₦airaland Forum

I pasted them for a reason. They are scientific articles detailing the earth's history.

Ignore this time frame issue since it will only derail this particular thread.

I'm assuming this is a genuine thread and not just a Christianity bashfest as usual.

Krayola:
Greed, weapons, lust for power . . .those are things that I think lend themselves to be easily used as tools of tyranny. Maybe if u can give me a specific example of how religion is used as a tool of tyranny then we can analyse that.

Now, u will probably go back in history and state the crimes of the Roman empire and the Old testament, and The Islamic conquests and all of that. But the problem, IMO, is that religion was the only world view then, so everything was seen and defined in religious terms. It wouldn't matter what was happening, it would have been understood in religious terms. And in cultures where deities were not central to their religious lives we still see the same tendency for tyranny. I'm not sure but I doubt Genghis Khan claimed he was doing anything for God. So human behaviour, our vices, our tendency to want to dominate each other has been consistent through human history. Even in the era of science and secular societies. Some people are just tyrants

Culture is a very complicated thing. there is a tendency to impose our own ideas of what is acceptable onto other cultures. People in the west like to look at the Arab world and call them oppressive, but we do not understand their culture. Before Islam, women in the Arab world had it much much much much worse. The prophet Mohammed improved conditions for them like a million fold (exaggeration is allowed. Na my birthday yestaday   ). Another example of how Religion can do good.

It's all about how u choose to see it. Because all their doctrines have at their heart peace, justice, tolerance etc. Now, people with "evil" ambition can read things into the texts and use them for all types of stuff (e.g. the extremist interpretation of Jihad).

I'm not saying religion can not, and has not been used as a tool for tyranny. But u are overstating it, and distorting reality. Most religious people are peaceful, and without religion we will still have crazy power hungry tyrants. I don't remember IBB, or Abacha, or even Yar Adua invoking god. . .meanwhile na dem worse pass.

jagunlabi:
That is a distinct possibility.

jagunlabi:
You may be right in some of your assertions, but the sad truth is that the negative effects of religion as a tool of tyranny is vastly more influential in our lives than it's positive effects.

The question i ask is this, "why do religions even lend themselves to be easily used as tools of tyranny at all?Are they not supposed to function as tools of spiritual growth for humanity alone?Why is the resistance to tyranny by religions so low?That is the question that intrigues and that needs to be answered.Religious ideologies are just too close to tyranny for comfort.The very gods worshipped by religions(especially the three abrahamic desert dogmas) are epitomes of tyrants.Why is that?

If the earth only had one supercontinent at different periods, then that provides a land bridge for animals and humans to migrate over time. Continents drift constantly- the movement is just so slow as to be unnoticeable.

Besides, in the food chain, animals depend on different types of plant life. So its not too far fetched to wonder if plants getting localised to one region, would eventually cause animals to also move there. And vice versa.

For your polar bear analogy- algae/plankton determine fish concentrations and maybe type. Polar bears will follow the fish to somewhere where they can conveniently catch them. Habitat, etc.

And dont ignore man's contribution either- he takes different animals along wherever he goes.

No2Atheism:
In terms of Physical Evil:
---------------------------------------

- There is something called Free-will amongst human beings.

- The argument is easily defeated by the fact that they themselves "have the free will to question The Creator". : ITS SEEMS PEOPLE DO NOT EVEN REALISE THAT IF THERE WAS NO FREE WILL IN HUMANS, THEY THEMSELVES WOULD NOT EVEN BE IN A POSITION TO EVEN ASK THAT KIND OF QUESTION.

- If The Creator wanted Robots He could have created us (Humans) without free-will. How we choose to excercise the free-will is ours alone to determine.

Krayola:
@ Tudor   dat your profile pic na real AMerican wonder!!  

Banom, make u dey carry dey go.  your girlfriend na real bone-crusher. I apologize.  

mavenbox:
@wirinet: You have responded. I will not respond to what you have said because it will turn into a hot, useless argument. I do not have a habit of arguing with the truth - I simple present the evidence and let others judge.

So, everyone else, I invite you all to consider our arguments objectively and arbitrate.

Cheers

davidylan:
Na it has to be olabowale . . . anyone who could make sense of his post shld pls help us out.

noetic15:
Jesoul. . .thou has done a brilliantly beautiful job. . . . I could not have added or said anything better.

. . . .I am a multi-trillionaire, so forget mazaje, Deepsight and toneyb's proposal and be my wife . . . .whaooo. U have done a great job on this thread.

JeSoul:
Thank you sir . Multi-trillionaire? that one is serious oh . . . lol

Chrisbenogor:
Here is how it works on Nairaland's religion section Court, we bring the charges before you, ask you to plead guilty or not. If you throw in the towel the sordid   scandals ,embezzlement and what have you will be ignored and we move straight to sentencing if not, we go ahead and call our witnesses and then you do your defence  by calling yours and the jurors (other members can call the verdict   ).
By the way a lawyer will be provided for you if you cannot afford one  

viaro:
Carried, Jesoul. And thanks for shedding some light on why you think so.

Indeed, the format of my posts, and either diction, give me away as almost the very same person as pilgrim.1. I was initially put off and tended to react in an unfriendly manner when Nairalanders were teasing me about this, but these days I tend to not bother any more and just take it all as a joke.

In the course of all this, I tried to look up a few threads where pilgrim.1 made some posts - and astonishing it was to find many similarities in format, especially on threads discussing tithing.

Another thing, though, I found that she was not very forthcoming when asked about her denomination; on a few occasions where people have asked me about mine, I have wasted no time replying that I'm a Baptist.

Is she polite? I don't know - but one of my first entries to Nairaland should show that viaro wastes no time to blasts discussants who trouble him (not that I feel great doing so anyway).

So, indeed, the similarities are 'cloned', if I may say so. But does that make me into pilgrim.1?  

banom:
remove either , say she is the one, I am at your back or front ( any where you want)

noetic15:
you should be familiar with my position on evolution by now. I am more interested in how the original life formed before it began diversifying. Evolution claims that this is from non-organic substances which is false. . . .but lets put this aside.

You do not deny the presence of these plants in the ship. . . . all I did was to ask what u though Noah did with them once he was out of the ark?
Like u rightly pointed out, .God's plan was to repopulate the earth. . but I disagree that God re-created plants. That we may not have the answers does not rule out the possibility of the obvious.

I am afraid that the above assertions from your "geologists" are FALSE. one does not require the knowledge of rocket science to decipher how elements as huge as rootless polystrate fossils could find themselves at the other end of the world. . .in an ageless form. u dont have to dismiss the facts to suit your notions. the fact is that there are rootless polystrate fossils in australia who could only have been there through a global flood.

u miss the whole point mazaje.

1. u make an assumption that the earth was as developed as this 45oo years ago. that explains why u would consider it impossible for a kangaroo to find its way to australia without having a private jet. Nope. . .the earth without the somplexities and ancient civilizations can best be described as an open field.
The natural instincts of adaptation and the urge to survive coupled with no restriction in mobility (since there was no life on the planet) is enough basis to explain the redistribution of these animals.

what do u think the state of the earth was after the flood and after the land had dried. the habitual nature of the earth would be the same all over the earth. . that all animals survived is a miracle science calls ADAPTATION

U can dispute the fact that the flood water could not have transported the inhabitants of the ark (for which u are right) but u cannot dispute the fact that it could have transported "other" substances like the polystrate fossils.
u would notice that I did not lay emphasis on it, I simply drew your attention to it.

KunleOshob:
This would be a straight fight between Ogaga and Abuzola 

OLAADEGBU:
@Image123, let's spare them the suspense and give them a teaser.

@Mazaje and other atheists, check out the link below and if you are not satisfied do some Bible reading.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0293/0293_01.asp

OLAADEGBU:
Do you now agree and admit that you are ignorant when it comes to the Nativity story?

OLAADEGBU:
With what you have quoted where did it say that Jesus was born in a house? Can you differentiate between a house and a manger? Do I need to distinguish between the two? Where did it say that Mary gave birth in a house and then placed it in a manger?

noetic15:
so mohammed was suicidal. . .thats not unexpected, after receiving revelations from demons

Kay 17:
he is being cornered. he made an assertion and on being called to prove it, he can't.

banom:
Tipia well done ooo you are doing great.

OLAADEGBU:
Christians who paid attention in Sunday school know the truth of Jesus Nativity it only those who paid no attention or slept through church service that have to depend on hear say as their evidence. Does that mean that you cannot quote where it is (your allegation) from the Bible?

Image123:
mazaje and ignorance. Are you too shy or too proud to quote the portions asked?
"mary gave birth to Jesus in the house and placed him in the manger". Something is playing on your imaginations mr

KunleOshob:
Mmmmmh a leopard truly cannot change it's spots, highlighted above are classic lines from pilgrim.1

OLAADEGBU:
Yes, I will "show you" when you quote from scriptures what you alleged as the nativity story.

OLAADEGBU:
The onus is on you my friend. You that claim that there is no God, that the Bible is full of holes, that the account is not accurate etc. If you cannot get your facts right in little things why do you expect me to take other assumptions of yours serious. All I asked was for you to quote what you alleged in your post before I explain what you don't understand, is that too much for you to do?