₦airaland Forum

What is your native religion(s) and god(s)? Are you a practitioner of said religion(s)? OR did you adopt a religion that has recently arrived into your lands, abandoning your own local and native religions?

davidylan:
this is a flawed argument . . . many of you look too much at the negative side of creation as a sign that God shld not exist. But does it ever occur to you to look at the positives that far outweigh the negative? Ever wondered why the grand designer gave you a liver that can regenerate itself, two eyes instead of one, an intricately designed universe conducive to man's habitation, the gift of intelligence and memory that animals dont have?

The negatives you point out are not "evils" that God allowed into his grand design . . . they are consequences for sin and man's fall from grace. There was no HIV 500 yrs ago . . .

So were did HIV come from? Did the devil create it?

What about all the "evils" that happen waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy before the fall of man?

davidylan:
Rejected them both . . . i am ready to face the consequences if i'm wrong about them both.

"If you are wrong"?  Notice a touch of uncertainty there.  I thought you knew you could NOT possibly be wrong.  What is happening with your faith?  Has it now become a matter of playing odds?

oracle47:
For it is given only once for a man to die and after death judgement follows. the bible says. we now ask ourselves what is really important, are we created out of a vacumm,without a purpose,without a design by the maker,God stated many times in the scripture, i created u[man]for a reason.invariably he is saying he had plans for our lives.i think his plans and purpose for our lives should be given more attention,than self pursuit issues,what do i mean, fashion,sex,companionship,business,relationships,every area of our lives should be examined through the light of Gods word,he is not against our aspirations,but what he is against is when it is out of his design for our lives. many are guilty of this,and so many will come back after living their lives to hear this terrible response, i dont know u,u unfaithful servant.

How about Lazarus and the many others who were brought back to life. When were they judged?

davidylan:
The day you first heard about the bible you knew. You've had a choice to accept or reject Him.

Have you accepted or rejected Allah or Sussicorn?

Akwasi:
Tudor, to start with I believe there is a GOD that created this earth. I find it difficult to believe everything is a coincidence considering the perfect state and balance this world is (was?).
Who can tell me the Ecosystem happened by chance? There is a grand design and if u r not going to go beyond the by chance stuff I know most atheist talk about, forget it.
I think people try to dodge the issue when they say things like 'Its coincidence', 'Its by chance' and stuff. Can you explain why for example living things give birth and instantly their kids know we have to go for our mother's milk? Can that also be coincidenatal or a detailed plan by a Greater Being somewhere. It baffles me why people will want to believe there is no GOD. I think that believe is convenient but might be the costliest.

Why would a grand designer include natural disaster, diseases, and other evils into his grand design? I just cannot believe that a grand designer would be so absentminded as to make so elementary design flaws.

more ex-ministers now atheists;

1) Levi Fragell http://philosopedia.org/index.php/Levi_Fragell

2) Lee Salisbury - http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/tsr/tsr28.html

gen2genius:
LOL, who are they? Mention 10 pentecostals who have been unfortunate fall into the cesspit of atheism and I'll give you a 100 atheists who have been fortunate to realise their folly while they still had time.

There are quite a few, indeed.  Those I can mention from memory are:

1)  Dan Barker

2)  Charles Templeton

3)  Farrell Till

4) Joe E Holman (http://ministerturnsatheist..com/)

5)  John Loftus

6) G. Vincent Runyon

7)  Michael Goulder

8.) Bart Ehrman

in fact look at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html   for more.

Jean Meslier (1664 – 1729), was a Catholic priest who was discovered, upon his death, to have written a book-length philosophical essay promoting atheism. Described by the author as his "testament" to his parishioners, the text denounces all religion, and argues the superiority of atheist morality. More from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meslier.

Pat Condell takes at stab at the burka at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48

Pat Condell takes at stab at the burka at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48

FRA:
The fool in his mind says there is no God. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." Hebrews 11: 1- 3  

Only the fool quotes the bible in support of the bible.

Christian apologist have used all manner of arguments to justify the existence of their god. Arguments such as 1) the ontological argument 2) Teleological arguments, 3) First Cause arguments, 4) Arguments from Design and the anthropic principle, etc, etc, etc.

Could these same arguments be used to argue for the existence of the antithesis of God, that is, Satan? What is the evidence that Satan or the Devil exists?

Backslider:
@Tudor

Let me borrow a leaf from pilgrim1

Where is it in the bible that we are to marry because of Sex?

There you go, 1 Corinthian 7: 8 - 9.


1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

[size=18pt]8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.[/size]

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

Great blog by Jerry Coyne at http://whyevolutionistrue./

[size=18pt]God and Science Don't Mix[/size]
A scientist can be a believer. But professionally, at least, he can't act like one.

Reposted from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597314928257169.html

By LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS

My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.

-- J.B.S. Haldane

"Fact and Faith" (1934)

Last week, I had the opportunity to participate in several exciting panel discussions at the World Science Festival in New York City. But the most dramatic encounter took place at the panel strangely titled "Science, Faith and Religion." I had been conscripted to join the panel after telling one of the organizers that I saw no reason to have it. After all, there was no panel on science and astrology, or science and witchcraft. So why one on science and religion?

I ended up being one of two panelists labeled "atheists." The other was philosopher Colin McGinn. On the other side of the debate were two devoutly Catholic scientists, biologist Kenneth Miller and Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno. Mr. McGinn began by commenting that it was eminently rational to suppose that Santa Claus doesn't exist even if one cannot definitively prove that he doesn't. Likewise, he argued, we can apply the same logic to the supposed existence of God. The moderator of the session, Bill Blakemore, a reporter with some religious inclination, surprised me by bursting out in response, "Then I guess you are a rational atheist."

Our host was presumably responding to all those so-called fundamentalist atheists who have recently borne the brunt of intense attacks following the success of books like Sam Harris's "The End of Faith," and Richard Dawkins's "The God Delusion."

These scientists have been castigated by believers for claiming that science is incompatible with a belief in God. On the one hand, this is a claim that appears manifestly false -- witness the two Catholic scientists on my panel. And on the other hand, the argument that science suggests God is a delusion only bolsters the view of the of the fundamentalist religious right that science is an atheist enemy that must either be vanquished or assimilated into religion.

Coincidentally, I have appeared numerous times alongside Ken Miller to defend evolutionary biology from the efforts of those on various state school boards who view evolution as the poster child for "science as the enemy." These fundamentalists are unwilling to risk the possibility that science might undermine their faith, and so they work to shield children from this knowledge at all costs. To these audiences I have argued that one does not have to be an atheist to accept evolutionary biology as a reality. And I have pointed to my friend Ken as an example.

This statement of fact appears to separate me from my other friends, Messrs. Harris and Dawkins. Yet this separation is illusory. It reflects the misperception that the recent crop of vocal atheist-scientist-writers are somehow "atheist absolutists" who remain in a "cultural and historical vacuum" -- in the words of a recent Nature magazine editorial.

But this accusation is unfair. Messrs. Harris and Dawkins are simply being honest when they point out the inconsistency of belief in an activist god with modern science.

J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionary biologist and a founder of population genetics, understood that science is by necessity an atheistic discipline. As Haldane so aptly described it, one cannot proceed with the process of scientific discovery if one assumes a "god, angel, or devil" will interfere with one's experiments. God is, of necessity, irrelevant in science.

Faced with the remarkable success of science to explain the workings of the physical world, many, indeed probably most, scientists understandably react as Haldane did. Namely, they extrapolate the atheism of science to a more general atheism.

While such a leap may not be unimpeachable it is certainly rational, as Mr. McGinn pointed out at the World Science Festival. Though the scientific process may be compatible with the vague idea of some relaxed deity who merely established the universe and let it proceed from there, it is in fact rationally incompatible with the detailed tenets of most of the world's organized religions. As Sam Harris recently wrote in a letter responding to the Nature editorial that called him an "atheist absolutist," a "reconciliation between science and Christianity would mean squaring physics, chemistry, biology, and a basic understanding of probabilistic reasoning with a raft of patently ridiculous, Iron Age convictions."

When I confronted my two Catholic colleagues on the panel with the apparent miracle of the virgin birth and asked how they could reconcile this with basic biology, I was ultimately told that perhaps this biblical claim merely meant to emphasize what an important event the birth was. Neither came to the explicit defense of what is undeniably one of the central tenets of Catholic theology.

Science is only truly consistent with an atheistic worldview with regards to the claimed miracles of the gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Moreover, the true believers in each of these faiths are atheists regarding the specific sacred tenets of all other faiths. Christianity rejects the proposition that the Quran contains the infallible words of the creator of the universe. Muslims and Jews reject the divinity of Jesus.

So while scientific rationality does not require atheism, it is by no means irrational to use it as the basis for arguing against the existence of God, and thus to conclude that claimed miracles like the virgin birth are incompatible with our scientific understanding of nature.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that these issues are not purely academic. The current crisis in Iran has laid bare the striking inconsistency between a world built on reason and a world built on religious dogma.

Perhaps the most important contribution an honest assessment of the incompatibility between science and religious doctrine can provide is to make it starkly clear that in human affairs -- as well as in the rest of the physical world -- reason is the better guide.

Mr. Krauss, a cosmologist, is director of the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University. His most recent book is "Hiding in the Mirror" (Viking, 2005).

Was this not foreseen by some religious nutjob?

The bible says that believers do NOT sin, as in the follower:


1 John 2: 12

I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.

Believers DO NOT SIN

1 John 3: 6

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

1 John 5: 18

We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.


But, then again, it says that we all sin


1 John 1: 8-10

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.



So which one is it?

tonye-t:
Answering your posts in NL is like creating another warfare in NL, but i'll answer sha not expecting your consenting or otherwise

@topic,

yes a Bornagain xtian can fall into Sin, but there is a difference btw one falling and one living in it

Can you tell us the difference? BTW, how does one really know one is born-again? Could one live under the delusion that one is born-again, whereas God has not really received the individual?

Are born-again Christians, those who have committed their lives to Jesus, capable of sin?  Do they sin?


Is it possible for people who do not sin, and are NOT Christians to be saved?


Is not being "born-again" considered a sin?


Do ALL sins lead to "death"?


What is the more egregious infraction?  Not being born-again and accepting Jesus  OR  committing sins like murder, theft, etc?

noetic2:
and your point is?

Do you think there is a point to be made?

Ezekiel 18: 20;

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.


Hey, but "Are you forgetting Exodus 20: 5?", I hear you cry;

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;


Now, you decide.

Where is the ignoramus retard who started this thread?

We would do that when;

1) You stop prosletizing

2) You stop seeking to put your stinking religion into the public space

3) You stop mis-educating the general public

Hello Mr blacksta,

While you are thinking, we would like you to consider the following:

1)  What do you mean by the term "ORDER"?

2) How do you come to know and assert that "ORDER REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION"?

3) Does any of the so-called holy books pontificates on things like "ORDER"?

All the best.

blacksta:
Is not interesting that the Human compostion is to complex to be tagged as spontenous combustion -

in relation to the shaded text - all i say it is out of context. it could be that the Artist inherited the intelligence from a Higher being.

What the hell is the above nonsense? I thought we were going to see Intelligent debate from you, and unsurprisingly, we are just getting the same inane stuff from the cesspit of theism.

Tudór:
Come to think of it what exactly do they regard as order?

If an artist carves a huge mountain into a face i guess thats intelligent design. . . .what if the forces of weather and climate erode a rock over time it at a point resembles a face would that be called intelligent design too?

I think you asked the key question - which is : [size=14pt]By what means does he come to know and assert that "ORDER REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DIRECTION"?[/size]

Hello Sa,

That Intelligence you refer to is definitely called Sussicorn (Respect), creator of all and one.

Good questions. Is the book The God Delusion?

My favorite is 12th July, which marks the birth of St Huxley. Celebrated with great fanfare in my household.

OLAADEGBU:
Brilliant.  Scroll down to post #44 which is after you telling your tale of woe from your normadic movement from the RCC - SDA - FGB - IDK.  You will see how you evaded answering my questions, giving the lame excuse that they were vague.

Look at what you had as part of your question:

PS: I will not accept "I do not know" for an answer I expect you to have a foundation to your beliefs.

Now, tell me. Is that fair? Do you expect me to have answers for every question? Would you prefer that I lied?

Pastor AIO:
Dear Huxley, You seem to not be around at the  moment, however when you do get back could you please answer a question for me.

What is your definition of Naturalism?

Naturalism is the doctrine that the natural world is all there is. That there are no non-natural entitties.