₦airaland Forum

Deepsight, from my understanding, there is no "universal" goal of all religions - as evidenced by the different stated purposes of the established religions. To the Confuscian it is to be a good citizen of your society, to the muslim - submit to allahs will, to the Mayan - appease the gods, to the rastafaris - african liberation and supremacy, to the christian - believe in Christ and love God.

There is no central "purpose" of religion that applies evenly to all, so sir, we cannot start there oh. If you think I have erred above, please do show how. Thanks.

Why aren't you people rejoicing with Chiogo and I now? 
I know the Celtics will take tonight off against GS though lol, these guys only show up ready for the big teams.

Bawo, Chicago isn't bottom of the barrell - but Joker Noah is. When he actually makes an All-Star team or two you can come back and try again 

This week in posterized: [flash=500,350]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr-fq6P_DE8?fs=1&hl=en_US"[/flash]

wow, Christiana Bosh really makes an effort to play defense huh

[quote author=Rhino.4dm link=topic=546562.msg7129388#msg7129388 date=1289572822]I only see double standard. There is no arrow pointing religion the is not pointing atheism. [/quote] Lol.
There's this infamous NL atheist many of the old timers will remember well - Therationa aka Huxley. He had this signature that I laughed off at the time:

Every Christian is an atheist with respect to Al-lah, Buddha, Zeus etc

---

Homer see the problem? As Enigma just showed, there are plenty of faiths that have been officially titled "religion" out there right now that do not have all those criteria you listed. Some do not even believe in a "God", but that rather we are all gods, others have no sacred texts, others do not have fixed/set rituals they practice. There is no universal template for constitutes a religion - this is the main problem.

The best we can do I think is compare across the board - the similarities, and I'm seeing a whole lot between the structure of modern atheism and many established religions.

Please continue here:

A Question For Nigerian Christians: Why Go On Pilgrimage To Isreal?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-548904.0.html

TheHomer, thanks for your last response.
You are right in that some foundation needs to be laid on the meaning of certain words we're using here. The only side effect of undertaking that is that too often we see good threads spiral into the abyss of definitions of defintions.

---

Deepsight and Homer,
you both continue to insist that atheism is simply a lack of belief - I have tried (and thanks to posts from E and I) to stress that modern atheism is simply not just a lack of belief - it is an active belief that there in no God. Indeed you could reverse the case and say "christianity is simply a lack of a lack of belief in God". Both are based on beliefs that cannot be proven - and both are very active in converting followers. Christians have the bible as their holy text, while atheists have a revolving door library of holy texts - the most recent scientific books.

You will both notice I mentioned twice I have no need or desire to flatter atheism with the title of religion - but just for kicks - what characteristics does a movement need to possess in order to qualify for the title of "religion"? Uyi already tried to address this in his famous "discombobulate" post but rather than show us where he was wrong, opponents simply dismissed it as a grammatical exercise - many of which the 'dismissants' themselves are famous for.

^Carlos Boozer is not a game/playoff changer jor, you berra lose that pipe dream before its too late. We already tried to warn you about Cutler and you didn't listen then 

And btw, see Joking Noah calling Garnett "mean" and "ugly"    this guy has no respect for his elders.

"I had his poster in my room," Noah said. "I used to wear his jersey. And the truth is my rookie year, I was in admiration of this guy, and he kind of shut me down.
http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nba/news/story?id=5789761

. . . awww, somwun had his feewings hurt  does he think the NBA will be like his stint on Barney & friends or the Care Bears? where everyone's singing kumbaya? these chicago malus sha  Joker thinks they have a "rivalry" with the storied franchise with the most championships . . . children of nowadays with no home training that don't know their place at the bottom of the barrel  Man up or sharrap up jor, if you want respect - EARN IT! instead of whining like a crybaby diva. Bawo what the heck is going on over there? is the weed supply running low?

^kai! that ain't right men

^lol.

Okay thanks Jo. I'll get to it probably on monday when I have time. Be on the look out for a thread with your name on it . . .

Super-nice topic! Kudos Sarmy for trying to inject some avenue for exercising theoretical and practical godliness into the section.

This was the scripture text for the sermon on forgiveness in my church last week sunday I'd like to take a swing at the discussion questions:

sarmy:
Was the master's forgiveness of the debt unconditional?

I believe so. We don't see/get any indication that the master did anything other than to fully forgive him without reservation or condition.

Is God's forgiveness of our sins unconditional?

I believe so too. As the scriptures teach, all we need do to receive this forgiveness is to simply ask.

If someone asks to forgive their debts against you, what conditions would you attach and what barriers may hinder you from offering such forgiveness?

Personally for me, forgiving is something that has always come easy to me - thank God! cos I hear many people speak of how they struggle with it. If someone asks me for forgiveness, I generally have no trouble letting go because in the first place I try not to hold onto anything if I'm wronged or hurt.

What kind of behavior would you expect from those who have had their sins forgiven?

This is the REAL question. The bible teaches "if we don't forgive others, God will not forgive us". I would expect someone who's had their trespasses forgiven them, extend that same hand to someone who trespasses against them - or else, they risk not being forgiven themselves.

If their behavior is deficient, what might you infer?

I would infer they were never really sorry or contrite about what they did in the first place - if they could not turn around and forgive someone else.

If you were to pay back your own sins, how much effort or punishment would that require?

gosh, lets just say I'm glad I'll never have to pay for my many shortcomings thanks to the magnificent sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ.

^

Boston in Miami tonight for a rematch of opening night . . . I know the Heat don vex and will really bring it tonight. Hope the few days off have done wonders to our old knees

Rhino and Mudley e don do ehn. Please don't derail the topic. Thanks.

thehomer:
I'll need more information than what is available here to come to a conclusion but there are some items in Rhino.4dm's post that leap out at me. e.g he put converting in quotes which implies to me that this method of conversion may have been quite distinct from that carried out by religious people. Also, attempting to make it a prerequisite for receiving favour? I don't think there is some sort of creed that atheists recite or have to believe to be considered atheists other than lacking a belief in a God. Then a person giving lectures? That's not quite outlandish to me.

I think you're doing the electric slide around a very simple question Homer. If you're not familiar with Dawkinian-style atheism - that even has a very strong presence here on NL - then I must regretfully recuse myself as further discussion would be meaningless back and forth over trivialities like semantics - such as you attempted down here:

EDIT: Do you wish to redefine what it means to be militant? If you do, then also consider the people one would also have to consider as being militant under this redefinition e.g Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

Now I think you're being cheeky. I know you're smart enough to understand when a word is used metaphorically.

Joagbaje, thank you for the response. I'm pretty much wondering how you came to be a christian and why you remain a christian and what you think a christian is. So some of the questions may be a bit personal but if you're not comfortable sharing that publicly then I certainly understand. Thanks!

Image, my senior brother , the only thing wey dey my hand na my hot cup of lipton tea . Hows everything with you dear?

Cadanre, no preferential treatment required . . . under forum rules I was supposed to lock your thread because it is a repeat topic but I left it because you're new. And just like I suspected, you will not get many replies because this topic has been discussed recently to death. But carry on anyways, happy posting.

thehomer:
I picked the first definition because like many other words in English with multiple meanings, a particular definition may be closest to what one wishes to say.

The other definitions would require adding some other beliefs and practices that I would not consider as religious in this discussion.

To clarify, the second definition could also add people going about their jobs as being religious e.g a lawyer going to courts 4 times a week, an architect designing buildings 7 hours a day etc.

The fourth definition could also include concepts like capitalism, socialism and even peculiar dance moves of some tribes.

I'm not sure what militant atheism means because in regular conversation, militants advocate or use violence. From what I've read about Dawkins and others, they speak and write more about opening up religious beliefs and practices to criticism just like other human endeavours. I've not read about Dawkins advocating or using violence to get his points across.

I don't think atheism fits with the second definition because what is the particular act that atheists do that marks them out as a particular group?
About the fourth definition, I don't think atheism has been adopted as some traditional view somewhere neither does it have enough distinguishing characteristics to elevate it to the level of an ideology.

Thanks for the response Homer. You make some good points that I don't want to necessarily antagonize or nit-pick on but when I say "militant atheism" I mean kind of what Rhino described here:
[quote author=Rhino.4dm link=topic=546562.msg7117960#msg7117960 date=1289422214]Atheism cannot be said to be personal in that, they are even more aggressive in propagating their belief and feel torchy when the mention of the name God.
My mentor is a 70 year fanatical atheist and he has succeeded in 'converting' his children and thier wives to atheism. At point in time he pointedly tried making it pre-requisite for recieving favour. He normally offer some lectures on the benefit of becoming an atheist. E.g " No luck only hardwork and dedication"
it still baffle's me to see people denying the fact atheism is one of the fastest growing religion.[/quote]What would you classify this man's obsession, systematic and calculated approach of converting followers to his belief system as? has it attained "religion" status? is it cult status? What is it? as its simply not just a lack of belief in God, its an active propagation of a standardized set of beliefs, complete with the aim of converting as many followers as possible. If you'd prefer not to call it a religion, what term would you rather use?

^

From your first post I gather you went on it? What effect if any did it have on you? good or bad? Just curious . . .

Nice topic! Christ4mi I will modify your title just a little bit to be more descriptive if you don't mind.

There is certainly no biblical directive to perform pilgrimage to Isreal and I agree most people probably do it for the wrong reasons. However I want to believe some people may come out blessed and refreshed from undertaking a tour of where Christ walked while he was on earth.

Deepsight, I wish you would point out the error in Uyi's post rather than wave it off as irrelevant. Yes he may need some encouragement in formatting and direct-speak but that withstanding, he said a mouthful and if you cannot see it, then no problemo.

Rhino, nobody still touched your posts . . . abi fear catch dem? lol

---

Perhaps a good starting point would be to define what Religion is . . . thehomer already started it off . . .

thehomer:
I would go with Wiktionary's first definition of religion for the purpose of this discussion.

This is the quote from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion

Nice link. But why only stop at the first definition? each person likely has a different definition/understanding of what a religion is - probably why the disagreement on the thread. But once we see the other definitions in your link:

religion (plural religions)

1. A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred.

2. Any practice that someone or some group is seriously devoted to.

3. Any ongoing spiritual practice one engages in, in order to shape their character or improve traits of their personality.

4. An ideological and traditional heritage.

Don't you think modern-day militant [/b]atheism - Dawkinian style - can very [b]easily be cast in #2 and #4?

InesQor:
In effect, saying Im a Donatist, I mean that the lives of the priests are i[i]nvariably intertwined [/i]with the rite they perform. It's an inseparable unit and its not like magic that can be recited by every man and his dog.

Thanks for clarifying that though no clarification was necessary by luxury of me already knowing where you stand on most issues. But sha your own Donatism take style siddon for another side of the classic definition as narrated by PastorAIO  .

I am interested in hearing more about this bit from you:

InesQor:
I mean that the lives of the priests are i[i]nvariably intertwined [/i]with the rite they perform.

Care to speak a little more on this? to what degree or extent are their lives intertwined? and to what extent does this effect the performance of these rites and[i] those [/i] upon whom these rites are performed on? thanks in advance.

bawomolo:
especially when your team is filled with washed up vets

Mehn, dis guy is severely schizophrenic

bawomolo:
rondo is overrated and wouldn't be able to run a team without the help of an aging but still elite supporting case. . .
rondo takes shots around the rim and shies away from jump shots. i would be efficient too with 3 HOF'ers on my team.

oga pick one story now and stick to it body dey scratch you so?

Pastor AIO:
Well, it all revolves around a certain heresy called Donatism named after Donatus Magnus, a north african christian. The issue was whether the efficacy of a rite was ex opere operantis or ex opere operato. In other words is the efficacy due to the person performing/operating the rite, the operantis, or is it due to the rite itself the Operato (the operation itself).

After christianity had been newly legalised there were many christians in the same position as you yourself were who simply did not trust their priests. Many priests were traditurs, meaning that they cooperated with the oppressive Roman empire and handed over christians to the state for persecution. Many of them were well known, but after christianity was legalised the authorities did not do anything about them. The question then was 'how can someone who was known to be such a deadly enemy of the faith now officiate in the rites of the faith? Can such a rite have any efficacy?'

The Church authority responded that it was not due to the righteousness of the priest but the efficacy was in the rite itself, the operato not the operantis. So the priest could be the evilest man in the world but as long as he performed the rite properly then the rite would work. The Donatists disagreed with this and they were declared to be heretics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism

There is an interesting ancient story originally set in ancient Egypt commonly called The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Goethe wrote a famous poem about it and Disney even made a animation film out of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_9PG_oNrWM&feature=related

A sorcerer's apprentice discovers his master's book of spells when the master is away and decides to experiment with some incantations. He winds up releasing magical powers that run amok on him. My point is that those forces are released due to just following the steps in the book. It does not require any personal development from the person casting the spells.

This was a very interesting read. Thanks Pastor.

Thinking about it, I'm not so sure either side is completely right or completely wrong. I think it may go much deeper than that, territory that only God treads. There are obviously preachers and pastors who outwardly seem to belong to Christ, and we therefore trust them based on what we can see, but inwardly, they may be truly be "enemies of the faith". I don't know beyond all doubt that the reverend who baptised me is truly saved - and if he wasn't, does that then render the rite he performed over me invalid? So I definitely empathize with the Catholic church's position/non-donatist. The gospel is power, and its efficacy does not depend on the medium expressing it (as Paul even rejoiced that greedy men were preaching the gospel).

And at the same time, I would not willingly go to a figure that is well-known to be evil all the while saying "it does not matter since the power is in the rite itself". The scriptures do teach us to test every spirit and to be careful who we submit ourselves to.

So perhaps its not even a 2-way street, but a massive intersection of all kinds of factors coming into play and only God Himself truly knows. Inesqor the Donatist please feel free to comment too.

[quote author=A-40 link=topic=344420.msg7110595#msg7110595 date=1289329164]Its not that easy mehn! Trades like Gasol's dont come everyday. And when you talk of players better than Dirk i can hardly count 5! At least offensively[/quote]A-40 you have come again oh Say after me, "Dirk is over-rated". He just does not have the cohones. Teams like LA and Celtics needed the addition of other veterans to pad the roster - Dirk's own is different, to me, Dallas cannot win with him as the top-gun - you need another top-gun and for Dirk to ride shotgun.

^We are saying the same thing. I said this current roster cannot win - if ya'll make some solid additions, including a better-than-Dirk player, then the bling is your limit.

Uyi you are right as in whatever is to be discussed, has already been.

However if you have been in this section for at least 4months, you would know that the topic of the Trinity has been so discussed probably second only to Tithes. If the poster is truly interested in learning, the thousands of threads will more than suffice. However, if na to argue then I wish him goodluck Jonathan.

Rhino how body now? I find it curious that no one attempted your posts . . .

ilosiwaju:
Atheism is a rejection of certain beliefs which the OP agrees but the crude part is calling a non-belief a type of belief which now amounts to a religion. Very faulty indeed. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

True . . . but the catch is many atheists do not just "not collect stamps". They take it 100 steps further and say "stamps don't exist" "those who collect stamps are not intelligent" "collecting stamps is incompatible with reason" etc etc you catch my drift.

 The modern-day adaptation of an atheist does not simply show indifference to the subject matter of God, infact, they are invested, mind, pocket and time, to the spreading of their lack-of-belief and gaining more followers. When you have the aggresive furthering of a belief-system by foot soldiers a la Dawkinian style, then I think its not altogether unreasonable to re-evalute their 'religion' status.

Like I mentioned before, I have no interest or desire in labelling atheism as a religion, serves no point to me. But if it look like a duck and quack like a duck and shakes its tail feathers in defiance that it is not a duck even as the water droplets scatter all over the place, the chances are . . .  

Uyi Iredia:
@ Deep Sight

I looked at your post, then read it, then read it again !. Quite a mouthful. But as has now become my habit I will categorically discombobulate your
statements along its line of weaknesses. But I must make mention of the part of your post which struck me.

"the mere element of "belief" is insufficient to ground a religion"

I'll concede to this: that by brandishing atheism as a religion, i risk brandishing a mere belief as a religion. But, Atheism isn't a mere belief.

That being said I'll tackle your statement. The ones made by others amount only to peccadilloes (Mudley's in particular). I trust you wouldn't mistake this for flattery.

That being said I proceed to deal the coupe de grace to your comment. Here goes

*1 >>> A thoroughbred opprobrium, and proof, of lack of prerequisite profundity of bent, on the topic at hand. This ensembles an emotional outburst engendered by an initial reaction to the topic, rather than the cool, calm thinking I expected of you. A disappointment_a sorry one at that.

*2 >>> Apt reasoning demands that you look deep and put up links to such threads were (as you imply) you dealt with such issues. Come on now, what i need are fresh ideas, not lugubriousness and melancholy (evidenced by how you bemoan your lack of strength).

*3 >>> The meat of your post, for the most part all that you put forward were adumbrations.

The mere element of belief isn't 'mere' as it were. In effect & principle, belief is the core of any ideology, creed, school of thought et al. There is no disputing about tastes.

This is the aptest way I can express it: Belief is the 'espirit de corps' of any mode of thought.

I quickly noted a trend (meme) in atheist discussion forums, sites, literature e.t.c which I have been chanced to peruse, and intend to keep on perusing (at least for the sake of knowledge). Any notion of faith or belief is snubbed. Atheists on Nairaland naively associate faith (and by extension belief) with religion_an annoying demotic. This is the root cause for my denouncement of atheism as a religion_with just cause. It amounts to sin on the part of atheists (and even agnostics) to repudiate the very faith they effuse because of the religious connotations it has.

Note that it is from a belief that a school of thought flourishes. Varied people contribute to such a belief and articulate reasons for such a belief till it becomes the very cornerstone of the existence of such people. It isn't hard to see parallels between the way militant atheism (in particular) is currently spreading, and how Christianity spread.

- Both become entrenched in a polity given favorable political environs (elucidate on Constantine & Voltaire)
- Both necessarily systematize their beliefs as they grow (i.e find more adherents)
- Their growth is hinged on the need to spread a percieved truth (i need not state how it applies in both cases, you're sharp enough to fill in the blanks)
- Both gained huge momentum at a point in history after a period of latency and repression (in the case of Christianity it was after
the rise of emperor Constantine, while i surmise that atheist thought picked up momentum at the turn of the 20th century after secularism had become fully entrenched in the political climate)

I will treat this robustly in the next thread i'll start on the subject. I hope by now you understand that mere belief is the seed which grows into
what is called religion. the way it does is not under one's jurisdiction. It evolves with influence from other beliefs and phenomenons which happen.

*4 >>> It wouldn't amount to mere religion. But it could evolve to become one (ironically this implies it would 'amount' to (become) religion). At the very least your belief that your mum's food tastes good could plausibly morph into a cultural stereotype/practice. How do you suppose the montage of the African cultural landscape appeared_"open sesame" perhaps ?

*5 >>> nope. but it could become an irreligious doctrine DISCLAIMER:Comical satire is an effective means of passing across nuggets of wisdom BIG TIME

*6 >>> Even matt dillahaunty would hesitate to use that definition, and i'm not joking, nor am i being sarcastic. A poor definition. Even if atheism were a privation of beliefs. that itself would constitute a belief ITSELF (it would logically follow). This outline of Kervn Glaser should end any conception of atheism as a 'non-belief'
(culled from Atheist experience.com)

*7 >>> Hominis est errare . Being wrong isn't something i would be ashamed of. it only goes to show my humanity. But if i'm being told off as wrong there should be a good basis for doing so.

^^Kai see response! LOL I like this Uyi guy. Even for I that I'm uninclined to flatter atheism with the title of a religion, the articulacy, calculated approach and implied humor of this post, I find particularly endearing. This one had me in twisted fits -
 

Quite a mouthful. But as has now become my habit I will categorically discombobulate your
statements along its line of weaknesses.

  I don laugh well today.

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=547924.msg7109853#msg7109853 date=1289321795]^^^Ish-baby, me is been looking for you like a PhD? [/quote]I am here Mr T. wetin dey happen? 

  [quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=547924.msg7109853#msg7109853 date=1289321795] Two folks may stand on the same platform, both starring at the same location, yet seeing different things.[/quote]I remember trying to make this point once, nobody wanted to hia me lol. And indeed it was in attempting to make this brilliant point you make below:
[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=547924.msg7109853#msg7109853 date=1289321795] The major cause for the world's religious troubles today are nothing but personal and different interpretations to a singular thought-system. To one, God could just be a spirit (invisible) that has never been seen and this folk will still find relevant scriptures to back, while to the other He (God) is just as physical as Man, this with relevant scriptures to validate their claims.[/quote]I could not agree more with you here.

And further compounding the problem is this - both sides could be completely right or both could be completely wrong, or both could be right/wrong to varying degrees not realizing they need to feed off each other - all the while having convinced themselves they are in full possession of the truth.

A-40, oga you would be erring to put any trust in the Mavs oh! lol. As long as they have the current roster with Dirk leading the way, una no go smell anything beyond Rd 2 in the playoffs. Same as Tony Romo leading the Cowboys. Some people are winners and some people are not 

Chiogo, small deal jare. We win some, we'll lose some.

Joagbaje, if you're willing, I'd like to do an "interview" thread on you, asking various questions. Would you mind? I'd like to understand you better. Thanks.

Pastor AIO:
There is something more to the rite than just immersing oneself in water. Is it that the act must be filled with Intention? Is it that the water must be charged with some sort of divine influence? Is the difference due to the person performing the baptism or the person undergoing the baptism?

Very relevant questions. Perhaps it is a combination of all? I don't know. Because scripturally all the above seem to be important - the full emersion in the water, the baptizer being a person of authority, the baptized needing to have already believed.

The issue of the spiritual state of officiating priests was a big one that was thrashed out by the church many centuries ago. We can discuss that later if you like.

Yes I would indeed like to hear more about this. One of the reasons I did not get baptized sooner was I didn't trust the leadership and hence wasn't willing to submit myself to be baptized by them. Please do share . . .

That's right! Jesus forgave sins with a phrase. 'your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more'. I believe that he created quite a stir from doing so.

Yes, quite . . .

Out of academic interest it would be interesting to know what you think of Theurgy. In the practice of Neo-Platonism there are 2 methods that are practiced. One is just pure contemplation/meditation. The other is ritual. It is possible that these 2 paths are paralleled in every religious tradition in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theurgy

^This is really the first I'm seeing of the word "Theurgy" so thanks for the new addition to my lexicon. I am much more familiar with the definition, thankfully. I do agree that its a given that these practices of meditation/ritual are pillars holding up religious traditions everywhere. And I don't think you can divorce one from the other - meditation from ritual or vice versa - without losing something or it being empty altogether. Just my little understanding. Or where you asking more of the methods of these seperate ideas? I'd like to hear more of what you think.

^and they have done so times without number in the few years that I've been around. Search or click on the link above if you're really interested in seeing pro-trinity responses. No need to resuscitate and begin flogging a dead and decomposed horse.

cadanre,
there are tens and tens of topics on the issue of the Trinity already in this section. Next time please use the search function before opening a new thread.

http://www.google.com.ng/cse?cx=partner-pub-6465801557104924%3Abko28ysgdng&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=trinity&siteurl=www.nairaland.com%2Fnigeria%2Fboard-17.0.html