₦airaland Forum

MyJoe: My point is that an opportunity was clearly presented for Matthew 5:20 be carried out - Peter's hands caused him to sin, but this was not done. This is different from if one merely said, "Well, Jesus must have seen people committing sins, and he never asked them to mutilate themselves." In that case, your eba analogy would be close to being apt.


Same here. In fact, I buy your general tone in the thread. I just felt you shouldn't be allowed to get away with that line.

MyJoe: ^^^ Haba, Jayriginal! I don't think your analogy is apt. It was commanded in the Bible that people cut off their hands if it leads them to sin. She says that's metaphorical and if you say it isn't you should show her where anyone cut off their hands in the Bible... and you are asking her to show you where anyone ate Eba in the Bible! One example to explain what she is saying: Peter slashed off the ear of someone who came to arrest Jesus, yet Jesus simply re-attached the ear. Peter's hands which caused him to sin in this case were not cut off. This incident took place after Matt 5:29 and 18:18.

CHARLOE: @ frosbel,
like jayriginal said,who determines what is literal and what is metaphorical in d bible? i've come to find out dat most pple (like u) give their own literal or metaphorical meaning to passages in d scriptures to suit themselves and turn around to claim d holy spirit told them.
A good example is hell fire, is it a literal burning fire or a metaphor/figurative? Plz answer.

Goldieluks: Kindly quote the number of people, who actually did cut their hands off in the bible?? The Bible is deep and it is only
those with a spiritual insight that can fully understand the profoundness of the Bible.

Uyi Iredia: Atheism has rites.

Purist: @jayriginal: You see what I mean when I say I don't do labels? See the bold part.

([1] thanks for that line, @jayriginal )

Ptolomeus: When I read posts by some fans, who say that all is sin ... I think the best solution for them.
God supposedly gave them a body that they despise, then not a bad idea that they changed the work of God.
"For Rent knife"

OLAADEGBU: The thread is about reasons why Obama could not possibly be a Chistian. Why then would you expect "good Christians" to vote for him?

Deep Sight: OKKAAAAAAAY! E don do!

Deep Sight: . . . if you will go back to the chain of the discussion, you will see that some one raised the issue of cause and effect; you responded saying that it is of no use and referred him to our discussion re: cosmological argument; i pointed out that in that discussion you did not show any uncaused material things: and VOILA! You responded with ancient aliens.

Its not hard to see the irrelevance of such a response.

Like I said, enjoy you stay. Someday, hopefully, you will address arguments with srguments and not with ancient aliens.

Goldieluks: "Cut Off" simply means 'to avoid, to control,to sieze" it doesn't mean one should
physically mutilate oneself.

frosbel: Yep, but I sense some ulterior motive for this article , ridicule the Bible again.

Problem is , the intention of this news piece will only appeal to those who do not understand the true, deep and underlying meaning of the quoted biblical verses !

Fr0sbel: On a more serious note, the chaps are nutts need help

Fr0sbel: I bet all the Nairaland 'Miscreants' will soon rush to comment on this nonsense article !!

An online journal, the World-science.net has reported a bizarre trend of body mutilations being inflicted by some people upon themselves, in order to make the Kingdom of Heaven as instructed in the Gospel of Mathew.

Quoting medical researchers at the St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Centre in Phoenix, Arizona, in the United States, world-science.net reported overall 23 cases of people who have cut off their p.enises or hands or removed their eyes, because they felt they had caused them some sins. Three of these lot who self-severed their joysticks believed their action would make them live a sinless life and as transformed eunuchs, make them live in line with the injunction in Mathew 19:12. Four others also cut off their t.esticles, believing same sentiments.

The Biblical verse reads as follows:
“For there are some e.unuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb; and there are some eu.nuchs, which were made e.unuchs of men; and there be e.unuchs, which have made themselves e.unuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it let him receive it.”

Worldscience.net reported that these incidents of self-mutilation and p.enis cutting happen on average of one every three years, ‘’judging by published medical reports—but that makes it no less disturbing each time for hospital staff faced with the situation.’’

One of such rare p.enis cutting happened last month when a 62-year-old man whom physicians dubbed Mr. P to protect his privacy, showed up at the emergency room of St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona, complaining of a case of “Matthew 19:12.” Asked to clarify, he just kept repeating the same thing: Matthew 19:12.

The nurse on duty searched the Internet for Matthew 19:12. What she read was worrisome, worldscience.net reported.

“As it quickly became clear, Mr. P had made this hospital visit unaccompanied by his p.enis. That, he explained, he had flushed down the toilet three days ago after severing it with a pocketknife. His t.esticles were also absent—removed four years earlier at Mr. P’s request by a doctor in Mexico.

“Although his speech and thoughts appeared muddled, Mr. P did state that he had “done this because his p.enis had caused him to sin and as an e.unuch he could be closer to God as described in Matthew 19:12,” three researchers affiliated with St. Joseph’s wrote in a report describing the incident. Mr. P also claimed to have pondered the decision for months before acting.

“Mr. P. received urgent medical treatment at St. Joseph’s, including a skin graft onto the stump. He was then confined to a local psychiatric hospital by court order, leaving little but questions behind.

“The three investigators proceeded to search an online medical literature database, PubMed, for other cases of this nature. They discovered that the Bible—indeed, the Gospel of Matthew specifically— has left a trail of self- mutilations inspired largely by four of its verses.

The bloody toll listed in case reports dating back to 1967—PubMed doesn’t go back much further—included three partially or fully amputated p.enises; four pairs of castrated t.esticles; three amputated hands and 11 severely damaged eyeballs. Saws, circular saws, screwdrivers and pencils were among the tools used for the horrifying procedures, although several patients put out their eyes with their fingers alone.

“Our literature review revealed 16 patients in addition to [Mr. P] who had injured themselves in connection with specific religious text,” the researchers wrote.

Their review of the cases is published in the May 29 online issue of the research journal Psychosomatics, worldscience .net reported.

‘’All but one of the patients were diagnosed with psychiatric disorders or psychotic disorders or had substance abuse issues, they wrote; Mr. P., for example, “had a long history of severe bipolar illness marked by hyper-religious delusions.”

“And every case was connected with at least one of four verses in Matthew’s Gospel: 19:12, 18:8, 5:29 and 5:30.

“The three latter verses are more cryptic than the first, referenced by Mr. P. What they have in common is that they appear to suggest that if a hand, foot or right eye are somehow offensive, cutting them off is the way to go, because at least, that much less of the body will end up in Hell.

“Several biblical verses reference self-mutilation as metaphoric acts of sacrifice or contrition,” wrote the researchers, who included psychiatrist Jason P. Caplan of St. Joseph’s and the Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, Nebraska. “Some individuals may interpret these passages literally and act on them, causing significant injury and even inadvertent death.”

“Psychiatrists should be aware of the content of these four verses to aid in timely diagnosis and intervention if they were to arise in discussion with a patient,” they added. “It is interesting to note that no cases cite the Gospel of Mark despite very similar content (i.e., Mark 9:43, which reads ‘And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched’).”

“Individuals who rationalize their actions through biblical verses appear to have a series of features that make them a unique cohort with specific challenges regarding prognosis and treatment,” Caplan and colleagues wrote.

Many of them have no regrets about their actions; deliberately destroy the body part to prevent its reattachment; resist efforts to successfully reattach it when that is possible; and are uncooperative with other aspects of treatment, they added.

A 37-year-old man was quoted in the 1967 report saying: “Even if I do get certified [insane] and in the eyes of the world I am mad it is far better for me to have cleansed myself.”

“Ideas of reference (specifically, that the Bible directly refers to them) is a repeated theme in this group, underscoring a common thread of psychotic disorders,” Caplan and colleagues wrote.

“Guilt over sexual acts or desires is another recurrent theme… Recent homosexual experiences occurred in three of the cases of g.enital self- mutilation.” Four of the 17 self-mutilators were females; they had poked out their eyes or, in one case, amputated a hand.

Many patients had self-amputated after failed attempts to persuade doctors to do the deed, the researchers wrote, indicating a need for doctors presented with such requests to refer cases to a psychiatrist immediately.

Caplan disclosed in the paper that he is affiliated with Aliso Viejo, Calif.-based Avanir Pharmaceuticals. The report did not recommend any specific drug treatments, however. As for how Mr. P is doing currently, Caplan said he doesn’t know. “Once they leave the acute care hospital, we get no further update,” he wrote in an email.

The contentious worrisome verses in the Gospel of Mathew

Matthew 19:12
For there are some e.unuchs, which were so born from their moth!er’s womb; and there are some e.unuchs, which were made e.unuchs of men; and there be e.unuchs, which have made themselves e.unuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Matthew 18:8

Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

Matthew 5:30

And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matthew 5:29

But if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

http://pmnewsnigeria.com/2012/06/14/8-cut-off-p.enises-testicles-for-kingdom-of-god/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PmNewsNigeria+%28PM+News+Nigeria%29



EDIT: Unfortunately the link couldnt pass the filter so Ive had to edit it.
Just take out the . (dot) in "p.enises" in the link.

Deep Sight: No amount of ad hominems will add an inch to the validity or invalidity of your claims.

[size=16pt]CHESS AFTER DEATH ? (MAROCZY VS KORCHNOI)[/size]

The Experiment
In 1985 Victor Korchnoi played one chess game with Geza Maroczy that took 7 years to finish.
What unique about this game is Geza Maroczy, Hungarian chess player, died in 1951! Korchnoi played with ghost of Maroczy.
The game is a psychic experiment and was reported by Dr. Wolfgang Eisenbeiss and Dieter Hassler in the April 2006 issue of the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research.
Maroczy moves were written by Robert Rollans, an automatic-writing trance medium who was living in Germany. Rollans was chosen as he did not know how to play chess and was willing to participate without remuneration.
After 47 moves, Maroczy resigned and according to Korchnoi ‘During the opening phase Maróczy showed weakness,’ ‘His play is old-fashioned.'

The Believers
During game, 92 questions have been posed to Maroczy, he managed to answer all. 85 of his answers manage to be verified as correct while other 7 could not be verified.
Maroczy plays is old fashioned. Weak in opening theory but strong in endgame, rook ending. Marozcy’s trademark.
Rollans, a Romanian, do not know Hungarian language but communicate throughout the game in Hungarian language.

The Sceptics
During 7 years time, Rollans might get help from books, computers or any strong players.
Korchnoi is a known believer to paranormal science. He is not a neutral person in this experiment.
Nobody knows what are the 92 questions being asked to ‘Maroczy’.
The whole experiment is not done in controlled environment.


Full article here http://2010chessodyssey..com/2011/03/chess-after-death-maroczy-vs-korchnoi.html

Purist: I quite agree with this view. Your argument is very much like that of George Smith in his book, "The Case Against God", where he argues that so far one cannot answer "yes" to the question, "do you believe in God?", then that person is not a theist, hence an atheist.

I just feel that the label "atheist" (which is actually a very broad term) comes with too much assumptions and stereotypes, that I would rather not be referred to as one.

Purist: I get your point, and I quite agree with you to some extent on this. However, I think you may be committing the false dilemma fallacy here. What if "god" is meaningless to me? What if I have no idea what "god" even truly means? I may have heard various versions and vague concepts, and may be at a loss as to what you're actually inquiring when you ask, " Do you believe in God?" What if I'm ignostic (which is a type of agnosticism^[1], and which I am sometimes)?

Surely, you cannot limit me to just those two options. Saying 'I don't know' or 'I'm not sure' would be a perfectly reasonable and honest response. Belief demands that I fully grasp what you're on about first, before I can respond with either a Yes or a No. In other words, with belief, it's either you do, you don't, or you're not sure whether you do or you don't.

------
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism

In other words, with belief, it's either you do, you don't, or you're not sure whether you do or you don't.

Deep Sight: I don't know if you are just in the business of seeking to brand anything and everything atheist. There is a clear and lucid distinctinction between atheists and agnostics. It is a real distinction. You know the distinction, so please do not muddy the concepts. I wonder if you are now seeking to join Mr. Idehn in his noble business of deleting words from human language. Has he delegated the task of deleting the word "agnostic" to you?

No need to fuss: the thread is there for posterity, the meaningless assumptions and bundle of contradictions you served up are there for any to read and see. Such as your argument that relying on the law of cause and effect in making arguments amounts to making assumptions and arguing from ignorance - even when you said you accepted same law. I read the whole thread again yesterday and I was sincerely amused.

Deep Sight: Yawn. From zero examples of magically uncaused material things all the way to ancient aliens. Pathetic.

Worever bo!

Deep Sight: These two great escapes have since become the standard response that dimwits on this forum have adopted when called out on their own absurd statements. Welcome to the club. Enjoy your stay. Hopefully you will find more escapes like such for the future, as these will soon become boring.

Enigma: From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14944470

We tend to assume that religion is a question of what we believe or don't believe. It's an assumption with a long history in western philosophy, which has been reinforced in recent years by the dull debate on atheism.


In this view belonging to a religion involves accepting a set of beliefs, which are held before the mind and assessed in terms of the evidence that exists for and against them. Religion is then not fundamentally different from science, both seem like attempts to frame true beliefs about the world. That way of thinking tends to see science and religion as rivals, and it then becomes tempting to conclude that there's no longer any need for religion.

In most religions - polytheism, Hinduism and Buddhism, Daoism and Shinto, many strands of Judaism and some Christian and Muslim traditions - belief has never been particularly important. Practice - ritual, meditation, a way of life - is what counts. What practitioners believe is secondary, if it matters at all.

The idea that religions are essentially creeds, lists of propositions that you have to accept, doesn't come from religion. It's an inheritance from Greek philosophy, which shaped much of Western Christianity and led to practitioners trying to defend their way of life as an expression of what they believe.

Science isn't actually about belief - any more than religion is about belief. If science produces theories that we can use without believing them, religion is a repository of myth.

Myths aren't relics of childish thinking that humanity leaves behind as it marches towards a more grown-up view of things. They're stories that tell us something about ourselves that can't be captured in scientific theories.

Just as you don't have to believe that a scientific theory is true in order to use it, you don't have to believe a story for it to give meaning to your life.

Myths can't be verified or falsified in the way theories can be. But they can be more or less truthful to human experience, and I've no doubt that some of the ancient myths we inherit from religion are far more truthful than the stories the modern world tells about itself.

The idea that science can enable us to live without myths is one of these silly modern stories. There's nothing in science that says the world can be finally understood by the human mind.

Human beings don't live by argumentation, and it's only religious fundamentalists and ignorant rationalists who think the myths we live by are literal truths.

We'd all be better off if we stopped believing in belief. Not everyone needs a religion. But if you do, you shouldn't be bothered about finding arguments for joining or practising one. Just go into the church, synagogue, mosque or temple and take it from there.

What we believe doesn't in the end matter very much. What matters is how we live.

Deep Sight: As you are to yours, no matter how nonsensical.

Such as the possibility of uncaused material things, a single example of which, is beyond you - till tomorrow.

Ptolomeus: Ironically, some Nigerians talk about a topic, and do not put the example of Nigeria, but the United States ...

Deep Sight: Why? There is of course great and profound foolishness in atheism.

plaetton: Yes indeed.
On thread last week,"religion and doubts, we are all athiests",my position was that what appears on the surface as a burst of religiousity or revilal, is actually the overwhelming preponderance of doubts.
It is doubts that make people engage in repeated, loud and lenghty prayers, vigils, special prayer this and special prayer that. People have very little expectations of having their prayers answered, so they want to go the extra mile by trying everything with the hope that a god out there might actually hear them.

Deep Sight: No, but the atheist will answer with a heavy No. The agnostic will neither say yes nor no. He will say he does not know. Herein lies the difference.

Deep Sight: Oh yes, and let us verily recall that you verily shied away from verily mentioning a single verily thing which verily is not known to be caused. . . . . . .

Uyi Iredia: God's existence is inferred from Nature not from 'gaps in our knowledge'. Nature can't have existed in a vacuum because of the law of cause & effect. We therefore infer a Creator of Nature and the humans within it. Simple.



Thanks for drumming that into the Purist's head.

onetrack: But would not the reverse also be true? Should atheists always be subjected to Christians saying they are going to hell?

By DAN HARRIS and WONBO WOO

“I am an atheist,” says “Jack,” a Southern Baptist with more than 20 years in ministry.

“I live out my life as if there is no God,” says “Adam,” who is part of the pastoral staff of a small evangelical church in the Bible Belt.

The two, who asked that their real identities be protected, are pastors who have lost their faith. And these two men, who have built their careers and lives around faith, say they now feel trapped, living a lie.

“I spent the majority of my life believing and pursuing this religious faith, Christianity,” Jack said. “And to get to this point in my life, I just don’t feel like I believe anymore.”

“The more I read the Bible, the more questions I had,” Jack said. “The more things didn’t make sense to me — what it said — and the more things didn’t add up.”

Jack said that 10 years ago, he started to feel his faith slipping away. He grew bothered by inconsistencies regarding the last days of Jesus’ life, what he described as the improbability of stories like “Noah’s Ark” and by attitudes expressed in the Bible regarding women and their place in the world.

“Reading the Bible is what led me not to believe in God,” he said.

http://clergyproject.org/news/2010/11/09/abc-world-news-with-diane-sawyer---atheist-ministers-struggle-with-leading-the-faithful/