The question is how to read the Genesis account of the creation of man - the first man, Adam; and then to observe what are the implications of highlighting something different.

Genesis 1 gives us a summary; but Genesis 2 gives us the details - both are pointing to the same account of the creation of Adam. In ch.1, it simply states what God did - "So God created man in his own image" (v. 27); but in ch. 2, we learn of how He did it - "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" (v.7).

So, what happens to Gen. 1:26-27 suggesting the idea initially proposed about Adam not being the first man? That is logically flawed by what was stated in Gen. 1:27 - "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them". Here we see that "man" (singular) was mentioned before "them" (plural) at the end of the verse. The same thing happens in Genesis 5:1-2, which is stating the same

thing without hinting that it was another creation of man. You see, we need to carefully understand how to read these chapters in Genesis without reading thing into them which were never intended!

When we go to ch. 2, we see the details again about how Eve was created - "And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man" (v.22). This is elaborating on Genesis 1 and 5, which simply state what God did. These various chapters were not intended to be read in confusing the HOW with the WHAT on the creation narratives.


Does Scripture elsewhere corroborate this?

I believe so. Let's look at a few texts:

(a) Turn for a moment to 1 Corinthians 11 - there we read this statement: "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man" [v. 8 ]; meaning that Adam did not come from Eve, but rather, the other way round.

(b) and again: " For Adam was first formed, then Eve" (1 Tim. 2:13).

(c) further, the Bible calls Adam "the first man" (as someone already hinted - 1 Cor. 15:45).

(d) also interesting to note is that Adam is said to be the "figure of him that was to come" - Rom. 5:14 (which hints that no human was pre-figuring Adam, and others are traced back to him).

(e) and then turn to the genealogy of Christ in Luke 3, and you will find that man is traced back to Adam, and back of him was no human mentioned as preceding him (v.38).

Back to the OT, one line might help us here: in Deut. 4:32 when Moses said, "ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth", we can be certain he was pointing back to Adam and not some others before him. Humanity traces his descent from Adam and not to some others preceding him.


What about CAIN?

Cain's complaints in Genesis 4:14 do not suppose that some other humans were created before Adam. As was the case with the flow of the narratives expressed between chs. 1, 2 and 5, we see that those chapters are pointing emphatically back to the same account - but chapter 4 takes a break to bring us to note Cain's lineage (vs. 17-24). Did Cain marry his sister? Certainly he did - and this is what we understand from such texts as -


(a) both Genesis 4:12 and 5:3 tell us the very same thing about Adam's siring Seth - one account mentioned twice.

(b) however, Gen. 5:4, Adam lived for 800 "after he had begotten Seth"

(c) now, dear friends, what was Adam doing for 800 years after seth was born - was he sterile?

(d) No, we understand from Genesis 5:4 summarily states that Adam begat other sons and daughters!

The connecting dots and inferences

What all this leads to is simple: Adam had other children although we are not told when he begat them. Cain certainly must have married one of his sisters (which was not a strange phenomenon in such early cultures - see the case of Abraham who married his sister Sarah: "And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife" - Gen. 20:12).

Cain knew that he had other brothers and sisters - these population were his concern in his complaints in Genesis 4:14. The account does not suggest that people were created before Adam. If that was the case, it would help to see strong deductions from the collective body of both OT and NT.

So how long ago did god create Adam&Eve? How long ago did he create the earth?

syrup:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-136670.0.html#msg2295101

That does not constitute a response. You have simply turned the question over to me rather than provide a response to the questions I asked. To rephrase;

Are the commandments (like bearing false witness) an absolute injunction against an act or behaviour?

Secondly, who is one's neighbour?


I think our m-slim friend made a better and honest effort at responding to the question than you have, by admitting that according to his holy text, there is no absolute ban. But you have simply just reversed it on me. How dishonest?