₦airaland Forum

Very enlightening!

By the same token, Zeus was 100% statue and 100% god.

The only thing you do sacrifice for your faith is your reason and intellectual independence.

Interesting!

Take the case of Emperor Constantine, the one who made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman empire. He refused to be baptised until he was on his deathbed because he wanted the opportunity to carry on committing vile acts of savagery. In fact, not long after he called the Council of Nicea to establish doctrinal orthodoxy and resolve the Arian debate, he went home and had his wife and son killed. He was baptised on his deathbed, and within days he passed away.

So if forgiveness is open to anyone as long as there are sincere, could people like Hilter, Pol Pot and many other vile psychotic killers be forgiven if they have a sincere conversion and confession?

Would you be happy receiving such a converted and forgiven criminal into your congregation?

How does one know that ones transgressions (sins) have been forgiven by god? It is possible that one could sincerely ask for forgiveness from god and yet not be grant such forgiveness? If one is not granted the forgiveness one asked for, what are the consequences of living under the delusions that one has been fully forgiven?

Are there any sins for which there is no forgiveness granted?

imhotep:
The 6 billion people on the earth today will each die one day. There is nothing you [or anyone] can do about it.

Yes, but if there is a omnibenevolent god, where is all the dead and evil from?

BTW, atheist does not make any claims about gets to die or not.

olabowale:
@Huxley:
I guess when you die, which is certain, regardless of the number, 1 person, it will be chalked up as a desaster? And by the way the Deity that M.us.lim serve is a God. I don't know where you find a (g) that you are trying to stamp on us. What do you think we are? People who move the goal post, ever shifting their (deity's) definition? We do not worship imagery or anything you can see or conceptualize.

This is Is.la.m and we are not idolators. You with your wayo. You are almost like KAG who is using his orientalist definition to describe M.us.lim. I almost wanted to ask him to tell me who should the one that best define and who who Mu.slims are; the m.us.lims or him a disbeliever in Higher Power?

And Huxley, there is no death except tha God ordained it. And a person or thing dies where and when and how it is ordained to die.

Can you explicate all this again with respect to the thousands who have recently died in Burma and China? Did god ordain them to die in this fashion?

BTW, what does it mean "ordain to die"?

imhotep:
@huxley
Stop day-dreaming and wishful thinking . Learn to live with the evils that surround you.
You CANNOT dream evil away.
You can choose to read/write volumes about the non-existence of God for the next 100 years.
But you still have to live with the evils around you.
Be a man.

Nice dodge of my questions!!!! I suppose in theology anything goes.

imhotep:
According to the account in Genesis, the justice of God demanded punishment for sins of Adam and Eve.

God cursed the earth; instead of cursing Man [who sinned in the first place].

Oh, so god did not curse man? Then whence all the diseases that afflict man?

Did god also curse all the billions and billions of galaxies and planets that make up the known universe?

How come there is all this disasters in the perfect creation of a perfect being? Why did he bother to create evil?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear
Scientist's reply to sell for up to £8,000, and stoke debate over his beliefs

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So said Albert Einstein, and his famous aphorism has been the source of endless debate between believers and non-believers wanting to claim the greatest scientist of the 20th century as their own.

A little known letter written by him, however, may help to settle the argument - or at least provoke further controversy about his views.

Due to be auctioned this week in London after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, the document leaves no doubt that the theoretical physicist was no supporter of religious beliefs, which he regarded as "childish superstitions".

Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.

In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

The letter will go on sale at Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair on Thursday and is expected to fetch up to £8,000. The handwritten piece, in German, is not listed in the source material of the most authoritative academic text on the subject, Max Jammer's book Einstein and Religion.

One of the country's leading experts on the scientist, John Brooke of Oxford University, admitted he had not heard of it.

Einstein is best known for his theories of relativity and for the famous E=mc2 equation that describes the equivalence of mass and energy, but his thoughts on religion have long attracted conjecture.

His parents were not religious but he attended a Catholic primary school and at the same time received private tuition in Judaism. This prompted what he later called, his "religious paradise of youth", during which he observed religious rules such as not eating pork. This did not last long though and by 12 he was questioning the truth of many biblical stories.

"The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression," he later wrote.

In his later years he referred to a "cosmic religious feeling" that permeated and sustained his scientific work. In 1954, a year before his death, he spoke of wishing to "experience the universe as a single cosmic whole". He was also fond of using religious flourishes, in 1926 declaring that "He [God] does not throw dice" when referring to randomness thrown up by quantum theory.

His position on God has been widely misrepresented by people on both sides of the atheism/religion divide but he always resisted easy stereotyping on the subject.

"Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him," said Brooke. "It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions , but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion."

Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."

Frizy:
The way an atheist talks of God is very provocative.
@huxley
Let me tell you, from the Is'lamic point of view. The cyclone that occured some days ago was not caused as a result of global warming or Satan, because Mus'lims clearly know Satan has no such power and to God alone belongs the power of the heavens and the earth.

In the Ko'ran God says: We never destroy a township while its dwellers were doing right.

God knows best why it happened but believe me, the government of a nation can lead to its destruction if all they do is rebellion!That is why people should encourage goodness, and if they have no power to overthrow their wicked government-they should migrate to other places. In order to save themselves of the fierce doom!

To say God is uncaring or doesn't exist is just ungratefulness. Let me ask you, if such a thing happens where you live, can you do anything to save yourself?Answer if you speak the truth. We're God's whether you deny Him or not. And God requites people that they may heed to His call.
If a nation serves God, believe me-there will be no problems of earthquake or any natural disaters, and don't let science fool you. The lesson is to show us that without God, we're nothing!

How many people are killed yearly in Mecca as they go to serve their god?

kola oloye:
God cannot and will never forget any. Know this:for everything that happens in life,
there is a purpose.Our God is a flawless God.

Whose purpose does it serve to have many thousands of people perish in a natural disaster? How do you know your god is flawless?

God just forgot some more thousands of people yesterday. He left them open, with no one to look over them. Now an earthquake has just come in and claim many of them.

I wonder what the girl's views are. Would she want to marry this boy? No one should feel obligated to do something because of cultural conditioning. If they think they are not suited for marriage, then they should go their various ways, bearing in mind the huge responsibility they both have over the child.

In 1 Corinthian 7, Paul expounds his view about marriage and surprisingly he regards marriage as a second-rate status than celibacy. How many christian today live by this standard? How many would rather be celibate but only through the need to avoid temptation are "pressured" into marriage?

Here is Paul talking to the Corinthians

1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

17 Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. 20 Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.

25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. 27 Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

29 What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

36If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.

39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

A_K_O:
According to the bible:
Luke 4: 5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7 So if you worship me, it will all be yours."

Jesus did not accuse satan of lying. So it is true. You can interprete it which ever way you like but the answers are quite obvious. Cheers bro.


_{BTW Adam gave it to satan when he sinned.}

Do you believed this literally happened? Do you think there is a place on earth high enough for "all the kingdoms of the world" to be within eyeshot? Or was this metaphoric? If it was metaphoric, why bother to "take him up a high place"?

Does this not indicate that these people believed the earth was flat? How else would one expect to see the whole world if the earth was not flat?

m_nwankwo:
@Huxley

I am not sure that you opened this thread to show sympathy to the people of Burma. It seems you opened it to blame God for the disaster that happened in Burma. You often ask those who believe in God to provide evidence. You have again posed two questions. On those questions, you already have a thesis on each one of them. For a change, kindly detail your own view on those questions. Believers in God can then question your own thesis. You are an atheist and your two questions can be reframed as follows

a. What is the atheist explanation for what happened in Burma

b. Since you donot believe in God, what is the atheist explanation for the origin of all creations

Kindly provide your answers.

I opened this thread for several reasons;

1) I was appalled at the absence of any public show of sympathy amongst the members of Nairaland for the catastrophy in Burma. This is not to say that individual are (were) not sympathetic, but to think that something as momentous as that could go without so much as a public recognition and "Christian" charity smacks of double standards when the theists are first to always publically declare their gratitude when something "good" happens. But they hide in their blankets when disasters such as this happens.

2) To discuss the nature of the supposed god and how he permits such natural disasters in his beloved earth.

a. What is the atheist explanation for what happened in Burma

b. Since you donot believe in God, what is the atheist explanation for the origin of all creations

Allow me to correct you, if I may. Your questions are poorly framed because you do not understand what atheism is, although I get the drift of the question. I shall restate the definition of atheism as follows;

The lack of a belief in god(s).


Notice how this does not say anything about existence/non-existence of god(s), natural disasters, football, marriages, dinosaurs etc.

Now, how does one come to not having a belief in god? There are many ways, but standardly, if I am told about an entity called god, I shall expect a reasonable and consistent definition of the god. I shall also expect this god to be consistent with the nature of reality. For instance, if I am told that he created humans in his image, how am I expected to understand that? Does he have a head, hands, blood etc like humans?

Such events like the tsunamis, cyclones, earthquakes, volcanoes are easily explained from a pure naturalistic perspective. That NATURE is indifferent to the plight of humans. They would strike irrespective of whether we are good or bad. In fact, many of these events occurred many millions of times even before humans came on the scene. Natural forces have no concern for the likes, dislikes, will of man.

The best explanation we have got the existence of nature is that the known universe was created from the Big Bang about 14billion years ago. The scientific arguments for this are very strong indeed. Science does not currently have a plausible explanation for what cause the BB, or whether the current BB is only one of several, or whether there are multiverse.

Does theology offer a better explanation? Was it not theology that once said the earth is six thousand years old, that man was created fully-formed bipedal from day one, that a virgin birth is possible, that the earth is flat, that there was a global flood some 4000 years ago. Can we trust theology to say anything true and meaning about the nature of reality?

Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear - some of you really have to be spoon-fed.

Is it not obvious that if I am arguing for the non-existence of god (or supernatural beings), that also implies the non-existence of satan/devil/lucifer etc.

The operative concept in this thread are;


1) If there is a God, is he omnibenevolent?
2) Is he the creator of everything or can somethings exist that was not created by the said god?


Interesting how none of the respondents have been able to suss this out from the main post. If you must respond, may you try and tackle the two points above.

You guys have completely missed the thrust of my post. I was making argument for the existence of evil. The Argument for Evil (AE) is one of the strongest and unsettling challenge for conventional theism. It basically states - if there is a benevolent god, then how come all the evil and suffering in the world. Either there is no god(s) OR the gods such as may exist are indifferent to the plight of his creation - hence the occurence of evil.

Those of you who are accusing me of inconsistency, you simple do not understand the nature of the debate.  On this post, I was assuming there is a god and from that standpoint, I am trying to reconcile such a god with the existence of evil. Is a god compatible with the existence of evil? OR alternatively, is omnibenevolence not one of god's attributes?

olabowale:
@Huxley: God did not forget them. He does not forget anyone, including people who do not even acknowledge Him. The case of Maynamar is resting aquarely on the shoulders of the Military junta dictatorship that is ruling them.

The USA is trying very hard to send aids to them. But they will not accept it in empty pride, so much so that they refuse to grant entry permissions to the US Relief contigents. Call America what you want, but it is never a country that fails in her obligation to at least debate within her citizenry a process of doing good for the people who are in distress.

And just my opinion, the leadership of maynamar needs to be replaced, if there is any that needs to be replaced around the world. here is a terrible and worse than empty rhetoric; puffing up when you can not even take care of your living and then dehumanizing your dead.

Are the dictators not the ones to be blamed here?

This natural disaster was certainly NOT caused by the military regime in that country. Of course, response to the disaster is something within the province  of the government. So removing the regime will NOT guarantee the non-occurence of similar natural disasters in the future.

With the dead toll in the Burma cyclone disaster set to hit 100,000, (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=564119&in_page_id=1811) one cannot help but feel how an omnibenevolent god could unleash such devastating tragedy on his beloved children. I cannot also help thinking that amongst the dead would be hundreds of people who said their prayers daily and fervently and sincerely believed in him. Yet he callously and contemptously disregards the pleads of these people but instead sends one of the most distructive forces of nature their way. Nothing does more to undermine the notion of an omnibenevolent god than his own supposed creation.

Shall we all spare a moment of thought for those hapless victims of the disaster.

Source: http://www.vanguardngr.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7297&Itemid=71

THERE are cases in Nigeria where puritanical mothers, aunties and teachers who are overzealous about preserving the virginity of their children and wards violently insert contaminated fingers into the vaginas of the girls to 'test' for virginity, thereby exposing the hapless victims to genital infection.

On the other hand, girls who are too concerned about remaining virgins tend to manifest increased sexual fantasies and desires, abundance of sexual imagery resulting in extreme nervousness, inability to concentrate, timidity, irritability and insomnia.

Again, it generates wholly unnecessary anxiety in girls whose hymens might have ruptured through other means than sexual intercourse. From our discussion thus far, it is pretty clear that, contrary to generally accepted belief prolonged virginity or chastity, both in males and females, is very damaging, I wish now to address the specific issues raised by Mrs. Adunni Adediran in her article.

For starters, her claim that her initiative "is the only concept that throws light on the chastity of Nigerian girls" and that nobody knows that virgin girls could be fished out from Lagos is, to put it mildly, very puzzling.

What exactly does she mean by claiming that the virginity test she initiated is the only concept that throws light on the virginity status of Nigerian girls? The second part of her claim is both logically and empirically absurd. How did she know that "nobody knew" that there are virgins in Lagos?

If she was amazed to discover virgin girls above fifteen years in Lagos Island, Isale Eko and Okepupo area, then that is a reflection of her limited imagination and her proneness to the fallacy of converse accident. Many girls both in the urban centres and rural areas are virgins due to certain reasons, especially religious and socio-cultural.

Also, female genital mutilation (a practice common in many Nigerian communities) and infibulation usually discourage the urge to have sex in some girls, indirectly encouraging them to avoid intercourse. There is increased sexual freedom globally, which means that the percentage of adults who are virgins is reducing.

Therefore, the so called light Mrs. Adediran claims to have thrown on virginity is a matter of commonplace knowledge. She also claims that she has been receiving plaudits from people and that men are requesting her to link them up with virgins for permanent relationship.

My response to this is that since Mrs. Adediran and her admirers more or less accept the same hackneyed unscientific code of sexual morality, they are prone to make the same mistakes about the place of virginity in human existence. Without a doubt, Mrs. Adediran believes that sex outside marriage is a sin, as proclaimed by St. Paul.

The word "sin" is a terrible word. It is responsible for the unnecessary anguish, anxiety and guilt feelings experienced by a large number of people all over the world. Once an act is labelled with that word, no one cares to find out whether indeed it is conducive to the well-being and happiness of people or not.

It is on the basis of such naive and simplistic standpoint that moral puritans discourage individuals from embarking on sane, responsible and critically thoughtful considerations of the complex problems of life.

By parading and rewarding "virgins", Mrs. Adediran and her collaborators, in my view, ignore the fact that the belief in virginity as a virtue is the product of religious superstition formulated in primitive societies of old completely devoid of any scientific basis.

Permanent relationships

The men who requested for virgins "for permanent relationship" are ignorant and hypocritical. Virginity contributes very little, if anything at all, to the enrichment of man-woman relationship, even marriage.

That one married a virgin is not a guarantee that she would remain faithful forever to her husband or ensure that she would be a good wife and mother.

Loving-kindness, truthfulness, patience and tolerance, to my mind, are far more important, more fundamental for life-furthering intimate relationships between men and women, than chastity.

Infact, researchers who have studied the subject maintain that a girl with sexual experience has a better chance of correctly discriminating between a man whose profession of love is genuine and another who just wants to have a fling, and of making the right choice of a lover, than one without such experience.

The hypocritical aspect appears in bold relief if the question is asked: how many of the men who desire to marry virgins are virgins themselves?

Men disvirgin girls, and yet they insist on marrying virgins. How can men eat their cake and have it at the same time?

It is unfair that many men, because of the silly desire to marry virgins would, when they want to settle down, abandon the girls they were relating with in the urban centres for inexperienced under-educated girls in the villages who they can easily dominate and manipulate.

Such men are not real men, because they are vaguely aware, subconsciously, of their inability to relate on equal terms with educated, sexually experienced and exposed girls who are not easily amenable to domination and manipulation.

I advise such men to open their hearts and minds in order to understand that insistence on sexual chastity is a symptom of emotional myopia which can prevent a man from identifying and cherishing his "soul mate" if, and when, she becomes available.

It is well known by psychologists that self-styled guardians of conventional sexual ethics sublimate, in the form of prudish persecutory indignation towards the slightest deviation from orthodox code of sexual behaviour, the thwarting of their natural sexual impulses which occurred in early childhood.

Thus, I will not be surprised if Mrs. Adediran and most of her co-workers in the virginity test initiative were raised in home environments where traditional taboo sexual morality predominated. Mrs. Adediran was mistaken in thinking that her God would protect a girl already certificated by her group as a virgin from rape. I do not know the basis of her unrealistic optimism.

Rapists have in past visited convents and other places of worship where supposedly female children of God gathered and raped, in some instances robbed and killed them. I believe that by happenstance if a lady is at the wrong place at the wrong time, virgin or not, she might be raped.

It follows that Mrs. Adediran's over confident assertion that "a child of God will never be raped" is simply false, and stems from the unrealistic and fictitious belief by those who call themselves born again Christians that they are immune from the usual vicissitudes of human existence through Jesus Christ.

The Bible, when properly studied, undermines that belief, because in the story of Job, for example, we encounter a paradigm case of a righteous man tormented by some of the sorrows of this world. It never occurred to Mrs. Adediran that the God she relies on can decide to use the rape of a virginity certificated girl as a means of teaching life-changing lessons to the victim and those connected with her one way or another.

Probably, Mrs. Adunni Adediran was motivated by honest intention to launch the virginity test initiative. But it not far-fetched to predict that the initiative would in the near future transform into a money-spinning venture and acquire a character undreamt of by her. I affirm that focus on virginity cannot add value to heterosexual relationships in Nigeria. Rather, it might produce a generation of young girls divided into two sets, one set containing girls with their hymens intact, and the other, girls with torn hymens.

The criterion for such classification strikes me as ludicrous. It would likely make the "virgins" develop a condescending superior attitude to their friends who are not virgins, and make the latter develop some sort of inferiority complex and feeling of guilt about a natural mode of behaviour which they might have thoroughly enjoyed at the time.

There are more important attributes of human beings that we should encourage and celebrate, as I suggested earlier. In this connection, the celebration of virginity definitely cannot improve the quality of human sexual and marital relationships.

To sum up: In sex, our attitude is still dominated by irrational fears and taboos which contemporary scientific discoveries have rendered out of date, and the benefit derivable from those discoveries is largely lost due to our failure of psychological adaptation to them.

Even if anybody decides to celebrate and reward virginity, the advantages of chastity, such as time saving (assuming that the person abstaining from sex does not become continually preoccupied about the sexual act with which he or she is not occupied), avoidance of STDs and AIDS and possible heartbreaks, should be placed side-by-side with its disadvantages, some of which have been outlined in this essay. I agree entirely with Dr. Albert Ellis that the price for prolonged virginity is high - damned too high!

http://www.vanguardngr.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7297&Itemid=71

Interesting take here: http://www.vanguardngr.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6946&Itemid=71

Life after Jehovah's Witnesses: website offers help to followers who lose their faith
Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/life-after-jehovahs-witnesses-website-offers-help-to-followers-who-lose-their-faith-821603.html

By Emily Dugan
Tuesday, 6 May 2008

It was only when Rachel Underhill was lying in a hospital bed, haemorrhaging, that she first realised the way of the Watchtower might not be for her.

She had just given birth to twins via an emergency Caesarean section. As a Jehovah's Witness she was subject to the whim of the church elders, and they made their feelings about a blood transfusion quite clear. As she was wheeled into the operating theatre, one of them pushed a form under her nose and said "sign here".

Ms Underhill, 32, from Brighton, East Sussex, was lucky enough to survive her ordeal without a transfusion, but the idea that her religion was encouraging her to risk her life was a defining moment.

She recalled: "I remember the anaesthetist coming in and saying, 'Do you realise you are going to die? Do you realise you will leave your children motherless?'"

When, years later, Ms Underhill finally escaped her religion, she launched a website to help former Jehovah's Witnesses rebuild their lives after leaving the faith.

For those who manage to sever ties with the Jehovah's Witnesses, life can be very isolated. Followers are controlled by strict laws that mean even the most everyday experiences, such as celebrating birthdays and Christmas or going out with friends, are completely alien to them.

On top of trying to navigate a world the sect has deliberately sheltered them from, many find themselves ostracised from friends and family who are still involved. "When I first came out of the religion I went from having this great support network to having nothing," says Ms Underhill. "All my friends, family and people from the church didn't want to know me." The site she created, called exJW-Reunited.co.uk, is now a year old and has recently started to offer Britain's first ever live online counselling service for ex-Jehovah's Witnesses.

Once a week, Lisa Magdalena, a qualified counsellor who ran away from the sect aged 16, is online to answer questions and provide support to anyone in the process of leaving – from finding new friends and a place to live, to dealing with the hurt and guilt of being cut off from family.

"Witnesses are taught never to seek help, which is why I'm so passionate about this website," says Ms Magdalena. "There are really high rates of suicide and depression among people that leave, and I want to be able to help people to get their lives back on track."

Ms Magdalena, 38, has seen first-hand the tragedy that the religion's extreme code can wreak on families. In the 1970s, when she was just two years old, her father, Keith Playford, died. He had continually refused blood transfusions that would have saved his life after a simple dental procedure to remove teeth went wrong. Just before he died, doctors made legal history by forcing him to receive blood, to no avail.

When Ms Magdalena ran away, she says she lost her family and friends and ended up homeless. "I had nowhere to live and no job; I was living on the streets for three weeks and I felt suicidal," she says.

"Lisa has been there and done it, so people won't have to explain anything to her," says Ms Underhill, who found that traditional counselling did not help. The strange and little-understood details of life as a Jehovah's Witness made it difficult to explain the pressures she had been under. "The counsellor just couldn't understand what I'd been through. I spent six of the eight sessions just explaining what the religion was about, and the way it worked."

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/life-after-jehovahs-witnesses-website-offers-help-to-followers-who-lose-their-faith-821603.html

m_nwankwo, pleasure to read from you again.

I shall plunge headlong into the beef, noting in passing that we have beaten the issue of chemical pregnancies to death.

I shall start by posing some questions: From a theistic perspective, is there any aspect of reality (material and immaterial) that was not created by God? If God created the universe and everything therein, does it not following that everything in his created universe was the product of his creation? If not, how do we distinguish what God created from what a different entity created?

Did God created freewill and in so doing, was he aware of the consequences of humans being endowed with freewill?

At what point in the current of time did He create freewill? Did freewill exist at the time of the stromatolites, dinosaurs, Neandarthals? In fact, were dinosaurs, Neandarthals, mammoths etc, equipped with freewill. Or is freewill an attribute only available to Homo sapiens?

I have got a number of problems with your theological views as they not only fail to accord with what we know about the reality of life but are also internally contradictory.

2. Now to the more important aspect of your question. Yes God is the creator including the female physical body. You queried why a perfect God should create a reproductive system prone to chemical abortion, miscarriages and diseases. The answer is that God did not create a flawed process, the flaws, the diseses and the problems arose as a result of mans freewill or more precisely the misuse of the free will. Thus your analysis assume that the present physical body including the reproductive system is the way God made it originally. Not at all, what you see today is a distorted physical body.

For a start, how could god have created the universe and everything therein without created the flaws? How created these flaws if it was not God? Why did God create freewill if he knew that it would be the downfall of man?

In fact, even before Humans came into being, many millions of species of animals and plants have existed for many millions of years, suffering and dying legion of diseases, natural disasters, earthquakes, volcanoes, droughts etc. Why don't you check out the calamitous effects of the end-permian extinctions to see the devastating character of nature. These flaws caused the suffering of millions of animals many millions of years before humans appeared on the scene.

The human reproductive systems in many ways mirrors that of many other mammals. That many of these mammals suffer similar human diseases is no surprise at all given that humans and mammals are products of the same evolutionary process.

Modern humans did not arrive onto the landscape until about 100 - 150 thousand years ago. We have an unbroken links to our ancestral relatives going back many millions of years. These ancestors would have suffered similar "flaw" as we do today. Did these ancestor also have freewill, which imperil them to the flaws you describe?

Slumbering in the soul of human beings are uncounscious memories of how it was when God made us, how beautiful it was when we followed Gods will and surrendered to Gods guidance. Those perceptions speak of a paradise on earth without dieases, without problems. At that time, humans were radiant and beautiful, at that time there were no diseases, at that time, women concieve without problems and deliver without pains, at that time, there were no chemical pregnancies or miscarriages, at that time humans lived over 500 years.

As a man of science, you must have high regard for evidence-based pontifications. Where is the evidence for the above?

Those memories are today relegated to the realms of sagas and legends by the man of today. But they are neither myths nor legends but an unconscious premonition of how beautiful it was. What has changed this paradisical state of affairs? Man in the use of his free will interfered with the creators cosmic order, man out of his free voilition chose to disobey the laws of God. That is the origin of sin and that changed the whole dynamics. It is probably not hard to understand that when a creature decides to alter the program of his maker, only catastrophes will be the product. It is like non pilots hijacking a jetliner.

Humans were not about when calamitous events of millions of asteroid impacts, supervolcanoes, ice-ages, etc, cause havoc on the planet. How can you then reconcile the concept of human sins with pre-human natural disasters and diseases?

I wonder what Exodus 21:17 say?

m_nwankwo:
@Huxley
Thanks again for your submission. I address the issues you raised as follows

1. I am not just disputing the numbers and methodologies but also that these figures are purely estimates. How do I know that. I am a biomedical scientists myself and in the pub med which is the bank for biomedical research papers, their are 25925 original articles on sponteneous abortion and 8160 original articles on chemical abortion only. None of these papers have demonstrated the percentage of chemical abortion by raw data, what you have is estimation. You too recognised that a margin of 25% is not acceptable for a finding that is supposed to be correct. Such wide variation arose because the results are based on estimates. You correctly noted the way an investiigation can be carried out to find out the rate of chemical abortion but such a study has not been done as far as I know. If you are aware of any such study, cite them and I will check it out.

2. In some of the articles you refered, the biological causes for spontaneous abortion were mentioned. It is an irony that you ignored the same biological causes you posted just to blame God. So if a woman miscarries due to infection, chromosomal abnormalities etc, then God takes the blame. Have you asked why infections in the first place, why chromosomal and genetic abnormalities in the first place?. God is not responsible for spontaneous abortions or any disease for that matter. When it becomes necessary, we may discuss where diseases, suffering etc originated.

Thanks again for your submission. I get the feeling that you are not giving me the best of what you known in this area, despite the obvious fact the you seem to know a great deal on the subject. For instance, you made the following comment;

None of these papers have demonstrated the percentage of chemical abortion "by raw data", what you have is estimation.

What do you mean "by raw data"?

I agree that when you extrapolate from a sample study, you are necessarily entering the world of guess-stimation. This is sometimes acceptable and policy decisions are sometimes made on just such estimate.

Anyway, let us not stray too far from the main point of discussion, which is that there is an unacceptable high number of pregnancies lost through chemical abortions and known miscarriages. For the US alone, it is reported as having 1 million known miscarriages, without even counting the chemical miscarriages.

My point is, if human life being right from fertilisation, then the human reproductive system is extremely wasteful in naturally destroying these many humans. From a theistic worldview, the creator (god) is the designer of everything, material and immaterial, living and non-living. I am sure you would agree with that comment.

Then the questions arise; Was this creator incompetent in his job? Why did he create a world where millions of his children (with souls and spirit) are lost yearly. In short, I am blaming god for designing a defective product that suffers many thousands of diseases.

Some more useful links:

http://www.acog.org/publications/patient_education/bp090.cfm
http://www.healthpolitics.org/program_transcript.asp?p=miscarriage

Chemical pregnancies
It is not unusual to have an early positive hCG result on an HPT and then begin a heavy period soon after. Chemical pregnancies are those that result when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus and develops just enough to start producing hCG but then stops for some reason. This happens with about 30 to 50 percent of all fertilized eggs because they are incapable of developing into a viable embryo. Before technology evolved sufficiently to detect these early pregnancies, women just considered themselves late. Source: http://www.ynhh.org/healthlink/womens/womens_4_04.html

A chemical pregnancy is the term given to a pregnancy that ends very early in the first trimester. Chemical pregnancies are confirmed by testing for hCG, the hormones that indicate the presence of a pregnancy. These hormones are typically detected by a urine or blood pregnancy test. However, within weeks, these hCG levels begin to drop rapidly, signifying an end to the pregnancy. As a result, your baby and his amniotic sac cannot be seen on an ultrasound and a miscarriage takes place. Source: http://www.womens-health.co.uk/chemical.html

The true cause of a chemical pregnancy is not known, however, most believe it is due to abnormal chromosomes within the fetus. These chromosomal abnormalities can be due to several factors including poor quality sperm or egg, abnormal cell division of the fetus, and / or genetic abnormalities of either mother or father. It is thought that approximately 50 - 60% of first trimester miscarriages are due to some type of chromosomal abnormality. Other causes of a chemical pregnancy are thought to be related to infection (ie. Chlamydia, Cytomegalovirus, Genital herpes, Syphilis, Toxoplasmosis, and Rubella), abnormal uterine anatomy (ie. unicornate uterus or septate uterus), abnormal hormonal levels within the mother (ie. low progesterone), and systemic illnesses (ie. untreated thyroid disease). Source: http://www.ourmiscarriage.com/chemical_pregnancy.html