₦airaland Forum

viaro:
Lol, mazaje, thank you for trying to show me all that stuff. They are not new to me, and I've perused them extensively before your attempt here. Nonetheless, I appreciate your help (at least, other readers could find them useful where they might not have come across them). There are more sources I could show you concerning those matters, and even where Bart Ehrman has been shown up for his shoddy scholarship - example, check TRIABLOGUE. .com (for easy to follow discussions on that).

I wasn't really trying to "show you" per say. . .I was just trying to make a case for my arguments. . . .

The point is, I am well aware of Papias argument - and that is a moot point. My surprise was that some one could claim that the Gospels and ALL the NT were written in Greek. That is not true, and I wanted to see who these "scholars" were that could make such unqualified assertions. I'm sure the Wiki contributor may have had a hard time sourcing those scholars, which was why I was glad to see the [who?] inserted. Surely Papias did not claim that ALL the NT were written in Greek, did he? And outside of Papias, is it impossible that others understood the fact that not all the NT were thus written in Greek? I noted somewhere (post #23) in this thread that many people confuse a translation/version with a manuscript, and the Wiki source is just one example.

The Papias argument is still valid and relevant because he was the first person to ascribe the document to matthew. . . .   weather the document(logia) he referred to and ascribed to matthew is the same document as the one that is in the new testament or not is not of importance to me personally. . . I am more interested in seeing the evidence that points to authorship or language of authorship outside the claim made by papias,  . . .hope you understand the point I am trying to make?

viaro:
@mazaje,

True, I examined your assertions denying the authorship of Matthew's Gospel on the basis of your three postulations, mainly because it of illeism. Nothing more than that. Your recent remarks are still founded on that same point and nothing more, and it would not be helpful for me to repeat my answers in other words. The "third person" reference, however you may argue it, is not cogent enough to form the substance of authorship of any document - even where the author does not explicitly introduce himself in that document. This was why I hinted that you make a simple check of illeism online and you will find a plethora of such works where authors make use of that literary style without even directly introducing themselves. I am not trying to force Matthew into the Gospel that bears his name; but the basis for your arguments do not hold, and that was what I have demonstrated.

Ok fair enough. . . .Point noted. . .

viaro:
[list](a)  'Scholars[^who?] maintain that the gospels and all the books of the New Testament were written in Greek'[/list]

I have serious problems with that assertion. . and that is why I'm glad to see a radical question ['who'] after 'scholars'. Just who are these "scholars"? We kow that assertion is wrong by a mile, because Matthew is reputed to have been written in HEBREW while the other manuscripts of the same Matthew's Gospel are translations into Greek!

It has been argued that that all the gospels were originally written in greek. . . .

The first reference to the Hebrew text written by the disciple Matthew comes from Papias (bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor fl. first half of the second century). Papias starts by discussing the origin of the Gospel of Mark, and then further remarks that "Matthew composed the logia in the Hebrew tongue and each one interpreted them as he was able". According to Ehrman this is not a reference to the canonical gospel, since the canonical Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek and not Hebrew.[3] The interpretation of the above quote from Papias depends on the meaning of the term logia. The term literally means "oracles", but the intended meaning by Papias has been controversial. [3][17][18]

Apart from Papias' comment, we do not hear about the author of the Gospel until Irenaeus around 185 who remarks that Matthew also issued a written Gospel of the Hebrews in their own language while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the Church. [19][20]

Pantaenus, Origen and other Early Church Fathers also believed Matthew wrote the Gospel of the Hebrews. [3][21][22] Finally, not one of the Church Fathers asserted that Matthew wrote the Greek Gospel found in the Bible. [23]

Wikipedia

Papias talks about a logia written by matthew in the hebrew language but some scholars have said that is different to the gospel written in the new testament because the gospel of matthew that is in the new testament was originally written in greek. . . .I do not know what to make of it all but your assertion that matthew was reputed to be written in hebrew does not hold any water either since no strong strong case has been made for it beside the citation from papias. . .

viaro:
Having addressed the essential point of your argument, mazaje, there are a few questions I would like you to think through carefully. In reference to your assertion in (c) below -

(c) 'matthew will not write about himself in the 3rd person'

. . it is clear that such an assertion is inconsequential. You cannot make categorical statements about what people "will" and "will not" do and leave it at that, otherwise your assertion falls into what literary scholars call an "ipse dixit" (an unsupported dogmatic assertion). Indeed, there is nothing wrong with Matthew (or any other author) to have referred to himself (or herself) in the 3rd person (we already noted that Julius Caesar did this in 40 - 50s BC). But the questions I have for you are these:

OK I accept that I erred. . . . I have never came across any non fictional writing from the first centuary where the author addressed himself in the 3rd person. . . . .

[list][li]Have you personally known the author or Matthew himself in order to ascertain what they "will" and "will not" do?[/li][/list]

[list][li]Did you show any sound basis for your 'ipse dixit' statement, or you're just basing it on a personal preference without any scholarship at all?[/li][/list]

[list][li]Have you carefully considered the literary styles of writers around the time of the Gospels before asserting what you did?[/li][/list]

[list][li]Did you expose your own dogmatic statement to criticism of any literary scholarship?[/li][/list]

[list][li]Is it impossible for any author (past or contemporary) to have referred to himself in the third person?[/li][/list]

[list][li]On what basis (if any) do scholars argue that authorship of any document is impossible where the author refers to himself in the third person?[/li][/list]

[list][li]On what scholarly grounds do you argue that 'Matthew will not write about himself in the 3rd person'?[/li][/list]

[list][li]What do you say about clear examples of authors in early centuries and contemporary times that are well known to have referred to themselves in the 3rd person, mazaje?[/li][/list]

Those are certainly not the only questions to necessarily ask when making your own argument in this regard. But it is obvious you did not think through your assertions carefully before dogmatically parroting them. When people make the mistake you did in matters like this, they immediately resort to the weaker excuse that there is "no meaning" in these well-known literary tools of analyses that scholars employ in their researches.

Thank you for your attempts.

If you re-read my post again. . . I said that mathew could not have written the gospel because of the three reasons I stated. . .

1. The entire gospel was written in 3rd person narrative
2. The author of the document did not state who he was, the document was anonymously written
3. The document was attributed to matthew by some one else long after the document was written. . .The gospel was attributed to mathew by papias in 120CE very long after it was written. . . . .

Even at that time authors used to claim authorship of their work but that is not the case with the gospels. . . .Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus,Philo,Justus of Tiberia etc all wrote documents and claimed authorship. . .even Julius Caesar claimed authorship in the Commentarii de Bello Gallico. . . .

I noticed that of all the points I made you were more interested in refuting the 3rd hand account declaration I made. . . .but that still does not help you in any way at all. . . .You did very well by providing evidence to show that people used to write narrative accounts in 3rd person but how does that show that matthew really wrote the gospel attributed to him? You also have never meet matthew, you only have an anonymous document that was later attributed to his name long after the document was written so, what evidence do you have to show that matthew  actually wrote the gospel attributed to him by papias? Any evidence from the document  itself to help you with that? What you need to know is that even at that time people use to claim authorship of their work. . . .

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQFGj3HCink&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEtfdzNAE74&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9dXGJ2rYdA&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffX9msPCwZk&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

viaro:
I drew from your own assertion of trying to cast doubts only on the basis of whether the author could never have addressed himself in the 3rd person. That is simply unintelligent and a poor reflection of the literary style of writers in that period. Your assertion was lacking any seriousness and that was why I pointed its weakness and then demonstrated my persuasion with an example within the constraints of the people you mentioned in particular - Matthew and Paul.

tually

Actually yout claims are false because even at that time writers used to claim ownership of their works and refer to themselves in the first person when narrating a story. . . . If you read the works of Josephus, Pliny the elder, Tacitus and Philo you will see them addressing themselves in first person in all their writings that are made available to us. . .Here is a part of Pliny's letter to Trajan(written in AD112)

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Here is a part of Josephus writing where he addresses himself in the first person. . .

About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs. There was at Rome a woman whose name was Paulina; one who, on account of the dignity of her ancestors, and by the regular conduct of a virtuous life, had a great reputation: she was also very rich; and although she was of a beautiful countenance, and in that flower of her age wherein women are the most gay, yet did she lead a life of great modesty.
- Antiquity of the Jews, Book XVIII; Flavius Josephus, 94-100 CE

If you read the Annals of Tacitus, The Antiquitit of the jews by Josephus, and the writings of both Pliny the elder and Pliny the younger you will see that they all the authors of the document claimed authorsip of their works and referred to themselves in the first person something the authour of matthew did not do. . .there is no where in the gospel of matthew where the author claimed authorship of his work. . . the FACT remains that no body knows who wrote the gospel of matthew, where it was written and when exactly it was written. . . . Papias was the first person to ascribe the gospel to matthew based on no evidence at all. . . .If he had attributed it to Andrew I know you will be here giving the literary criticism excuse and using it to make the case for authorship by Andrew. . . . .Even at that time authors used to claim authorship of their work and address themselves in the first person. . .I am yet to see any first centuray author beside that of the bible that addresses himself in the 3rd person when writing a narrative. . . . .

I have provided a demonstration to fault your assertion as too presumptive and totally naive. How did I do that? By pointing out that authors in that time could refer to themselves in either the first, second or third persons. Your assertion was rather that Matthew WILL NOT do thus and thus - to which I asked if you had been with Matthew personally to know that he could never have done such! Making assertions that completely that is unethically evading literary style and content is not helpful, but you're entitled to shouting about it as much as you may.

I am sorry you did not give any credible example at all. . . . the example you gave about paul did not wash at all. . . . .

jagunlabi:
Especially if the god is a false god like the christian god.

. . . . I wonder why the christian god is always afraid of wisdom. . . .

viaro:
@Pastor AIO,

From mazaje's answer about the authorship of Matthew, perhaps you can now see why I hinted in my reply to yours (post #25) that many people who try to criticise the Biblical documents do not exactly know how to approach their criticism. Let me exemplify:

If someone is going to draw the same conclusions as mazaje did about Matthew, the first thing that clearly comes to mind is this: what type of literary criticism has he employed to bring him to that conclusion? And even if he could point to any single type (eg., greek literary criticism and/or psychoanalytic literary criticism), what would be the results?

All these terms like greek literary criticisms are just baseless apologetics tactics that make no meaning and do no justice to the topic being discussed at all. . . .  

He makes the claim that - 'because the person writing this story refers to matthew in the third person matthew will not write about himself in the 3rd person', blah-blah. Does this gentleman know anything about any type of literary criticism? How does he know for a fact that Matthew 'will not write about himself in the 3rd person'? What made him draw such assertive conclusions? Did he personally meet Matthew in person to know that the same Matthew could never write about himself in the 3rd person? Why do people like to draw such brash conclusions?

You believe that matthew wrote the gospels based on no evidence at all but because people such as Papias, Irenaeus , Pantaenus, and Origen all attributed the gospels to him. . . .The gospel of matthew was anonymously written and was later said to be written by matthew by other people. . . .The author of the gospel did not say who he was. . .if the Papias, Irenaeus and co had decided to name the document the gospel according to andrew I know you will be here making the same case for the authorship for andrew. . . .

It is a fact in greek literary criticism that authors could refer to themselves in either the first, second, or third persons. This is evident in the Gospels as well as the epistles of the NT. Take Paul, for instance - we know that he referred to himself in various ways including both first and third persons:

             'I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, . . .
              . . . such an one caught up to the third heaven.'
              2 Corinthians 12:1-10


Some may read this passage and assume Paul is speaking about someone else. No, he was speaking about himself in such a manner that the reader might miss the point. That is just one example among several. In the same way, John used that literary style in the Gospel that bears his name; and the argument that Matthew's narrative being in third person cast doubts about its authorship is baseless and empty. The person who makes such assertions understands next to nothing about literary criticisms.

You have provided no evidence at all to show that paul was not referring to another person you ONLY made a claim with out any evidence at all to support your claim. . . .you are yet to provide any evidence to show that matthew wrote the gospels from the document itself. . .but you point to my evidence as baseless when you own claims are more baseless. . . .  

I just wanted to point out the basis of why I replied the way I did in post #25 to yours in mentioning the matter of literary criticism, and the above is just one example.

All these are excuses apologist use to confuse people and themselves. . . .The fact remains that no body can point to the authorship of the book from the document itself and reading the document alone tells any objective reader that reads it that it was not written by the person the document claims wrote it because the person that wrote it did not state who he was and who ever wrote it wrote it in the 3rd person. . . .People later attributed the gospel to matthew, there is no where in the gospel where matthew claimed any authorship of the gospel. . . .

davidylan:
where is your evidence against?

The evidence is in the gospels themselves. . .example according to the tradition mathew the disciple of jesus wrote the gospel of matthew but if you read the gospel of matthew itself  you will see the evidence that the gospel was written by some one else and ascribed to matthew. . . .Here is how the gospel narrates matthew's first meeting with jesus and how he was called to be a disciples of jesus. . . .

Mat 9: 9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.
Mat 9:10[b] While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house[/b], many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples.  

This is NOT matthew the disciple of jesus writing or narrating this story but another person writting a story about how matthew meet jesus because the person writing this story refers to matthew in the third person matthew will not write about himself in the 3rd person. . . . . this is some body writing a story about matthew not matthew. . .besides there is no where in the gospel of mathhew were the author revels who he is or claims any authorship. . . .  

Compare this to paul. . . here is paul in galatians. . .

Gal 1: 6[b] I am[/b] astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel

Here the writer who is said to be paul is referring to himself in the first person. . . . .

The church fathers such as Papias, Irenaeus , Pantaenus, and Origen were the ones who said that matthew wrote the gospel of matthew but they did not provide any evidence for it beside making that claim. . . . .

davidylan:
A major problem i find among modern "christians" of today is the tendency to feel the need to sound overly scholarly when they discuss the bible. The gospels as we know it today was handed to us by tanners, fishermen and itinerant travelers who had no better than a few yrs of homeschooling at best. But these were men filled with the Holy Ghost and imbued with power to preach to the salvation of the souls of even kings and princes. No wonder our churches are now mere monuments to man's ego . . .

I laugh in greek when I read such ridiculous and pathetic lies. . . Where is your evidence for this false assertion? The gospels were not written by people who have ever meet jesus, they were not written by his alleged illiterate disciples but by very intelligent and educated greek speaking christians long after the alleged and resurrection death of jesus. . . .The evidence is all there in the gospels themselves unless if you have never read them. . .

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz5TPgdoPFo&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M21xFVwL8c&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQg6x-K82IA&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v59b0iTRIs4&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcmDK22Umz0&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fozZld_fvE8&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ldI2FJQ_oE&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRGnPIlclps&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ociVKTytElw&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCGTdYO7P7g&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3ki56B9SaU&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-56sENKr9Z0&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcCXbE20URM&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbSJHcUQp3s&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOGPiaV1rTA&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5YdaNCvWEQ&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04TDoiqohKQ&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAIpRRZvnJg&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f15PNrk94kg&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWGE8DWaCDg&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPqerbz8KDc&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

Noah's story
[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEHSc2n4ANA&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]


The story of Moses.  . . .

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_iHjX2eDY8&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNfx1h-DoVE&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

Why do religious people pray?

It worked Krayola thanks once again. . .

Krayola:
@ mazaje. . .i made a mistake in the demo. look again. I corrected it. leave out the spaces though

Thanks so much man. . I tried and it worked thanks a lot. . . .

Edited. . . . .

Krayola:
[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d68_vlLD60Y&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

Unless National Geographic is full of shit too.

As u can see same sex animals have PREMEDITATED AFFECTIONATE SEX, SOMETIMES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HERD!!

Krayola pls how can i post youtube vidoes. . . .

Abuzola:
Hope the christians will view it and stop spreading all kinds of contagorous lies/nonsense

Did prophet mohammed marry a child and consummated the wedding when she was still a child? YES HE DID
Did prophet mohammed behead people that did not believe in the lies he was spreading around with his own hands? YES HE DID
Did the prophet mohammed plagiarize the Hebrew bible? YES HE DID

So what are the "lies" you are talking about here?

What people need to know about Islam. . .

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1776311E9B561F27

viaro:
In just the same way, I say it as it is for you. Did that get you on the wrong side? I just say it as it is, regardless your hyperventilating trash here. First, I did not call you the son of satan; and I'm sure not every Christian would address you that way even where you might have derided their faith and called them unpalatable names. You don't use that one example to write off every Christian, just as I don't think that everyone who asks questions is necessarily a bitter little peacock! Second, I'm not wired the way you have assumed - which is why I doubt you got a dot of understanding my previous reply to yours.

I personally don't have time pandering to your ridiculous delusions. . . I just say it as it is and leave it you If you don't like what I say then go break your neck. . . I do not have time to pander to your senseless delusions. . . .

Yes, mazaje, that is very possible, but that does not mean that everyone is right. This again has nothing to do with the thread or what I was discussing with modupe01 - which was why I summed you up for the cheap interjection you tried to introduce for a yapping that would take you nowhere. Like I said, there are people who argue endlessly within the same system, whether it is Politics, Sports, Economics, Social interactions, even your most cherished Evolution, or Biology, Chemistry, Astronomy, Cosmology, or Scientific theories and hypotheses. Most of us know these scenarios occur every single week - and I asked you to point out just a single one where the players in them are all perfect clones without a shade of disagreement. Did you address that? No. Rather, you jumped again to yap on and point fingers at Christians disagreeing with one another wile making claims here and there. This, mazaje, is why I often don't take people like you seriously - not because I cannot discuss with people, but because you come off making all sorts of pitiful arguments and yet have never been able to see your own problem.

The stupid and pathetic lies you goons tell yourselves so that you can sleep at night while holding unto the myths you have been conditioned and brought up in and made to believe in since childhood. . . You think I care if you take me seriously or not?   who cares if you take me seriously or not? Do you think any body takes you seriously?. . . .Pls stop giving your self credit that you do not deserve at all. . .

I hear a weakling crying in you. Hard facts to tell the world that there is NO God is not forth coming from you either - that much we can agree on. The point now in yours is widening to the same grandiloquent style of carping dunces who think you can be smart enough to hurl insults at others and then fail to deliver. Christians (as far as I know) do not assume the ridiculous assertion you made about "your god so weak that he depends ONLY on debates about copies of ancient texts". .  who ever said such rubbish in this thread about any god/gods "depending" ONLY on debates about texts, mazaje? This is why cacophonies from twerps like you do not pass for celebrating your assumed scholarship. You don't stand to ridicule people and misrepresent them, only to turn back like some buffoon making wild assertions in the market place.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence until you provide any evidence for you god then he like all others gods(Zeus.,Thor,Ra, Amun, Vishnu etc) are mythical characters simple. . . .The fact remains that those that talk about your god use ancient text full of stories that have no basis in reality to debate about his existence and that is a fact. . . By the way who is talking about scholarship here? I am not a scholar and I do not claim to be one. . .I state things the way they are and I do not have time pandering to your stupid delusions. . . 

Nice try. They may not make any claims (buffoon, they do, dude . .  they do!) You have relied only on your small cubicle for far too long for your own good. I know of politicians who have made claims of supernatural guidance. .  as well musicians, and atheists who belief in what some of you lazy buffoons are too scared in your pants to investigate. That still does not answer the question I asked you before:

[list]Where in the world do people ever agree on everything or a single thing like they are clones? Tell me, mazaje? Just where? Politics? Sports? Economics? Social interactions? Even your most cherished Evolution? Biology? Chemistry? Astronomy? Cosmology? Scientific theories and hypotheses? . .  Or, even ATHEISM?[/list]

I have not claimed that these guys are making claims of the sort of inspiration as you have switched onto - that is simply the most stupid way to put you argument forward. In case you still live in a remote part of the world where the radio or other frequency waves do not reach you, please grow up and reason. Most idiots parading themselves as 'smart heads' have stopped using those same lines of pitiful  retired arguments after seeing that they do not add anything to their intelligence. They are often used by pals who are the least intelligent in any classroom, because in the first place, they are not focused on the questions asked. as in this case, I did not ask you whether those examples make claims of any inspirations as in your twist - and to have repeated that pitiful comment is grand comedy. let me ask it again, incase you're too desperate to think:

[list]Where in the world do people ever agree on everything or a single thing like they are clones? Tell me, mazaje? Just where? Politics? Sports? Economics? Social interactions? Even your most cherished Evolution? Biology? Chemistry? Astronomy? Cosmology? Scientific theories and hypotheses? . .  Or, even ATHEISM?[/list]

You know how you sound - like the shameless Dawkins whose cacophony not many atheists like to parrot today. When he started mooting the idea of a 'man in the sky', he was allowed to run off cheap on that fuel. . until he made the stupid mistake of the 'FSM' - flying spaghetti monster - as if anyone who knows has spoken of any deity being such! Not even himself with his makeshifts knows what he's talking about, and retired idiots who don't know better are too much in a hurry to parrot him. I wished better for you. . but no, I'm not surprised you couldn't rise beyond that level while parroting the same engine works of idiocy that the likes of new atheism has given you like left-overs.

That's them - and you may not want to reason with them. I've heard that same line before, so there's nothing grand or novel in that statement. Let me ask you (while not derailing this thread) - how does evolution prove conclusively your claim that there is no God?

Dude, you should have tried to discuss, then it would not have been difficult for you to understand what people are saying here. When your friends think the best way to keep them as friends is to ridicule them, I have much to say to those "friends". I also have friends in many faiths (not all, because I don't know all faiths); but at least we can live in mutual respect of one another without passing for the buffoon you displayed of yourself here.

I don't even know what to make of this ridiculous and pathetic rambling and meaningless rants that are all talk and NO substance at all. . .I do not pander to people's delusions(And I will not pander to your own delusions) I state things the way the are if you don't like it go break your neck. . . . That's your business. . .

viaro:
@mazaje,

I notice on Nairaland that you have a penchant to deride the beliefs of other people.

Actually my style is to say it as it is and leave it. . .I know you have been wired to believe that any body that questions your belief is deriding or mocking it. . . .This applies to all religions actually. . . take a look at the moslem section when christians point to some things to them that are written in the koran they say christians are mocking islam. . . . .I had a christians tell me that I am the son of satan he just because I said that the bible god accepts human sacrifice. . . .I just say it as it is and if you feel so sad that I come across the way i do then so be it. . . I don't have time pandering to people's delusions. . . .I just state it as it is. . . .

Where in the world do people ever agree on everything or a single thing like they are clones? Tell me, mazaje? Just where? Politics? Sports? Economics? Social interactions? Even your most cherished Evolution? Biology? Chemistry? Astronomy? Cosmology? Scientific theories and hypotheses? . .  Or, even ATHEISM?

You see where the problem lies? You guys claim that you have this trancendantal being that is perfect and whom is above all human knowledge and conception. . .You believe a part of these perfect, all good and trancendental being lives in you guides you all in all you do. . . you believe that this being does not behave like humans (some of you even claim that you are not of this world because a part of this trancendental being resides in you and guides you in all you do) but when we look around we see you are just as confused as every body else. . . .All the various sects of christians that disagree with each other all point to the bible when making their case against each other and all of them claim that the same holy spirit whom they claim is perfect and trancends all human ways of doing things is what inspires them. . .so is that possible?. . .So I  maintain that since there is no god all you guys have to do is to self project yourselves as god and tell each other what you want others to believe about the bible based on your own personal interpretations. . . .Hard facts to justify faith in god is not forthcoming from any area of the world all you guys have to hold unto are only stories and cultural mythologies. . . . .What you propose is the existence of a god who wants people to hear the gospel message, but only if another person tells them about it?

If you imagine for one instance that there is an area of endeavour or worldview where every player is exactly in the same cloned mind and interpretation, it is most probably because you have never taken the time to ever in your life read broadly and are just a bitter little peacock

Politicians, sports analyst, musicians, atheist do not claims to be guided or recieve inspiration or information from an all perfect and trancendental being that knows everything and has a perfect plan for humanity. . .you guys on the other hand do and when we look around we see that you guys behave like every body else. . .despite your claims of being guided by this being you are yet to agree on his basic nature and who he is. . . .

I can contain the fact that people have varying degrees of agreement; and also that people can indeed read the same data or text and interpret things differently. What I cannot condone is the stupidity of grandiloquent fools yapping about other people's beliefs where they have never imagined that their own coteries are as divided on opinions and interpretations. Within Christianity, different interpretations have continued to this day to see people choose and make new denominations. Sad as it is, that is not my worry as to make me abandon my faith and go where. . atheism? Daft! In atheism, idiots continue to be at each other's throats - you never notice because you simply are too misfooted to find out.

Just like the idiots that continue to be at each others throats in the myths you subscribe to but still ridiculosly claim that their opinion does not come from this world but from an imaginary sky daddy that lives out side of space time. . .You guys just invent things and ascribe to you imaginary father figure. . .Some people say, for example, that "God is love".  Well, if god is identical to love, then I do think that god exists.  Yet, the same people will start to apply extra bits to the "God is love" -- showing that they don't think that god is identical to love but is some kind of aware force that has many attributes that aren't love.  In that case, why use a loaded word like God when there is a perfectly valid word like love already available?  god isn't love, love is love.

Other people assert more generally that "God exists", yet they can't describe either part of that phrase.  What's god?  How does it exist?  I'm greeted with either babbling dogmatic quotes or smug silence. . . . . .  

That said, what I detest is the notion of simpletons who don't know a dot about themselves trying to use evolution to denigrate the faith of other people. And if that's what you're about, please pass so the room can sigh without your cacophony.quote]

The problem is that you only see things through one lens. . .are your fellow christians brothers and sisters not also denigrating others(moslems, athiest, evolutionist) just because they do not subscribe to their own ridiculous myths? What do you know about yourself? Do you think you know anything because you subscibe to the myths of ancient jews?

However, mazaje, if you see the world differently and can contain people who have different opinions (even different opinions within the religion of evolutionism), that is all well and good - then we can talk as gentlemen, respect each other and see the world as larger than our arguments as we trod on as passengers in its orbits. I, for one, can make friends with other people without trying to ask them to hold out a religious badge of identification as the prerequisite for amicable exchanges.

Cheers.

I have frends from all faiths in life so i do not even understand what you are saying here. . .

viaro:
Not all Christians hold that interpetation to make the earth 6,000 years old. So, it is not rational to begin to broadly generalize things in that manner. Ignorance is not bliss, especially where some people trail off in arguments by jingoism like in your case.

You all believe that the bible is the word of your god but you all hold very very different beliefs and interpret it very differently. . . we have young earth creationist, old earth creationist, those that believe that noah's flood was a global event and those that believe it was a local flood. . . those that believe jesus is god and those that believe he is not the same person as god, those that believe that hell is an eternal place of torture and those that do not, you guys do not even agree on the basic nature of the god you profess you believe in. . . .There are over 33,000 sects of the christian religion all with very different doctorines and most are on each others necks, castigating each other and condeming each other as the "lost" sect. . . . if the bible is the word of god as you guys love to pretend it is then why all the confusion? Why didnt your god give you a single message that every body can understand and really know what was written. . . why reveal a message that will end up confusing people as they read it? example those that believe that the earth is 6000 years old believe that the holy spirit is what inspires them to believe, those also that believe that the world is billions of years old also claim that their belief is based on what the holy spirit tells them. . .why all the confusion and what does the confusion tell you?

Is your god so weak that he depends ONLY on debates about copies of ancient texts that even people that subscibe to the hypothesis are yet to fully agree on to reasonably prove his existence and will to the people he created and whom he claims he loves as the theory goes? There is a similar situation regarding science. Many Christians try to use science to prove their very different interpretation of the bible, and they spend decades studying science in order to try to prove the bible and how they interprete it. If a loving god exists as the christian meme teaches, surely there would be simple and easy ways to find good evidence that he exists not some endless debates about old stories that were written by mostly unknown authours that have no basis in reality.

modupe01:
I guess that you are still in the realm of belief rather than knowledge (my guess is as good as yours). I accept the fact that you believe that God wrote the decalogue with His own finger, according to Scriptures. Let's see what He wrote in Exodus 20:11 and see how we can understand what He meant:

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Can you now see the Scripture that was inscribed by God Almighty Himself? He did not leave it open to human interpretation, no?.

Where did you get this from? Its very funny how people write stuff ascribe it to their god and then some other people from no where come along and say that it is the god whom the writtings were ascribe to that wrote the stuff himself. . . . I laugh in greek. . . .

Krayola:
The water does not remain the the pot. It turns into steam. Death is not IMO a change of physical composition. . . It just means the system isn't working anymore.


Do trees have souls?

My thoughts exactly. . . .