₦airaland Forum

OLAADEGBU:
Really?  Do you now believe the records in the Bible as true?

I am only stating what is written there. . .Just like when you read the hadith that says that prophet Mohammed divided the moon into to and restate it to another person. . .

OLAADEGBU:
Will it be accurate to say that your disillusion says that Jesus must drink alcohol?

The bible already said that Jesus drank alcohol that's why the people called him a drunkard. . .According to the bible. he said he feasts and drinks and was called a glutton and a drunkard. . . .

Is this poster/handbill for real? Or is this just a mockery of pastor Fire man?. . .

Pastor AIO:
All these pages just because by force by force Olaadegbu says that Jesus must not drink alcohol.


I need to start a thread about interpreting scriptures and the principles underlying it, but I fear that there'll be no interest in it.

His delusions says his Jesus must not drink alcohol. . .

Image123:
But i know mr, i know. I believed and then i saw. If you can believe, you too can see. Tell me, what do you think Jesus drank, Heineken or Star extra lager?

Sure, when it comes to religion believing is seeing. . .When you believe hard enough you will see and hear things. . .Ask the muslims and hindus. . .Nothing special. . .In real life seeing is believing not in the world of religion where believing is seeing. . .

OLAADEGBU:
He claimed that you could see the "truth," is that not worth rejoicing over?

Sure not me alone, other christians saw it as well. . .What was Jesus drinking when the people called him a drunk?. . .The fact that you don't want to answer it says a lot. . .

OLAADEGBU:
So you think forcing alcohol into Jesus' mouth gives you the green light to go on a drinking spree? My friend, if you want to drink no one is stopping you just don't use the Bible as your excuse.

Use the bible as an excuse . . . Are you kidding me?. . .

OLAADEGBU:
Since you believe that Jesus drank alcohol because His accusers called Him a drunkard, do you also believe John the Baptist was demon-possessed because his accusers labelled him so?

He asked you a simple question. will you answer it or not?. . .Again. . .What was Jesus drinking when the people called him a drunkard?. . .

Image123:
He knows that Jesus exists bro.

Even you don't know whether Jesus existed or not. . you only BELIEVE he existed and that's where it ends. . It begins and ends with BELIEF. . .

OLAADEGBU:
God is the Moral Law giver and you don't believe that there no ultimate Moral Law but relative laws made up by men to suit their whims and caprices.  Whose Law are you using as a yardstick to determine someone is dishonest?

Which God exactly?. . .Your God is the moral law giver yet we have your God giving laws that inspire our(christians inclusive) repulsion, eh?. . .Interesting. . .Men decide what is moral and what is immoral. . . . Reality points to that at least. . .I use the yardstick set out by men to determine what is honest and what is dishonest. . .

I'll rather discuss how your soul can get saved because you are still better off than those who with their mouth think that God exists but with their actions they live as if He doesn't.

Your actions have betrayed you here, your actions says you are a hypocrite and a liar. . .

Do you believe that the Bible is telling the truth?

I am simply repeating what the bible says, whether I believe it or not is irrelevant. . .You are the one trying to spin what it says and make it say something else, that action is what is termed as lying. . .

OLAADEGBU:
That I would be persecuted is part of the bargain that I signed up for.  If they persecuted my Lord for saying the Truth who am I not to be?  The atheists that you said can see the "truth" that Jesus drank alcohol but cannot see the truth as to the reason why Jesus came is what you are rejoicing about.  If you really cared about the truth you will be concerned about the state of his soul if he should die without Jesus.

. . .Where did he say he is rejoicing over anything, pls can you show me?. . .When will you stop putting words into people's mouth?. . .That's a sign of being fraudulent. . .

Thelstan:
@Olaadegbu @debosky

The fact that Jesus took alcohol does not mean he was rightly accused as a drunkard.

Not everyone who takes alcohol is a drunkard. A drunkard is a chronic drinker who is continuously under the influence of alcohol.

In the 1st and 2nd centuries, a glutton was a person who regularly attended banquet feasts. All kinds of exotic dishes were prepared like Peacock Brains, Flamingo tongues and Elephant ears. Meals often had up to 100 courses or more. These organised feasts just for the pleasure of consumption also provided private tents where participants could go to vomit up thier food. A long feather was provided to help vomit and aftrwards the person could rest for a while and then resume the eating. These were banquets that lasted for days.

Jesus was recorded to have eaten as a guest in many places, and this was why they called him a glutton: obviously an exaggeration as above. By the same token, for them to have called him a drunkard (in exaggeration nonetheless), he must have been known to take some wine when he dined.

Not in OLAADEGBU's world. . .His holy Jesus never came near alcohol. . . .

OLAADEGBU:
Don't be too quick to rejoice that atheists and satanists are supporting your stand, what this portrays is that you are in the category of those Pharisees who accused Jesus of being a glutton and a drunkard.  If you and your bedfellows accuse me of duplicity how does that differ from what the accuser of the brethren did?

. . .The bird that never stops giving. . .

debosky:
Pity - the similar victim angle and twisting of posts to paint yourself as some sort of martyr. It is a pity that atheists can see the truth in this matter yet you can't. Your duplicitous nature is being exposed just like Paul called out Peter for attempting to pander to the whims of the Jews.

Was Paul also an accuser of Jesus then?  

+100

Play the victim and accuse others of getting it all wrong and persecuting you is the name of the game. . .But seriously why do religious people love playing the victim game all the time, claiming martyrdom and manipulating themselves thinking they are manipulating others?. . .Once OLAADEGBU's positions are challenged he starts crying and singing his normal songs of standing for christ while others are standing with the atheist and evolutionists to discredit the bible, trying to systematically promote himself and his delusions as the ultimate truth. . .Pathetic. . .

OLAADEGBU:
Since when did atheists begin to use God's yardstick to determine who is dishonest?  Since you don't believe in the existence of God don't you think it will be a waste of my time to be discussing what Jesus drank with you?  God doesn't believe in atheists.

God's yardstick? What does that mean?. . .Ohh, its a waste of time to be discussing what Jesus drank with me but it isn't a waste of time to discuss that Jesus is still seeking for my alleged lost soul, eh?. . .Interesting. . .The verdict is out. .Your inability to answer the question says you know very well that you have been lying to yourself when you say that Jesus did not drink alcohol. . .When the bible clearly says he drank alcohol. . .

OLAADEGBU:
What Jesus was drinking should be the least of your worries, as Jesus is still seeking for your lost soul.

Your dishonesty is out for all to see. . .Again what was Jesus drinking when the people called him drunkard?. . .

Luke 7:33,34: "For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners".

@ OLAADEGBU What was Jesus drinking when the people called him a drunkard?. . .

The bible very clearly says that Jesus drinks alcohol, no?. . . .

^^
With good all the things that were consider evil today like slavery, genocide, human sacrifice,racism and tribalism, stoning people to death for disobeying their parents and many other things that inspire our moral repulsion were all practice with god himself dishing out the injunctions according to the story. . . . Modern day liars and christian apologist like William Craig will tell you that maybe the writers of the story got it wrong and were not really ordered to do all those things by their god. . . . . . .He believes in the bible but doesn't want to believe in the evil actions ordered by his god and his god's chosen men. . . .How dishonest can one be to himself, yet we are to believe that this character described in the book is the source of human morality. . . .I wonder why they keep lying to them selves. . .

Enigma:
@Kay17

First, a number of posters (including at least one of your fellow atheists, I believe) have already noted that your definition of "evil" is inadequate.

Second, unless you are able to present some objective basis for ascertaining what is "evil", we have no reason to accept your personal whim of what is "evil" and therefore your thesis is unsustainable. Take this example: capital punishment is practised as part of Nigerian and American laws while it is prohibited in the UK ---- so who is right? On what basis can we objectively adjudge capital punishment to be "good" or "evil"?

The only basis for determining what evil is lies on what the society decides, if the society decides that slavery isn't evil as it was for hundreds of years in the past then it wouldn't be considered evil an evil. . .If the society decides that eating pork is evil then it remains evil until the society says other wise, if the society says brea[i]s[/i]t argumentation is evil then it remains evil, if it says homose[i]x[/i]uality isnt evil then it remains a good thing. . .Nothing is good or bad until when the society decides to label it as good or bad. . . .Heck your own God and his chosen people once saw human sacrifice as a good thing. . . .Once your God was the one giving out injunctions on how to brand and enslave people. . . .Good or evil is defined by the society mostly on what they feel will preserve the society and some other reasons as well. . .When sick people were thought to be against the interest of the society in an enclosed place your God was their saying he doesn't want them in his temples. . .

Third, the reality is that evangelical/militant/aggressive/fundamentalist/etc atheists who claim some "morality" have either not thought their position through logically (if they are acting honestly) or are being disingenuous and liars if they claim they can find some objective basis for morality when in truth what they are doing is situational ethics or moral relativism.

The reality is that the completely  deluded and lying theist keep making baseless claims without backing them up to their logical conclusions . . . They just keep begging their questions and displaying their deluded credentials for all to see all the time. . . Morality is not  objective in the real sense. . .The basis of morality and all moral codes of conducts is the human society. . . .The liars keep talking about their God being the source of human morality when reality shows that their point is false. . .If enslaving children and genocide is morally wrong objectively how then can a God that espouses slavery and genocide be said to be the source of morality or that objective source of moral code . . . .The thousands of years of human moral evolution came about through trial and error and experimentation not through any God even though people use God as their consensus when bringing about or changing moral principles. . .

Take for example Nietzsche: many evangelical/etc atheists like to quote his famous "God is dead" but they reveal themselves as not having followed or incapable of following Nietzsche's thought through to its logical consequences one of which as admitted by Nietzsche himself is that;

An who made Nietzsche an atheist authority?  He was simply offering his opinion on which he is very free to express, his opinion on morality remains his opinion and it has nothing to do with reality or morality and its foundation. . .Millions of atheist have never heard his name before ? . . . .Jesus said that if your right hand will cause you to sin its better you cut it off, no? He also said that if any one slaps you, you are to turn the other cheek, if a person takes you shirt you are to give him your coat as well. . .It seems christians who believe in Jesus have not followed or are incapable of following Jesus's thoughts through to its logical consequences and hence they can be claimed to be deluded liars and s[i]t[/i]upid hypocrites. . .

^^

The question is completely silly and baseless. . .They keep asking childish questions like "Where do atheist get their morality?". . . Where else but  from where every body gets his/hers which is from the society and it began as a result of experimentation until people get it right , how can there be morality if there is no God, when a simple reading of their religious book shows a very CLEAR evolution of morality of their God and his chosen people. . .Later you hear silly questions like "Why is murder bad?". . .Murder is bad because it causes pain and the purpose of executing a murderer is to remove a murderer from the population and deter others, not because "they deserve it." It doesn't make us "good" people to kill/imprision a murderer - it is just an action which is necessary to help preserve a society in which people aren't free to murder without retaliation. (Because people WANT to live.) . I just keep screaming at my computer when people like William Craig keep making the completely bogus argument that God is the source of human morality when we have God sanctioning things that humans today christians included find immoral and his opponents just let him get away with it without addressing it very well. . . .The evolving nature of human morality proves our point. . . .

What about Islam and its Koran?. . .

^^

OK, Roger. . .I get what you are saying. . .And I'll have to agree with you because I find the OP's position inadequate. . .You even helped in pointing that out to him. . .

Thelstan:
I have a problem with people who argue on threads like this and will start gallivanting when they are shown to have gaffed, it has happened often on this thread already. No one can be right all the time. Let's wait and see what mazaje and plaetton will return to say concerning their indicated solecism about a God-centered objective morality.

Sure no one can be right all the time, enigma implied that morality comes from God and all I have said is that it is false since all moral laws and codes of conduct can be shown very clearly to be created by humans ALL the time in an evolving and continuous manner. . . .God centered morality poses a problem to God believers since  God believers believe in different Gods and hold different moral laws and codes of conduct. . . .

plaetton:
And ofcourse ,you are the only one who truly understands. That's what you tell yourself.
Bravo to you.

Majzaje is aguing against your god-centered objective morality .
I have already made my case for objective morality. Once any idea becomes god-centered, it takes  convoluted pathways to validate itself.

You don talk am finish. . . .

Kay 17 your definition of evil is completely inadequate. . .What exactly are you saying my man?. . . .

Enigma:
Post above is just one example of why I don't bother with your posts.

Who cares if you bother with my post . . .You stup[i]i[/i]dly and ridiculously assume that your BASELESS opinion on a topic on the internet is of any meaning to me as an individual to the extent that you attach any importance of bothering with it or not. . . .I laugh in Greek. . .

Here is the opening post.

Any person of intelligence and honesty can see who introduced "God" into the discussion and associated him with evil ---- thus with morality. Simples. Of course, I will revert to simply ignoring your nonsense.

And any one with intelligence will also see the point plaetton was making. . .You can keep singing your songs of delusion to yourself, seems it makes you happy. . .And stop deluding yourself into thinking that your baseless opinion of an issue on the internet matters to any body here. . .It doesn't

Enigma:
Is female circumcision "good" or "evil" and what makes it either?

Is the christian God the source of human morality? when, where and how?. . . .

@ plaetton

There is no need wasting your time discussing with some one that prefers to sing instead of listening to what you are saying. . Just sing back to him in his language maybe he will understand what you are saying after all you are an evil angry, rabid and an intolerant evangelical atheist. . . . 

The sophist songs they keep singing to themselves all the time

Enigma:
^^ I might have guessed you simply can't lift yourself to the necessary level for both understanding and objectivity/honesty.

Who introduced "God" into this discussion?

You did. . . .

Enigma:
Maybe you don't understand the topic or maybe you are just too inured to your un-objective way of thinking.

The OP says the idea of "evil" means there is no God. Well, the question to him (and to you if you are capable) is: what is the basis for regarding something as "evil" or "good" in the first place and he/you must define the "God" that is disproved by the existence of evil. We simply put the theistic point to him, that you cannot establish "good" or "evil" objectively unless you start with a premise that recognises God, Simples.

Look, for you to get going, you have to define "God", "good", and "evil". As I said before, if you can't do that you are just wasting everyone's time.

Look at whois talking about wasting people's time. . .Mirror mirror on the wall. . . .

Thelstan:
If you say morality is, overall, subjective and not objective then necessarily good [/b]and [b]evil (which terms the OP has not clearly defined) are also globally subjective. This means there is no absolutely good construct, neither is there an absolutely evil construct. Is this your point of view so we know what you are saying?

Yeah that is almost my position but not entirely. . .There are good courses and evil constructs but that also depends on the society and the time in history since its the law makers that determine for every society what is good and what is evil based on so many different reasons. . . .We have come a VERY long way and our morality has evolved a GREAT deal so much so that blacks and whites can live or coexist as one in some parts of the world today. . . Very long ago they could only co exist as masters and slaves. . . .Slavery used to be morally right  in many societies back in the days and it was encouraged in some parts of the world. . . .Sacrificing virg[i]i[/i]ns to weather Gods used to be a thing of joy back in the days. . . Stealing from your enemies and sharing their ladies used to be ok back in the days because the society saw nothing wrong in it. . . .If the society says that eating the roasted flesh of your enemies is good then it will be good unless the society says its evil then it becomes evil. . . .Many tribes used to happily sacrifice their twin babies back in the days and they saw it as a good thing and a religious duty. . . .So yes morality is not objective. . .it all depends on the place and time in history. . . .

plaetton:
It's quite funny that theists always try to make this link of god as th source of objective morality. Its surely one of the biggest whoppers ever sold. It presupposes, as stated by the two gentlemen on this thread, that athiests or cultures with non-custodial dieties would be devoid of objective morality.The history of our planet shows that it has not been so.

You can say that again. . .It is really one of the biggest whoppers ever sold indeed. . .I really don't understand how and why people keep allowing them to make this baseless arguments,they even use it when providing evidence to show that their various Gods exist. . . William Craig loves using this baseless argument that the God he is talking about is the source of morality, yet most atheist debaters that engage him just let it pass with out destroying the baseless argument completely. . .He keeps saying that the God of the bible is the source of human morality, if that is true then why are do so many moral principles in the bible inspire our revulsion today . . .If morality is from God then why doesn't ALL moral values come about same way?. . . .Craig and other theist like him argue that if God doesn't exist then objective moral values don't exist, but objective moral values do exist so God exists so they feel they have made a point. . .

They leave aside the dubious first premise of tying the objectivity of morals to God's existence . The thing is how do they support his premise that objective morals DO exist? They do that by appealing to our moral intuitions. How we all intuitively "know" and agree that things like r[i]a[/i]pe, slavery, child abuse etc are wrong. Channeling somehow this objective morality and saying it comes from God.

But this is exactly what makes the argument so absurd, yet people like Craig keep using it all the time without his opponents destroying his argument completely. . . .Craig's candidate for the source of morality is a character described in the bible, and yet the bible is FILLED with God producing acts and injunctions that strike many of us today christians included as being against our moral intuitions and values. . . .

It's like saying we all agree that math is valid and objective so there must be a great mathematician from which math flows and then saying "Hey, I've got the best candidate for who that mathematician might be . .here he is described in this old book. . ." But the character in the book is found espousing all manner of "wrong" mathematics, like 2 +2 = 5. Well if you are appealing to the objectivity of mathematical formulations like 2 + 2 = 5 as a starting point for the existence of a great mathematician, it sure as hell invalidates any candidate who isn't getting math right. . . .I always scream at my computer when ever he makes the argument of morality coming from God and his opponents just let it pass without addressing it very well. . . .

Enigma:
In fairness, one of them says there is no objective morality; only he does not realise the ramifications of such a statement. What's new?

The songs they keep singing to themselves. . . You implied that morality is objective and God is its source how so?. .

Thelstan:
Wow no objective morality would make us all descend very fast into. . . anarchy. Phew God forbid.

The very CLEAR evolution of morality throughout the history of man and the fact that it varies from place to place shows that it isnt objective no?