₦airaland Forum

Grouppoint:
Should you give to the poor, if there are still some members of your family in need?

What is the essence of "Charity begins at home"?

Can't you do both?

The Universe is indifferent to life.

mrpataki:
It is a relationship between Man and his Maker (GOD).

So is Sikhism. Is it also more than a religion in your estimation?

babs787:
Verdict of Barnabas

This gospel of Barnabas supports the theory of substitution. The gospel was edited and translated into English from the Italian manuscript at the imperial library in Vienna by Lonsdale and Laura Regg. On page 25 of the gospel of Barnabas appears the list of the twelve apostles chosen by jesus and st. Barnabas is listed as one of the twelve. If one were to analyse the candidature of an apostle according to their merit as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles of the New Testament, then st. Barnabas ought to have been counted in the first three.

Babyosis, I even asked you the reason for your not quoting from the gospel of barnabas, because he was alive and witnesses jesus’ teachings and also according to the bible, Barnabas:

was an apostle (Acts 14v14), full of Holy Ghost (Act 11v24), Prophet (Acts 13v1), performers of miracles (Acts 15v21)

It is inconceivable that the gospel of such a great apostle should have been denied the honour of inclusion in the canon of the new testament. This gospel disagreed with the pre-conceived notions of the early Christian church and it was condemned by three church decrees
1. The decree of Western church 382 C.E
2. The decree of Innocent the First 465 C.E
3. The decree of the Council of Galasius 496 C.E.

The Christians are reluctant in accepting the Vienna manuscripts as authentic but in 478 christian era, relics of St. Barnabas with the gospwel on his breast were recovered from a sepulcher in Cyprus during the reign of emperor Zeno.

Just so you know, the Gospel of Barnabas is "considered by the majority of academics (including Christians and some Muslims) to be late and pseudepigraphical" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas). I honestly don't see how anyone can take the Gospel seriously. Carry on.

Nnenna1:
@Nferyn, KAG, and other whoever whoever atheists:

Christians (or, let me generalize and say Theists) are just as correct in believing in the afterlife as you are in not believing in it.

Perhaps.

I'm a Christian but I'm not jumping into the bandwagon with others (at least, I think I'm not, so if others have said something similar, then oh well). Thus I'll throw in a few caveats:

What evidence do you have for the cessation of existence upon death?

Scientifically speaking, I would say the cessation of the brain and functions of the brain could be evidence that life and all it entails stops at death.

And how exactly does the "lack of proof" for God's existence actually deny his existence? These questions have been posted (in many ways) time after time by others and none of you have provided conclusive answers for them.

I'd like to use an analogy, if I may: Many have claimed the Lochness monster exists, however evidence for the monster is severely lacking, and what's more there are naturalistic explanations with evidence that potentially rule out the existence of the Lochness monster. However, that doesn't mean one may not exist - though extremely improbable. It simply means that the evidence suggests one doesn't exist and you need faith to believe one exists.

Using evidence or lack thereof as reasons are invalid (sorry Allonym) when formally arguing about matters that do not, in and of themselves, concern evidence. God, as defined by everyone, is not tangible.

I disagree. Many have described God(s) as tangible and it certainly wouldn't be wrong to ask for evidence for what they claim. Furthermore, many supernaturall entity can be described in one shape or another as intangible entities, however, as soon as the entities are given some form of description and given attributes, then it isn't wrong to ask for evidence for the existence of entities (once it is claimed they are real).

Please let's cut out the "evidence" crap when discussing God and ADMIT that we're all being motivated by personal beliefs and convictions.

Of course we are all motivated by beliefs and perhaps convictions, but that shouldnn't impact on requests for evidence for one's assertions.

Like a scene from a horror movie, You're just as "in the dark" as we are.

That's debatable.

For all your intellectual bickerings, how do you know that we're all not just floating brains in jars? Or that, in actuality, God isn't Mickey Mouse or a talking telephone?[/qupte]

We don't, but for the sake of discussions and our perception of logic, we have to assume that reality is as we perceive it. Also, Mickey is God.

As implausible as my examples might sound, they show the lack of absolutes when discussing matters of the afterlife and God himself. Athiesm is not the ideal--it is the just as much of a choice as theism or religion. Let everyone find his or her own way of making peace with himself or herself. If the starter of this thread decides not to believe to God, then Godspeed (ha) to him.

Fair enough, although I think most of my posts inthis thread had to do with some Biblical myths and science.

I don't know if it's me, but I feel that sometimes the athiest pos(t)ers in the religious section act like elitist jerks.

It happens.

clemsonfan:
Nyfern, KAG. Both of you may argue your points on the evolution theory, but when it comes down to it , we who believe in GOD and all of his works will see who, in the end, will be in Heaven.

Good for you. Now maybe you can do what I asked in my first post in this thread, although I wont hold my breath.

P.S There are many Christians that accept the theory of evolution too, but if you want to believe they, like we baby eating atheists, are going to the "palce" that isn't Christian heaven, then it's no skin off my back.

Donzman:
From your arguments, it's obvious that you feel it's the same battle thrashing Christians give atheists time and time again.

Creation is more than religion my friend, it is a fact of life that there is a creator.

No, it isn't a fact that there is a creator. It is the very antithesis of a fact, especially given the reluctance of Creationists to give any falsifiable evidence for the creator - there's a reason it's faith.

That is the only reasonable way you can explain the way things are without looking like a fool.

It clearly isn't.

My forefathers knew that and so did all other wise men on the face of the earth back then. They all tried to represent and adore the creator the best way they knew how.

Including the atheistic, agnostic and pantheistic ones?

Keep making a fool of yourself. . .Science requires you to prove whatever theory you have beyond reasonable doubt. What is proof?. . .Proof is made through collection of evidence, evidence that is meant to prove your theory. Saying science is all evidence and no proof sounds ignorant, sorry no offense.

Scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

By the way, it's not prove beyond reasonable doubts, it's show beyond reasonable doubt.

If my mechanic tells me that doctors are not special and that he can do whatever I claim my doctor can do then the mechanic has to give me my double bypass.

You'd let your mechanic give you a double bypass just because he says Doctor's arent special and he can do whatever you claim your doctor can do? Seriously?

If evolutionists claim there is no creator, they need to tell us how life started.

No they don't, but I went ahead and gave you my opinion anyway.

I'm done with this argument, I've rattled your feeble feathers enough. Creation is the only way the beginning and nature of life can be explained, every other theory fails.

OMG, you're right, how could we not realise it. Now all you have to do is contact Science or National Geographic and submit your groundbreaking discovery. Go, the world is depending on you. Gob speed.

Softee:
You may think it is very hypocritical of me to say this as i have done this quite a lot. However i stopped when Christ layed it on my heart to do so. I haven't debated or wrote one religious comment since last year august.

CHRISTIANS

Christ said himself that the world hated him first. It is unlikely that us arguing and trying to put his word across to unbelievers who don't want to hear, but mock the word is going to change their opinion. I don't think there is anything wrong with informing a nonbeliever or reasurring someone of course, but debating is a problem that Christ himself said don't do. It is only through the power of the Holy Spirit that a non-beliver can be transformed and we all need to trust the Holy Spirit.

You see what makes us differen't is that we have the gift of the Holy Spirit so we do not need to take part in Religious Debating. We serve a powerful God, A God of Concequences and A God of Love.

I know you've decided debating isn't for you, so I won't bother giving my rather long winded view on the issue. However, I just wanted to know if this is in the Bible: "debating is a problem that Christ himself said don't do". Just curious.

Remember whoever will perish will perish.

Satan is moving and has blinded the eyes of Men.

Are you a Calvinist? Just curious once again.

gbade.x:
@ KAG:

now who the schmuck do you think you're giving lip? Hold your peace! The reason why i don't bother on 'em threads anymore are because of peeps like you. The "oh, hey, i'm an atheist so my position's always right and you theists are always wrong,

Perhaps - Softee and other Christians - the trouble isn't the non-Christians, but the misconceptions you have, the hubris you exhibit, and the disdain you show. I admit that I have sometimes being rather harsh and occasionally rude in a debate or discussion, but certainly I'd suggest that it's time we all looked at the mirror and see if we aren't projecting.

so u need to shut up i'm right, u wrong " mentality u and your likes keep up.

"Most times, these non-believers are not willing to let go of their pre-conceived notions and agendas in the face of enlightment and the Gospel"


Once again, the trouble with irony -

Don't give me lip!

O s'aro kutukutu. so ara re gidi gan ni!!!

Irony ko, Metalni ni

And some wonder why discussions and debates become chaotic.

gbade. x:
True story Softee.


If y'all have noticed, gbade seldom posts/give inputs on these religious debating threads. I got to the same realization as Softee. Most times, these non-believers are not willing to let go of their pre-conceived notions and agendas in the face of enlightment and the Gospel.

The trouble with irony -

Softee:
You may think it is very hypocritical of me to say this as i have done this quite a lot. However i stopped when Christ layed it on my heart to do so. I haven't debated or wrote one religious comment since last year august.

CHRISTIANS

Christ said himself that the world hated him first. It is unlikely that us arguing and trying to put his word across to unbelievers who don't want to hear, but mock the word is going to change their opinion. I don't think there is anything wrong with informing a nonbeliever or reasurring someone of course, but debating is a problem that Christ himself said don't do. It is only through the power of the Holy Spirit that a non-beliver can be transformed and we all need to trust the Holy Spirit.

You see what makes us differen't is that we have the gift of the Holy Spirit so we do not need to take part in Religious Debating. We serve a powerful God, A God of Concequences and A God of Love.

I know you've decided debating isn't for you, so I won't bother giving my rather long winded view on the issue. However, I just wanted to know if this is in the Bible: "debating is a problem that Christ himself said don't do". Just curious.

Remember whoever will perish will perish.

Satan is moving and has blinded the eyes of Men.

Are you a Calvinist? Just curious once again.

Donzman:
We have a bunch of FAKE scientists here, science does not deal with proofs?. . .

I presume you're a "real" scientist, then?

That's a new one.

It's not really. There's even a catch phrase for it: "proof is for maths and alcohol"

Easy, I do not believe that chemical suddenly got life out of nowehere and started evolving to the million different species we see today.

"you will then be required to: define "kinds", show how your model can be falsified, give predictions based on your model and see if they stand up to scrutiny. You'd also have to explain why and how it differs from the theory of evolution (a theory that already explains and has tested the adaptation of organisms)."

Even though evolution is yet to tell us how the first organism came to be, I wonder what kind of theory that is.

A theory that deals with the origin and diversity of species? Like I said, if you want to discuss the origins of life (Abiogenesis), do so, but stop confusing and conflating it with the theory of evolution.

I don't know who you think you're decieving here, evolution tries to explain how life came to be the way it is today. If it cannot tell us how life came to be in the first place then it hasn't taken off, sorry, cry me a river!

Well over 95% of Biologists and 150 years of not getting falsified, say otherwise

Evolutionists believe that there is no CREATOR.

No, Atheists and probably some pantheists believe there is no creator. Don't make me have to bust out my "evolution is not atheism sign.

If there is no creator, do you mind telling me how LIFE came to be in the first place?. .

I don't. My opinion is that some kind of abiogenesis occured, and it was probably a process that was somewhere between Fox's protocells and the PreRNA-RNA, etc models.

.Am I going nuts here?

You aren't nuts already?

If you deny the creator, the onus is on you to show me how LIFE came to be. Till you do that, your theory stays out of touch with reality.

Actually there really is no onus even if there's a denial of a creator.

Your theory cannot say there is no creator yet fail to show us how life came to be, it doesn't make sense. It's like telling me electricicity does not shock but failing to tell me what shocks me when I touch a live wire.

We do, however, know it's nothing of the sort, and we know you still have no idea what evolution is.



[quote][/quote]

Nrbn:
From the moment man opens his eyes to this world a great order surrounds him. He needs oxygen to survive. It is interesting that the atmosphere of the planet on which he lives provides more than just the adequate amount of oxygen he needs. This way, he breathes without difficulty. For the existence of life on this planet, the existence of a source of heat is essential. In response to this need, the sun is located just at the right distance to emit just the exact amount of heat and energy man needs. Man needs nourishment to survive. Every corner of the world abounds in astonishingly diversified provisions. Likewise, man needs water. Surprisingly, three-fourths of the planet is covered with water. Man needs shelter, and in this world, there is land on which it is suitable to build and all sorts of materials to make shelters.

These are only a few among billions of details making life possible on earth. In brief, man lives on a planet perfectly designed for his survival. This is certainly a planet "created for human beings".

Have you heard the one about the puddle and the hole? ". . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

- Douglas Adam

By the way, on the subject of "man needs water. Surprisingly, three-fourths of the planet is covered with water." Please don't try to drink most of it (literally and otherwise).

A person's interpretation of the world rests on "acquired methods of thought." That is, he thinks in the way he has been taught, or, less kindly, the way in which he is indoctrinated. Under this misguidance, he often dismisses all the aforementioned as "trivial realities." However, if he does not side-step the matter, and start questioning the conditions making our existence possible, he will surely step out of the boundaries of habitual thinking and start to think:

Indeed.

How does the atmosphere serve as a protective ceiling for the earth?

Something to do with gases and chemisty, however it would be a mistake to think an errant meteor won't pierce the Earth's "protective ceiling".

How does each one of the billions of cells in the human body know and perform its individual tasks?

How does this extraordinary ecological balance exist on earth?

Millions of years of evolution. Also, the ecology isn't extraordinarily balanced.

A person seeking answers to these questions surely proceeds on the right path. He does not remain insensitive to things happening around him, and doesn't plead ignorance about the extraordinary nature of the world. A person who asks questions, who reflects on and gives answers to these questions will realize that on every inch of the planet, a plan and an order reigns:

How did the flawless order in the whole universe come into being?

The Big Bang.

Who provided the delicate balances in the world?

No one, plus it's not so delicate.

How did living beings, incredibly diversified in nature, emerge?

Abiogenesis.

Keeping oneself occupied with relentless research to answer these questions results in a clear awareness that everything in the universe, its order, each living being and structure is a component of a plan, a product of design. Every detail, the excellent structure of an insect's wing, the system enabling a tree to carry tons of water to its topmost branches, the order of planets, and the ratio of gases in the atmosphere, are all unique examples of perfection.

In every detail of the infinitely varied world, man finds his Creator. God, the owner of everything in the whole universe, introduces Himself to man through the flawless design of His creation. Everything surrounding us, the birds in flight, our beating hearts, the birth of a child or the existence of the sun in the sky, manifest the power of God and His creation. And what man must do is to understand this fact.

No.

That people still quote Harun Yahya is testament to the fact that one is born everyday.

Donzman:
Proof is not for science?. . .A scientist should help this guy out please!

He's right though, proof is not for science. Science can't prove anything, it can strongly show with evidence, but it doesn't deal in proof. For example, gravity and the theory of relativity give a strong parsimonious explanation of the attraction of bodies; however, it can't be proved, therfore angels could be the unlikely reason for attraction.

Are you then suggesting that Macroevolution does not occur?. . .

Macroevolution does occur, unfortunately you don't know what macroevolution is.

How then did human beings come from the same ancestors as apes? . . .You look like Mike Tyson, a supposed heavyweight giving up before the fights has even started.

Evolution of course. Incidentally, humans are still apes, so we share a common ancestor with other apes.

Look at the baseless claims you're making, "science does not require proofs".

Perhaps you don't understand the implication of the word "proof".

All other evidence can as well be evidence creation. All kinds were created with an ability to change, modify and adapt to their environment, couldn't I make that argument?

You could make that argument, vacuous though it may be, but you will then be required to: define "kinds", show how your model can be falsified, give predictions based on your model and see if they stand up to scrutiny. You'd also have to explain why and how it differs from the theory of evolution (a theory that already explains and has tested the adaptation of organisms).

So you have admitted that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, why then do you insist on pitching it against creation?. . .

I don't know if you've noticed, but it's Creationists that tend pit the two against each other (for good measure, many even include the Big Bang theory and planetary formation with the theory of evolution). Also, Creationists are proud of the fact Creationism includes origins of everything and the "ability to change, modify and adapt to their environment".

By the by, if you want to discuss the origin of life, do so, but don't confuse it with the theory of evolution.

I might as well argue that evolution is one of those natural processes like metabolism and aging.

Why?

You know fully well that evolutionary theory has no clue as to how life started and can only try to explain (barely) how life came to be today. Why then do evolutionists think they have something against creation?. .

Of course the theory of evolution doesn't (shouldn't) touch on the origin of life (see the title of Darwin's book for example), however it does a quite stellar job in explaining how species have diversified.

Why do evolutionists think they have something against Creationism? Why do scientists have something against the flat Earthers?.

.A creationist can always argue that evolution (microevolution to be precise) is a built-in adaptive mechanism built in by the creator.

Present the argument then.

dblock:
When Hitler was a youth, the Jews were running the whole of Germany, all the businesses and companies.

That's not true.

Believe this or not but Hitlers father was an unemployed scum, he tried many times to get employed but was always turned down at the desk,

That's not true either.

Hitler started to realise, that Germany was controlled by the Jews and that, if his beloved fatherland was run by the jews then it would mean it was for the Jews.

That certainly fits in with his warped ideology, although I don't know if he did think that way.

This isn't the main reason why he plotted against the jews but i do beleive that this contributed to it. He couldn't understand why a people that were widely known to have no place in history were running Germany while a lot of his own people where unemployed. He didn't Sympathize with German Jews for he thought they were Jews nonetheless. His climb to power was a way for him to put things the way he tought were right, his philosophy actually isn't far off base but the problem aros when he decided that the Jews were worse than animals and started mass executions "the holocausts" Hitler is by far the worlds greatest ontol freak
---------------------------END------------------

Meh!

clemsonfan:
"Our God" did not come from anywhere. As it states in the Christian Bible not Koran, God has just always "been"

Making up stuff is fun.

Donzman:
@Evolutionists

Why is it that after so many years of mutations artificially, scientists have not been able to create a new specie of a well defined plant/animal.

What do you mean by "well defined"?

In fact, the consensus is shifting towards the idea that mutations do not lead to new species.

So I ask, how did evolution occur?

Mutations, selection, genetic drift.