₦airaland Forum

In fact, I have just found a link here , but I initially got the news from my close friend whose brother is married to the Pastors daughter.

noetic:
the link would at least have established that this incident happened, but as it seems now, its obvious you have just been caught in one of ur numerous LIES u keep brandishing around against xtianity.

atheism is not an excuse for lack of morality. LYING is symbolic to moral bankruptcy.

What proves that it is a lie?

Bobbyaf:
There is nothing to explain really. The term natural selection is not a bad term per se, but my problem with it is simple. It doesn't account for the fact that genes and how they operate don't require millions of years to bring about adaptations.

The design argument makes more sense, because for an animal to adapt to its environment over a period of time, and assuming a short period so as to maintain the same species, there has to be an array of factors present in order to achieve such changes.

As you're very much aware the central dogma of biology wouldn't stand up well based on Darwin's theory of the original species of life. The simplest of cells called bacteria are so complex in their operation. The flagellum in one bacteria species is so complex and ordered, that the likelihood of its machinery gradually being put together over time is ludicrous, based on how we know proteins and genes operate in harmony.

Every living species were made with intact working parts whether from a macro-biological or micro-biological point of view. The basic structures had to have been in place already for any accommodation of adaptations to have occurred.

Darwin's finches simply learned to adapt so as to survive, and the genetic mechanisms had to have been in place so as to afford such changes. The adaptations in themselves do not support the idea that new creatures resulted over millions of years.

OK, let's explore the design option for a minute by considering the following questions:

1) If it is design that accounts for the diversity of lifeforms on the planet, what or who is the designer?

2) If there is indeed a designer, then this desiger has to be at least as complex as the things he designed. In the case who designed the complex designer?

3) If design accounts for complexity, why to we find complexity in a hierarchical structure, from the simple about 500 million years ago to the complex over recent epochs?

4) Why would a designer design lifeforms so that 99.99% of all life that has ever lived is now extinct?

5) Why would a designer design whales with legs? Of what use are legs to a whale?

6) How many different types of diseases of the eye exists?

Has it occurred to you that academic work might not be for you?  From my distance position, it looks to me as though you are not cut out to be an academic type.  So learning, writing exams, reading books,  etc may only come to you very grudgingly.

Pack up your books and learn a trade, like carpentry.   A further advice, give god a wide berth.  If you join the god-gang, they are only gonna exploit you and instill fear and terror into you life.

Image123:
Huxley,many things could have resulted to his death.people die everyday,has that ever occured to you?people have fasted for longer periods than he did i.e -<40days.There's no reason 2make issues out of it because he died while fasting.people die walking,eating,working,preparing 4 exams etc and sometimes,it may not be as a result of what they were presently doing. Anyway,it is appointed to men once to die,you just live a life that is worth it and if 'perhaps' there's an afterlife, you be prepared.

I hope it comes as no surprise to you  that I know that people die.  What is ironic here is the time and manner of his death.  Fasting is supposed to be a time and period of particular closeness to god, if you believe what the christians say.  I have heard christians claim all sorts of "miracle" having happen to them as a results of having fasted.

If he had fasted and recovered from an illness, say stomach cancer, he and his kin would have broadcast it the world over as a miracle from god.  Well, this time god chose to snuff him right in the middle of his fast.  Is this a miracle too?

Kivaro:
Unless a grain dies, it shall remain a grain. The truth is if your eyes are opened to the truth, the answer to your question is pretty simple. But you need to experience your eyes being opened and it is not something that you control.

It comes by the way of grace, which nobody can give you here. So, the first thing to ask for is to say ' Lord please open my eyes and my heart so that I could understand these things.' You may start by saying the lord's prayer several times a day and you can also read this book "Jesus Christ Catholic". I cannot remember the author, but you will be blown away by so many things. For example, how Abraham's skull was hidden away for so many generations until it was buried at "the place of the Skull" where Christ was finally crucified. You are going to be blown away, if you ask that your eyes be opened to the truth. Hopefully you can stand the truth when you see it.

Just you know, I am not a priest, a pastor or even a "good christian." I just like to read about mysteries.

Yes, blown away if I had a mind as addled and perforated as yours. What is your basis for accepting these "mysteries" as true?

noetic:
there are several theories and many more will be invented before HIS eventual return.
but what exactly is your theory, cos u never seem to have an opinion but propagate anything anti-christ found on google and youtube.

Dont u think it amounts to lack of intelligence not to have an opinion on a subject u keep making wrong postulations about? Who is Jehovah GOD? what is HIS ontology?

Atheism is not an excuse for lies, unintelligence and dishonesty.

This was what paul said in 1 corth 15:6

6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

500 saw the risen Jesus. for u to see a risen man, wouldnt u have seen HIM when he was alive?
they saw HIM risen, a known dead man.
there are several. so also are several others fabricated to dispute HIS existence.
use your googe tool, like u do best.
u have always cliamed ur atheist beliefs are products of evidence and facts.
please provide ur evidences to butress this falsehood?
another off the mark statement. first u claim the entire bible is false, now u claim the old was based on the new.
sounds like a confused ignoramus to me.
Any facts or evidences to butress ur misinformation?
it will not be long before u face the throne of judgement to give account of ur misdeeds.

You can start by looking at this thread and answering the question as to when Jesus was crucified.

Why do deluded Christian continue believing Jesus was killed about 2000 years ago when the bible clearly says it happen at the creation of the world?

noetic:
any links to butress this claim.

atheism is no excuse for dishonesty .

Well, I have not got a link. But would you believe it if you saw a link? My info comes from source close to the family of the pastor, ie, a close friend of mine is married into the family.

Here is it.

Olowojeje:
@ MAZAJE
YOUR CONTRIBUTION/ RESPOND TO felifeli SHOWS HOW GOOD YOU ARE AT BRANDISHMENT OF YOUR BIBLICAL/SPIRITUAL IGNORANCE. I PERCEIVED HOW MYOPIC, CARNAL AND INSENSIBLE YOU ARE TO THE SPIRITUAL THINGS. NOTE THAT THE BIBLE/SCRIPTURE IS WRITTEN BY AND FOR THE SPIRITUAL MINDED PEOPLE AND NOT MEANT FOR CARNAL PEOPLE LIKE YOU TO INTERPRETE.

What do you mean by "spiritual" things. What are spiritual things. Would yoy say the same about the koran?

tonye-t:
[size=28pt]HUXLEY[/size]

so what else do you want from us here, to criticise the man or applaud him

yes his act was funny, but i tell you something, only funny people in the sight of man is actually wise in the sight of God

and by the way did you hear God come down to tell you that HE snuffed the man's life because he tried emulating God?

you assume too much, get a story better b4 you come down hear to critise my faith you're obsessed about

and guess what?


i imagine myself going on evangelism with you

I thought you guys would be impressed by this miracle and that it would help strengthen your faith.

Bastage:
How can a death be funny, Huxley?

Would it have been as funny if an atheist had died doing the same thing?

Actually, come to think of it, I would have found it extremely amusing, ironical and hypocritical if a philosophical atheist had instead of seeking natural treatment for a medical condition had instead sought supernatural interventions and had ended up dead. Anyone who does not live by their philosophy deserved to be ridiculed and if an atheist were to resort to something as irrational as this, I will have no sympathy for him/her.

solosimple:
Sometimes, the testimonies we hear can be so ridiculous.
However, we must understand that Satan exist and he is a very wicked one. You can imagine the man that was possessed by a legion of evil spirit in the Bible, what do you think about his horrible state? Yet he was healed.
In as much as I might raise my eyebrow to some of the testimonies I hear, I will never void the fact that God can heal a million times more than the devil can make sick.
Whether the case the poster quoted is true or false, I don't know.

Where is your evidence for this extraordinary claim? Is this based on facts or just on faith?

Bastage:
How can a death be funny, Huxley?

Would it have been as funny if an atheist had died doing the same thing?

You are probably right. I erred. "Funny" is not the right word in this circumstance. I think "ironic" would have been a better word. I shall make said correction.

A leading evangelical pastor in Cameroon, founder on many pentacostal churches in Cameroon and US, has died several days into a fasting marathon.  It is said that the pastor embarked on a 40+ days fasting ordeal to not only emulate his God but also to better his God's record. Unfortunately, his god was not happy with such a rude challenge from an upstart contender and snuffed the life out of him.

How funny  ironic!

Link: http://www.edennewspaper.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4535&Itemid=165

Watch this video for the questions.

If so, it is worth remembering that you are NOT your beliefs. Learn to separate yourself from your beliefs and then look at your beliefs objectively as you look at the beliefs of other religions. Then watch this video for some more help.

esensed:
huxley

kindly giv me the weblink please!!!

I can do better than that. The above is found in his book, Open Heaven 2009, Friday, 27th February. If you have got a copy, check it out. I have a copy right here on my desk.

Bobbyaf:
The irreducibility Complex principle has blown Darwin's theory out of the water. In fact quite a few scientists have come to their senses, and can no longer see any sense or logic in what Darwin postulated in a time, in 1831 to be exact, when he knew very little about how complex a cell was. Everything Darwin theorized was based on physical changes he witnessed among certain bird species on an island. He coined the ability for birds, and other creatures for that matter, to adapt to change in their environment for their survival- the process of natural selection

While I have no qualms with such a term, I do have a problem with the idea that these adaptations tend to occur over millions of years, which resulted to where we are today from a single cell. His very species of origin tree as to how life began smacks of gross incompetence, and ignorance.

If Darwin were alive in our time and knew what we now know about the cell he would never have dared to embarrass himself the way he did.

Later I will go into more details.

You have not described how the alternative theory has greater explanatory power than Darwnian natural selection. Until this "new" theory is shown to have greater explanatory power and accounts for all the evidence, Darwinian natural selection will remain the theory supported by the vast majority of scientists.

C'mon, do us a favour and tell us what this new theory is and who are its proponents, will you?

Watch this

Enjoy!

felifeli:
Since you ask sir, I am one.
I had a terminal illness and doctors thought that there was no hope. Friends and family gathered together and prayed all over the world. And it all completely disappeared. Mind you this happened inside  a London hospital. The doctors are still baffled till today 

Interesting. I am really glad you are still with us and are able to narrate your recovery from the terminal illness. Can you advise what condition you suffered from and how long had you suffered from this condition?

Interesting videos:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFzdDwC0pbE&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6e1SXqf6ww&feature=related

God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten cancers, HIV, earthquakes,

That whosoever lived on this earth

May suffer and die by one of these

God-created tokens of love.

Just watch , fascinating!

Jesus Mythicist Theory hold the view that there never was a flesh-and-blood human, borned of a woman, who walked the earth about 2000 years ago. Contrarily, Jesus was a mythical-spiritual entity who lived in the spirit world and performed all his deeds and misdeeds in the spirit world without ever setting foot on the earth. This view is amply supported by the writings of the early Christians by reading the works of Paul who wrote his words several decades before the literalist invested a flesh&blood Jesus whose life they document in the gospel.

The other factors that lend credence to JMT are:

1) Paul mentions almost nothings about the flesh&blood Jesus. Nothing about where he was born, lived, his parents, siblings, occupation, none of the birth and crucufixion narratives, etc.

2) There are no extra-biblical documents about an earthly Jesus contemporaneous with his life on earth.

3) Before the gospels gained withspread circulation many Christian Church fathers and bishops appear to lack knowledge of the life of an earthly Jesus.

4) The mythical Jesus created by the gospel writers have essentially copied narratives from the Old Testament and cast Jesus as the main star in their modelling of OT history.

etc, etc.


It will not be long before the scam perpertrated by the Christian establishment, which dates back 2000 years, is widely known, as if their credibility is not already rock bottom.

---

Some reference material:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qMWmbGGkBw&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N46DEsq9AzE&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNR5Uv2Z4yg&annotation_id=annotation_15542&feature=iv

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R3liALvyss&annotation_id=annotation_861022&feature=iv

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzVbBmlsW-A&annotation_id=annotation_530142&feature=iv

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNOn5kw8zdc&annotation_id=annotation_835042&feature=iv

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwlxG3OkjD4&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZG-YJ_2fSs&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdn3rI9N-YA&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qswRQHn3l9M&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ7j5fWCMoE&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWsKZYIwZ-I&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZtYyOm9Q8c&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R5q_g1CAdI&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFDH0zsxmxU&annotation_id=annotation_524014&feature=iv

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqCTKsp89Zc&annotation_id=annotation_970849&feature=iv

Bastage:
Triumphalist?

No.

Not only should the onus be on you to provide the proof as you're the one who made the original claim but asking others to prove a negative is pretty silly, don't you think?

And to tell the truth, I'm past caring what you think on this particular subject and have no further wish to debate it.

Actually, my claim is that these verse have been translated over the years to implied insult by using the word "fool". And historically, my position is very well supported. Your claim is that they mean something else. So the onus is no YOU to show why they mean something else and whether contemporary translator have rendered said passages in the sense which you consider is more correct.

Bastage ? Pastor AIO,

You guys are far too triumphalist which detracts from the argumentation. Pls, let's stick to the facts about the text and stop shouting I "win you lose". The facts should speak for themselves. And like I posted earlier, the facts suggest in all three instance, insult was meant. The facts also suggest that bible translator over the centuries have found it fit to render the english version in a way that means insult.

Can you show me any contemporary translation that detracts from this view?

While I agree that the is a touch of insensitivity in the question, I believe that most people already have an answer to this question. Most people would have given this a thought, if only cursorily, way before the demise of their spouse.

The question is how soon is it appropriate to voice one's views after one has lost their spouse? Is one month OK? Is 6 months OK? Is 1 year OK? In facts, what is the principle behind determining how long one should wait before voicing a wish to remarry and/or actually doing it?

I know in most traditional African societies, remarrying of the wife is frown upon, which I think is really unfair.

Pastor AIO:
In Matthew the greek word used is μωρέ (more).  Moros means foolish but would be used more like a diss.

In luke 11:40 the word used is aphrones which means to not be wise but is not used in the sense of a diss.  It just suggests that someone isn't being sharp or being intelligent.

In Luke 24:25 the word translated as fool is different again.  This time it is anoetoi which again just suggests that someone is slow to get the gist.  

I hope this resolves things for you Huxley.

Matt 5: 22 in Greek :

egw de legw umin oti paV o orgizomenoV tw adelfw autou eikh enocoV estai th krisei oV d an eiph tw adelfw autou raka enocoV estai tw sunedriw oV d an eiph mwre enocoV estai eiV thn geennan tou puroV

and English

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.



And as you pointed out, the relevant word is  mwre, mean which has the following;

probably from the base of musthrion - musterion 3466; dull or stupid (as if shut up), i.e. heedless, (morally) blockhead, (apparently) absurd:--fool(-ish, X -ishness).


Source:   Strongs Greek Dictionary : http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK34.htm#S3474

This confirms the view that Matt 5: 22 was meant to warn against using injurious words against your "brother".


Luke 11:  40 in Greek:



afroneV ouc o poihsaV to exwqen kai to eswqen epoihsen

and English


[Ye] fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?

The relevant word here is "afroneV", which according to the Strongs Greek dictionary has the following meaning;

from a - a 1 (as a negative particle) and frhn - phren 5424; properly, mindless, i.e. stupid, (by implication) ignorant, (specially) egotistic, (practically) rash, or (morally) unbelieving:--fool(-ish), unwise.

Source:  Strong Greek Dictionary:  http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK8.htm#S878

So accroding to the Strongs Greek dictionary, "afrone" has amonsgt other meaning the following 1)  fool(ish),  stupid, mindless, ignorant, etc, etc.    Are any of these words calculated to inspire love and respect if use against someone?



In Luke 24: 26, the relevant word is anoetos, which has the translation:

from a - a 1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of noiew - noieo 3539; unintelligent; by implication, sensual:--fool(-ish), unwise.


Further, why have bible translators through the ages, translated "afrone"  as "fool"  when they could have used an alternative word?  Would an alternative word capture the essense of what Jesus meant?

Bastage:
For you, Huxley.  

The Luke translations in Latin:

The two words we're looking at are "stulti nonne". "Stulti" is foolish and "nonne" means "not" or "don't". They translate as "Dont be foolish".

Again, "stulti" which refers to foolishness and not the actual accusation of being a fool.
The copy of the KJV I'm looking at translates it as:

The Matthew translation has a totally different word:

What we're looking at here is "fatue". It's root is the word "fatuus" and it's the extreme way of saying fool in Latin.


Edit: Note I was writing this without even seeing Pastor AIO's Greek (glad he did it and not me!!!).
It shows we are both in agreement and that my original assertion was correct.

I treat the bible as just any other ordinary book out there, with no special reverence.  And just like any other book,  I expect internal consistency in its core ideas. And where I don't find this, I have every right to come down hard on it just as I would if I were reading a book of literature, philosophy or politics.

Bastage:
Huxley. You're starting to sound like the very people you despise - fanatical.

The passages are totally different from each other.
Bear in mind for a start that they are English translations and that fool has a different meaning in them and a differing value of relevance.

In Matthew, it's basically saying that having any hatred in your heart for someone is "evil".

How the hell did you get this meaning out of the Matt passage.  If anything, this was an injunction against insulting others with hurtful and demeaning epithets.    How did you go from there to "hatred in your heart for someone is "evil"" ?  This is an adhoc conclusion without a shred of evidence connecting them together.


I sudmit that the main spirit of Matt 5: 22 is to warn people against using hurtful, insulting and disrespectful words against others.  In this regards "fool"  is a placeholder for other insulting words like dickhead, bastard,  nigger,  dumphead, stupid, ignoramus etc, etc.    Use of these words against your brother is apt to injure his spirit/pride/humanity, etc.

Bastage:
In Luke, it's used as an admonishment to describe ignorance. It's not used in hatred. The word used could just as well have been "ignoramuses".

There is no contradiction or hypocrisy. It's just the way you read it.
A strange way to read it when you are totally aware that Jesus didn't speak English and that you also know semantics of English words in the Bible are a waste of time arguing over and also why I accuse you of being a little fanatical.

Then, as if Jesus had forgetten about his statement in Matt 5:22, he goes ahead in Luke and uses words that have similar effect, as you say, ignoramus.   Had he forgetten that he just forbade people from using such in Matt 5: 22?  What a jerk!

Bastage:
Huxley. You're starting to sound like the very people you despise - fanatical.

The passages are totally different from each other.
Bear in mind for a start that they are English translations and that fool has a different meaning in them and a differing value of relevance.

In Matthew, it's basically saying that having any hatred in your heart for someone is "evil".
In Luke, it's used as an admonishment to describe ignorance. It's not used in hatred. The word used could just as well have been "ignoramuses".

There is no contradiction or hypocrisy. It's just the way you read it.
A strange way to read it when you are totally aware that Jesus didn't speak English and that you also know semantics of English words in the Bible are a waste of time arguing over and also why I accuse you of being a little fanatical.

OK, you make assertion without providing any material to substantiate your position. This kinda smacks of the approach so beloved of the religionist faith-heads. Can you provide evidence that this word "fool" means different things in the various passages?