₦airaland Forum

Paulipopo,

I have enjoyed reading most of your post on this thread and mus commend the effort and zeal you have displayed in not only understand this "business" of religion, but also exposing it as the exploitative charlatanry that it is.

It must be galling and heart-rending to a follower of any of these ministries, the likes of which you have so eloquently described, to read your post and see the veil slowly but sure lift from their eyes.  That would be the sensible ones, of whom they are the minority.

The majority will protest, calumnise, throw tantrums, accuse you of ulterior motives, castigate you personally, etc, etc.  These will be those in denial and upon learning the TRUTH will turn around and point fingers at the bearer of such TRUTH.

More grease to the old elbows and Keep it up.

Our scientists must nail the creationists
by Robin McKie, The Observer

Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/14/evolution.religion

There are two ways of reacting to the Royal Society's claim that its education director Michael Reiss was misrepresented in reports alleging he thought creationism should be taught in science classrooms. Either journalists got it wrong or Reiss - an ordained Church of England clergyman - did indeed suggest religious dogma be mixed with science teaching. I tend very much to the latter view.

As Sir Harry Kroto, a society fellow, and a Nobel prize winner, pointed out in a letter to the Royal Society, Reiss was an accident waiting to happen: 'I warned the president , that his was a dangerous appointment. I did not realise just how dangerous it would turn out to be.'

Now the society has been caught out, though in the short term it may ride out the current controversy. In the wake of Reiss's remarks, most commentaries have focused, quite reasonably, on the issue of how science and religion should be taught at school. At the same time, the Royal Society has rushed to assure scientists that it still believes creationism has no place in school laboratories.

There is a second, more important issue at stake, however. How should the Royal Society, the world's oldest and most prestigious scientific organisation, treat religion within the confines of its own headquarters?

Science and religion do mix, though the combination is often volatile - the reaction often depending, intriguingly, on the discipline studied by a particular researcher, according to Sir Tim Hunt, winner of the 2001 Nobel prize for medicine. 'Cosmologists and physicists dwell on cosmic forces which - if altered only slightly - would prevent many chemical reactions, and life, from occurring. The sheer improbability of our universe makes them all a bit spiritual and soft on religion. By contrast, biologists see evolution constantly at work in their research and are more hard-nosed about God.'

The idea is not without exceptions, of course. Hunt, a biologist, is scarcely hardline about Reiss's creationism call, for example. 'I am not worried about this one, though I am definitely anti-religious.'

But if he is unworried about God getting a foot in the Royal Society's door, many other fellows find recent developments troubling. Scientists such as Kroto, Sir Richard Roberts (another UK Nobel winner), and Richard Dawkins look with horror upon the spread of faith schools; the growing influence of bodies such as the Templeton Foundation, a conservative US organisation which constantly seeks to establish links between science and religion; and the prospect of creationism being taught in Britain's science classrooms. They expect the Royal Society to take a tough stand on these issues.

Many of their fears are based on their American experiences, it should be noted. Kroto and Richards now work there while Dawkins is a frequent visitor on the US lecture circuit. And what they see in America unnerves them: school science teachers who firmly believe the world and humanity are the 6,000-year-old handiwork of God and who cannot accept what DNA tells us about our close relationships with the animal world, what isotope research reveals about the deep antiquity of our planet, what astronomical studies tell us about the size and age of the universe; and what fossils reveal about our own species' multimillion-year lineage. The prospect of such ignorance spreading to Britain quite rightly appals them.

'I don't know if it is too late to stop the slide in Britain but I think it is in the US where they [the religious right] have now almost complete control over politics, the judiciary, education, business, journalism and television,' says Kroto. 'And it will only take a presidential victory by McCain, followed by him having a heart attack weeks later, and Sarah Palin, a creationist supporter, will become head of the world's most powerful country.'

It is the duty of scientists to fight such onslaughts and be examples of rationality in a darkening world, it is argued. Hence the anger at the Royal Society for failing to firmly nail its colours to its mast. The organisation has a motto: 'Nullius in verba' (roughly, 'Take nobody's word for it'). In other words, verify everything by experiment and think for yourself. Both are noble aspirations. It is therefore baffling how an ordained minister - a man committed to believing the word of God without question - could have been asked to play a senior role in the society. Equally, the society's acceptance of money from the Templeton Foundation raises further concerns.

The Royal Society - which should set the fiercest of examples in its commitment to rationality - has shown worrying signs of spiritual sloppiness. (Its current president, Lord Rees, is a cosmologist who attends church 'as an unbelieving Anglican', it should be noted.) Those of a religious persuasion might welcome this softening. I would sound a note of caution, however. Britain is still a broadly secular society which guarantees freedoms not just to atheists but to all religions, no matter how few its adherents. If we follow the example of America then all are threatened by the rise of a powerful Christian right.

We badly need our premier scientific society to stand firm and present a clear vision of how our planet, our species, and the cosmos came into existence. It needs to be unequivocal about the wonders of nature as revealed through rational, scientific investigation. As Douglas Adams put it: 'Isn't enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it too?'

Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution
by Telegraph

Reposted from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/2910447/Charles-Darwin-to-receive-apology-from-the-Church-of-England-for-rejecting-evolution.html

The Church of England is to apologise to Charles Darwin for its initial rejection of his theories, nearly 150 years after he published his most famous work.

By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:06AM BST 14 Sep 2008

The Church of England will concede in a statement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas. It will call "anti-evolutionary fervour" an "indictment" on the Church".

The bold move is certain to dismay sections of the Church that believe in creationism and regard Darwin's views as directly opposed to traditional Christian teaching.

The apology, which has been written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the Church's director of mission and public affairs, says that Christians, in their response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo's astronomy in the 17th century.

"The statement will read: Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."

Opposition to evolutionary theories is still "a litmus test of faithfulness" for some Christian movements, the Church will admit. It will say that such attitudes owe much to a fear of perceived threats to Christianity.

The comments are included on a Church of England website promoting the views of Charles Darwin to be launched on Monday.

Know your position,


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

Enjoy

simmy:
@huxely
so teaching kids at school about evolution isnt brain washing?
telling kids that its ok to be gay isnt brainwashing?
telling your kids huxley, that God (or in your case god) doesnt exist isnt brainwashing?

u atheists are pathetic.

Is teaching kids at schools about gravity, electricity, germ theory, plate tectonic brainwashing?

davidylan:
This is an incredulous question. Read earlier parts of Luke, it is clear Luke knew who Jesus was.

With repect, I think you mis-read my question. I was asking whether John the Baptist (NOT Luke) recognised Jesus?

Was anyone tempted by god today?

What became of John the Baptist's disciples? Did they become followers of JC and also write "gospels"?

Homosexuality is alien to Nigerian much like Christianity or Islam is alien to Nigeria

One's sexual preference is entirely their concern. Just as a heterosexual might prefer a partner with brown eyes, which is entirely natural, a homosexual is "prefers" someone of the same sex.

Even if homosexuality turns out to be a learned behaviour, rather than biologically determined, such homosexual should have the right to freely exercise their preference, as long as consent is given by all concern.

Other great YouTube channels are;

JohnLArmstrong
ExtantDodo
kalsolarUK
holysinecure
OccamKant
potholer54
RabidApe
SpiritualAtheist
Thunderf00t
thatgaybloke
variablast
Cristofer7
Crosisborg
DonExodus2
AronRa
agnosticman77
shanedk
TheoreticalBullshit
RayWilliamJohnson

Enjoy

bawomolo:
ProfMTH on youtube is funny too

I agree. Am a big fan and have learnt a great deal from him about biblical analysis. For more cutting edge stuff, check out Pat Condell.

rampagain:
LMAO where is huxley and co?

Hello, am here. Have been a subscriber of EdwardCurrent for many months for and have enjoy his satirical take of the religions debate.

Cayon:
Huxley:

Read my third para and read what you copied.  you thoughts please. Thanks

I have to read later as i have to go

Peace

The essential thrust of slavery then is more/less the same today - the forceful restricting of another's free (usually on pain of death).  This usually entails a monetary transaction in which the slave is taken in exchange for money.  Slave could also be obtained as spoils of wars.  Whichever way they are obtained, they lose their freedom and in many cases their offsprings also lose their freedom to the slave master.

The OT describes this form of slavery in great details, even talking about their lack of rights of inheritance, what recourse to law were available to them, etc.  It basically defined them as the "properties of their master".

As to the subject of willing submitting to "slavery", no where is this recorded in the bible as "slavery", to my knowledge.  I would like to be corrected on this.  In fact consider the folowing;

Leviticus 25:39 " If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave".

So indentured labourers were NOT to be taken as slaves.

Cayon:
Yes, its true that all Christian religions broke off from Catholic Christianity. However, please don't compare Catholic with other Christianity religion. You see we may share some of the same basic religion however Catholics add in little things that are not in the bible that I see as sinful or as you say double standards. Mary and the saints are not worthy of the adoration, God is. And the priests are not in any manner our father.

If Catholics are now accepting Homosexuality that only shows how much they are separating from the original beliefs of the church. Homosexuality is a sin. God made women and men so they can reproduce him more followers. However, as a Christian, we need to love people who are "gay" but not their act. God destroyed Sodom and Gemorrah for this very thing "homosexuality". Read the old testament Lev.18:22 and New testament - Jude 1:but focus on verses 6, 7,8

7) "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh(same sex) are exhibited as an example in under going the punishment of eternal fire"
Yet in the same manner these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile anglic majesties

Yes, the Bible mentions slavery and protections for "slaves". Notice i quote "slaves" because slavery in the bible is different to today's slavery. Slavery in the Bible is more like indentured servants. (Today we call them live-in maids) Slavery in the old testament was a volountary act by the slave if they couldn't afford living expenses. They would submit themselves to be slaves in exchange for food, shelter, etc. When their time was up they could choose to go or stay. Many stayed in gratitude to their master. The Bible (Jesus) teaches how "slaves" should be treated and how slaves should respect their master. One man (pharoah) took "slavery" to another level we all know that God redeemed the Israelites from 4oo years of slavery in egypt

On another note, although modern day slavery wasn't started by Christians, Christians have worked hard for the abolition of slavery. No other religion stood up against slavery instead they sit back and criticize the scriptures and the people who were/are doing the work to get rid of slavery.

Peace

You may benefit from really reading you bible about slavery. Here we go;

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)




Where in all these is the sort of slavery you described? I see no condemnation of this barbaric practice nowhere in the bible?

How else would you expect the church to grow and belief in god to persist if the apologists of god did not use deception, calumnies, frauds and downright lies to promote their cause and of course, their own personal goals. This behaviour is nothing new. It dates backs to the very start of the christian movement and is even documented in the bible. So what you are see in Nigeria is nothing new. In fact, that is essentially how the Catholic church grew to be so wealthy.

I could say I have sympathy for the ignorant and gullible people they fleece to amass such wealth, but I can't. In these day and age, with all the means of education and access to rationalism and skepticism, people who are thus exploited deserve to be.

In fact, any crooked pastor worth his crooked salt should really not be in the business of pastoring if he cannot take advantage of the vast pool of the gullible, and particularly so in Nigeria. The gullible will continue to think that their pastor is doing the work of god, while their pockets are emptied of their hard-earned and usually meagre wealth, and at the same time instill fear and superstition into their minds.

Ecrasez L'infame -

CGKing:
I really think the poster lacks accurate understanding of how God works and
what the intent of the message in the link he provided is. And as I have always
said, your message is just as misleading as the messages you are attempting to
discredit because the source and authority that backs up your argument is your mind.
However, even though not well put, i can see where the writers of Rhapsody of Realities
are coming from.

Even if the poster cannot read the bible, at least one would have expected you pose
questions to the authors of that website, and then let the world benefit from your reall
findings and not your personal opinion.

You have only done what any ordinary mind would have done: except for the creative packaging, you have just
fed everyone with more gossip.

To say this implies that you know how god works, correct? Is so, we would be much obliged if you could inform us how he works.

Well, have you read your bible? If you had you might have come across Paul admonishing women about their decorum as Christians and as church-goers, 1 Timothy 2: 9;

Women, for their part, should display their beauty by dressing modestly and decently in appropriate clothes, not by braiding their hair or by wearing gold, pearls, or expensive clothes,

If this is good for the woman, I suppose it is also good for the man.

Further, was it not Paul who cautioned men about adopting effeminate ways? As an exercise, I urge you to seek out the chapter & verse of Paul's message.

A_K_O:
They are little children. Do you think God would be angry at them for doing what they can't understand yet?

they are being taught by adults

A_K_O:
It would be a valid argument that islam brainwashing is linked with 9/11. That is not a hate-statement, it is a statement of fact.

You havnt provided any recent examples of how this 'christian brain-washing' is a danger to society and civlisation.

in modern era, there's a numerous;

1- the ban on the use of condoms
2- the prevention of stem-cell research on christian grounds
3- the refusal of some christian to seek medical attention
4- the attempt to ban the teaching of some scientific subjects in schools.

etc
etc

does any of the above bode well for the future of civilisation?

I recently saw a video in which little christian kids were being taught amongst other things speaking in tongues.  I thought this was a "gift" of the spirit.  So is speaking in tongues a learnt skill or a gift?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac

Enjoy

and they even teach how to speak in tongues.  i could have burst myself laughing   

A_K_O:
I havnt heard anybody blame christianity for 9/11.

More importantly the youtube video has no direct links to 9/11.

my goodness. your thinking is all over the place. the problem discussed in the video is brainwashing and religoius indoctrination. the xians do it as much as the muslims. in boths cases, it is a danger to society and civilisation.

A_K_O:
All your examples are in the past, waaay back then. How can you be whining about history today?

Where in the world is there hostility today?

9/11 was in the past, wasn't it.

A_K_O:
And how does that make things worse?

what the hell is this? you wanted examples of christian barbarism and savagery and i gave them to you. is that the best response you can muster?

how about the burning of Geordano Bruno, the silencing and imprisonment Galileo, the burning of Servetus by Calvin?

A_K_O:
Please give specific examples of how christianity (not religion) have caused all these.

What did christianity have to do with 9/11?

Otherwise I'm inclined to think that this is another baseless attack on christianity that will be dealt with shortly.

are you saying you are unfamiliar with the christian sponsored witchhunts?

check this out:

The hostility to women reached its peak in the witch-hunts. The biblical justification: Exodus 22:18, "Thou shall not permit a sorceress to live.

Deuteronomy 18:10, "There shall not be among you a witch." Galatians 5:19

The first witch trial by the Inquisition was in 1234 near Treves. The last witch was drowned 600 years later in 1836 near Danzig. (no doubt there were top level theological debates whether burning or drowning better saved souls.)

The real existence of devils, demons and evil spirits was presupposed in all the gospels and Paul: Luke 7:21, 8:2, Acts 19:12ff, Mark 3:14,15 "and he appointed twelve (disciples) and to have authority to cast out demons". At baptism, evil spirits are driven out in the name of Christ.

Aquinas taught that storms etc were caused by demons and Luther warned (1529) against bathing in lakes and rivers because the devil lived in them.

The 1484 Witches Bull by Pope Innocent 8th made the denial of the reality of witches heretical. Legal infallibility and irrefutability.

Witches had taken an oath to renounce Christ and give their souls to the Devil. Satan rewarded them with the power of magic. The Devil could make himself invisible to all but witches. More irrefutability like the invisible, in principle unobservable, fairies at the bottom of the garden or the invisible gremlins which cause radios to break down.

Witches were the cause of men becoming impotent, women infertile, miscarriages, bad harvests, cattle deaths, plagues, illness, storms etc. Ideal scapegoats for everything.

A_K_O:
What are the dangers to society (if any) of this so called brainwashing?

Lynching, witchhunts, inquisitions, bigotry, crashing planes into buildings, mental retardations, etc, etc, Need I say more?

davidylan:
Frizy, how can the myth lie in the same bible you quote to validate your false doctrine? Is someone confused here?
you quote the same bible to prove Mohammad was the paraclete and suddenly it has become a myth? does that mean that Mohammad's alleged "prophecy" in the bible is a myth too?

when you lie, the best you can do is try to do so consistently.

What the hell is davidylan doing here calling the Moslems to rights? Should we just leave people to their religions no matter how deluded their beliefs might be?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac

Enjoy