₦airaland Forum

How has believing in God and being a Christian improved you as a person. Do you think you could not have attained such improvements with[b]out[/b] God?

I have wondered about this as well:

Why do they have Western (non-African) names?

Why do Africa learn and speak in non-African languages?

Why do they use non-African science and technologies?

Why do they eat non-African foods?

Why do they listen to non-African music?

Why do they worship non-African gods and follow non-African religions?

Romeo4rea1:
@Huxley - It is now clear that u simply argue, for the sake of arguing, as u shun any effective  reasoning.
I am sure that even you, do not believe that all you have written above effectively sums up the teachings of Jesus. furthermore, the above text really shows ur ignorance.
Take for example, this text - he told the rich to sell what they had and give to the poor and follow him - It is clear, even to a simpleton, that this is about being selfless, and considerate, and not to put value in material possessions. This teaching exists in the Sanskrit of Hinduism, Buddhism and also Islam.

Don't get me confused with toneyb. We are different individuals and incidentally I agree broadly with most of what he posted about Jesus/christianity.

You appear to shoot yourself in the foot by referring to these other sources of moral edicts. So if other systems have good and valid moral systems, then what makes christianity uniquely right?

Like I said before, the Greek humanist and epicureans had superior moral edicts than the christians. In fact, the "Love thy Neighbour" edict was pronounced by the Greeks about 300 years before Jesus.

If you do not know, let me advise you of the sort of moral articles that governed life for the believers of the OT:

1) Kill your disobedient children.

2) Stone adulterers.

3) Force a raped woman to marry her attacker.

4) Buy and sell and brutalise slaves.

5) Stone a woman who is being raped but did not cry out for help.

6) Give other humans as sacrifice to the Lord.

7) Invade other tribes and countries and totally wiped them out, women and children and animals.

Accuse children for the crimes of their parents.


etc, etc, etc.

These were part and parcel of the moral laws the governed life in the OT times.

My point, if you read my reply, which im sure you did, was that ALL modern societies broadly agree with the teachings of Jesus and the 10 Commandments, as reflected in their Laws and Constitution. I don't know any society that promotes revenge, or vengeance, that condones and encourages murder and killing, incest, adultery, bestiality or paedophilia. I don't know of any society that does not promote love of your neighbour, doing good, selflessness, kindness or forgiveness. If you do, PLEASE show it here.
- And you still have elucidated us on where you get your moral compass from.

Most modern soceities have evolved away from the teachings of Jesus. In fact, there is not a single teaching of Jesus that was unique to him that forms the mainstay of the morals of any societies. ALL the teachings that are unique to Jesus are by and largely ignored by everyone, Christians included. Teachings such as:

1) Make no plans for tomorrow

2) Remove your bodily parts in order not to sin, thus securing entry into heaven.

3) No resistance to agression.

4) Abandon your family

5) Do not have wealth


I assume you are Nigerian, or African. Do you think the virtues of kindness and brotherly and neighbourly love were absent in Africa (and the rest of the World) until Africans heard the Jesus Gospel? How would pre-Christian and non-Christian societies have survive until recent times before they got the jesus message?

BTW, NO society follows the REAL 10 Commandments, and a good thing that they don't. The real 10 Commmandments has little moral import. I have discussed this in another thread.

Watch here

1709 was the worse year of all. Everyone born that year is now dead. How bizarre!

Romeo4rea1:
Passage
Lev 27:29 -“However, anything specially set apart for the Lord—whether a person, an animal, or family property—must never be sold or bought back. Anything devoted in this way has been set apart as holy, and it belongs to the Lord. 29 No person specially set apart for destruction may be bought back. Such a person must be put to death.

Reply
As you can see, There is no "sacrifice" here. This is about a devoted animal, that cannot be bought back or redeemed, or a person, due to a transgression, already set to die, that cannot be redeemed. It really is simple.

1) According to Lev 27: 29, what things can be devoted to the Lord?


2) Are these things that are devoted to the Lord HOLY?

3) Why would things devoted to the Lord be "HOLY", if they are HOLY?

4) And Do they belong to the Lord?

Gigantor:
“However, anything specially set apart for the Lord—whether a person, an animal, or family property—must never be sold or bought back. Anything devoted in this way has been set apart as holy, and it belongs to the Lord. 29 No person specially set apart for destruction may be bought back. Such a person must be put to death.

As you can see, There is no "sacrifice" here. This is about a devoted animal, that cannot be bought back or redeemed, or a person, due to a transgression, already set to die, that cannot be redeemed. It really is simple.

What does this statement "However, anything specially set apart for the Lord—whether a person, an animal, or family property—must never be sold or bought back" mean?

What deos "set apart for the Lord" mean?

Matthew 18: 9 was a great help in help me to overcome this very vile act. I hope it helps you too.

gen2genius:
Huxley, now I know you're simply being cynical. If I had known earlier, i wouldn't have wasted my time to type what I posted earlier. I'm not the type to try to convince people to accept Christianity. No. I only try to answer questions that people seem confused about. That was what I thought you were doing - asking for clarification - but now I know you have an ulterior motive.

Let me say, this I don't have the time to keep trying to CONVINCE you of anything, especially when it's obvious you're bigoted. If you're truly sincere you would have known that Jesus would never support anybody killing or engaging in any acts of violence. He taught on several occasions that we should forgive offenders, without retaliating. He rebuked someone who tried to defend him with violence. He didn't retaliate or insult anyone when he was slapped in court; and he even told Pilate that if he was interested in seizing power by violence, he would have easily done that but he wasn't interested. Yet you chose to ignore all these by misinterpreting his statement. You even went to the ridiculous extent of saying that the story of the adulterous woman was fabricated. Where is your proof? And to show how bigoted you are why did you choose to believe the so-called "latter versions" (which are non-existent) instead of the former? And even if you claim the story was false, was the story of Jesus telling Peter not to defend him with the sword also fabricated?

As I said earlier, I'm never in the business of persuading anyone to accept Christ. I know what I enjoy being a born-again Christian and I'm satisfied. You can believe whatever you like and be whatever you choose. It's your life. Have I ever started a topic against atheists? No. If you think atheism is okay for you, so be it. So stop wasting your time trying to malign people who believe in God, because only a hopeless Christian will give up his beliefs because of your warped arguments!

Well, if you are like me, you would value the TRUTH over Falsehood. You would want to believe things that are generality true and close to reality rather than fables, myths and superstitions.

Now, supposing you showed the bible narrative to a neutral and intelligent and rational person to evaluate for its truth content. What do you think he will make about the following claims of the bible:

1) That God created the world about 6000 years ago, all in one week of creative activity?

2) That the same God kill every human and animal on earth bar those on Noah's boat?

3) That a virgin gave birth to a child that is in fact the same god the created the world?

4) Upon checking with historical records could find NO evidence of the character called Jesus?

5) That the documents that are claimed to be the recorded acitvities and wished of this Jesus character is riddle with fabrications, contradictions, absurdities, lies, etc, etc?

etc, etc, etc.

Do you think that neutral person would be inclined to believe in the claims made by this book and about the Jesus person?

It is well known amongst bible scholars that there are many fabrications added into the bible, with a view to promote a certain agenda. That you did not know this is a matter of your own ignorance. The story of the woman caught in adultery is one of the most well known interpolations of the bible. Check this out:



Jesus Forgives a Woman Taken in Adultery(Taken from biblegateway)

This story, beloved for its revelation of God's mercy toward sinners, is found only in John. It was almost certainly not part of John's original Gospel. The NIV separates this passage off from the rest of the Gospel with the note, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53--8:11." That is, the earliest Greek manuscripts, the earliest translations and the earliest church fathers all lack reference to this story. Furthermore, some manuscripts place it at other points within John (after 7:36, 7:44 or 21:25), others include it in the Gospel of Luke (placing it after Luke 21:38), and many manuscripts have marks that indicate the scribes "were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials" (Metzger 1994:189). Furthermore, it contains many expressions that are more like those in the Synoptic Gospels than those in John.

It appears to have been a well-known story, one of many that circulated orally from the beginning yet that none of the Gospel writers were led to include. But some in the later church thought this one was too good to leave out. The controversy with the teachers of the law and the Pharisees (v. 3) is similar to stories found in the Synoptics, as is the theme of God's mercy mediated by Jesus.

Those who believe that authorship is a primary criterion for canonicity will suspect or even reject this passage. Most of Christendom, however, has received this story as authoritative, and modern scholarship, although concluding firmly that it was not a part of John's Gospel originally, has generally recognized that this story describes an event from the life of Christ. Furthermore, it is as well written and as theologically profound as anything else in the Gospels.


There are probably more than 1000 additions to the original text of this type. Like I said, some new bible these days are published with warns about these additions.


Another additions is the resurrection narrative given in the Gospel of Mark.

So if you care about the truth, you should care about such things.

gen2genius:
Huxley, now I know you're simply being cynical. If I had known earlier, i wouldn't have wasted my time to type what I posted earlier. I'm not the type to try to convince people to accept Christianity. No. I only try to answer questions that people seem confused about. That was what I thought you were doing - asking for clarification - but now I know you have an ulterior motive.

Let me say, this I don't have the time to keep trying to CONVINCE you of anything, especially when it's obvious you're bigoted. If you're truly sincere you would have known that Jesus would never support anybody killing or engaging in any acts of violence. He taught on several occasions that we should forgive offenders, without retaliating. He rebuked someone who tried to defend him with violence. He didn't retaliate or insult anyone when he was slapped in court; and he even told Pilate that if he was interested in seizing power by violence, he would have easily done that but he wasn't interested. Yet you chose to ignore all these by misinterpreting his statement. You even went to the ridiculous extent of saying that the story of the adulterous woman was fabricated. Where is your proof? And to show how bigoted you are why did you choose to believe the so-called "latter versions" (which are non-existent) instead of the former? And even if you claim the story was false, was the story of Jesus telling Peter not to defend him with the sword also fabricated?

As I said earlier, I'm never in the business of persuading anyone to accept Christ. I know what I enjoy being a born-again Christian and I'm satisfied. You can believe whatever you like and be whatever you choose. It's your life. Have I ever started a topic against atheists? No. If you think atheism is okay for you, so be it. So stop wasting your time trying to malign people who believe in God, because only a hopeless Christian will give up his beliefs because of your warped arguments!

Well, if you are like me, you would value the TRUTH over Falsehood. You would want to believe things that are generality true and close to reality rather than fables, myths and superstitions.

Now, supposing you showed the bible narrative to a neutral and intelligent and rational person to evaluate for its truth content. What do you think he will make about the following claims of the bible:

1) That God created the world about 6000 years ago, all in one week of creative activity?

2) That the same God kill every human and animal on earth bar those on Noah's boat?

3) That a virgin gave birth to a child that is in fact the same god the created the world?

4) Upon checking with historical records could find NO evidence of the character called Jesus?

5) That the documents that are claimed to be the recorded acitvities and wished of this Jesus character is riddle with fabrications, contradictions, absurdities, lies, etc, etc?

etc, etc, etc.

Do you think that neutral person would be inclined to believe in the claims made by this book and about the Jesus person?

It is well known amongst bible scholars that there are many fabrications added into the bible, with a view to promote a certain agenda. That you did not know this is a matter of your own ignorance. The story of the woman caught in adultery is one of the most well known interpolations of the bible. Check this out:

Taken from biblegateway

Jesus Forgives a Woman Taken in Adultery

This story, beloved for its revelation of God's mercy toward sinners, is found only in John. It was almost certainly not part of John's original Gospel. The NIV separates this passage off from the rest of the Gospel with the note, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53--8:11." That is, the earliest Greek manuscripts, the earliest translations and the earliest church fathers all lack reference to this story. Furthermore, some manuscripts place it at other points within John (after 7:36, 7:44 or 21:25), others include it in the Gospel of Luke (placing it after Luke 21:38), and many manuscripts have marks that indicate the scribes "were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials" (Metzger 1994:189). Furthermore, it contains many expressions that are more like those in the Synoptic Gospels than those in John.

It appears to have been a well-known story, one of many that circulated orally from the beginning yet that none of the Gospel writers were led to include. But some in the later church thought this one was too good to leave out. The controversy with the teachers of the law and the Pharisees (v. 3) is similar to stories found in the Synoptics, as is the theme of God's mercy mediated by Jesus.

Those who believe that authorship is a primary criterion for canonicity will suspect or even reject this passage. Most of Christendom, however, has received this story as authoritative, and modern scholarship, although concluding firmly that it was not a part of John's Gospel originally, has generally recognized that this story describes an event from the life of Christ. Furthermore, it is as well written and as theologically profound as anything else in the Gospels.


There are probably more than 1000 additions to the original text of this type. Like I said, some new bible these days are published with warns about these additions.


Another additions is the resurrection narrative given in the Gospel of Mark.

So if you care about the truth, you should care about such things.

gen2genius:
Huxley, now I know you're simply being cynical. If I had known earlier, i wouldn't have wasted my time to type what I posted earlier. I'm not the type to try to convince people to accept Christianity. No. I only try to answer questions that people seem confused about. That was what I thought you were doing - asking for clarification - but now I know you have an ulterior motive.

Let me say, this I don't have the time to keep trying to CONVINCE you of anything, especially when it's obvious you're bigoted. If you're truly sincere you would have known that Jesus would never support anybody killing or engaging in any acts of violence. He taught on several occasions that we should forgive offenders, without retaliating. He rebuked someone who tried to defend him with violence. He didn't retaliate or insult anyone when he was slapped in court; and he even told Pilate that if he was interested in seizing power by violence, he would have easily done that but he wasn't interested. Yet you chose to ignore all these by misinterpreting his statement. You even went to the ridiculous extent of saying that the story of the adulterous woman was fabricated. Where is your proof? And to show how bigoted you are why did you choose to believe the so-called "latter versions" (which are non-existent) instead of the former? And even if you claim the story was false, was the story of Jesus telling Peter not to defend him with the sword also fabricated?

As I said earlier, I'm never in the business of persuading anyone to accept Christ. I know what I enjoy being a born-again Christian and I'm satisfied. You can believe whatever you like and be whatever you choose. It's your life. Have I ever started a topic against atheists? No. If you think atheism is okay for you, so be it. So stop wasting your time trying to malign people who believe in God, because only a hopeless Christian will give up his beliefs because of your warped arguments!

Well, if you are like me, you would value the TRUTH over Falsehood. You would want to believe things that are generality true and close to reality rather than fables, myths and superstitions.

Now, supposing you showed the bible narrative to a neutral and intelligent and rational person to evaluate for its truth content. What do you think he will make about the following claims of the bible:

1) That God created the world about 6000 years ago, all in one week of creative activity?

2) That the same God kill every human and animal on earth bar those on Noah's boat?

3) That a virgin gave birth to a child that is in fact the same god the created the world?

4) Upon checking with historical records could find NO evidence of the character called Jesus?

5) That the documents that are claimed to be the recorded acitvities and wished of this Jesus character is riddle with fabrications, contradictions, absurdities, lies, etc, etc?

etc, etc, etc.

Do you think that neutral person would be inclined to believe in the claims made by this book and about the Jesus person?

It is well known amongst bible scholars that there are many fabrications added into the bible, with a view to promote a certain agenda. That you did not know this is a matter of your own ignorance. The story of the woman caught in adultery is one of the most well known interpolations of the bible. Check this out:

Taken from http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=4&source=1&seq=i.50.7.7

Jesus Forgives a Woman Taken in Adultery

This story, beloved for its revelation of God's mercy toward sinners, is found only in John. It was almost certainly not part of John's original Gospel. The NIV separates this passage off from the rest of the Gospel with the note, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53--8:11." That is, the earliest Greek manuscripts, the earliest translations and the earliest church fathers all lack reference to this story. Furthermore, some manuscripts place it at other points within John (after 7:36, 7:44 or 21:25), others include it in the Gospel of Luke (placing it after Luke 21:38), and many manuscripts have marks that indicate the scribes "were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials" (Metzger 1994:189). Furthermore, it contains many expressions that are more like those in the Synoptic Gospels than those in John.

It appears to have been a well-known story, one of many that circulated orally from the beginning yet that none of the Gospel writers were led to include. But some in the later church thought this one was too good to leave out. The controversy with the teachers of the law and the Pharisees (v. 3) is similar to stories found in the Synoptics, as is the theme of God's mercy mediated by Jesus.

Those who believe that authorship is a primary criterion for canonicity will suspect or even reject this passage. Most of Christendom, however, has received this story as authoritative, and modern scholarship, although concluding firmly that it was not a part of John's Gospel originally, has generally recognized that this story describes an event from the life of Christ. Furthermore, it is as well written and as theologically profound as anything else in the Gospels.


There are probably more than 1000 additions to the original text of this type. Like I said, some new bible these days are published with warns about these additions.


Another additions is the resurrection narrative given in the Gospel of Mark.

So if you care about the truth, you should care about such things.

gen2genius:
Huxley, now I know you're simply being cynical. If I had known earlier, i wouldn't have wasted my time to type what I posted earlier. I'm not the type to try to convince people to accept Christianity. No. I only try to answer questions that people seem confused about. That was what I thought you were doing - asking for clarification - but now I know you have an ulterior motive.

Let me say, this I don't have the time to keep trying to CONVINCE you of anything, especially when it's obvious you're bigoted. If you're truly sincere you would have known that Jesus would never support anybody killing or engaging in any acts of violence. He taught on several occasions that we should forgive offenders, without retaliating. He rebuked someone who tried to defend him with violence. He didn't retaliate or insult anyone when he was slapped in court; and he even told Pilate that if he was interested in seizing power by violence, he would have easily done that but he wasn't interested. Yet you chose to ignore all these by misinterpreting his statement. You even went to the ridiculous extent of saying that the story of the adulterous woman was fabricated. Where is your proof? And to show how bigoted you are why did you choose to believe the so-called "latter versions" (which are non-existent) instead of the former? And even if you claim the story was false, was the story of Jesus telling Peter not to defend him with the sword also fabricated?

As I said earlier, I'm never in the business of persuading anyone to accept Christ. I know what I enjoy being a born-again Christian and I'm satisfied. You can believe whatever you like and be whatever you choose. It's your life. Have I ever started a topic against atheists? No. If you think atheism is okay for you, so be it. So stop wasting your time trying to malign people who believe in God, because only a hopeless Christian will give up his beliefs because of your warped arguments!

Well, if you are like me, you would value the TRUTH over Falsehood.  You would want to believe things that are generality true and close to reality rather than fables, myths and superstitions.

Now, supposing you showed the bible narrative to a neutral and intelligent and rational person to evaluate for its truth content.  What do you think he will make about the following claims of the bible:

1)  That God created the world about 6000 years ago, all in one week of creative activity?

2)  That the same God kill every human and animal on earth bar those on Noah's boat?

3)  That a virgin gave birth to a child that is in fact the same god the created the world?

4)  Upon checking with historical records could find NO evidence of the character called Jesus?

5)  That the documents that are claimed to be the recorded acitvities and wished of this Jesus character is riddle with fabrications, contradictions, absurdities, lies, etc, etc?

etc, etc, etc.

Do you think that neutral person would be inclined to believe in the claims made by this book and about the Jesus person?

It is well known amongst bible scholars that there are many fabrications added into the bible, with a view to promote a certain agenda.  That you did not know this is a matter of your own ignorance.  The story of the woman caught in adultery is one of the most well known interpolations of the bible. Check this out:

Taken from http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=4&source=1&seq=i.50.7.7

Jesus Forgives a Woman Taken in Adultery

This story, beloved for its revelation of God's mercy toward sinners, is found only in John. It was almost certainly not part of John's original Gospel. The NIV separates this passage off from the rest of the Gospel with the note, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53--8:11." That is, the earliest Greek manuscripts, the earliest translations and the earliest church fathers all lack reference to this story. Furthermore, some manuscripts place it at other points within John (after 7:36, 7:44 or 21:25), others include it in the Gospel of Luke (placing it after Luke 21:38), and many manuscripts have marks that indicate the scribes "were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials" (Metzger 1994:189). Furthermore, it contains many expressions that are more like those in the Synoptic Gospels than those in John.

It appears to have been a well-known story, one of many that circulated orally from the beginning yet that none of the Gospel writers were led to include. But some in the later church thought this one was too good to leave out. The controversy with the teachers of the law and the Pharisees (v. 3) is similar to stories found in the Synoptics, as is the theme of God's mercy mediated by Jesus.

Those who believe that authorship is a primary criterion for canonicity will suspect or even reject this passage. Most of Christendom, however, has received this story as authoritative, and modern scholarship, although concluding firmly that it was not a part of John's Gospel originally, has generally recognized that this story describes an event from the life of Christ. Furthermore, it is as well written and as theologically profound as anything else in the Gospels.


There are probably more than 1000 additions to the original text of this type.  Like I said, some new bible these days are published with warns about these additions.


Another additions is the resurrection narrative given in the Gospel of Mark.

So if you care about the truth, you should care about such things.

horse703:
luxley or whatever comeon are you for real please stop disgracing yourself comeon

Why don't you challenge my points with facts and evidence, rather than pointing accusatory fingers at me with absolutely nothing. Have you got a point that is rooted in facts? if you have, present it - otherwise just shutup and not display your ignorance.

gen2genius:
Now that you've started the topic properly, you can get a proper explanation.

If you were not desperately looking for an excuse to discredit Christ and Christianity, you would have realised that Christ wasn't calling for the killing of children but for sincerity on the part of the hypocritical Pharisees. The law they claimed to practise and interpret told them that children should honour their parents and to prevent any child from disregarding the law a strict punishment was specified for violators. But to satisfy their personal interests, they perverted the law and interpreted it in such a way that children could freely dishonour their parents. Now, they came to Jesus and complained that his disciples were not washing their hands (ceremonially) before eating. Appalled by their hypocrisy, Jesus told them that they were doing something far worse than what they were accusing the disciples of. And what were they doing? Giving children the right to insult their parents. That was what he was condemning them for - not their refusal to stone children!

No. Christianity does discredit itself by its own book and doctrine. It is full of falsehoods, absurdities, fabrications, corruptions, etc, etc, right there in the very same bible.

How do you KNOW Jesus was not calling for the killing of Children? The verses clearly shows Jesus reprimanding the Jews who had abandoned the laws and had adopted their own traditions, which incidentally appeared to be a far better moral system that the Laws Jesus was berating them about. That is why Jesus called them HYPOCRITES because they were only paying lip service to the Law, but in reality observed a far moral system of "laws". Let us look at the verse again:

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

There are two issues at play here: 1) Observance of the LAW 2) Observance of the tradition of the elders. The Scribes and Pharisees (S&P) apprear to have been mixing and matching the LAW with their TRADITION as suited them.

The S&P approach Jesus, accusing his disciples of not following the Tradition of the elders. Jesus, as vindictive as ever, say "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?". Then the barbaric and immoral Jesus says the following:

4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.


Basically, the elders and the S&P had re-interpreted the law so that they would NOT have to kill their children, but Jesus is STRONGLY against this re-interpretation of the LAW by their tradition,and berates them for that.

Thus Jesus is showing his preference for a system that would see parents killing the disobedient children, in compliance with the LAWS he is advocating.

gen2genius:
If Jesus were pro-stoning or pro-violence, you would have seen it in his actions and decisions. Did he ever approve of anyone being stoned or killed. NEVER! Take for example, when the same hypocritical leaders brought a woman that was caught in adultery for him to approve that she should be stoned. Did he give his approval? No way. Please take time to read the full account for a better understanding (John 8:3-12)

[b]And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.  So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.[/b]

At another time, when Peter was trying to defend him (Jesus) with a sword, Jesus told him, "Put up thy sword into the sheath!" (John 18:11).

Isn't that amazing? Try to imagine what someone like muhammed would have done in such a case! Jesus was against violence all the way because he is the PRINCE OF PEACE!

Now, the story of the woman accused of adultery is a later fabrication by Christian falsehood machinery. It does not appear in some of the best and earliest manusscripts of the Gospel of John. Newer bibles these days now actually put warning around this narrative. So don't go quoting some fabrications to try to defend your delusions.

Why don't you remove the blank that is in your eyes before attempting to remove the pebble in the eyes of others?


What is the genealogy of Jesus? For instance, who does the bible say is his grand-father? Clue: Look in Matthew and Luke.

Anyone familiar with the barbarism of the Old Testament would not be surprised that the same barbaric injunctions are given unremitting succor in the New Testament by the so-called "gentle Jesus, meak and mild".

The OT calls for the killing of recalcitrant children,  as in;

Exodus 21: 17 Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.

And cross-reference with Matthew 15, where Jesus is calling on his listeners to remember to observe Exodus 21: 17.

Matthew 15: 1-9 :

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Now, what do Christians make of this?

gen2genius:
Huxley, you're free to start another topic on that issue and it'll be clarified. Why not let the issue here be tackled first? Gosh - bigotry can make people act so senselessly!

Ok, will do. I hope you oblige as well.

omo sexy:
Bro, thats exactly what the thread is about, thanks for your input, God bless

HEllo, how about this one,

Exodus 21: 17 Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.

And cross-reference with, where Jesus is called on his listeners to remember to observer Exodus 21: 17.

Matthew 15: 1-9 :

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.



Do you know believe that a quotation from the bible is worth celebrating?

Are you Triskaidekaphobic (ie fear of the number 13)? Does the number 666 set your pulse racing? Does the thought of walking under a ladder give you goose bumps?

Why is this so?

Pastor AIO:
And you've found me, and will continue to find me to be an obstacle in your first goal. I don't think religion is a falsehood and a danger and I've sought to expose this to you. I don't know the extent of my success, or if I have any success at all. In fact I don't care. It is enough for me that we have the public debates.

On your second goal too I have sought to expose what you claim as rationalism to be something quite contrary to it. However I always encourage the expression of various ideologies and opinions and I quite dislike the manner in which people use religion to bully each other in Nigeria.

Interesting. You know there are hundreds of different religions on the planet:

1) All there all true? In what aspects of reality are they true?

2) Which of these religions "revealed" the facts of human origins in Africa, for example?

Get you answers here .

Pastor AIO:
But generally I would say the overall tone of this forum has been set by the atheists. Most especially by a certain mr Huxley the second, the first or T Paine. His dominance is due really to a relentless, tireless avalanche of threads denouncing religion. He is Atheism's equivalent to the Apostle Paul in Christianity.

Yes, I will be the first to admit that I have posted an "avalanche" of threads denoucing religions, and to be truthful, I have really enjoyed sparring with some of the theists on the forum, particularly yourself, Pastor, with whom I have had a much higher level of debate than with the likes of Davidylan, Pilgrim, Neotic, et al who have been largely dishonest and disingenious.

My goals have been twofold: 1) Expose religion for the falsehood and danger it is 2) Bring rationalism and atheism out in the open and encourage more people so inclined to engage in the intellectual cleansing of their community.

I would be lying if I say I have not learned from people here. The truth is that I have learned a great deal, and I hope people have also learned from my contributions. But the sad fact is that only a certain kind of person will have learned and be willing to reason out some of the contents of my posts. The others are hopelessly delusional and irretrievably wedded to their superstitions.

It is Huxley2, Huxley, Tpaine and Therationa. The Four Persons in one "God".

Central to the Christian doctrine is the idea of "Loving your neighbour" and "Loving your enemy".  But the Christian part of the bible (NT) gives us little help as to who your neighbour or your enemy is?

To bring some clarification into these concepts, I would like to ask the following questions;

1)  Who is your neighbour or enemy in the Old Testament understanding of these words?  And is there evidence in the OT that one should love one's neighbours and enemies?

2)  How practical is the injunction to "Love you enemy"?  Suppose your enemy really wishes and seeks for harm to come your way - say like the Taliban that seeks to destroy the Western world. How would Christians handle such threats from their enemies?  Was it wrong for the Bush administration to want to destroy the Taliban?  Is the war against the Taliban an act of love?



Good starting Reference:

Psalm 139

19 If only you would slay the wicked, O God!
       Away from me, you bloodthirsty men!

20 They speak of you with evil intent;
       your adversaries misuse your name.

21 Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD,
       and abhor those who rise up against you?

22 I have nothing but hatred for them;
       I count them my enemies.

23 Search me, O God, and know my heart;
       test me and know my anxious thoughts.

24 See if there is any offensive way in me,
       and lead me in the way everlasting.

The soul is that thing which if you have not got it, you know you have not got it. Hope that helps.

His lecture: http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/lecture.html

[size=18pt]Evolutionary Creation
Denis O. Lamoureux
St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta
(Class Readings. CHRTC 350 Science & Religion)[/size]


Denis O. Lamoureux is an assistant professor of science and religion at St. Joseph's College in the University of Alberta.  His appointment is the first tenure-track position in Canada dedicated to teaching and research on the relationship between scientific discovery and Christian faith.

          Evolutionary creation claims the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an evolutionary process. This position fully embraces both the religious beliefs of conservative Christianity and the scientific theories of cosmological, geological and biological evolution. It contends that God ordains and sustains the laws of nature, including the mechanisms of evolution. More specifically, evolution is 'teleological,' and features plan, purpose and promise. In particular, this view of origins asserts that humanity evolved from primate ancestors, and during this natural process the Image of God arose and sin entered the world. Evolutionary creationists experience God's presence and action in their lives. They contend that the Lord meets men and women in a personal relationship, which at times involves both dramatic and subtle miraculous signs and wonders.
          The term 'evolutionary creation' to most individuals seems like a contradiction in terms. This would be the case if the words 'evolution' and 'creation' were restricted to their popular meanings. That is, if the former is bound to an atheistic world view, and if the latter refers exclusively to literal 6 day creation. However, evolutionary creation moves beyond the common use of these terms and the simple 'evolution vs. creation' debate. The most important word in this category is the noun 'creation.' Evolutionary creationists are first and foremost thoroughly committed and unapologetic creationists. They believe that the universe is a created reality that is absolutely dependent for its every moment of existence on the will and grace of the Creator. The qualifying word in this term is the adjective 'evolutionary,' indicating the method through which God created the world. This view of origins is often referred to as 'theistic evolution.' However, that categorization places the process of evolution as primary term and makes the Creator secondary as only a qualifying adjective. Such an inversion in the order of priority is unacceptable to evolutionary creationists.
          Within Protestant evangelical circles, evolutionary creation is held by a small but growing number of individuals educated in both science and Scripture. In particular, a majority of these Christians trained in the biological sciences accept this position. The leading evangelical evolutionary creationist today is Howard Van Till. He spent most of his career at Calvin College, an institution considered to be the leading evangelical college in the United States supporting this view of origins. Van Till claims that God created the world 'fully-gifted' from its inception so that all the universe and life would evolve without subsequent Divine interventions. Evolutionary creation best describes the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, though it is often referred to in this tradition as 'theistic evolution.' In 1996 Pope John Paul II made international headlines by claiming that "new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis."
          In order to explain this view of origins to other conservative Christians, evolutionary creationists begin by pointing to the remarkable parallels between human development in womb and the evolution of the universe and life. They underline that God's hand in fashioning of each person individually is similar to His activity in creating every part of the world collectively. Four significant and instructive parallels include:
         • Human development and the evolution of the world are teleological natural processes ordained by God. At conception, the DNA in a fertilized human egg is fully equipped with the information for a human being to develop during a 9 month pregnancy. Similarly, the plan and capacity for the universe and life, including humanity, to evolve 10-15 billion years after the Big Bang was ordained and loaded into the fabric of the cosmos at its inception.
          • Divine action in the creation of an individual human and the entire world is through subtle providential activity. No Christian believes that while in their mother's womb the Lord descended out of heaven and dramatically intervened to attach a nose, set an eye, bore an ear canal, etc. Rather, everyone understands human development as a continuous natural process that God sustains throughout pregnancy. In the same way, evolutionary creationists assert that dramatic Divine interventions were not employed in the creation of the cosmos and life. Instead, evolution is an uninterrupted process that was sustained through time by the Creator.
          • Human development in the microcosm of the womb and the evolution in the macrocosm of the world provide natural revelations authored by the Creator. As the psalmist praises,
          For You created my inmost being;
          You knit me together in my mother's womb.
          I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
          Your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
                                                              Psalm 139:12-14
So too, evolutionary creationists view the evolution of the universe and life as a "knitting" process that results in a world that is "fearfully and wonderfully made." Indeed, the Big Bang "declares the Glory of God," and biological evolution "proclaims the work of His hands" (Ps 19:1).
          (4) Spiritual mysteries are associated with the developmental and evolutionary processes. Humans are distinguished from the rest of the creation because they bear the Image of God and they are sinful. Christians throughout the ages have debated where, when and how these spiritual realities are manifested in the individual. Yet Church history reveals that believers have not come to a consensus on these questions, indicating that these issues are beyond human understanding. In other words, these are mysteries. Similarly, evolutionary creationists believe that both the manifestation of God's Image and the entrance of sin during human evolution are also mysteries. Christian evolutionists firmly uphold these spiritual realities, but admit that understanding their origin fully is beyond our creaturely capacity to know.
          Evolutionary creationists are also quick to point out to fellow conservative Christians that their view of origins offers an expanded and more robust understanding of intelligent design in nature. This version of the design argument for God's existence appeals to more physical evidence than that proposed by young earth creation or progressive creation. At one level, evolutionary creation is in full agreement with these two anti-evolutionary positions in that there is a traditional intelligent design argument which points to the design evident in nature's current structures and operations. This classic approach argues that the incredible beauty and complexity in the organization and function of the creation presently before us reflects the mind of an Intelligent Being. For example, consider the most complex structure known-the human brain. This organ is an electrical circuitry marvel with trillions of synaptic connections, and incredibly most of it develops in the womb beginning from only one fertilized egg. The structure, function and embryological development of the brain offers a breath-taking level of elegant complexity which few deny reflects the work of an Intelligent Designer.

Continued at http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

Lecture: http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/lecture.html
Book by same author: http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Creation-Christian-Approach-Evolution/dp/1556355815/ref=reg_hu-wl_list-recs

This is a marvel of human ingenuity. The technology and science involved is simply amazing.

Great video. Just watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E25jgPgmzk