₦airaland Forum

I shall respond when and if you address the main thrust of this post (which is the subject of bearing false witness/telling lies). I have nothing to add to any Xian-lam dogfighting.

Please, can we return to the central theme of these post, rather than do the Christian/Is-la-m dogfight!

Have people been praying? Seun, have you reversed your decision?

Pastor AIO:
I've got a religion for you. But you've got to assure me that you are sincere and determined to follow it through. Say you are and we can begin.

How can I commit to something before I know what it it? This is irrational!

syrup:
(b) The sabbath law was ratified by the blood of animals - it was binding on all who were Jews under the law of Moses

What does it mean to ratify a law by the blood of animals? In practice, what does this entail?

Are the other 9 commandments similarly ratified? Is so, how is the "injunction not to kill" ratified? Where are the biblical references justifying this interpretation?

Let me draw your attention to Matthew 5. This is Jesus speaking;

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

What do you think? Is Jesus endorsing the laws or is he abrogating them?

syrup:
@topic,

Let me add a few more lines:

"Is It A Sin To Work On The Sabbath?" NO.

It all depends on several things:

(a) The sabbath law was made for Jews - that law was not binding on Gentiles (that is people who are not Jews)

(b) The sabbath law was ratified by the blood of animals - it was binding on all who were Jews under the law of Moses

(c) Christians are not under a covenant ratified by the blood of animals - we are believers from every nation of the world

(d) the New Testament sabbath is more a Person than a day - it is Christ Himself! Christ is our blessed rest, and we are the beneficiaries of the better things through the covenant of HIS Blood.

Blessings.

The last time I checked, the law of the sabbath was still part of the 10 commandments. If the law of the sabbath is not binding on non-Jews, are the other 9 commandments equally not binding on non-Jews?

How is one to know which laws are binding and which are not?

One of the commandments in the Old Testament is the following;

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

This commandment is usually interpreted as an injunction against lying. While this is all very well and good, are there any exceptions, where telling a lie might be the right thing to do? Consider the following scenario;

In the early 1940s, a local German citizen is hiding some Jewish citizens in his home to protect them from the murderous Nazi soldiers. The Nazi soldiers visit the good German's home and inquire as to whether there are Jews in his house. 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?

Some years ago, while visiting friends and family in Maryland, USA, my "lack of belief" in the Judeo-Christian god happened to be mentioned in conversation. Upon learning that I do not hold to the Christian belief, the local evangelist took it upon herself to try and convert me. We spent all evening discussing several aspect of the Christian belief system. Then I chanced to mention this commandment, knowing that the majority of the people in attendance were immigrants from Western Africa. I asked the following question;

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

A deafening silence fell upon the room. Then, I knew I had touched a sore point. There were a few glances exchanged by my interlocutors, as if to say "how dare he ask such a question?". I basically took this to mean that the conversation was over. And indeed it was. All my interlocutors turned their backs and walked away, to resume partying with the other guests.

Ironically, this reminded me of the story in the bible of the woman caught in adultery. When Jesus intervenes by asking if there was any amongst the crowd who was without sin, they all shame-facedly turned their backs and walked away.

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?

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?

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

Why does the Christian community engaged in evangelism? Is it because they want to convert as many people to their worldview? Or are they driven by some egotistical reason to engage other people?

Consider the following thought experiment; Imagine all christian evangelical efforts were 100% successful, i.e., everyone informed of the christian doctrine get to convert to christianity. Is this an objective that christian would aim for?

If the entire world's population was overwhelmingly christian, would this serve the christian mission well?

Does the mind that has been infected with religion make you laugh? Just see how convoluted and conflated the christian mind is,, with this idea of trinity etc. The is-lamic mind even more deluded.

Tamad:
Yes! Also false prophets e.g Temitope Joshua and Rev King.

Ah, did you mean god is also sending these false prophets to distract people from his message? Wonderful. What a pantomine this religious bull.

Would you care to provide an argument?

morpheus24:
The purpose of my refering to the mutation that occurs in the blood cells of sickle cell carriers was to "prove" the occurance of mutations in biological organisms. This being the key element in my understanding of human races and how we came about our physical features as it is evident that these mutations played an essential role in our anthropological differences and not some story drawn out by a Jew who used his understanding of biblical references to infer on the races or peoples that populated the world within a span of 6 thousand years. You yourselve know the variations in humans cannot be accounted for in this time frame unless you are taking the bible account figuratively.


Its link to malaria is to show deductive reasoning in concluding that the occurance of genetic mutations are in direct correlation to enviromental factors ( ie viruses, sun light, lack of thereof and so on) that subsequently influence adaptability. The logic behind your phrase" and ", nothing else" would lead me to believe that there is evidence that you believe mutations are sporadic and spontaneous. The definition of mutations last time I read includes possible causes by introduction to viruses. Please see below link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_mutations

You state that simply because something is logical does not make it true. Then again the statment cannot be rendered absolutely false either because you nor I have eliminated that possiblity.


Another thing you say is the black man did not become black. How then did they become? was he born as such. Did God make black people first. Were all early men all black before mutations caused them to become fairer skinned. I don't believe white or fairer skin is an anomaly but a mutation that was rapidly sustained as a survical mechanism for people who lived in regions that fostered this occurence and have evidence to back that up.

Your third point says that "it should be interesting to note that scientists generally divide the worlds races into three very broad groups which are congruent with what the bible claims to be the descendants of shem , ham and j"

Note that those scientist were obviously influenced by their ethnocentriic or should I say Eurocentric viewpoints(fact which can be proven again) and by the writings of scholars who eluded to the 3 sons story thus the groupings of present day negroes into hamitic people. Present day scientist do not use those categories any longer seeing that its origins are not well founded.( Notice the descendants of Japhet don't group themselve into japhetic tribes do they?)

I agree that "at worst the biblical account can be viewed as an early attempt at grouping the races of the world as far as accuracy, well that leaves much to be debated.


Most people do not care or find the subject matter tedious and complex but I don't. the more information I get the more the story of the 3 sons is debunked for me which is why I made reference to them earlier because this was my starting point.

if you have anything to add to help me further my understanding please feel free to reply

did u see my post above? and the references to a book and some videos?

The earthquake in China last week is estimated to have killed 70,000 people; the cyclone in Burma, 100000. In the first few years of this decade alone more than 3 millions would have died from natural disasters. Who is responsible for this? Or is it the indifferent current of natural forces?

Wars, too, have been responsible for many deaths in the course of human history. But as the world coalesces into a global village, are we getting fewer or more conflicts? What are the chances of the Western European states erupting into wars given the interconnectedness of the European Union? Are such unions a harbinger for conflict? However, the bible takes the opposite view, as per the following;

You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains. (Matthew 24:6-8; Mark 13:7-8 NIV).

Then he said to them: "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven." (Luke 21:10-11 NIV).


So my question is; Is the unions of nations a recipe for an escalation of global conflicts or is it a precursor to world peace and harmony? Isn't there some internal inconsistency in the Christian doctrine which claims to be a religion of harmony and peace, but yet is contingent on the violence of war. The hope for every Christian is to see their belief system adopted worldwide. If this belief system were adopted globally, and if everyone convert lived the "Christian life", where would the "wars and rumours of war" come from?

Or is it the case that Christians would rather their belief system is NOT adopted globally?

Are these calamitous events from heaven? Really? All these natural disasters leading to the death of hundreds of thousands? Really?

I suppose, any religion, not least Christianity, abhors competition.

I think you need to turn this question on its head and ask the following;

How did non-black people get their non-black skin?

It is very likely that the very first human, who inhabited African had dark skins, like present-day African. As humans migrated out of Africa to settle other parts of the world, their skin colour ( and other bodily features) adapted to the various local conditions. Hence, the diverse skin colours we see worldwide.

Scientific studies show that African have the most skin-pigmentation than other "peoples" as these latter would have lost their pigmentation as the move into cooler climes. The descendants of the first migration flow out of Africa are the native Autralian, who incidentally settle in the same latitudes as most of Africa. Hence, they retained the darker skin tone. Recent arrivals into these tropical latitudes like the Native South America don't have the same pigmentation as African because their forebears crossed the land bridge linking North East Asia and North America. At this point they had already lost the dark skin tone. They later migrated further south into what is now the south American continent.


You would do well to read the book "The Journey of Man" by Spencer Wells Or watch his videos on Youtube;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV6A8oGtPc4&feature=related
http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Man-Genetic-Odyssey/dp/0812971469/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211202750&sr=8-1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxgS9RKwKbU

olabowale:
The actions of the so called Hijackers are never I.sl.ami.c compartable. They were reported to have drank all night long, (I wonder if a good M.u.sl.im is allowed to drink), yet womanized all the while at the drinking place and have the way with it all to be so sober that they could have passed the security checks, very early that morning. They did not remain in bed, still drunk, but already took showers to clean themselves up from this one time drinking spree. Finally, were able to commandeer the airplanes and use them as missiles!

Tell me can any first time drinkers carry all of these out, without a trace of drunkenness? Can any m.u.s.lims who are truly m.u.s.lims carry out these acts; the bar scenes where much drinking is done for the very first time, dancing on the bar stool/table and having illicit sex with women picked up from the bar(s) and then being able to kill people using aircraft in the very morning after all these night sickening behaviours? No m.u.sl.im can do that. Maybe somebody with i.sl.ami.c name, but not practicing I.s.l.am in the true sense of the religion.

While the crashing of aircrafts were carried out by the hijackers who you claim were not is-lam-ic, the acts could have been ordered by very observant isla-micists, the likes of Osama and some of the Mullahs. The hijackers were just the foot soldiers who were following orders from above (Osama), who was also given orders from above (god).

olabowale:
@Huxley: Your ranting has become the ranting of wholesale religious illiterate. You tend to have a beef with everything anything that speak about a Higher power, a Force, which I call a God. The only thing that satisfies you now is the absence of Deity. I wonder if I could just phase you out, obliterate you as if you are never in existence? Maybe I should try that in the same frame of mind as you are trying to write off God?

You seem to be a person who embellishes. Your lies are even exagerated to the point of ridiculous. Where did you find the above statement, that they said "God sent them/ordered them to use aircraft to kill people?" You should be ashamed of your blatant lies. Your lying soul and heart should be ashamed. You need help Huxley. Maybe Europe is the wrong place for you with such a fibble human quality. You have taken their worst quality. You have disbelieved the existence of God. This is the time you need to be heading back to your native land; Nigeria. You need your people to reset your soul and heart on a path.

@Seun, you should know better that there is no verse or hadith supporting the use of airplane to kill anyone, from I.s.la.mi.c Books (you now call everything I.s.la.mic great. I wish your statement is from your heart. But it is very confusing), the Q.u.r'an and Hadith/sunnah.

The actions of the so called Hijackers are never I.sl.ami.c compartable. They were reported to have drank all night long, (I wonder if a good M.u.sl.im is allowed to drink), yet womanized all the while at the drinking place and have the way with it all to be so sober that they could have passed the security checks, very early that morning. They did not remain in bed, still drunk, but already took showers to clean themselves up from this one time drinking spree. Finally, were able to commandeer the airplanes and use them as missiles!

Tell me can any first time drinkers carry all of these out, without a trace of drunkenness? Can any m.u.s.lims who are truly m.u.s.lims carry out these acts; the bar scenes where much drinking is done for the very first time, dancing on the bar stool/table and having illicit sex with women picked up from the bar(s) and then being able to kill people using aircraft in the very morning after all these night sickening behaviours? No m.u.sl.im can do that. Maybe somebody with i.sl.ami.c name, but not practicing I.s.l.am in the true sense of the religion.

This is breathtaking! You have a penchant for missing the central theme of my posts. This post is really about epistemology, in order words, who can we be sure that god does really speak to humans, commanding us to perform acts on his behalf.

Was god in communication with the following; Moses, Jacob, Abraham, Joshua, Mo-ham-ed, Jesus, Paul etc, etc?.

It is obvious from the way you distance yourself (and your religion) from 4) that your god could not have ordered such acts. But how can we know that god did not order such acts?

Are there any acts in the qu-r-an similar in nature to 1) 2) and 3) commanded by god, about which you are ashame and equally well prepared to distance yourself from?

What is the difference between these acts?

1) Exodus 32:27 God ordered to be killed, 3,000 Israelites for no greater crime than worshiping a golden calf. I don’t know about you but death is a pretty harsh fucking punishment.

2) Numbers 16:35 God killed 250 Levite princes who disagreed with Moses’ leadership. He was so bloodthirsty that he wanted to slay more until he was talked out of it. Later he put a plague upon 14,700 Jews who thought there was something wrong in killing 250 princes.

3) Numbers 31:17-18 God commands Moses to kill all the Medianite people including children and women. To top it off he commands that the virgins be saved for later raping by Moses’ soldiers.


And

4) God ordered some of his followers to fly passenger-carrying aircrafts into skyscrapers, killing all the passengers and some occupants of the building.


If these acts were ordered by god, how can we be sure that they were indeed ordered by god and that these were really god's desire?

For and omniscient and omnipotent being, could god not have come up with a better way of dealing with whatever problems he had with his children?

Frizy:
@poster
Your opinion will by no way remove you from the fire! For surely, you have incured wrath upon wrath.

1. For denying God
2. For citing examples that insinuate God is unjust- How wicked of you.

Are you saying that you are in approval of the acts carried out under the command of god in Numbers 31?

Pastor AIO:
It seemed to me that it was meant as an insult but it is a bit of a shot in the foot for the religionists. What I felt is that the religionist got the impression that the atheists were looking down on them for being 'gullible and childish' in their religious beliefs. In return they accuse atheism of being a religion too, in other words saying it's the pot calling the kettle black. But of course to thus berate a 'faith' is to shoot themselves in the foot because they are supposed to be upholding faith. And that is what makes your question so difficult to answer.

Brilliant analysis!

Those who are so fleeced are well served for being so gullible [/b]and [b]credulous. Good object lesson though.

4 Him:
Why shld the OT God live according to your own values?

Interesting! Where would you rather live? In a world governed by the OT god's standards described above (genocide, racism, infanticide etc) OR in a world "according to your own values"?

Cayon:
I think your analogy is beyond silly

Can you provide some evidence for why you think this is silly? BTW, this is not an anlogy; it is a description of the OT god.

Check out Numbers 31 for genocide and ethnic cleansing. Would you like more chapter&verse to indicate what I mean?

Bad people will do bad things, good people will do good things; But for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. Stephen Weinberg

(And for bad people to do good things, it takes religion)

What do you think?

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it: a petty unjust unforgiving control-freak: a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser: a misogynistic homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror.

Source: The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, page 31.

What do you think?

imhotep:
Neither a compliment nor a criticism - but a fitting description.

You exhibit the qualities a committed religious apologist, all evasion and sophistry. (Eusebius comes to mind).

Funny how, the faith-heads on this thread have decidedly avoided responding to the question I asked. I shall re-state it in case they missed it:

Is calling atheism a religion meant as a compliment or a criticism?

The word atheism has many definitions, most subtly set around the nature of deities. The definition I prefer is the one that relates to the root of the word theism, the belief in deities. If theism means the belief in gods (deities), a-theism means the lack of a belief in deities (gods). The religionists usually describe atheism as a religion. To those who have this view, I have one question;

To describe atheism as a religion, is this meant as a compliment or as a criticism?

If theism means "the belief in god(s)", the antithesis atheism, means "the lack of a belief in god(s)". This is the literal and original meaning of the word. Notice that it says nothing about the non-existence (or existence) of god. It simply describes the lack of belief in deities. This has sometimes mean describes as weak atheism.

On the other hand, strong atheism develops from the weak position into a position that make existence propositions. Strong atheism is a direct challenge of all the current existing theistic evidence for god's existence. It basically says one is justified in claiming the non-existence given the inadequacy of evidence in favor of a god. Just like one may say, the evidence in favor of fairies is rather weak therefore one is justified in claiming there are no gods.

Atheism is by no means a religion. Neither is secular humanism a religion. Secular humanism can best be described as a system of thought that places humans at the centre of our concerns and is founded on naturalistic principles.


I sometimes wonder what is achieved by trying to describes atheism (secular humanism) as a religion. Is this meant as a compliment or as a criticism?


The branches in the religious tree is very diverse ranging from theistic religions to non-theistic religions;


Non-theistic religions are :

Animism
Animatism
Ancestor worship
Ethical non-theism

Theistic religions are:
Polytheism (ancient Greek & Roman religions, etc)
Monotheism( Christianity, I-sl-am, Judaism, etc)

Ndipe:
why not@huxley? If they sincerely repent of their sins and forsake it, I am open to receiving them in my congregation. If God would be so kind to welcome me into His Kingdom due to His Infinite Grace, then who am I to discriminate?

This theistic notion of forgiveness is quite bizarre as it does not take into account the idea of proportionality. For instance, all sins (crimes) are treated as equals. Thus someone who steals some food to feed his family is on a par with a mass murderer. As long as they both ask for forgiveness sincerely, such forgiveness would be granted them.

I think the Catholic church has this notion of "Seven Deadly Sins" which gives the impression that these are more egregious than other sins. Is forgiveness for a Deadly Sin more difficult to obtain than for an ordinary sin?