₦airaland Forum

Why was Jesus so effusive in his praising of the pharasees in the following gospel text taken from Matt 5:

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[size=14pt]
20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
[/size]
21Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22But 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.

Allo Pastor!

What happened to this thread?

paulipopo:
@ huxley

Hmmm. Please help me out what do you think?

Well, it depends. If you believe in it, then it is true; if you do not believe in it, then it is false.

What is your opinion about human sacrifice? Would you sacrifice someone to the Lord? Take a look at this

todak:
Well, i only have one question for the poster, in Gen 1:26"And God said, Let [b]us [/b]make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Who was he taking to?

Of course, he was talking to me, idiot.

It you can stomach reading through Pastor Adeboye's writings or listening to his preaching, as bad and intellectually bereft enough as they are, it will not be long before he mentions how he gets into direct conversations with his god, in the manner of god talking with Adam, Moses, Abraham or David. The Open Heaven 2009 devotional for 8th Feb, 12th Feb, 19th March, 25th March present the Pastor as having conversational encounter with God.

Did these really happen? Do other Christian have experience of such conversations with God?

. . . Some years ago, a man was brought to us. He had a peculiar problem - one I had never seen. He was under an uncommon demonic oppression. Whenever he scratched his head, he would bring out a butterfly. If he put his hand into his ears, a cockroach would come out. His head became the abode of rodents and roaches. As a result, he could not mix with people for fear of being identified with ths peculiar condition. His enemies thought they had finished his case, but they had left God out of the calculation. We prayed a simple prayer and he left. When we met two weeks afterwards, he had become an embodiment of a perfect gentleman.

Source. Open Heaven 2009, Friday, 27th February.


Is this really true?

i_laugh:
If a pastor flies around in a multi-billion naira aircraft, while most members of his congregation move around in okadas, BRT buses, and dilapidated molues and danfos, it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for him to follow the example of Jesus in this regard.

Bad belle - so, all you want to see is for these men of God to travel the same way you travel? Would that make them holy and real if you enter a molue and stading amongst the 99 standing folks is one of the men of God? Ask yourself, will you still go to that mans church the following day? Or, you enter a Taxi between Lagos and Kaduna, and squeezed amongst one of the passengers is the man of God, this is what you want to see? What is your point now Mr Holier than thou? Jesus rode the camel - the best form of transportation at that time, I suppose, and folks all over the place was hailing him, man - what is the hypocrisy about?

Do you think god cares about the form of transportation people use, most of all the "men of God"? You may care about that, but do you think God cares?

This comment show that you are a follower of the status and prosperity of the "men of God" rather than a follower of God. Exactly what the pastors want, they have so succeeded in brain-washing you that you now care more about their wealth, status and prosperity. In this brain-washed mindset, you are open to all forms of suggestions including financial exploitation, sexual manipulation, etc, etc.

I wish you all the best in helping to finance you pastor's next suits, cars, homes and business. Happy brain-washing.

Contemporary Christianity and the ethics of vanity fair
Written by Douglas Anele
Sunday, 19 April 2009

Source: http://www.vanguardngr.com/content/view/33892/71/

THERE have been heated debates since the media reported that the general overseer of the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG), Pastor Enoch Adeboye, had acquired a N4 billion plane.

For some commentators, it was an obscene show of opulence and crass materialism by a popular religious leader at a time when millions of Nigerians, including members of Adeboye’s church, could hardly afford the basic things of human life such as food, decent shelter and clothing, medical care and quality education for their children and wards.

Critics of Adeboye point out that the N4billion spent in purchasing the aircraft could be put to better use in providing succour for the poor and downtrodden whose numbers are increasing daily due to poor quality governance in the country.

They also argue that apart from the colossal sum used in buying the aircraft, the cost of flying and maintaining it puts a huge question mark on the general impression among the public that Pastor Enoch Adeboye is one of the few pastors of wealthy churches that have remained modest and humble in the midst of abundant wealth.

Experts in the aviation industry confirm that it would take millions of naira every month to take care of all the incidental expenses relating to the plane, money that could be put to better use in building small-scale industries, financing projects in the health and educational sectors, and so on.

However, defenders of the purchase argue that there is no big deal in a pastor acquiring a N4 billion airplane. They argue that the money used in buying the plane did not belong to the tax-payers of this country.

Rather, some members of the RCCG church mobilized the funds for it. Dele Momodu, for example, defended the acquisition of the plane by drawing attention to the terrible ordeals arising from traveling by commercial plane in Nigeria. He then described his own stressful personal experiences of using commercial flights for his travels abroad. Helen Ovbiagele, a veteran journalist and columnist, asserted that she had been wondering why Pastor Adeboye had not acquired a private plane till this moment.

After all, Adeboye did not take a vow of poverty. She referred to the story in the Holy Bible where people present upbraided Mary Magdalene for pouring expensive oil on Jesus’ head, and the remark of Jesus justifying the Mary’s action.

For Mrs. Ovbiagele, people in places of authority in this country have been getting away with their loot and nothing happens. Therefore, what is the “big deal” if the “head of a big religious body like the RCCG, which has influenced lives so well around the world, having his own personal plane, if the church can afford to give him one?”

She then added the non sequitur. “I think we should check this habit of wanting to pull down Christianity by ‘dragging’ men and women of God in the mud, particularly the crowd pulling ones”.

Private aircraft

Now, I believe that Pastor Adeboye is not the only “man of God” that has a private aircraft. The man in charge of Winners Chapel World-wide, Bishop David Oyedepo, also has one. I will not be surprised if Pastors Chris Oyakhilome and T. B. Joshua of Christ Embasy and The Synagogue, the Church for all Nations respectively, have their own private air planes as well.

In dealing with this matter, it is a useful strategy to refute specific arguments presented by supporters of the increasing mammonization of Christianity in specific situations. But a more effective strategy is to demonstrate that the undeniable tendency of Christianity in general, and Pentecostalism in particular, towards riches, fame and glorification of primitive materialism is definitely diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Throughout history all over the world, the rich have always defended the rich. Therefore, Dele Momodu’s position on this issue should not surprise anyone who knows that he is the wealthy publisher of the magazine of the rich, by the rich and for the rich, Ovation. One can lament ad nauseam, the myriads of problems Nigerians face daily.

Transportation is one of the severest problems ordinary Nigerians deal with all the time. But for a pastor who is supposed to be the spiritual leader of his flock to accept without qualms a N4 billion aircraft because of flight delays, cancellations or transit stoppages and transfers, is taking matters too far. Spiritual leadership is not an easy thing.

It entails personal sacrifices which invariably involve what Fredrick Nietzsche, in The Anti-Christ, called “moderate poverty”. As a matter of fact, all genuine teachers of spiritual principles the world have known – Socrates, Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi etc – lived lives of moderate poverty.

There is a law of spirituality which asserts that the more you have, the less you are, and the less you have, the more you are.

This law is in accord with Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 6:19-21: “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and dust does corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor dust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through and steal; for where your treasure is there will your heart be also”.

Surely, those church leaders who have acquired or accepted private airplanes are laying up treasures for themselves upon the earth. After the last private dinner Jesus had with his Council of Twelve, the gospel of John reports that he took a basin of water and cloth, and washed his disciples’ feet as an example or model of how a leader and master should act as a servant – even to his followers.


If a pastor flies around in a multi-billion naira aircraft, while most members of his congregation move around in okadas, BRT buses, and dilapidated molues and danfos, it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for him to follow the example of Jesus in this regard.

I think that Mrs. Ovbiagele missed the key point which undergirds criticisms of private planes for pastors who are supposed to be paragons of modesty, humility, meekness and compassion for the less privileged members of the society. Sentiments apart, the crux of the matter is not w

On the ontological status of Jesus
Written by Douglas Anele
Sunday, 12 April 2009


Source: http://www.vanguardngr.com/content/view/33347/71/

IN my view, given the level of moral, intellectual, and spiritual achievements humankind has attained at this time, it is very important that adherents of the various religions in the world should periodically examine the fundamentals of the faiths which they accept.

Put differently, a truly religious person at this time must be willing to look into history to ascertain how the religion originated, the historical circumstances of its most prominent personalities (especially its founder), and the diverse influences that shaped its distinctive doctrines as they had evolved over time.

In a knowledge-driven world in which we now live, unlike the myth-dominated world of bygone years, it is extremely important, in order to avoid religious bigotry and life-destroying fanaticism based on uncritical acceptance of religious dogma, for the faithful to examine what they believe in the light of the best scientific theories of the time.

In this connection, I wish to discuss briefly some issues that cluster around Easter celebrations, which are based on the Christian belief in the passion and ascension of Jesus. I do this in full awareness of the unease which many Christians feel whenever the key doctrines of their faith are subjected to the microscope of logical cum historical analysis.

One of the opinions people entertain is that religion is a matter of faith and that, as a result, should not be subjected to rational discussion in the light of well-established knowledge.

The unstated reason behind this deliberate obscurantism and nescience is the conscious fear that such an exercise would explode the various myths upon which religion is based, and probably weaken the hold of its doctrines and creeds on the faithful. However, although for some people ignorance might be blissful, the desire to find out is one of the greatest psychological motivations of progress in all fields of human endeavour.

Since Easter is a celebration of the fundamental raison d’etre of Christian faith as it has developed for about two millennia, some unorthodox comments on Jesus and the significance of his life and death can help thinking open-minded Christians to reappraise the epistemic status of the doctrines they believe.

One striking point about investigations into Christianity devoid of theological bias is the fact that little is known about Jesus, who is generally regarded by believers as the founder of Christianity. In his book,

The Religions of Man, Huston Smiths commented that: “when we try to pin down the biographical details of Jesus’ life we are immediately struck - and disappointed - by how little definite information is available.” Alfred Reynolds, in Jesus versus Christianity, frankly admits that if we rely on historical sources, we know nothing about Jesus.

The world-renowned scholar in Christological research and critic of Western capitalism, Albert Schweitzer, argued in his work, Quest of the Historical Jesus, that: “The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the messiah, who preached the ethic of the kingdom of God, who founded the kingdom of heaven upon earth, and died to give his work its final consecration, never had any existence.”


Bertrand Russell, in Why I am Not a Christian, avers that: “Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ existed at all… if he did, we do not know anything about him…” The noted British historian, Arnold Tynbee, accepts that Jesus existed, but stated that: “Jesus was an orthodox Jew, and his geographical and ethnic horizon was limited to Palestinian Jewry”.

Rudolf Bultmann, the foremost exponent of “demythologizing” theology, did not deny the historical reality of Jesus, but, in Jesus Christ and Mythology, insisted that “the hermeneutical method of demythologization should be used to recover from the mythological contents of the Jesus’narratives the deeper meaning behind the mythological conceptions.”

Our short review of selected literature reveals that the question of whether Jesus the son of Joseph and Mary actually existed is a contentious issue among scholars. But assuming that such a person really existed, what were his attributes? Was he just a Jewish rabbi, albeit a very charismatic religious teacher, or was he the son of God, in the literal sense of the word 'son’? What precisely is the ontological status of Jesus?

Toynbee affirms that from Christian scriptures, Jesus, on some occasions, rejected the idea that he was divine in any sense: he was careful to suggest that he was not identical with God. As a pious Jew, if he had lived to be hailed as God, he certainly would have disclaimed such a status. Reading through the literature, it appears that Toynbee is correct, because there are several direct statements of Jesus which clearly state that he is different from God, who he sometimes referred to as “father”, in conformity with the practice among Jewish rabbis of old.

There are some passages in the New Testament which, if misinterpreted out of context or divorced from their metaphorical meanings, seem to support the apotheosis of Jesus. For example, in John 10:30, Jesus was reported to have said: “I and my father are one.” Reynolds has shown that the correct interpretation of the Greek text in which the claim occurs is:

“I and the father interpenetrate”, which is another way of stating the content of John 10:38 to the effect that: “The father is in me and I in him.” Some Christian apologists claim that Jesus is God, on the strength of what was written in John 14:6: “No one cometh to the father but by me.”

Nothing in this statement suggests that Jesus saw himself as co-equal with God. Like many religious teachers, Jesus might just be asserting that he is the only mouthpiece through which God has chosen to speak to man. After all, Moses told the Israelites that Yahweh spoke to him and gave him the Law on their behalf.

Even Simon Peter’s assertion in Caesarea Philippi that Jesus “art the Christ, the son of the living God,” does not say that Jesus was God, or part of a triune God. The word “Christ means the ‘Anointed’. Most probably Peter was simply affirming that Jesus was “the man approved of, or chosen by, God, perhaps even the son of God, but not really God.

In concluding this brief analysis, it must be remarked that Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. He was circumcised, read the Torah, observed Passover and generally observed the basic tenets of Judaism, although he introduced other elements which stem from his understanding of the Jewish religion. Jesus was part of the messianic movements of 1st century Palestine.

The movement he founded was immensely apocalyptic and appealed to a broad section of the Jews. Like many of his fellow Jews, Jesus firmly believed that Yahweh, the God of Israel would intervene to fulfill those messianic predictions of old Hebrew prophets. James D. Tabor maintains, in The Jesus Dynasty, that two thousand years of unrelenting hostile separation and alienation between Judaism and Christianity had tended to obscure the fact that Jesus grew up in a religious and cultural world which is almost unacknowledged and obscured in the subsequent development of Christianity.

Placed squarely within the context of his time and place, Jesus was a Jew whose overwhelming belief in his messianic vision was aroused by the declaration of a simple and devout fisherman, his disciple Simon Peter, that he was the Christ.

What were the words of Jesus Christ on the cross before he died?  And do these words carry any important significance?

On a practical note, given that most of Jesus's follower's had desserted him while he hung on the cross and given the presumed cacophony surrounding the crucifixion event, who did Jesus's words come to be heard, known and recorded?

Just great. Watch here

Take a lesson from here

[size=18pt]Divorce and remarriage
                            U.S. divorce rates for various faith groups, age groups, & geographic areas[/size]


Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm


Divorce rates in the U.S.:

"There is consensus that the overall U.S. divorce rate had a brief spurt after WW2, followed by a decline, then started rising in the 1960s and even more quickly in the 1970s, then leveled off [in the] 1980s and [has since] declined slightly."  However, such gross statistics are misleading. There are a number of factors involved that obscure the real data:

[list]
[li]The normal lifestyle of American young adults is to live together for a period of time in a type of informal trial marriage. These relationships frequently do not endure.[/li]
[li] Couples enter into their first marriage at a older age than in the past. [/li]
[li] A growing percentage of committed couples have decided to live in a common-law relationship rather than get married. This is particularly true among some elderly who fear reduction in government support payments.[/li]
[/list]

---

The current U.S. divorce rate:

The media frequently reports that 50% of American marriages will end in divorce. This number appears to have been derived from very skimpy data related to a single county or state. However, it appears to be reasonable close to the probable value. The Americans for Divorce Reform estimates that "Probably, 40 or possibly even 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce if current trends continue. However, that is only a projection and a prediction."

---

Divorce rates among Christian groups:

The slogan: "The family that prays together, stays together" is well known. There has been much anecdotal evidence that has led to "unsubstantiated claims that the divorce rate for Christians who attended church regularly, pray together or who meet other conditions is only 1 or 2 percent". 8 Emphasis ours]. Dr. Tom Ellis, chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention's Council on the Family said that for ", born-again Christian couples who marry, in the church after having received premarital counseling, and attend church regularly and pray daily together, " experience only 1 divorce out of nearly 39,000 marriages -- or 0.00256 percent. 9

A recent study by the Barna Research Group throws extreme doubt on these estimates. Barna released the results of their poll about divorce on 1999-DEC-21. 1 They had interviewed 3,854 adults from the 48 contiguous states. The margin of error is ±2 percentage points. The survey found:
[list]
[li]11% of the adult population is currently divorced.[/li]
[li]25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime.[/li]
[li]Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.
[/li]
[/list]

George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group, commented:

    "While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing. But the research also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families. The ultimate responsibility for a marriage belongs to the husband and wife, but the high incidence of divorce within the Christian community challenges the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriages."

According to the Dallas Morning News, a Dallas TX newspaper, the national study "raised eyebrows, sowed confusion, [and] even brought on a little holy anger." This caused  George Barna to write a letter to his supporters, saying that he is standing by his data, even though it is upsetting. He said that "We rarely find substantial differences" between the moral behavior of Christians and non-Christians. Barna Project Director Meg Flammang said: "We would love to be able to report that Christians are living very distinct lives and impacting the community, but ,  in the area of divorce rates they continue to be the same." Both statements seem to be projecting the belief that conservative Christians and liberal Christians have the same divorce rate. This disagrees with their own data.

The survey has come under some criticism:

[list]
[li]David Popenoe, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University has said that the survey doesn't make sense. He based this belief on his assessment that Christians follow biblical models of the family, making a bond that "the secular world doesn't have, It just stands to reason that the bond of religion is protective of marriage, and I believe it is."
[/li]

[li]Tom Ellis of the Southern Baptist Convention suggests that the Barna poll is inaccurate because the people contacted may have called themselves born-again Christians, without having previously made a real commitment to God. He said: "We believe that there is something more to being a Christian, Just saying you are [a born-again] Christian is not going to guarantee that your marriage is going to stay together."
[/li]
[li]Some researchers have suggested that religion may have little or no effect on divorce rates. The apparently higher rate among born-again Christians, and lower rate among Atheists and Agnostics may be due to the influence of financial and/or educational factors.
[/li]
[/list]


One reason for the discrepancy of beliefs about divorce rates among born-again Christians may be that their churches are unaware of the true number of divorcing couples in their midst.

[list]
[li]Many couples would find it difficult to continue attending services in the same congregation after their marital separation. Meeting at church would be awkward. So, they drop out.
[/li]

[li]Many probably find that the climate in their church is very negative towards divorcing couples. So, they move to other congregations that are either more accepting of divorce, or are unaware of their marital status.
[/li]

---

Barna report: Variation in divorce rates among Christian faith groups:

[table]
[tr][td]Denomination (in order of decreasing divorce rate)[/td][td]% who have been divorced[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Non-denominational **[/td][td]34%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Baptists[/td][td]29%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Mainline Protestants[/td][td]25%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Mormons[/td][td]24%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Catholics[/td][td]21%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lutherans[/td][td]21%[/td][/tr]

[/table]

** Barna uses the term "non-denominational" to refer to Evangelical Christian congregations that are not affiliated with a specific denomination. The vast majority are fundamentalist in their theological beliefs. More info.

Barna's results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all.  George Barna commented that the results raise "questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families." The data challenge "the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriage."

Donald Hughes, author of The Divorce Reality, said:

    "In the churches, people have a superstitious view that Christianity will keep them from divorce, but they are subject to the same problems as everyone else, and they include a lack of relationship skills. , Just being born again is not a rabbit's foot."

Hughes claim that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been "saved."


Variation in divorce rates by religion:

[table]

[tr][td]Religion[/td][td]% who have divorce[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Jews[/td][td]30%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Born-again Christians[/td][td]27%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Other Christians[/td][td]24%[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Atheists, Agnostics[/td][td]21%[/td][/tr]

[/table]

Ron Barrier, Spokespersonn for American Atheists remarked on these findings with some rather caustic comments against organized religion. He said:

    "These findings confirm what I have been saying these last five years. Since Atheist ethics are of a higher caliber than religious morals, it stands to reason that our families would be dedicated more to each other than to some invisible monitor in the sky.  With Atheism, women and men are equally responsible for a healthy marriage.  There is no room in Atheist ethics for the type of 'submissive' nonsense preached by Baptists and other Christian and/or Jewish groups.  Atheists reject, and rightly so, the primitive patriarchal attitudes so prevalent in many religions with respect to marriage." 2

StopTheReligiousRight.org had some scathing comments as well:

    "We hear an awful lot from conservatives in the Bible Belt and on the TV about how we all should be living. Certainly a culture that teaches the conservative religious values of the Christian right must have clean living written all over it. And lots of ripe fruit from their morally superior lives abounding."

    "It doesn't. Far from it. People that talk the loudest may be the ones walking the slowest. Joining its history of Biblically correct bigotry and discrimination, it is an area with the highest divorce, murder, STD/HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancy, single parent homes, infant mortality, and obesity rates in the nation. As a region, the Bible Belt has the poorest health care systems and the lowest rates of high school graduation." 12


  Read here for more info 

Don't think so. Watch here

Pastor AIO:
Okay, Huxley. I see that this will not get anywhere like this. Can we forget everything that I've said. Let us say that I never made any comments and we're starting afresh. All I want to ask is one question:

How do you INVENT an ethical system? If not you, how does Paul Kurtz do it? What is it based on?

OK, since you seem to prefer quick snappy answers, here we go;

INVENT is the wrong word for things like ethical systems. Ethical systems develop slowly over time. In fact, you could use the word EVOLVE over time to better describe how ethical system develop.


The better Ethical systems are the product of the slow, considered opinion of people of a society/community. It tends to be the consensus view of how best society should function.

Ethical systems based on commanded authority usually from a deity tend to be problematic and least able to adapt to the needs of a society.

Are you familiar with the Divine Command paradox? Chech it out.


There you go - the better ethical systems evolve slow over time and is directed and informed by the general consensus of the society.

Pastor AIO:
Okay, Huxley. I see that this will not get anywhere like this. Can we forget everything that I've said. Let us say that I never made any comments and we're starting afresh. All I want to ask is one question:

How do you INVENT an ethical system? If not you, how does Paul Kurtz do it? What is it based on?

OK, if you want to talk about ethic, I am game for that. I shall deal in greater details much later when I return from work, but I shall leave you for now with the following questions:

1) Did you say you work in the sciences and have done science based research?

2) Have you ever had to apply for approval to proceed with your work from an ethical committee?

3) How did the modern world arrive at modern day ethical guidelines and principles that govern things like sciences and medicine, environmental policies, business ethics, etc, etc? How did these evolve?

Let's get one thing clear before I proceed. I posted this video because I agreed with most of the things I heard him (Paul Kurtz) address in the video. I think many of his ideas were sound and I have read some of his books which champion these ideas. But that is a far cry from being a worshipper or devotee of the man. I don't know him, but given the chance I would like to get to know him just as you may want to meet people with stimulating ideas that agree with yours. I go for the ideas first, then the man second. Should I know him as a friend, then the order might be different. SO cut out all the worshipper rubbish you are wont to make.

Pastor AIO:
I would just like to make a recapitulation of this thread as things have progressed thus far. 

I stated early on that I wanted to use the Paul Kurtz video to make an exposition of my main beefs against Humanism and it is this that I have sought to do through out, though It would seem that Huxley was more interested in making the thread more of an attack on Christianity, as if there are not enough other threads doing just that in Nairaland. 

Many points have been raised by both sides, and I have even seen points where I erred and I feel pressed to address these.   Mainly where he claims a lineage that harks back to Ancient Athens.  It is true that from what we have left of the writings of the likes of Democritus and Epicurus we can say that a philosophic tradition existed in Athens that was reductionist and that denied the existence of Gods.  I've put that in bold to emphasize it.  I was taking certain strands of Philosophy to represent the whole of Athenian philosophy and thus erred.

I made a comment earlier to the effect that most of Western Philosophy traces its roots back to Greece, in one form or the other. So, in the generally sense, Kurtz is right in saying that his philosophy derives from Greece. I was particularly disappointed to realise that you could not appreciate this fact. But in the very direct sense Epicurus and Democritus are forebears of the humanist project. In fact, the Greek humanist project dates as far back as the sixth BCE with people like Thales of Miletus, Xenophanes of Colophon, Anaxogoras, Pericles, Protagoras, Epicurus, Democritus, etc, etc, etc. This culminated with the development of the concept of eudaimonia (well-being or happiness). Kurtz is championing a modern-day version of eudaimonia, called Eupraxsophy, which gets parts of its name from eudaimonia.

Eu - means "good", "well".
Praxis - means "action, doing or practice"

Eupraxia - means "right action" or "good conduct"

Sophia - means "wisdom"

So Eupraxsophy means not only the love of wisdom, but also the practice of wisdom. There is more to this that I cannot go into now for time pressure. I give this to show you how he is justified in tracing back his philosophy to the ancient Greeks. I am relieved you have conceded the point.

Pastor AIO:
However I still hold firm that Religion was not necessarily created to provide ethics but rather Ethics emerge naturally from spiritual awareness.  That is not to say that historically religion has not been manipulated for various social purposes.  But rather that there is more to religion than the machinations of politicians and social engineers.

Spirituality, like Light via eyes, is something that is experienced via our faculties and that experience is the basis of it.   Ethics emerge from this as indeed the game of darts emerges from our ability to see light.

You haven't really addressed these points that I raised.

I then went on to show that Reason as the likes of Plato meant it referred to another faculty of perception other than the Senses.  Yet you claim to not understand what that means.  You said that you couldn't carry on the conversation unless I told you what I meant by Reason.
I tried to further elucidate by quoting Plato directly where he says that Reason gives perception of the Eternal while the Senses give us perception of the Temporal world. 

You still haven't responded as to whether you now understand it.

No one can now say definitively how and why humans got or derive religions, being such an apparent early development in the human specie. In fact, it is believed by most anthropologist that other forms of humanoids like Neanderthals practised form of religions not dissimilar from ours. So human religions go back a long time. That is has survive this long suggest that it served a useful purpose, some of which would include things like bonding communities together, providing a framework for societal and cultural identification, moral/ethical grounding, satisfying a longing for the unknown and unknowable.

In fact, man's first attempts at science was embedded in the local religion. How else would you explain why nearly all religion have some sort of answers for the bigs questions of reality, question that are now being answered in a far more satisfactory manner by the scientific method.

You say Ethic emerge from Spiritual awareness. I beg to differ. Modern philosophical thought argues for ethic emerging naturally as a result of sociability. Basically, as organism begin to live in some sort of social groups, various forms of ethical systems emerge naturally that govern their behaviour and interactions. This has been studies widely amongst animals like chimps, ants, bats, bonobos, elephants, etc, etc. Some of thes animals show some degrees of altruism, sympathy, courage, etc, etc. And would dish out "penalties" to their kinds that break the societal ethical norms. Are you gonna argue that these animals have also developed spiritual awareness?

I was surprise that you based your definition of Reason on Plato's. I thought a more contemporary definition could have worked quite as well if not better. Anyway, let's look at what you had to say:

We must in my opinion begin by distinguishing between that which always is and never becomes (ie. the eternal) from that which is always becoming but never is (the temporal).

In other words he is saying that there is an eternal reality and a temporal reality. The Eternal is the world of BEING. While the Temporal world is the world of BECOMING. There is a distinction between things Being, and remaining in their state of Being and Things BECOMING, ie in flux in a state of constant change. Things are continually becoming. If you cannot grasp these concepts that you should just stop deceiving yourself and give up on philosophy altogether.

The one is apprehensible by INTELLIGENCE with the aid of REASONING, being eternally the same, the other is the object of opinion and irrational sensation, coming to be and ceasing to be, but never fully real

And there's your definition for you. Reason and Intelligence are the faculties that we use to perceive Eternal things, while opinion and irrational sensation are what we use to perceive Temporal things.
I agree that the use of these terms have changed over the centuries and irrational sensation is now equated with Reason but Plato would be shocked at this development. Today, the word Sensible is now the same as intelligent. When they say you are a sensible guy, you are being praised. Yet originally it meant to be overly affected by the senses, to be influenced by the emotions.

Now, the idea of asking for definition is to help aid understanding. I asked for defintions of words like REASON, INTELLIGENCE, etc and you have explained them by making reference even more unfamiliar word and concept like Eternal things/Temporal things, being and becoming, etc, without defining what eternal and temporal things are. Can you provide some CONCRETE example of what these are and their various associations.

Pastor AIO:
I say that Religions point to an appropriation in the essential core of man and that it is on this appropriation that the Ideals of an ethical system are to be built.  All the while you seem to have deftly avoided the whole issue of the creation of an Ethical System which is the very topic of this thread. 

I attacked Kurtz's statement about the need to move from Being to Becoming as kaka and a misappropriation of the terms and their meanings.  You have yet to address that.

The sum of you responses have been a rant about christianity and then numerous requests for me to define the terms I'm using before you can talk to me.

I avoided the issue because your use of terminology is rather sloppy and that is why I asked for definitions, which did not make things any better.

Pastor AIO:
You asked for my definition of Reason, and I provided that which Plato used.  No response.

You asked for a definition of Spirituality, and I provided one.  Namely a reality not composed of material bodies.  Till date, no response.

I'll like to further refine my definition of Spiritual and say that they are Forms (formal entities) that are not composed of material bodies.

See above. Can you elaborate on the concepts like Spirituality, which I don't think you have. Have other organisms got spirituality?

Pastor AIO:
All this has little to do with the claims of Paul Kurtz.  In order to get back on topic I then asked you how you intend to go about building your ethical system.  To which you responded with a request for the definition of Existential.  I'd provided it when I initially asked the question but I then repeated the definition in a rephrased version. 

As for your response, I'm still waiting . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

zzzzzz . . . . . zzzzzzz. . . .


zzzzzzz, ,  . huh, sorry to nod off , I'm waiting for a certain Huxley  . ,  . .


zzzz . . . zzz ,  Waiting for Godot . . . . . . .

I asked for what you understood by existentialism and you simply copied a rather tedius definition from wikipedia. I also asked how you would relate ethics with mans existential needs, and I am yet to see you response. How am I suppose to make sense of what you are saying when your ideas are so flaky? Man, buckle them up, buckly them up.

davidylan:
You seem to be struggling desperately to contrive something to hang on Adeboye. Yes verse 1-21 seems to have been addressed to an entire church . . . infact the entire chapter was addressed to the church. The "yourselves" in verse 21 refers to the body of the church.

Verses 22 -33 are addressed specifically at husbands and wives . . . well hello the church is made up of men and women some of whom were married! Adeboye wasnt talking on the generality of Eph 5, he was addressing women specifically and used verse 23 to address a particular point.

What really is your issue? you seem to be waffling in confusion.

For the hard-of-understanding, the point was made that "yourselves" was an allusion for men to reciprocate the submission towards their women. I said NO. Verse 21 refers to the generality of the audience, while verses 22 - 33 pays particular attention to married couples. If Paul felt he had addressed the issue adequately in verses 1 - 21, then there would have been no need for the verses that address uniquely married couples. That he devotes 13 verses on the issue of submission within a marriage shows the depth of feeling and conviction that he had for the subject, rather that the lukewarm submission he referred to for the whole church.

And this is exactly what Adeboye is playing on with todays devotional. Nowhere does he balance out this submission business by calling for men to submit to their wives. In fact, there is nowhere in the bible where men are called to submit to their wives.

If fact, a reading of the entire chapter of Ephesians 5 throws more light on the subject of verse 21.  Here it is:

Ephesians 5 (King James Version)


1Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;

2And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

3But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

4Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

5For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

6Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

7Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

8For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

9(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth

10Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

11And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

12For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

13But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

14Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

15See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,

16Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

17Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.

18And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

19Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

20Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.


Verses 1 - 21 is clearly addressing the entire congregation or audience.  In verses 1 - 21, no direct mention of husbands or wife is made, as whatever he is saying appears to apply to the generality of the audience.   If this is correct, then the word "yourselves" used in verse 21 does NOT apply to husbands & wives exclusively, but to the general audience.

However, verses 22 - 33 is[b] directed specifically at husbands and wifes[/b], assuming there would have been a mixed audience with married and unmarried.  So it appears Paul address the entire audience firstly and then specifically the married members of the audience. If is no surprise Adeboye did not include verse 21 in his devotional for today.

debosky:
You better submit to me else no yekini for you.  

In your haste, you miss out the earlier verse

Ephesians 5:21 submitting to one another in the fear of God.

My bone with this is at two levels;

Firstly, the way the pastor handles the bible material.   Nowhere do we see him say that it is a two-way thing, this submission business.  Check the text above.   Nowhere does he say husbands are to submit to their wifes as well.

Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands in all things (Eph 5:22-24).  Some wives find it difficult to submit to their husband just because they are taller, richer, more better placed, or more educated. Even if you were the president of a nation, God still expects that wife to submit to her husband in all things. Submission is an act of faith. That means that if you can submit to your husband in spite of contrary opinions and situations, it will be counted to you as righteousness.Similarly, the woman is expected to submit to her husband as if she was submitting to Christ (Eph 5: 22). This means that it is not the man that the wife is submitting to, but the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. It also means that the extent to which a wife can submit to her husband is the extent to which she  can submit to Jesus Christ. A woman who cannot submit to her husband will not also submit to Jesus.  Show me a woman who is wholly submitted to her husband and I will show you a woman who is wholly following the Lord. Based on this scripture, many wives who claim to love Christ and obey Him have been found to be liars. There is a chain of obedience in every home. Children should submit to their parents, the wife to her husband; the husband to submit to Jesus even as Jesus submits to God the Father. At any point this order is not followed, the obedience chain is broken.

The Pastor does not reference verse 21 (Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.) , which seem to suggest that the submission is a two-way business.  The pastor really plays up the submission from the woman side and totally ignores the submission from the man side.  He even introduces this "chain of obedience"  concept which suggests that the heirarchy is as follows:  children -> wife -> husband -> Christ.  Why did he do that if he implied equality?


My second bone is verse 21 itself (which is NOT quoted by the Pastor).  This verse is presented like a passing casual statement, almost like an afterthought.  The rest of the text elaborates on the submission of the woman towards the man,  but no elaboration in the other direction.  Further, there are many other verses in the New Testament, that give women a secondary role, in keeping with the spirit of the Pastors message here.

Note that this passage enjoins husbands and wifes to love one another, a totally different attitude to submission, I might add.

This is Ephesians 5:

19Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

20Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

noetic:
And how does the bible or the sermon u posted negate this comment of urs?
how does submissiveness not encompass equality and respect? how does the scripture not encourage men to be responsible husbands too?

ur problem is, u find everything biblical unintelligent and antediluvian. this has made u unobjective and very irrational to reality.
Or perharps ur reasoning is along the african limited connotation of words. This connotations that limit the meaning of submissiveness to the indirect slavery pertinent in African cultures.

Humility, supportive assertions, helpful and encouraging postulations are virtues of submissiveness required from a good partner (male or female). It has nothing to do with abuse, beating, modern slavery or battering like u imagined.

What does it mean to be submissive towards someone else? And are husbands required to be submissive towards their wives as well?

KunleOshob:
Obviously Huxley is obssesed with pastor Adeboye

@Topic
Man as been naturally positioned by Nature to have dominion over women.

PS: I used the term nature instead of God as Huxley might say he doesn't recognise God who is very manifest in the nature he recognizes.

How did you arrive by that - that nature has given the man dominion over the woman?

noetic:
whats ur alternative to submission? disrespect and demand for equality, right?

What sort of nonsense is this? What is wrong with treating one's wife with utmost equality and with respect. What is wrong with encouraging women and men to treating each other with respect and equality and assign roles as per one's competencies?

noetic:
I am fast beginning to question the rationality of tithing, courtesy of the many intelligent posts on this forum.

why single out just one of the laws (tithing) of the old testament for convenience?  
The new testament christians gave willingly and most gave all they had. This giving was used for the benefit of all including widows, orphans, less privileged, hungry et all. No one paid or was commanded to pay tithes in the new testament.

There is however no moral justification for tithing as the proceeds are not even used for the purpose intended.
Pastors like everyone else should not demand or pay tithes.

What authority have you got to question tithing.  It is a practice demanded in the bible and you have no authority to question it?  

What make you think that the practice of the early Christian would have been what God would have approved off?  And what make you think that Christians of today should emulate the early Christians?

Have you been slavishly submitting to your husband today? Have you got any mind of your own left?

I shall come back to this later today cuz I have not got the time now to give it my full attention.

Pastor AIO:
Where does it say that he's a christian?

In fact, I erred. I should not have highlighted the fact that he is a Christian, although he is. I have watched his many disgusting videos on Youtube where he identifies himself as Christian and supports other YouTube Christians like VenomFangX.

I wish to add that I do NOT attribute his act to his religious view. Only that, if he was Christian, that did not seem to help him in his time of crisis.