₦airaland Forum

Scholar8200:
Second charge falsely pressed!

In any case, the 12 that were with Jesus from the beginning of His earthly ministry accepted Paul's ministry. That is enough for me.

No problem, they are seemingly ascetic gnostics in another shade. Besides, the movement started in the early [u]Christian[/u]era so your position covets historical proof

The ones we have suffice. Besides, some 'lost' but founds show errors that is disclaimed on all sides. Since the others are not here, shall we use the ones available to us?

Read Matthew 16:17-19 deny His Deity and what you have left is a waste of time.

Prove it!

I will come back to your request but we need to clear the above.

babseg:

babseg:
jeez this how people fail in exams. i wasn't asking the aftermath of the existence of the universe. just explain big bang (like how 'it' got the stuff to make space time and matter if it was created from nothing?)

babseg:
it is a phenomenon that has been, which we are still experiencing and which will forever be.

jonbellion:
I wonder how people believe that their life is centred around a Jewish deity and his son that is also him
They were created to kiss his ass and kiss his ass they will

Scholar8200:
Indeed, my opinion in perfect alignment with the Truth. I did not say they were muslims either. That statement was used to show how un-Christian they were. Besides, it is apparent that they were a neo-Gnostic movement denounced by both Paul and John the beloved, in their epistles. References are available on request

dalaman:
Nothing was answered there. You didn't answer the question. You kept running away from it because you know it exposes all the nonsense you've been saying. The sharia law was given to mankind by God himself. Is it objective? Your deliberate failure to answer it shows that you clearly know that what you are saying is RUBBISH.

dalaman:
We are not. If objective moral values exist that means the sharia is Objective. Yes or no? Why don't you want to answer it? Dishonesty? Is the sharia law objective. Pls answer it.

randomperson:
U are just insisting on emptiness.
Firstly, I didn't even say the Jewish society demeaned women. That was the standard at that time. I said the bible demeans women. Check the principles of the bible from the old testament to the new. They all contain principles that demean women.
When Paul says women are created for men, how does the fact that there was a female judge counter that fact.
When God says rape victims should be sold to the people who raped them, how does the fact that a few women attained good heights nullify that fact. Does it change the fact that that particular law wasn't fair to women??
In the north, the female child is subject to early marriage, if a female northerner become a minister, does it change the fact the female child is unfairly treated.
U are mentioning about ten women that attained great heights, what about the thousands of rape victims that were sold to their assailants or the thousands that were stoned to death because they were not virgins.

Scholar8200:
the ebionites are not Christians. there tenets contradicts Matthew 16:17-19 hence they are not built on the Rock. Infact, their stance on Jesus is more Islamic than Christian.

Scholar8200:
indeed! one out of millions. Negligible, isnt it.

johnydon22:
Lol i rarely have time to argue these days, money got my time now.

And the religious board has degraded to a level too low in terms of intellectual discussions..

Take a look up there, sassy remarks and silly memes are not arguments - i no get that energy again.

But i am still there, if you guys need me anytime just mention me (not the usual group mention thingy)

hopefulLandlord:
Nice one
Kingebukasblog is just talking crhap as usual

Richirich713:
Objective morality just means certain things are really right and wrong, u don't need the bible to know that. Saying morality is subjective leads to absurd conclusions, such as the one dawkins admitted.

MrMarvelous:

Hmmmmmm. Apart from the fact that suddenly the OT has now become relevant...and there's suddenly no distinction between law and grace as that Felix dude was talking about.

This isn't about whether they were historical.

So given the above, and the bible verses quoted in the OP both old and new Testaments...how do you reconcile that with your statement of the bible didn't really demean women?

If you didn't read the Bible verses please do that.

And ummmm please can you address Paul's statements on women and reconcile them with yours?

KingEbukasBlog:
This does not make any sense .

Why is it wrong to kill someone for an unjustifiable reason ?

An addition to this question : by what standard is a reason for an action deemed justifiable or unjustifiable?

felixomor:
I will say it again, Go and read it.

4kings:
Oga, you are very rare this days ooo, not even Science and Technology section. Happy new year!

Richirich713:
No we haven't, objective morality by definition doesn't fall into the issues implied by subjective morality.

Ranchhoddas:
A very big fat 'wa'.

---

What are your thoughts? Is there anything to what they are saying or is it one mighty hallucination?

Richirich713:
It's not nonsensical, dawkins at least had the balls to admit that his belief that rape is wrong is just as arbitrary as us having 5 fingers instead of 6.

He basically agreed with me.

KingEbukasBlog:
Richard Dawkins epitomizes the foolishness of atheism . If you claim morality is subjective , why condemn another person's moral values ?

Richirich713:
It's not a question of how u came to know morality, the question is whether morality is objective or subjective. Most atheist go with the subjective option, but delude and contradict themselves by condemning people as immoral. That's why u get humanist like dawkins who will tell u there's no such thing as objective morality when push on the question, that evolution is responsible for our morality.

When asked "if we had evolved from a society where rape was considered fine? Would that mean then rape is fine?" Dawkins replied "I don't want to answer that question."

Yeah obviously he doesn't want to answer becuz that's exactly moral relativism implies.

"Justin Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we've evolved five fingers rather than six.

Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah."




Lol nope, morality is grounded in the God.



What does this have to do with morality being objective?

hahn:
When I discovered the online atheist community a few years ago, one of the things that astounded and humbled me the most was the scholarliness of so many activist atheists. I had never before been in the company of so many people so versed in scripture, so skilled in the arts of rhetoric and argumentation, so keen to identifying and deconstructing logical fallacies. I’m not going to lie: It’s often been intimidating to be surrounded by people whose expertise in such things is so far beyond my own, comparatively unsophisticated approach. But as time passes and I learn more and more about these subjects, I find that my basic issues with religion in general, and Christianity in particular, have not evolved to more abstract ontological questions, but have rather crystallized my inability to reconcile even the most basic and fundamental principles of Christian faith.

1. Jesus didn’t die. Christians are always going on about how Jesus died for our sins, but if he came back 3 days later then he didn’t die at all; more like being in a brief coma, which is a drag, but not exactly the ultimate sacrifice that the crucifixion is cracked up to be. And it wasn’t just his spirit that departed to heaven, but his actual physical being. If you go dig up a 3-day old grave, regardless of what you think may have happened to that person’s immortal soul, there’s still going to be a body in it. Jesus’ tomb, on the other hand, was empty, meaning that following his resurrection he was either a zombie or he was fully alive, neither of which is dead. Even more relevant is that when he was hanging there on the cross, Jesus knew that he was going to come back. He didn’t have to endure the fear of death that any other human being would have had to face or the uncertainty that presumably afflicts all but the most devout at the moment of death about whether there really was going to be an afterlife, or if this was lights out for good. Yes, he probably suffered physically, but he knew that death would be no more than a long nap and then he’d be up and at ‘em again. In short, he didn’t die.

2. Jesus didn’t have faith. Jesus was always rolling his eyes and scolding his disciples for not having enough faith. There are many verses to be found in the New Testament in which Jesus says some variation of, “Don’t trust your senses, don’t look for evidence, just accept it because I said so.” But if Jesus was the son of god, then faith wasn’t something he needed – he knew god and heaven were real because that’s where he came from, no faith required. How fair is it to command the rest of the world to believe something on faith alone, threatening eternal punishment to any who don’t believe it, when you yourself have no faith and all the evidence?

3. Jesus didn’t take away my sins. Or did he? I am no logician, but if Jesus died to take away the sins of humanity, then doesn’t that mean that once he was crucified there was no longer any such thing as sin? If his “death” was the absolution of the human race, which we are told it was, why do I still have to do what the bible says, or go to church, or even believe? Aren’t I already saved by his “sacrifice?” And if I am not, and there are still rules to follow and sins that could keep me out of heaven, then what exactly was the point?

4. Jesus wasn’t a very nice guy. American Christians talk a lot about so-called family values, but that concept doesn’t have much, if any, basis in the actual story of Christ. Jesus demanded that his disciples abandon their families and save all of their devotion for him and him alone – a rather narcissistic and not particularly family-centric expectation. Aside from seeming to be in direct contradiction to the commandment about honoring thy mother and father, abandoning spouses and children, while not against any commandments, still seems like a douchey thing to do, even 2,000 years ago.

5. Jesus’ dad was really not a nice guy. We all know that the bible is full of rape, murder, genocide, slavery, and every manner of atrocity – and not in a, “This is what our enemies do so don’t be like them” way, but in a “As long as you are one of mine, have at it” way. Then Jesus showed up and said, more or less, that the old laws still applied, and he wasn’t about to change them. Yes, he was willing to call out hypocrisy, and he did seem to care somewhat about social justice – at least with regard to poverty and leprosy – but otherwise he was still the enforcer of some rather distasteful rules. And don’t even get me started on Jesus being his own father – a concept that, in addition to making no sense, makes Jesus himself the very same god of the Old Testament that Christians like to dismiss as no longer relevant (except when it comes to hating gays).

6. Prayer is contradictory. We are told that god has a plan for everything, but then we are told to pray – for our loved ones to get better when they fall ill, for safety in the storm, for the home team to win the big game. Does that mean god will change his plan if you pray hard enough, or the right way, or get enough other people to pray for the same thing? At the very least this seems to suggest he doesn’t really have much of a plan if he’s willing to modify it based on popular opinion or for those who ingratiate themselves to him, not to mention that it’s a rather arbitrary, if not capricious, approach to human suffering. Further, people often say they pray for things like inner peace, strength, understanding, the solution to personal problems, etc. I don’t pray, but I do a lot of introspection in search of those same things, and then I do either what my conscience tells me is right or what my objectivity tells me has the best chance for the desired outcome. I suspect that people who pray end up doing more or less the same thing but attributing their conclusion to an outside agency. If that is the case, how can they explain that atheists (or members of other religions) can get to the same place with no (or a different) agent? And how strange is it, anyway, to carve out your conscience, that innermost part of yourself, the very core of what makes you you, and say it isn’t you?

7. The bible doesn’t set the moral bar very high. Let’s face it: Don’t rape people, don’t own people, don’t hate people, and don’t hurt children are kind of no-brainers when it comes to morality. Our friend Jesus and his old man not only failed to make these things clear, but in many instances they encouraged, condoned, or commanded them. Sure, Jesus said a few things about loving your neighbor and being kind to strangers, but he also said that not believing in him was the worst offense a person could commit and that anyone who didn’t believe would burn in Hell for all eternity. And seriously, the Ten Commandments as a basis for all morality? Checking out your neighbor’s wife is worse than raping his daughter? Taking the lord’s name in vain is worse than owning slaves? Nice priorities. Add to this the fact that god himself does not follow his own rules, to which Christians respond that mere mortals cannot understand or judge the morality of god. But if the bible defines morality, and god has a different set of rules for himself than for humans, and we are not allowed to know or understand his rules except that we are expected to do as he says but not as he does, then how exactly does that provide any kind of moral baseline whatsoever?



8. Christian love is not very loving. We hear a lot about Jesus’ love and god’s love, and how god so loved the world that he gave his only son, yada yada yada. We already covered the part about him not really giving up his son, and enough has been said by people smarter than I am about the questionable necessity of having a baby, leaving him be for 30 years, torturing him to death, and then bringing him back to life a few days later as a way of forgiving humanity instead of – oh, I don’t know, just saying “I forgive you.” We covered too that this supposed forgiveness isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on if I’m still considered a sinner and an apostate and bound for hell for not believing. But if we set that part of the contradiction aside, how loosely are we defining love if we are applying it to the bible? “I love you so much that I will torture and murder my own son as a symbol of something I could just give you without the bloodbath. I love you so much that I will reward you with an eternity in heaven, but you have to suffer and die in this world first. Salvation is yours, so long as you swear your devotion to me and only me. And believe what I say even if it sounds like nonsense because I told you to. And admit that deep down you are a rotten piece of garbage who doesn’t really deserve my love. And if you don’t do all of these things you will burn in a lake of fire for all eternity. But seriously, I love you.”

9. Terrible things happen to good people. A quarter of a million people died in the tsunami of 2006. Twenty first graders and six adults were slaughtered at Sandy Hook. People die of starvation, are killed by war and disease, are raped or beaten by people who have power over them, and suffer in countless other ways. If there is an omniscient, omnipotent god who is also loving, as Christians would have us believe, why do these things happen? Why do children suffer and die? Why are there droughts and floods and famines and pestilences and earthquakes and wars? Why couldn’t god just make people nice? Why create natural disasters? Why didn’t he set forth better, clearer rules to eliminate ambiguity about how we are supposed to treat each other? God either intervenes or he doesn’t; god is either omnipotent or he isn’t. If he does and he is, then suffering exists because god intends for it to be that way. If he doesn’t and he isn’t, then he isn’t in control of anything, including the minutiae of how we live our daily lives. How is either a god worth worshipping?

10. It’s all just way too convenient. Got what you prayed for? He answered your prayers. Praise Jesus! Didn’t get it? He has another plan. Praise Jesus! Don’t have the answers? You’re not meant to. Praise Jesus! Figured out the answer? He chose you. Praise Jesus! Sad about the deaths of your loved ones? They’re in a better place. Praise Jesus! Sad about how much your life sucks? You’ll be happy once you’re dead. Praise Jesus! Honestly, when the answer to every question is exactly the thing that makes you feel best / most comforted / least in need of using your own intellect, should that not send up a huge red flag that maybe you’re not being completely objective?

These are not overtly intellectual, clever, or even particularly insightful observations, nor am I the first person to make them. But as someone who has lived an entire life without religion, the exercises of engaging apologists, philosophizing, or running ontological obstacle courses seem – perhaps naively, but seem nonetheless – to be almost beside the point when the most basic premises of religious belief are so deeply flawed. These irreconcilable contradictions explain a lot about why religious indoctrination is necessary at a very young age, and sadly, they explain a lot about why the world is in the sorry state it is: Because they make people adept at rationalizing the irrational, believing the unlikely, and justifying the immoral.

Source: http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/03/10-reasons-christianity-makes-no-sense/

AngelsAndStars:
Nawao

Pidgin2:
God did not segregate when he sent His Holy Spirit to live in the heart of humanbeings, he did not segregate when he sent His son to die for humanity

He did not segregate when He honored feminity by sending the Messiah through a woman, He did not segregate when He set the standard for being put right with Him, He did not segregate in allowing both men and women access to Heaven, neither did He segregate in allowing both men and women into His Kingdom of light

If a woman can become a vessel/temple for the Holy Spirit what makes you feel that there will be an embargo on the manifestation of the gifts which the presence of the Spirit of God brings with Him

Stop quoting biblical saints out of context. Paul was referring to a particular people and for a particular purpose. There were complaints from certain quotas regarding the behavior of some women in the church and he settled it the best way he could at that time.

Women during the time of Jesus were active in financing His ministry and were allowed to accompany Him as missionaries. If you understand the Jewish culture you will know that this was new to them, their women were highly marginalized in almost everything so for Jesus to include them as part of His ministry it showed that He was in favor of liberating women from harmful cultures and traditions

You cannot compare the liberty whic Christian women enjoy to that of any other religion

plappville:
Show us where the bible commanded us to kill those who reject Yahweh. The Israelites are not like the Arabs. They do not force their God on anyone. Right from the OT to The NT, You cant point it out. God has never commanded his people to kill others who reject him.

But its written in the Quran that Muslims should kill non muslims. That was my point and you call that Hypocrisy?

Deuteronomy 17 New International Version (NIV)
2-5
If a man or woman living among you......and contrary to my command has worshiped
other gods, bowing down to them or to the
sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, and this has been brought to your attention....take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city
gate and stone that person to death


Deuteronomy 13 New International Version (NIV)
6-9 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or you r
closest friend secretly entices you, saying,
“Let us go and worship other gods” (gods
that neither you nor your ancestors have
known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the
land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not
spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must
be the first in putting them to death

DoctorAlien:
Just leave me out of your madness okay? I have better things to discuss with intellectually sound people.

randomperson:
Is Jesus not God?? That means he was the one that also said a raped woman should be sold to her rapist. Or was it not the same god u serve?? God doesn't change right??

felixomor:
Is it not funny that anytime these nairaland keyboard atheists want to criticize Christians, they never find anything to bring from what Jesus Christ taught people to do?

Mscheww...
SMH

Anas09:
So, Jesus commanded us to kill people? Where pls?

Anas09:
Point out the Hypocrisy.

Plappvillemoi:
Jesus and His disciples Showed Love and encourage true Christians to do thesame. No one can kill in the Name of Christ and defend his actions with the Bible. The bible is not the Quran where Muslims are commanded to kill those who reject allah