₦airaland Forum

davidylan:
You were complaining about the title being misleading because it says "islam kills again". According to you . . . these animals are not necessarily muslims but merely using islam as a cloak for their nefarious activities.

But thou hypocrite . . .

the OP didnt even label himself a christian . . . he could be an atheist for all we know, so how come you are now berating christianity and what Christ taught us? What has that to do with the FACT that hundreds are dead because of animals who invoke islam?

Can a muslim think without christianity?

This is the height of double hypocrisy for a self-declared atheist-detesting Christian, isn't it?

Do you guys realise that this thread is not about the trinity, not about whether Jesus is God. But it is about whether any human with a great belief in Jesus could do greater things than Jesus.

Jesus said that any who believes in him would be able to do greater things than he could do?

John 11

11Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

12Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

13And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.




Is it really possible for a human to do greater things than God?  What are such greater things that a believer could do that God cannot do?

What is the greatest thing that Jesus/God did? Do you thing that you could surpass that if your have a deep level of believe?

[size=18pt]Are you a Christian?  Do you DETEST atheists? [/size]


One prominent NL Christian, Davidylan, makes no secrets about his detest for atheist.  If this it is true that he detests atheist, then this most be the pinnacle of hypocricy, unless he is not familiar with the supposed messages of love from Jesus.

Are you like Davidylan?  Do you also detest atheists?  Would you socialise or fratenise with atheist?

Here is something that God cannot do - God cannot drive out an army that has iron chariots:

Judges 1:

17 And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And the name of the city was called Hormah.

18 Also Judah took Gaza with the coast thereof, and Askelon with the coast thereof, and Ekron with the coast thereof.

19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; [size=18pt]but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron[/size].

20 And they gave Hebron unto Caleb, as Moses said: and he expelled thence the three sons of Anak.

21 And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day.


Blessed be god and his bible!

davidylan:
[size=18pt]I once used to detest the atheists on this forum . . . [/size]but with time i have come to realise one thing . . . i would rather have them than the multitudes of "christians" parading our churches today.

When 40% of Joel Osteen's TV viewership openly label themselves non-christian and 57% of those who attend Granger community church do not believe the bible as the final authority on the christian life then you know there is something desperately wrong with the modern church.

Showing yourself up again for the hypocrite you are, are you? How long have you been familiar with the supposed Jesus's message of love? Did you detest the atheists in NL in spite of this message?

[size=18pt]Do you love the atheist now ( as you love yourself)?[/size]

Watch here and here .

[size=18pt]Can an atheist be a fundamentalist?[/size]

Are there people who believe only somewhat that there are no supernatural entities in the universe - or only part of a god?



Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/may/03/cananatheistbeafundamenta


It is time to put to rest the mistakes and assumptions that lie behind a phrase used by some religious people when talking of those who are plain-spoken about their disbelief in any religious claims: the phrase "fundamentalist atheist". What would a non-fundamentalist atheist be? Would he be someone who believed only somewhat that there are no supernatural entities in the universe - perhaps that there is only part of a god (a divine foot, say, or buttock)? Or that gods exist only some of the time - say, Wednesdays and Saturdays? (That would not be so strange: for many unthinking quasi-theists, a god exists only on Sundays.) Or might it be that a non-fundamentalist atheist is one who does not mind that other people hold profoundly false and primitive beliefs about the universe, on the basis of which they have spent centuries mass-murdering other people who do not hold exactly the same false and primitive beliefs as themselves - and still do?

Christians, among other things, mean by "fundamentalist atheists" those who would deny people the comforts of faith (the old and lonely especially) and the companionship of a benign invisible protector in the dark night of the soul - and who (allegedly) fail to see the staggering beauty in art prompted by the inspirations of belief. Yet, in its bleeding-heart modern form, Christianity is a recent and highly modified version of what, for most of its history, has been an often violent and always oppressive ideology - think Crusades, torture, burnings at the stake, the enslavement of women to constantly repeated childbirth and undivorceable husbands, the warping of human sexuality, the use of fear (of hell's torments) as an instrument of control, and the horrific results of calumny against Judaism. Nowadays, by contrast, Christianity specialises in soft-focus mood music; its threats of hell, its demand for poverty and chastity, its doctrine that only the few will be saved and the many damned, have been shed, replaced by strummed guitars and saccharine smiles. It has reinvented itself so often, and with such breathtaking hypocrisy, in the interests of retaining its hold on the gullible, that a medieval monk who woke today, like Woody Allen's Sleeper, would not be able to recognise the faith that bears the same name as his own.

For example: vast Nigerian congregations are told that believing will ensure a high income - indeed they are told by Reverend X that they will be luckier and richer if they join his congregation than if they join that of Reverend Y. What happened to the eye of the needle? Oh well, granted: that tiny loophole was closed long ago. What then of "my kingdom is not of this world"? What of the blessedness of poverty and humility? The Church of England officially abolished Hell by an Act of Synod in the 1920s and St Paul's strictures on the place of women in church (which was that they are to sit at the back in silence, with heads covered) are now so far ignored that there are now women vicars, and there will soon be women bishops.

One does not have to venture as far as Nigeria to see the hypocrisies of reinvention at work. Rome will do, where the latest eternal verity to be abandoned is the doctrine of limbo - the place where the souls of unbaptised babies go. Meanwhile, some cardinals are floating the idea that condoms are acceptable, within marital relationships only of course, in countries with high incidences of HIV infection. This latter, which to anyone but an observant Catholic is not merely a plain piece of common sense but a humanitarian imperative, is an amazing development in its context. Sensible Catholics have for generations been ignoring the views on contraception held by reactionary old men in the Vatican, but alas, since it is the business of all religious doctrines to keep their votaries in a state of intellectual infancy (how else do they keep absurdities seeming credible?), insufficient numbers of Catholics have been able to be sensible. Look at Ireland until very recent times for an example of the misery Catholicism inflicts when it can.

"Intellectual infancy": the phrase reminds one that religions survive mainly because they brainwash the young. Three-quarters of Church of England schools are primary schools; all the faiths currently jostling for our tax money to run their "faith-based" schools know that if they do not proselytise intellectually defenceless three and four-year-olds, their grip will eventually loosen. Inculcating the various competing - competing, note - falsehoods of the major faiths into small children is a form of child abuse, and a scandal. Let us challenge religion to leave children alone until they are adults, whereupon they can be presented with the essentials of religion for mature consideration. For example: tell an averagely intelligent adult hitherto free of religious brainwashing that somewhere, invisibly, there is a being somewhat like us, with desires, interests, purposes, memories, and emotions of anger, love, vengefulness and jealousy, yet with the negation of such other of our failings as mortality, weakness, corporeality, visibility, limited knowledge and insight; and that this god magically impregnates a mortal woman, who then gives birth to a special being who performs various prodigious feats before departing for heaven. Take your pick of which version of this story to tell: let a King of Heaven impregnate - let's see - Danae or Io or Leda or the Virgin Mary (etc, etc) and let there be resulting heaven-destined progeny (Heracles, Castor and Pollux, Jesus, etc, etc) - or any of the other forms of exactly such tales in Babylonian, Egyptian and other mythologies - then ask which of them he wishes to believe. One can guarantee that such a person would say: none of them.

So, in order not to be a "fundamentalist" atheist, which of the absurdities connoted in the foregoing should an atheist temporise over? Should a "moderate atheist" be one who does not mind how many hundreds of millions of people have been deeply harmed by religion throughout history? Should he or she be one who chuckles indulgently at the antipathy of Sunni for Shia, Christian for Jew, Muslim for Hindu, and all of them for anyone who does not think the universe is controlled by invisible powers? Is an acceptable (to the faithful) atheist one who thinks it is reasonable for people to believe that the gods suspend the laws of nature occasionally in answer to personal prayers, or that to save someone's soul from further sin (especially the sin of heresy) it is in his own interests to be murdered?

As it happens, no atheist should call himself or herself one. The term already sells a pass to theists, because it invites debate on their ground. A more appropriate term is "naturalist", denoting one who takes it that the universe is a natural realm, governed by nature's laws. This properly implies that there is nothing supernatural in the universe - no fairies or goblins, angels, demons, gods or goddesses. Such might as well call themselves "a-fairyists" or "a-goblinists" as "atheists"; it would be every bit as meaningful or meaningless to do so. (Most people, though, forget that belief in fairies was widespread until the beginning of the 20th century; the church fought a long hard battle against this competitor superstition, and won, largely because - you guessed it - of the infant and primary church schools founded in the second half of the nineteenth century.)

By the same token, therefore, people with theistic beliefs should be called supernaturalists, and it can be left to them to attempt to refute the findings of physics, chemistry and the biological sciences in an effort to justify their alternative claim that the universe was created, and is run, by supernatural beings. Supernaturalists are fond of claiming that some irreligious people turn to prayer when in mortal danger, but naturalists can reply that supernaturalists typically repose great faith in science when they find themselves in (say) a hospital or an aeroplane - and with far greater frequency. But of course, as votaries of the view that everything is consistent with their beliefs - even apparent refutations of them - supernaturalists can claim that science itself is a gift of god, and thus justify doing so. But they should then remember Popper: "A theory that explains everything explains nothing."

In conclusion, it is worth pointing out an allied and characteristic bit of jesuitry employed by folk of faith. This is their attempt to describe naturalism (atheism) as itself a "religion". But, by definition, a religion is something centred upon belief in the existence of supernatural agencies or entities in the universe; and not merely in their existence, but in their interest in human beings on this planet; and not merely their interest, but their particularly detailed interest in what humans wear, what they eat, when they eat it, what they read or see, what they treat as clean and unclean, who they have sex with and how and when; and so for a multitude of other things, like making women invisible beneath enveloping clothing, or strapping little boxes to their foreheads, or iterating formulae by rote five times a day, and so endlessly forth; with threats of punishment for getting any of it wrong.

But naturalism (atheism) by definition does not premise such belief. Any view of the world that does not premise the existence of something supernatural is a philosophy, or a theory, or at worst an ideology. If it is either of the two first, at its best it proportions what it accepts to the evidence for accepting it, knows what would refute it, and stands ready to revise itself in the light of new evidence. This is the essence of science. It comes as no surprise that no wars have been fought, pogroms carried out, or burnings conducted at the stake, over rival theories in biology or astrophysics.

And one can grant that the word "fundamental" does after all apply to this: in the phrase "fundamentally sensible".

When was woman created? Was woman created outside of the six days of creation or within the six days of creation?

Jimmy - what a waste of a fine life. But who are you to dare criticise the Word of God?

[size=18pt]The words of God do not justify cruelty to women
Discrimination and abuse wrongly backed by doctrine are damaging society, argues the former US president
[/size]

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/12/jimmy-carter-womens-rights-equality

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status , " (Article 2, Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

I have been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world.

So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when th e convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service. This was in conflict with my belief - confirmed in the holy scriptures - that we are all equal in the eyes of God.

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. It is widespread. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths.

Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries. The male interpretations of religious texts and the way they interact with, and reinforce, traditional practices justify some of the most pervasive, persistent, flagrant and damaging examples of human rights abuses.

At their most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.

The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met.

In some Islamic nations, women are restricted in their movements, punished for permitting the exposure of an arm or ankle, deprived of education, prohibited from driving a car or competing with men for a job. If a woman is raped, she is often most severely punished as the guilty party in the crime.

The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in Britain and the United States. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day. It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for everyone in society. An educated woman has healthier children. She is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what she earns in her family.

It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. We need to challenge these self-serving and out-dated attitudes and practices - as we are seeing in Iran where women are at the forefront of the battle for democracy and freedom.

I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive area to challenge.

But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy - and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it.

The Elders have decided to draw particular attention to the responsibility of religious and traditional leaders in ensuring equality and human rights. We have recently published a statement that declares: "The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable."

We are calling on all leaders to challenge and change the harmful teachings and practices, no matter how ingrained, which justify discrimination against women. We ask, in particular, that leaders of all religions have the courage to acknowledge and emphasise the positive messages of dignity and equality that all the world's major faiths share.

Although not having training in religion or theology, I understand that the carefully selected verses found in the holy scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place - and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence - than eternal truths. Similar Biblical excerpts could be found to support the approval of slavery and the timid acquiescence to oppressive rulers.

At the same time, I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn't until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted holy scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

I know, too, that Billy Graham, one of the most widely respected and revered Christians during my lifetime, did not understand why women were prevented from being priests and preachers. He said: "Women preach all over the world. It doesn't bother me from my study of the scriptures."

The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter.

Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions - all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.

• Jimmy Carter was US president from 1977-81. The Elders are an independent group of eminent global leaders, brought together by Nelson Mandela, who offer their influence and experience to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity.

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq5TWTTPHF8&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

And more:

6
7
8
9
10
11

No less than 70% of former churches and places of worship form the medieval world are today run down, or used as nightclubs, bars, etc. Now, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

All the corrupt christians need do is ask for forgiveness after they have been corrupts. Then sit back and enjoy the fruits of their corruption. Did not god say that he will forgive anyone who repents of his sins?

God!!!, the bar of morality is really low when you are a Christians, no doubt Christian are so corruptible.

Pastor AIO:
It has never been my objective to convert anybody here to anything. I don't do conversions, God does. If he uses me for it in any capacity then so be it.

Here, Atheists do not need to make a mockery of religion because the so called adherents of the various religions are doing a very good job of making a mockery of themselves.

I argued tirelessly against Huxley that being religious does not mean lacking logical faculties. I argued and argued only to see the religious members of this forum demonstrate his case over and over again. How embarassing!!

The point is not whether atheists can agree with each other, or whether religious people can agree with each other. The point is whether people can articulate their arguments intelligently, and debate with civility.

I have discussed it elsewhere, so I shall only summarise it here. There are many varieties of the theist state of mind:

1) The very well educated, scientifically literate and minded and philosophical Christians who can appreciate both sides of the arguments. But is committed to theism for a number of reasons:

a) Cultural
b) Fear
etc, etc

These are the compartmentalised theists - whose minds and divided into two separate compartments; a theist side to house their superstitions and a rational, logical and scientific side for everything non-religious.

Examples of such are: Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris, many many other christian scientist, including our very own Pastor AIO.

2) There are the well educated but dishonest and disingenious types like Lee Strobel, William lane Craig, Pilgrim, Davidylan, etc.

3) There are the partially educated, dishonest, lazy and ignorant types like Neotic, and his ilks

4) There are the simpletons and deluded and ignorant

5) And there are the plain, bone-skulled ignorant of whom the majority of evangelical Christian make a big part.

I particularly like it when Christian tithers and non-tithers get into a fight. Brilliant. But in the past there have been many others:

Calvinist
Methodist
Lutherans
Anglicans
Catholics
Arians
etc, etc, etc.

These fights make for really juicy spectacle.

davidylan:
Partial list of millionaire false prophets fleecing the flock . . .

- Joyce Meyer
- Joel Osteen
- Mike Murdoch
- Pat Robertson
- Paul Crouch
- Oral Roberts
- Richard Roberts
- Benny Hinn
- Paula White
- T.D. Jakes
- Juanita Bynum
- Bishop Weeks
- Creflo Dollar
- Robert Tilton
- Kenneth Copeland
- Eddie Long
- Marylin Hickey
- Jesse Duplantis

This cannot be right. These people have millions of followers and admirers. They cannot ALL be being deluded, can they? How is it possible that these millions of people are being fooled by only this handful of ministers.

Great movie depiction of the Scopes' Trial, here

Watch it here .

doubleh:
Hello all nairalanders. I am new here(this is my first post) i want to thank the owners of the site for giving nigerians an opportunity to share their opinions

I have been going through a lot of the threads in the religion section and i notice the level of hate and anger, i dont know if i am being naive but we live in a world of about 7 billion people, surely not everyone will think alike, thats why no two people have the same set of fingerprints

@noetic/davidylan and co. u don't expect everyone to be christian do you?

@huxley/tudor and co. u also dont expect everyone to be an atheist, do you?

@abuzola/olabowale and co. u too dont tell me u also expect everyone to be a muslim?

all am saying is why cant we all respect each others believes (LIVE AND LET LIVE) its this same religious divide that has caused the generation of our fathers to fail yet we are still towing the same road, not everybody can believe what u believe!!thats why u have buddhist/hindus/ and a thousand other reliogs etc in other parts of the world,

by the way i was born christian but i have pretty much been a deist for about 4 years now though my family does not know!!!

so i want to here from you guys why cant we all stop all this bashing and blasting going back and forth, please dont turn this into another atheist vs christian/muslim thread , i just want a civil discussion,

No, I don't expect everyone to have the same beliefs, but I would prefer people to have essentially true beliefs rather than palpably false ones, such as the belief in the existence of the Abrahamic god.

Interesting to hear that your are a deist - I suppose by moving away from xianity you believe that xianity is false.? Would you prefer it if more people share your belief about the falsity of xianity?

Would you prefer it if more people believed that the sun rotates around the earth?

human Free-will after the 2nd Coming, when all the saved ones will have been raptured into his new kingdom? Are all the saved going to be zombies without free-will?

According to Christian doctrine, free-will is at the centre of the origin of sin into the world. So to obviate the possibility of sin in the new world, God is necessarily obligated to eliminate free-will, having learnt just how dangerous free-will has been in his first attempt at creating a world. If god does not eliminate free-will, what is to stop the whole process of free-will, sinning and salvation repeating itself all over again ad infinitum?  If god can do this in his new world (ie eliminate free-will), why did he not do it when he created this world?

So, as a Christian, would you like to live in a world without free-will?

Beaf:
Apart from Abraham (likely of Sumerian not Jewish origin), are they really Jewish names?
I haven't seen any present day oyimbo answering Abraham who isn't Jewish.

All the other names you mentioned aren't Jewish:
James is Latin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_(name) - derived from Hebrew Jacob
Peter is Latin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_(first_name)
Paul is Latin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_(name)

Latin names were prevalent in pre-Christian Judea because of colonial mentality (they were under Roman occupation). Modern Isreali Jews don't answer these names.

Well, this may be latin but their origin is Jewish. They have simply been latinised or anglised.

How about names like David, Solomon, Joshua, Ruth, Sarah, Ester, Jonas, Ephraim, etc, etc, etc

You seem to miss the whole point and are focusing on specifics. The point is that cross-cultural fertilisation is a phenomenon that has existed since the start of humanity. In fact, the name and language that you think is your indigenous language (Igbo, Yoruba, etc) probably derives from some ancestral Bantu language. When your fore-parents adopted and adapted the ancestral language, does that mean that they had lost their identity.

You are probably a user of many artifacts that do not derive from your local community - such as transportation technologies, information technologies, medicines, sciences, books, language, etc, etc. Would you make the same arguments with respect to these artifacts?

Jesus is recorded as quoting from the Scriptures, but what he quotes appears nowhere in the Scriptures. Take for example John 7: 38:


He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water".


Nowhere does phrase "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" found in the scriptures. So what is Jesus talking about?

More analysis here .

Beaf:
The thing is a disgrace.
Religious name my foot! Why must it be the religions of those who conquered us. Why not Hare Krishna names?
The foreign name thing is a sign of deep loss of identity (colonial mentality). It is cutural trauma.

Quite a few of my oyinbo friends have asked me about it; I mean, really quizzically. I guess because they know it isn't normal.

I dropped my ridiculous oyinbo name as a teenager and now if any oyimbo can't pronounce my name; at least let them bloody try.
When Japanese man no send person before e call im moto "mitsubuishi". When McNamara comes to Nigeria, does he become Imasuen?

The same way some don't teach their kids their mother tongue. Instead they learn English; but a language is a language, right? It is sad.

Did u ask your oyinbo friends why they have names like James,Peter, Paul, Abraham, etc, etc. Do they not realise that these are Jewish names.

If I were Nigerian I would NOT NOT be proud of it one bit. Absolutely NO reason for being proud of being Nigerian.

Jesus & Mo and really fun of play with their joysticks. That is how they amuse themselves in their good moods. However, when in a bad mood, they like to see people skewered to dead for refusing to accept them.

what is happening to this thread?