₦airaland Forum

Check out the author of the God Virus and his motivation for writing the book here .

What is the Christian position (yes, pun intended) on the use of contraception? Does the biblical injunction of "Be fruitful and multiply" and important foundational tenet of Christianity?

If some forms of contraception are allowed in Christian marriages, what are they?

Bobbyaf:
@ Huxley

Tell us what you know first, before you get my response.

What does it matter what I know? You are the one making a distinction between old and new covenant, a view which is hardly supported by the bible. I suppose you could start by first defining what a covenant is and how a people is said to be bound by a covenant.

How is a covenant similar or different from a law or legal agreement?

KAG:
Thanks. I didn't know the skeptic magazine had a podcast. This will make a healthy change from the only other podcast I listen to, which is a comdey podcast.

By the way, have you ever listened to the Infidel guy's show?

Hello KAG,

Yes, the skeptic podcast is great. There have interviews with many experts in various fields. Yes, have been a fan of the Infidel guy's shows for some time, although I find he is kinda running out of material to discuss now. I was on the site yesterday and notice there has been nothing new there for many months.

What is the comedy podcast you listen to? I need to diversify a bit too.

There are other podcast you may find interesting - FFRF(Freedom From Religion Foundation), Point of Inquiry, FreedomainRadio. Check them out.

An interview with Jerry Coyne
http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/an-interview-with-jerry-coyne

Greg Ross

February 2009 marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, but the British naturalist's pathbreaking idea—the concept of evolution by natural selection—is still regarded with suspicion by some, particularly in the United States. When asked in a 2006 survey to respond to the statement "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals," more than 80 percent of French, Scandinavians and Icelanders agreed, but only 40 percent of Americans did so.



University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne believes that one reason people mistrust Darwinism is a lack of familiarity with the evidence. In Why Evolution Is True (Viking), Coyne draws on genetics, anatomy, molecular biology, paleontology and geology to explain why biologists find the theory so compelling. "I offer it," he writes, "in the hope that people everywhere may share my wonder at the sheer explanatory power of Darwinian evolution, and may face its implications without fear."

American Scientist Online managing editor Greg Ross interviewed Coyne by telephone in January 2009.

What led you to write the book?

I guess a couple of things. First of all, I only teach evolution. I've been teaching it for my whole career, which I guess is coming on 25 years now, and I realized when I started teaching that nobody ever taught the evidence for evolution, which is wide-ranging and cool. And I looked in the textbooks, and they didn't have it either. And yet when you read Darwin, the thing that's most fascinating is the evidence he musters in support of it. In talking with professional biologists and evolutionists, they didn't ever learn why people thought evolution was true, because you're not taught that in class. But I thought that that should be passed on to the students because of the second reason I wrote the book, which is the pervasiveness of creationism in this country. I wanted to educate the students so they know that evolution really happened, so they don't really doubt that, but also to arm them against the forces of irrationality that were going to be impinging on them and society.

It struck me that the book stands well as a general-interest primer on evolution, but also that you're trying to engage skeptics or doubters.

You can hardly write a book on evolution these days without doing that. It's almost our social responsibility to do something like that when you write a book. Plus, the evidence is just so pervasive, and very interesting. The other thing is that all the controversies that they talk about , The New York Times covered the Dover trial [in 2005, regarding whether the biology curriculum in Pennsylvania's Dover Area School District could include a statement about intelligent design] and reported on what creationists said, offering equal time, almost, between creationists and evolutionists. That pissed me off, so I just wanted to put this book out. Because there isn't really a similar book. Now the textbooks have started putting the evidence in, and there's a few books that deal partly with the evidence, but most of the books that have come out are like [Brown University biologist] Ken Miller's book [Only a Theory], which is a good book, but it deals with refutation of intelligent design and doesn't have time to go into all the evidence. So I just wanted to put it all in one place for people to have and hopefully be convinced.

In the introduction, you write that "You can find religions without creationism, but you never find creationism without religion." Have you ever heard a challenge to evolution that came from a person who wasn't religious?

In a recent article in the New Republic, I say that all creationists share four beliefs [that God exists, that he intervened in the development of life, that one of these interventions was the creation of humans, and that some traits or species are too complex to have evolved]. But then I was reminded on some blog posts that [mathematics author and intelligent design proponent] David Berlinski has written several things for anti-evolutionist books and articles. He originally claimed not to be religious, but now I think he's a theist. To my knowledge, I don't know of any challenge to evolution that's ever come from a non-religious person. Personally I've never experienced one. The vast majority, certainly 99 percent or more, of all challenges to evolution come from religious people who are creationists—some Muslims, but mostly Christians.

What do you make of that? The Origin of Species was published 150 years ago. Why is the debate still ongoing?

Well, it's not happening in many other countries. I say in the book that of 34 industrialized countries in the world that were surveyed, we ranked 33 in accepting evolution, just above Turkey. In Europe acceptance of evolution is very high. There's no doubt that it's because of the pervasiveness of religion in the United States, and fundamentalist religion. That's the reason why the opposition persists and will keep persisting.

[b]Some creationists seem to feel that it's the scientists who are being dogmatic here—that you're somehow invested in this idea or want it to be true, or that your training has blinded you to other possibilities. How do you respond to that?

[/b]I think they're the ones who are dogmatic, because the difference between religion and science, which is the difference between religion and evolution, is that we question things. Nobody worships Darwin as a religion. We don't adhere to a set of dogmas that are unchanging and unquestionable. We all recognize that Darwin was wrong about a lot of stuff. His theories of genetics were wrong, his theories of biogeography were wrong—that's been corrected by plate tectonics—his stuff on sexual selection is very good but not complete. Evolutionary biology is constantly changing and revising its conclusions. But the main conclusions that Darwin made—that evolution occurred, that it occurred through natural selection, that there were common ancestry and splitting and that it happened slowly—those have all been supported. We accept those things because mountains of evidence have shown them to be true. They've been subsumed in what we call neo-Darwinism or modern evolutionary theory. There's a lot of stuff that Darwin said and that other early evolutionists said that is wrong, so we're constantly revising and changing our stuff. It's just that Darwin happened to be right on the main points of the theory. We're not dogmatic about it. I might still be willing to give up my idea that evolution occurred if we got certain evidence from the fossil record, but we haven't gotten it. Whereas there's no observation that will make a religious person give up [his beliefs]. I say in the New Republic article that if the Holocaust didn't do that, then nothing ever will. That's the ultimate argument against belief in at least a certain kind of god.

I'm interested in how you teach this in your classroom. You mentioned that in the past the theory was taught without going through the evidence for it. How do you approach it?

I teach two classes on the straight evidence for evolution. Two hours—I wish I could do more. I start off by saying, "In physics we don't start off with how we know that atoms exist. In chemistry we don't start off with the evidence for chemical bonds. But evolution is different, because the evidence is so cool and not a lot of people know it, but also because I want you to go out into the world knowing that it's important that this is a fact, it's a true fact about where we came from." I don't really hammer on religion too much, but I have to talk a little about it because that was the going theory when Darwin wrote his book. When the Origin came out there was his theory and there was the creationist theory, and they were equally viable at that time. And so when I teach the stuff I teach it as sort of an object lesson in how to adjudicate between competing theories in science. And that's the way I wrote the book, too. I'm constantly asking the reader, "How does creationism explain this observation? It can't." So it's more than teaching the evidence; it's teaching them how to discriminate between good science and bad science, and that's a good lesson for students too.

How do they receive it, generally?

[/b]Oh, pretty well. A few religious students don't like it; they say Dr. Coyne is too hard on creationism. But most of them, that's what they remember when they come back 15 years later. They say, "I remember about goosebumps, or male nipples, or how you wiggled your ears in class to demonstrate the vestigial ear muscles." So I think it's gone over pretty well. Some of my undergrads have become professional historians of evolution and even gone on to graduate school in evolutionary biology, so I think it's been okay.

[b]What do you think about the idea of teaching the debate, that there are two sides to this issue and that both should be represented in the classroom?

I don't agree with that. The other side doesn't have any credibility. It's not that we have two theories here, both of which have good reasons to explain the data. It's that one of them has explained the data, and the other was ruled out a hundred years ago. That teaching-the-debate thing is done for one reason only, which is to cast doubt on evolutionary biology, which is what's going on in Texas this week, and to inculcate creationism into the classroom. [The Texas board of education was debating whether to restore a rule requiring that the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution be taught in high school science classes. The final vote was a 7-7 tie, meaning the measure was defeated and evolution would continue to be taught as a strong scientific theory.] What I say to people who ask me this is "Okay, if you want to teach the debate, then in our medical schools we're going to have to teach shamanism, faith healing and spiritual healing; and in our psychology classes we're going to have to teach astrology as an alternate theory of human behavior, that we're guided by the stars; and we're going to have to teach flat-earth geology because there are still some people who believe in that." When we teach history, we're going to have to teach the alternate view that the Holocaust didn't take place, because we have a lot of Holocaust revisionists. It's not good to teach two theories and pretend that they're equal when one of them has been discredited. It only confuses students as to what real science is and how it's done. We already have a problem with people understanding real science in our country, with all the opposition to global warming and the stem-cell debate, so I don't want to confuse them further. That said, I think that we should teach creationism, not in biology class but as a way to adjudicate good from bad science in sociology classes.

[b]Do you have any thoughts about how the media cover this? A lot of journalists seem to think, "Well, there seem to be two sides here, so the responsible thing is to cover both of them."

[/b]It's okay to cover the Dover trial and report what happened, but they're absolutely deficient in how they cover it. The New York Times is a prime example. During the Dover trial they would say something like "Intelligent design says that the blood-clotting system couldn't have evolved by evolution, and scientists say it could" [laughs]. In their desire to present things objectively, they lose sight of the fact that the facts show that one side is wrong and the other one isn't. And it's wrong to present them like that. That's another reason I wrote the book—on the dust jacket it says that one thing is missing from all these journalistic debates about coverage of evolution, and that's the evidence. I don't think any newspaper that I've ever seen has gone through it as it should have done. There's this controversy in Texas this week about whether the students are going to be forced to learn criticisms of evolution. The journalists never publish anything saying, "Here's why scientists believe that evolution has happened." They never do it.

Last question: What would you say to a creationist who read the book and remained unconvinced?

I'd like to find out why. I guess that's the first thing I'd ask him. And if he said, "Well, what you told me contravenes the Bible"—which is going to be the reason—then I would say, "I'm sorry, I can't talk to you anymore. You can't be convinced by reason and evidence." But my first question would be to find out why. Either I didn't do a good job on the book or there's something else that's keeping him from accepting this evidence. It's usually the latter. Not that I did a good job on the book, but anybody can present evidence that will convince people that evolution is true. Just show them the fossils.

http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/an-interview-with-jerry-coyne

The deification of stupidity
by AC Grayling



Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/20/islam-unitednations

If the OIC succeeds in turning criticism of religion into 'defamation', freedom of expression will be eradicated

Facts speak for themselves. Omid Reza Mir Sayafi, 29, a journalist and blogger, has taken his own life in Evin prison in Iran, where he was serving a two-year sentence for "insulting Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei", and awaiting further trial for "insulting sacred values", which would have meant more years in prison. He was a sensitive man, who blogged mainly about music and the arts, and imprisonment was a hellish experience for him; he was reported to be profoundly depressed and anxious.

Safayi is yet another victim of religion. If the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has its way, it will become impossible to make such a remark.

At the United Nations Council on Human Rights in Geneva, the OIC is trying again to have "defamation of religion" banned. The aim is a universal gag on free speech, blocking the right of anyone to criticise the too frequently negative effects of religion on individuals and society. The OIC has yet to appreciate that if it succeeds in its effort to protect Islam from legitimate challenges to its less attractive doctrines and practices – to say nothing of Islamism with its murderous extreme – the relentless antisemitism from its own side of the street will have to stop too.

If it succeeds in turning criticism of religion and its main beneficiaries into "defamation", we might not be free to express our condemnation of a sentence just handed down in Saudi Arabia against a 74-year-old woman, condemned to 45 lashes, three months in prison, and deportation to her native Jordan, for having two male visitors in her home who were not relatives.

And here is another thing we might not be able to discuss. The Pope's iteration of his church's doctrine on contraception, while on his way to visit Africa where 21 million people in sub-Saharan countries are infected with HIV, millions have died of Aids, and millions of Aids orphans live in frightful conditions of semi-slavery and destitution, has been rightly condemned by many around the world.

But the HIV/Aids tragedy of Africa is only the tip of an iceberg. Opposition to control of family size in the poorest part of the world condemns women to endless pregnancies if they are not – as many are – killed or incapacitated by childbearing in difficult circumstances. The difficulty of looking after numerous children in abject poverty is, on its own, a grinding oppression, to say nothing of the immense barriers to the opportunity for decent lives later on for the children. These brutal facts are as nothing to the Pope: in his view the blight of too many pregnancies, too many children, infant mortality, starvation, disease, poverty and immiseration is all part of the deity's plan. For anyone who goes by evidence, if there is a deity, this suggests that it devotes its spare time to pulling wings off flies.

The Pope's attitude to sex is mainly informed by having to deal with child-abusing priests (latest reports say that in the US complaints against abusive priests rose to 800 in 2008: that's more than a dozen a week), which is why his advice to them – abstinence – seems to be the only thing he can think to suggest to everyone else, and most of all as a guard against HIV infection. Plenty of people lack insight into the deep imperatives of human nature, so let us not blame the Pope for adding this particular deficit to his already rich repertoire of them: but let us ask whether a marrying clergy might not be part of the solution to sexually abusing priests, if there has to be a clergy at all. Best of all as a policy for the Pope and his church on matters of sex might be silence. To adapt Wittgenstein, "Wherof you know nothing, shut up."

The chief point is that Vatican policy on contraception is in every sense a hideous crime against humanity and ought to be treated as such.

And that takes us back to the OIC. The OIC dislikes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for the very good reason that religion, not excluding their version of it, is a systematic violator of human rights, not least the rights of women – who are one half of the world, a fact the OIC does not notice, or if it does it applies religious arithmetic to solve the problem: one woman is worth half a man. The OIC is trying to change the Universal Declaration of Human Rights accordingly.

It has introduced its own version of "(Hu)Man Rights": it is an instructive read, and illustrates the importance of abating the nuisance of religion in today's world. How is this to be done consistently with the right to believe stupid things? By entrenching, and making effective, the principle that whereas you can believe as many stupid things as you like, you are not free to act on those beliefs in ways that harm others.

HERE are some GREAT podcast for those interested in sharpening their skeptical wit. You would do well do listen to the interview of Donald Prothero, "05/27/2008 Skepticality #078 - What the Fossils Say, and Why it Matters - Interview: Dr. Donald R. Prothero"

What would you not do with god on your side?

Is god the maker of evil?

What is your top ten bible stories you will NEVER hear preached in church by the pastors and why do you think they will never be preach?


AND/OR


What is the pastor's favourite bible stories/verses also preached and why are they also preached?

You can start by listening to [url=http://www.reasonworks.com/BS%20Your%20Parents%20Never%20Taught%20You.html] this [/url]

Was Nazareth a town at the time of Jesus? Was this Jesus's home town? What this and decide. Also check out this site

Listen to him here

It like this

mantraa:
"We are all born Atheists.
Some people are unknowingly and forcibly converted to theism.
Later, some of us find the strength to de-convert."

This time last year i used to be a tithe paying Christian. Now thanks to many of the posters on this board such as Huxley, yourself and others I can see things more clearly now. The process of deconverting is a slow and painful one due to the years of brainwashing from a very early age. I started questioning my beliefs a few years ago and can now see the role that religion has played in the evolution of our species over the last 10000 years and it is all starting to make a lot more sense to include all faiths in this phenomenon that is religion.
Millions of people love their God/s more than they love themselves, their own family, or humanity itself. This is mass delusion on enormous scale with each faith living in their own little perfect bubble thinking that if everyone shared their belief the world would be a better place.
If you are honest you will Know this is never going to happen. We all need to wake up and start thinking rationally. This world is a for all people.

Watch this same girls moving story of her de-conversion from out of the Mormon church

A "Deconversion". part1 - Driving guilt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QByBuY1Bfns&feature=PlayList&p=DE52DFBD1992B2A9&index=0

A "Deconversion": Part II, The Evolution of Thought

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fap3y2T1p1E&feature=PlayList&p=DE52DFBD1992B2A9&index=1

A "Deconversion": Part III, Sexism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4SKhHwapFc&feature=PlayList&p=DE52DFBD1992B2A9&index=2

A "Deconversion": Part IV, A Child's Testimony

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw3Y9qGOHLU&feature=PlayList&p=DE52DFBD1992B2A9&index=3

respects

Many thankx for this. Those videos were very instructive. Am also really touched to learn that my post have help you "see the light". That makes all my effort all the more worthwhile. Many thankz

You see how religion can make some people delusional and crazy.

Bobbyaf:
I am not sure most of you will agree with me that one of the most misunderstood topics in the bible is the Old and New Covenants. Nearly most have been taught that the old covenant was the 10 commandment law, and that the new covenant contains only grace and promises, but no law.

Hence it is argued that because the old covenant has been abolished, God's law has also been abolished. This teaching should naturally lead one to stop and think for awhile, if one is really concerned about the tone of such teachings, because it naturally leads one to think that the law of God was harsh, cruel, and enslaving - that the fault of the Old Covenant was with the law. I'd just like to ask who gave the law? Did a perfect God prescribe the law? Did He anticipate any unforeseen issues surrounding the covenant? Who do we blame for the apparent issues? Well, let us see.

Before I proceed further though, I'd like anyone to define what exactly the Old Covenant was. This will be the basis for further discussions.








I'd like for us to take a good look at what exactly defines both.

Why is it the task of humans to come up with a definition of what the old/new covenants are? Why did god leave such things in such a state that they could be easily conflated?


By the way, this is what your god said, in 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.

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.

What does this say about the doctrine of old/new covenants?

Bobbyaf:
Who or what told you that they were a replacement?

Says who! By the way why are you so hot tempered and ill-mannered and at the same time concerned? Your insults and disrespect betray your ulterior motives.

I am not surprised you asked this question as your are typical of the 99.9% of Christians who never read their bible. Now, let's look at what Exodus 34 really says:

Exodus 34


1
The LORD said to Moses, "Cut two stone tablets like the former, that I may write on them the commandments which were on the former tablets that you broke.
2
Get ready for tomorrow morning, when you are to go up Mount Sinai and there present yourself to me on the top of the mountain.
3
No one shall come up with you, and no one is even to be seen on any part of the mountain; even the flocks and the herds are not to go grazing toward this mountain."
4
Moses then cut two stone tablets like the former, and early the next morning he went up Mount Sinai as the LORD had commanded him, taking along the two stone tablets.
5
Having come down in a cloud, the LORD stood with him there and proclaimed his name, "LORD."
6
Thus the LORD passed before him and cried out, "The LORD, the LORD, a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger and rich in kindness and fidelity,
7
continuing his kindness for a thousand generations, and forgiving wickedness and crime and sin; yet not declaring the guilty guiltless, but punishing children and grandchildren to the third and fourth generation for their fathers' wickedness!"
8
Moses at once bowed down to the ground in worship.


There we go! What do you make of this? Is this NOT in your stinky bible?


I am now begining to understand why christians don't read their bibles. I think it is because by burying their heads in the cesspit of the bible, the stench and darkness therein prevents them from seeing the text. You can always tell a Christian who has had their head in this stench and darkness from the ignorance and imbecility the spout out. In your case, you are either stupid or ignorant or deluded OR stupid and ignorant and deluded.

Bobbyaf:
The 4th commandment was never ceremonial in nature since it was meant to be eternal. If the whole law of 10 was meant to be eternal, then how can one of its tenets be ceremonial?

Listen to what Isaiah said of the sabbath, "22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD."

The sabbath was made for man (mankind) from the very beginning according to Jesus, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath, " Mark 2:27

Who was the first man? Adam of course! Is it any wonder that God from the very beginning sanctified the day for the first family? It would be ridiculous for God to have sanctified a day, and made it holy, at that moment in time, and then passed on that sanctity some 3000 years after creation. So in other words, the purpose of the sabbath of commemorating God's act of creation was put on hold for the first family. They, it seemed had no part, or parcel in being active participants of such a commemoration. How ridiculous!

The decalogue was not the contract. It was the basis of the contract. Without it there could have been no contract, period.

Unless of course you're not aware that the sabbath was still being kept by God's people in the NT. Let me share some instances where it was kept.

Jesus our example took part in sabbath services- "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read." Luke 4:16.

Paul who is often quoted as introducing Sunday did the very opposite - "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures." Acts 17:2

"And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither." Acts 16:13.

"And he [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:4.

Apostles taught it:
"And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath." "And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Acts 13:42, 44, emphasis added.

"And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:4.

Now you show me instances where Paul met on Sundays to teach the people, whether they were gentiles, or Jewish converts to Christianity, as I have shown you above, that the sabbath was still regarded as a holy day for all, and not just the Jews. Remember I told you what Jesus suggested to His disciples before the AD70 Jerusalem destruction in Matthew 24. He suggested that they pray that their journey or flight wouldn't be on the sabbath, or during winter. Now if Jesus anticipated that Sunday would have been introduced as a basis for the New Covenant, then why in heaven's name would He show concern for the sabbath, some 40 years after He spoke those words to them? I am all ears bro!


That is not we are called to prove. Unless of course you haven't grasped the reasons why He had to say those things about the sabbath. The Jewish leaders had adapted a-saved-by-works approach to the law, and that also reflected on how they viewed the sabbath. They had a twisted view of it, and not even Christ's acts of good on such a day inspired them to change their view. The fact that Christ spoke the way He did, doesn't in any way reflect negatively on its purpose. If anything He demonstrated how the day should be kept.


He never had to! There was already one established day that He Himself kept as a custom. (see Luke 4:16)

And still you're never able to show that reality from scriptures. Until you're able to do it honestly, then save yourself the agony. Besides, important events in and of themselves cannot make a day holy, unless God gives a distinct instruction to do so. There has been only one case on the matter, and that was when He sanctified the 7th-day sabbath.


The 7th-day sabbath is not a Jewish institution. It pre-dated the Hebrew people. Remember it was made for mankind according to Jesus in Mark 2:27. Concerning the covenant, if the law was the basis of the covenant, then the sabbath command, being apart of the 10, is also tied into the same covenant.

There were different types of covenants before the Mosaic one. How do you explain what was said about Abraham that , "5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." Genesis 26:5

So, if Abraham preceded Moses, and kept what Moses passed on to the children of Israel, then obviously your understanding of Deuteronomy 5:2-3 is twisted. Was Abraham a forefather to Moses? You bet he was. What Moses was saying, which has evaded you, was that that particular experience under which He delivered the covenant was far different than any other had seen or experienced.

Didn't I explain this to you earlier? You either seem to have short memory, or you are in denial of truth. There are two reasons why God re-introduced the sabbath, yes re-introduced. Exudus 16 proves that reality. For some strange reason you seem to harp on a phrase that you simply do not understand. How would you explain this:

In Deuteronomy 24:17, 18, God said, "Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow's raiment to pledge. , Thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing." Here God gives another reason that acts as a reminder that He God removed them from bondage. Neither the command to be just, nor to keep the Sabbath was given to memorialize the Exodus, but God told them that His goodness in bringing them out of captivity constituted a strong additional reason for their dealing kindly with their servants on the Sabbath and treating justly the strangers and widows.

So any attempt to affix a central motif for God to have given them the sabbath command spells intellectual dishonesty, if equal weight is not given to the most important reasons as recorded in Exudus 20:8-11.

The sabbath preceded sin, and cannot be seen as a shadow, or ceremonial. Both institutions of marriage and the sabbath, were handed down to mankind before sin. The law of ceremonies began with Cain and Abel when both were instructed to sacrifice a burnt offering as a representation of the lamb of God. Moses simply revised it after God's people were delivered. Col. 2:14-17 simply spoke of the ceremonial sabbaths which were many. Those had nothing to do with the creation sabbath.

So if there was no moral obligation to keep it then why was it commanded to be kept holy? We might as well argue the case of the forbidden fruit in the garden. There wasn't anything wrong with the fruit was there? What went wrong was that they disobeyed. Can the sabbath command be disobeyed? Isn't it immoral to disobey God?

And isn't it strange how Isaiah predicted that it would be kept in the earth made new? (see Isaiah. 60:22,23)

The only difference is that we have written in our hearts God's perfect law, and God's Holy Spirit to empower us to do that which is right. (see Jeremiah 31)

Jesus Himself promised that until heaven and earth pass, not one title or jot shall pass from the law. Has heaven and earth already passed? When last have you taken a look towards heaven? (see Matthew 5:16-17)

The rest of your responses I will ignore for lack of newness.

Why are you not discussing the commandments given in Exodus 34, which afterall are the replacements of those in Exodus 20. It amounts to intellectual dishonesty to refuse to address this fact and bury your head in the cesspit of the bible, leaving your stinking bible arse out in the air infecting the public. These are the commandments you should be addressing:

1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).

2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn.

4. All the first-born are mine.

5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest.

6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.

8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning.

9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.

10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.



Address them!!

Which of the 10 commandments should one seek to understand?

Any real honest takers for these questions yet?

todak:
Hello, let me ask you this question, which do you value most, a human life or that of a pig. Please If that possesed man happened to be someone close to you, and he was delievered. I would not think you would refer to that in the bible. Please what has Jesus Christ done to us that we do not have any other work to do than to look for faults in him. He came He saw, He impacted, and he conquered. He wil neve ever be forgotten, while you go about seeking for fault instead of making your own life a blessing to your generation. I advise you study your bible for better understanding and relationship with God than searching for faults.

Why did Jesus have to send the demons into the herd of pigs?   Could he not have simply killed the demons?  Isn't he God who has all the power to do whatever good and evil he decides to do.   Could he not have simply spared the pigs and killed the demons.  Why cause suffering to innocent animals?

Would you treat animals like this  if you had the alternative of not hurting them at all?

0thello:
LoL I think me and you are going to get on quite well huxley.

You should check out Aronras foundational falsehoods of creationism. Or CRaP debunked.

Donexodus2 is also very good.

Hello 0thello,

I very much hope we do get on. In this world replete with superstitious irrationalism, it is hard to find people with whom one can fraternise in a truly honest and enlightened manner.

Yes, I am also familiar with Aronra and his work. And I know CraP debunked as AndromedasWake, and he too is a great presenter of scientific criticism of creationism. Donexodus2 is also a very good debunked of creationism.

Here are others you may find interesting:

2) Potholer54

2) Pat Condell

2) AgnosticMan77 Pfor

2) ProfMTH

2) Stefbot

2) Cristofer7

2) cdk007

2) CaptainGhoul


I hope you find something useful in the above. Tell me a bit about yourself- where are you based and how did you come to disbelieve the claim of the religionist?

0thello:
Well Atheism in popular vernacular is just a lack of belief.

I don't like the term Atheism because it labels me of what I am NOT rather than what I am.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0zSCpsOSSw

Nice to see you posted a link to Thounderfoot's video. I like to watch his video and he is a real advocate of scientific rationalism and a thorn in the flesh of the creationists.

Pastor AIO:
You know I just had to look in this thread. I wonder how many others won't be able to resist opening it.

Anyway, I only saw the first video just now and I think what he is saying is very interesting. It seems to me that he is saying that the whole issue is itself idiotic. There is a saying: Don't argue with a fool, people might not tell the difference.

I'll have to listen to it again properly when I have time and then make a proper commentary.

Nice to know you watch one of the videos. I know of another video that presents the question of God's ontology in very clear terms. Here is it .

Looking forward to your comments.

beat you wife?  And how are you to execute the beating?  With a stick, belt, bear hands, electric shock, etc, etc. Watch a muslim beating his wife the islamic way in this video .

0thello:
Well all though I can only take the bible qith a grain of salt Jesus was "documented2 to have felt anger towards people (physically assaulting them even) wasn't Jesus the same a**hole who said if you feel anger towards someone you have murdered them in your heart?

Meh I may remember incorrectly but he also showed a great deal of contempt for his parents efforts in locating him when he was 12 years old. As far as I'm concerned Jesus is not only capable of sin but stupidity too.

I dealt with some of these issues in this thread . He Jesus lived today he would be consider a most reprehensible character and would be sequestered in a place for the mentally disturbed and dangerous. Just think about some of the things he is said to have said:

1) Abandoning ones family
2) Setting father against son and mother against daugther
3) Smaashing the heads of little ones against a rock
4) Enemies to be put to the sword
5) Self mutilation
6) Surrendering to ones aggressors
7) Not planning for tomorrow
etc, etc.

Do these look like the views of a sane man?

Anyone thought of any more sins(crimes) of Jesus?

spikedcylinder:
Are there no churches in Cameroon?

You bet there are, but I suppose in Nigeria Christian churches and evangelism has reached a new dimension not seen anywhere else in africa. I have not been back in Cameroon for many years but I understand from friend who have been recently that almost every other house in some streets is a church. Further, the big Nigeria fraudsters evangelical movements have TV programmes that reach right across the world, which is something I don't think the Cameroon fraudster minister have not yet managed to do.

I hear that most households in Cameroon typically spent 5 - 8 hours daily watching these broadcast from the big ministries, a la Pastor Chris, TB Joshua, Adeboye, et al. In fact, one of the reasons I have not visited Cameroon, where I was born, for more than 10 years, is that I find the overbearing supernaturalism of the people insufferable. The last time I was there, I felt like I had been caught in "hell". Everybody spoke in terms of god, Jesus, breakthroughs, salvation, healings, etc, etc.

Pastor AIO:
Huxley, the day you stop contributing to Nairaland is possibly the day I'll lose interest.  Where have you been all day man? 

Please keep us informed as to what happens to your brother.  Cheers.

Hello Pastor,

Thnz for those kind words.  I have been very busy lately and had some very pressing deadlines at work so have not been able to contribute daily.

Although I had been aware of TB Joshua, I had never really taken any interest in him until today, upon receiving this shoking news from my brother.  Since then I have been doing some research about the Joshua character and have watch a few videos of him on YouTube.

My brother seems to expect Joshua to single him out from the crowd of people for special "treatment". Let's see if that happens!

davidylan:
How much is TB charging and for what?

Don't know, but I suppose all of the "miracles" at the Synagogue don't come cheap. You pay for it one way or the other. I suppose they will be staying in hotels on site owned by Joshua, refreshing at his restaurants, etc, etc, etc.

davidylan:
Tell your brother "God" probably doesnt exist.

As if I need to say that. They have known my fews about their non-existent grand daddy for many years now.