₦airaland Forum

Blaming Christianity or religion for Africa's current situation misses the point. It is quite interesting to see the way many of you make your arguments as you castigate Christianity. You aim to point out all the atrocities committed in the name of the Christian God (none of which I will deny) yet you conveniently ignore the good it has done to your very lives. The very fact that most of you can read and write, you owe to the churches that built the schools. The very fact that we have hospitals in Nigeria, you owe to the churches that built them. Even the best schools in the world, (i.e., Harvard, Yale, etc.) - were built by Christians. The gateway to knowledge that you have, you owe to the spread of Christianity. Not only Christianity to be honest, but to Islam as well, who built schools in what is now Mali, Ghana, and other places in Northern Africa. I won't belabor this point since I know it will mostly like derail this thread, but if you are sincere in your heart, you will think about it. You might also want to read up on the history of Europe and the impact of Christianity in every aspect of its society.

The real issue that concerns all of us, whether we are of faith or not, is how will Africa progress. The finger we should be pointing should be directed at ourselves. As one Kenyan ambassador stated, "the Europeans instituted their structure, but it has been US who failed to change it". I read many of you talking about casting off the white man's religion or the Arab's religion and so on but your very thoughts and arguments reflect western ideology. The solutions many of you are proposing are inspired by western thinking. So therefore what really are you setting yourself free from? In fact, many of you are hostile to religion because that is the current trend in the western world. If anyone here is serious about seeing Africa progress then you must first define who an African is? What are his values? What is his way of life? How does he see the world?

Africa's problem is both from outside and from within. Simply stated, a part of our problem owes to the fact that our skin is black. There is a natural prejudice against us for it and as a result makes us most hated among men. That we cannot do anything about. The internal things are the things we must do something about. Things such as: our inability to unite, our lack of vision, our love for copying others rather than being ourselves, our self hatred, our cowardice.

I look at Nigeria and all I see is the influence of foreigners. There seems to be nothing Nigerian about Nigeria except the food, the clothes, and the poverty. The economic and social power is in the hand of foreigners. The music is foreign, the stories are foreign, the thought is foreign. In bringing the gospel to Africa, one of the mistakes made was trying to tie it to westernization but the gospel stands apart from it. You can be a believer and still be African. The gospel of Christ does not compel you to become a capitalist, or a communist, democratic, etc. Most of you see it is a whole package when it isn't. If you are serious about Africa progressing, let us look at ourselves, let us know ourselves, and let us do things for ourselves. If you an atheist, I am not so bitter or blind that I cannot work with you to build the country. What about you?

Deep Sight: ^^^ You try. But I have told you not to waste your time. You are speaking to folk whose filth is as incomprehensible as eternity. Again, let me emphasize that I speak only for the rights of the unspoken for infant who is up for adoption. These horrifying recidivist maggots will conjure any argument to abuse such children. You have already seen one of the most perverse souls on earth up there, wiegraf, suggest that it must be traumatic for a h.omose.xual child to grow up in a home where heterose.xual affection is expressed between the parents. Don't waste your time buddy. I could very well have bothered myself with academic arguments on this issue.... but I know the discussants and their dispositions too well. That is why I am content to spit on them and move on. Because I know very well by experience that not even the greatest schorlarship or most reasoned points will dissuade them. One of them even contended in a previous thread that he will not discipline his child for stealing because all morality is subjective. Seriously. Very seriously. Now tell me what lenghts such a person will not go to justify the absurd. Arguing anything on morality with such a person rather makes us the f.ools.

I do believe I've made final point and I'm content to let this thread end.

As the saying goes, "When there is no God, everything is permissible". This is the point that many serious atheists cannot help but recognize. That ultimately there is no moral standard without an objective source. If man gets to define what his good or evil, what happens when another man disagrees? If one society sees something as good or evil, what happens when another society disagrees?

Even Richard Dawkins (hero to many atheists) had to concede that when you have a true atheist mindset, there is no such thing as good and evil. Here's an excerpt from his book, "River Out of Eden"

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.

Deep Sight: ^^^ You try. But I have told you not to waste your time. You are speaking to folk whose filth is as incomprehensible as eternity. Again, let me emphasize that I speak only for the rights of the unspoken for infant who is up for adoption. These horrifying recidivist maggots will conjure any argument to abuse such children. You have already seen one of the most perverse souls on earth up there, wiegraf, suggest that it must be traumatic for a h.omose.xual child to grow up in a home where heterose.xual affection is expressed between the parents. Don't waste your time buddy. I could very well have bothered myself with academic arguments on this issue.... but I know the discussants and their dispositions too well. That is why I am content to spit on them and move on. Because I know very well by experience that not even the greatest schorlarship or most reasoned points will dissuade them. One of them even contended in a previous thread that he will not discipline his child for stealing because all morality is subjective. Seriously. Very seriously. Now tell me what lenghts such a person will not go to justify the absurd. Arguing anything on morality with such a person rather makes us the f.ools.

I do believe I've made final point and I'm content to let this thread end.

As the saying goes, "When there is no God, everything is permissible". This is the point that many serious atheists cannot help but recognize. That ultimately there is no moral standard without an objective source. If man gets to define what his good or evil, what happens when another man disagrees? If one society sees something as good or evil, what happens when another society disagrees?

Even Richard Dawkins (hero to many atheists) had to concede that when you have a true atheist mindset, there is no such thing as good and evil. Here's an excerpt from his book, "River Out of Eden"

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.

Redlyn: I dont get why people say it weakens heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage remains completely unchanged.
We have children being raised in every circumstance known to man. Single parents, in orphanage, even with both biological parents in a highly volatile/dysfunctional marriage. Two loving women or men can raise a child better than any of those environments. Most of these couple are adopting abandoned /orphaned children anyway.

Your second point is a bit confused. Bisexuality is about being attracted to both sexes. ie you could end up with any person, just as a hetero man could end up with any woman. Not about marrying both at the same time. You don't need to be bisexual to marry 2 people. Heterosexuals do it as well. ie Polygamy. Thats a different debate. Authorised in some places (mostly north africa, middle east) and outlawed in most of the west. We are social beings so we are likely to seek companionship. Most with opposite sex, some with the same sex. I feel the state should facilitate the union with one person - your companion (gay or straight), beyond that you are on your own. But thats just my opinion and I don't have any real moral objection to polygamy.


This is a very interesting point. Inc.est. It is really the only argument against homosexuality that makes me think.
I said before In.cest cannot be tolerated because of the possibility for abuse by those with authority over others (dad/daughter) and also because of the genetic defects of any offspring. I would have to concede in the case of two consenting adults / as in siblings in which there is no possibility of offspring, from a moral point of view it is completely disgusting, but from a philosophical point of view it is acceptable to me as there is no harm caused to anyone. Let them do what they want. From a legal point of view how do you enforce it (to ensure no abuse and no possibility of offspring). its a huge can of worms. In any case I see no such dilemma in homosexuality so its besides the point.

The point I'm making is that it weakens marriage by continuing its further deinstitutionalization. Countless studies on marriage have revealed that pretty much all cultures know that marriage is about sex and procreation and that it is important for every child to have a father and a mother. Many other studies have shown that the best scenario for a child's development is when the child has a father and mother. It's best for the child, the family, and therefore for society. Only marriage produces this best scenario and that is why each society bemoans single parenthood, high divorce rates, and high cohabitation rates. These, just like SSM devalue marriage since it forces us to redefine marriage as close personal relationships and therefore leaves it up to each individual couple to define marriage.

For example, a bisexual person could marry a person of their own sex AND another from the opposite sex because that is the kind of marriage they want and no one has the right to tell them otherwise. Now, if a child is born out of such an arrangement, who are the child's parents? In the case of divorce, who gets to claim parenthood?

I will say that I see the good that is done when SS unions adopt children and give them a home. After all, it is better than life in an orphanage or on the streets. But what it really underscores for me is the great wisdom of scripture in teaching against fornication, adultery, and divorce excepting infidelity. In such a world, only in the case of the death of both parents would a child lack parents.

This is an issue I think about seriously and though I take my position on a religious basis, I do so also on a sociological one since I recognize that SSM doesn't exist in a vacuum. To permit it means you have no basis to prohibit any other kind of marriage arrangements people can concoct. I believe that will have a destructive impact on children, family, and society.

The ever increasing moral relativism is going to undo us.

thehomer: No black people weren't viewed as three-fourths human and during the Civil Rights Movement, it isn't that they were viewed as sub-human, but that people wanted the races to be segregated. It would also have prevented inter-racial marriage. Shouldn't people of different races be able to marry?

Where did you get this definition of marriage that you're using? Who are you to declare what the purpose of marriage is? Is a marriage between people who don't want children or who cannot have children therefore invalid or useless?

You read up on anthropology and sociology and let me know the sources of your claims. You would also do well to realize that anthropology and sociology differ with different cultures.



No it isn't implicit in marriage that they have to be opposite sexes. You merely say so because you want the status quo to remain. If the institution is blind to sexual orientation, then there is no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be able to get married.



If genocide is acceptable as being a good command in Christianity, then I think one can reasonably conclude that Christianity isn't a good source of differentiating between good and evil.
What stops you right now from marrying your sister if you can marry another woman? After all, you're in a personal and private relationship with them.

Blacks were viewed as chattel prior to the emancipation and afterward they were still viewed as an inferior race. As a result, blacks could not possess the human rights that whites had. I'm sure you'll agree that this isn't the same issue with ssm.

Of course people of different races can marry because the institution of marriage is blind to race. It isn't blind to gender since marriage is concerned particularly with sex and producing offspring. It is implicit in the institution. It isn't about "Who am I to say what marriage is...". Marriage is what it has been since the beginning of time. It is an anthropological and sociological truth. Couples unable to conceive are the exception that shows that the rule exists. Their marriage is not nullified since the desire is there. For those who don't want children, the potential is still there.

SSM cannot produce offspring and thus do not fit into the institution of marriage that mandates a father and mother for every child since they came together to make that child. A child only gets the potential for a father and mother through heterosexual union. Otherwise you have to argue that neither a mother or father is necessary for the development of a child. A tough task indeed since there is no where in the world where people don't bemoan a child that has an absent parent.

This is one if the great wonders of life on earth: that the understanding of the marriage institution, it's purpose is universal. Only now are we trying to change it.

Genocide isn't considered good in the bible. Nevertheless, there must be judgment. God judges and indeed it is ugly but there must be judgment. However, it is the last thing God does. Before judgment he shows mercy and provides a way of repentance. It's like being in class. Getting a failing score isn't considered good by the teacher and the teacher isn't a bad person for giving out a failing score. Receiving a failing score depends entirely on the student.

Redlyn: "I do advocate that gay persons be treated with dignity and respect".
Does this mean you are okay for homosexuals to live peacefully together as a couple and are recognized by the state as such? Or does that mean put them in a cage but at least give them food and don't spit on them?

I think anyone is free to condemn it and consider it a sin and raise your kids with that mindset. I completely support your right to do that. But imagine a world where everyone imposed their version of morality on others. We would have to ban pork for all because some have decided it is unclean. For me the deciding point is the line at which real harm is caused to another (not pseudo-harm like being offended by having to raise your kids in a world where others are eating pork). Not whether I like it or not. And for homosexuality there is no such harm and that is the basis by which I defend it (and other topics such as prostitution). Native boy's fairy book does not get to dictate this for everybody.

Incest is an equally highly debated topic. Here there is a very high potential for real harm (severe birth defects for any offspring and a great potential for abuse of someone over which you have authority and you are meant to protect). Homosexuality is completely victimless. For me this is the fundamental distinction which separates one debate over the other. Some argue it is not victimless but I am yet to be convinced by any such arguments. "The world will become extinct" is a classic nonstarter.

Where's the harm? The harm comes from understanding that same-sex marriage doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists along-side other institutions. But the real threat is that permitting same-sex marriage contributes to the deinstitutionalization of marriage which essentially weakens the role of fatherhood as necessary for a child's well-being and also then removes barriers to other potential marriage arrangements. For example, what if a bisexual person wants to marry a man and a woman and then children get involved. Who are the parents of that child? What happens in the case of divorce? There are many issues to think about that operate in tandem with ssm.

thehomer: What are the erroneous arguments? Actually, the similarities are glaringly obvious that I wonder how so many people miss it. Human rights isn't stopping consenting adults from getting married.



Out of curiosity, how should witches be treated? Has it occurred to you that treating homosexuals with dignity and respect includes respecting their rights to get married?



Right and wrong already have no meaning according to Christianity. How do the arguments offered for homosexuality justify incest given the fact that heterosexuality is supported?

1. One of the erroneous arguments is equating lifestyle with the the struggle to seen as human. Is anyone saying homosexuals aren't human? No. But black people were viewed as sub-human, three-fourths human to be exact. As such they could not have the rights of "full" humans. They can't use the same bathroom as whites, can't go to school, etc. Even after the Emancipation Proclamation, this idea still permeated society. This isn't the same climate the homosexuals find themselves in. Ask yourself this question: did the black man have to fight to be viewed as a human in Africa? Or the Asian in Asia? No. You have human rights simply by being a human and by others recognizing you as such. Now is marriage? Marriage is an institution that by its definition exists to bring the opposite sexes together for the purpose of procreation and child nurturing. For every child a father and mother. This is what the marriage institution is. Please read up on anthropology and sociology if you don't believe me. This argument about marriage being a private personal relationship between two people is a new one that has just become popular and cool to say. It suffers from many flaws and isn't accurate anthropologically or sociologically.

2. How should witches be treated? Well, it depends on the actions of the witch. Treating homosexuals with respect and dignity in no way means that they can marry since implicit in the definition of the marriage institution is the standard of opposite sexes coming together to procreate and raise offspring. The marriage institution is blind to lifestyle choices/orientation.

3. I really don't know how you concluded that there is no good or bad in Christianity. You'll have to explain that further. If the definition is allowed to be changed, then nothing stops me from marrying my sister(s), etc. After all i'm in a personal and private relationship with them. Biologically and sociologically, it is an error. And what if we agreed to not bear children?

The arguments being used to support homosexuality are essentially erroneous. And it is a great shame to compare the gay-rights movement to the civil rights movement. It really shows the lies many have bought into. There is no similarity if you understand what the civil rights movement was about. The greatest of which is that because the western world is scientifically more advanced than we Africans, it also means they are morally/ethically superior and that we ought to mimic their every move. This is a notion I keep seeing here on NL and we must be careful of it. It is colonial mentality. Yes, we as Africans can learn the concept of human rights from the west, but it must be tempered with common sense. Human rights isn't the same as doing whatever you want just because you have a certain disposition.

I do advocate that gay persons be treated with dignity and respect but I do not hesitate to state that homosexuality is a sin.

As the world approaches moral relativism, good and bad, right and wrong will have no meaning. Aftee all, the same arguments offered for homosexuality also justify incest. God help us.

This was a hoax meant to deceive. The pope never made any such statements.

mrnestyy1985: Only time will tell if religion or chrstaindom was a Mind Trap

How is it a mind trap? There are Nobel Laureates who are believers. Are they in a mind trap?

mrnestyy1985: For those who have not kept up to date their religious knowledge, you might want to read Pope Frances christmas speach online.i have higlighted some of his speech in quote and hope i will get a good opinion analysis of this speech

" Religion is real to those who believe in it."
"Hell was used as a metaphor in the bible"
" The church is big enough to accomodate Sexusalism (gay) "

God help us all

It was a hoax. Completely false meant to deceive.

Uyi Iredia: I do a lot but I'm sure it's a phase. I've had them. There was once a time I always drooled over Nokia 8810s and Sony Eric son K700i's. That one son pass. There was a time I was a Wikipedia and howstuffworks buff. That partly led to my interest in atheism. I have decided at a point, I will devote more energy to talking on issues of national development. Believe it or not, that will more likely spur atheism more than any online argument given the trend amongst successful nations being atheistic or not as religious, with few exceptions.

I actually agree with you. Once Africa starts to advance, atheism will increase. It will be because of the way most people have been taught about God: it is either God or science, either trust God or your human intelligence and talents (both God given). The either-or is a huge misconception. Some of the great minds of the past and present were and are still believers.

It is a real shame that none of you bothered to read the link provided.

In adulthood, Hitler became disdainful of Christianity, but in seeking out and in trying to retain power in Germany, he was prepared to set aside his views on religion out of political considerations. He repeatedly stated that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on science.[1] It is generally accepted by historians that Hitler's post war and long term goal was the eradication of Christianity in Germany.[2][3] The adult Hitler did not believe in the Judeo-Christian notion of God, though various scholars consider his final religious position may have been a form of deism. Others consider him "atheist". The question of atheism is debated, however reputable Hitler biographers Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest and Alan Bullock agree Hitler was anti-Christian. This view is evidenced in sources such as the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Albert Speer, and the transcripts edited by Martin Bormann which are contained within Hitler's Table Talk, an influential translation of which was completed by historian Hugh Trevor-Roper.

Again, if you want to deny Hitler was an atheist feel free. I guess all the biographers and historians that say he was are conspiring to lie.

Mr Troll: ^^^

Funny how suddenly you have changed your mouth. Is Hitler no longer an atheist? Is atheism no longer responsible for the worst killings in history?

Joker.

Didn't change my position. Hitler was an atheist. Not even a point worth debating.

cold: As for Stalin & co. Let me help you here since it is obvious as a typical christian,you barely read your bible let alone other research materials..
It is a common talking point amongst Christians to attribute the horrors committed by infamous world leaders to atheism, and many times we are ill-equipped to refute those erroneous claims. In fact, last year, an Anglican Archbishop named Peter Jensen told his Australian congregation that atheism is not the rational philosophy that it claims to be. He stated, "Last century we tried godlessness on a grand scale and the effects were devastating: Nazism, Stalinism, Pol Pot-ery, mass murder, abortion and broken relationships - all promoted by state-imposed atheism…the illusion that we can build a better life without God." He further stated, "It's about our determination as human beings to have our own way, to make our own rules, to live our own lives, unfettered by the rule of God and the right of God to rule over us…What we're really seeing, once more [is] an example of the contest between human beings and God over who rules the world."

Atheist Foundation president David Nicholls says the comments are an act of desperation by the church. Personally, I think "desperation" is an understatement of epic proportions. There are so many things wrong with Jensen's statements that I had to sit here and stare at my screen for quite a while before I even found a starting point. I gave considerable thought to expounding on the sheer arrogance that a god rules the world regardless of whether or not anyone actually believes in one, the utterly ridiculous notion of a struggle between god and man, or their dogma about not being able to achieve peace, happiness and harmony in our society without their god. However, time being at a premium today, I decided to a different route.

First of all, there is no such thing as state-imposed atheism. A state can ban religion, but it cannot ban atheism because it is not a belief, a faith, a set of doctrines or dogmas and cannot be imposed on anybody. Atheism is an absence of belief, and you cannot ban something that does not exist. I have heard the argument so many times from believers who think that atheism is a belief. They compare it to a religion. They say it takes faith. They accuse us of hating god. Believers really need to find another line of fire, as all of these arguments only serve to make them look like complete idiots, which is unnecessary, as many believers are otherwise intelligent individuals. I will not bother to extrapolate the reasons why these are illegitimate arguments, as many of you already know the details. Those of you who don't can look them up yourselves, and perhaps better arm yourselves for the times when you are confronted by theists who offer them up.

Today, though, we are going to examine Jensen's claims about Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mass Murder and Broken Relationships. We'll start with the people he mentioned, and, as far as I'm aware, none of them said "I don't believe in god, therefore I will slaughter lots of innocent people". Let's start with Adolf Hitler…

On Adolf Hitler…

Christians have been trying to discredit Hitler's faith for decades, turning their eyes away from history books. From the earliest formation of the Nazi party he expressed his Christian support to the German citizenry and soldiers. He was baptized as Roman Catholic in Austria, attended a monastery school and was a communicant and an altar boy in the Catholic Church. He was confirmed as a "soldier of Christ" and his goal was to become a priest. He was never excommunicated or condemned and the church had stated that he was "Avenging for God" in attacking the Jews for they deemed the Semites the killers of Jesus. Look it up…

Hitler was given veto power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany and forged a treaty whereas the National Socialist state was officially recognized by the Catholic Church. In a letter to the Nazi party, he wrote "…this treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism is hostile to religion is a lie."

He allied with Pope Pius in converting German society and made a deal with the church whereas the church absorbed Nazi ideals and preached them as part of their sermons, and in turn, Hitler placed Catholic teachings in public education. This lead to Hitler enacting doctrines of the Church as law. He outlawed all abortion, raged a death war on all homosexuals, and demanded corporal punishment in schools and home.

He was quoted as stating, "The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavor to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of today…Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church."

In fact, the Holocaust grew out of Hitler's Christian education due mainly to Jews having an inferior status in Christian Austria and Germany. The Christians there blamed the Jews for the killing of Jesus and the hatred that Hitler fostered against Jewish people began from the preaching of Catholic priests and Protestant ministers throughout Germany. It is well known that Martin Luther held a livid hatred for Jews and their religion. Luther wrote a book titled "On the Jews and their Lies" which set the standard for Jewish hatred all the way up to World War 2. Hitler, of course, expressed a great admiration for Luther.

The Nazis began to control schools insisting that Christianity was taught. They included anti-Semitic Christian writings in textbooks and were not removed from Christian doctrines until 1961. Nazi soldiers wore religious symbols and placed religious sayings on military gear. The official army belt buckle read "God With Us". They got sprinkled with holy water and listened to Catholic sermons before going out on maneuvers. The Nazis had a secret service called the "SS Reich" that would act as spies on the dealings of other citizens and if anyone was suspected of heresy they would be prosecuted.

Here are a few quotes from Hitler:

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922

"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Had enough of Hitler? OK, let's move on to Stalin:

Joseph Stalin was raised to be a Catholic Priest and I remain curious as to why his Christianity is shoved aside in all these arguments. Yes, there is no way to get around the fact that in his early career, Stalin made a vast effort to rid Russia of religion, but that had nothing to do with atheism. It was the only way he knew to seize power of the country.

For generations the entire populace of Russia had been taught that the head of state was supposed to be close to god. At the time in question, the head of the church in Russia was a tyrant. The Russians were already disposed to servility and all Stalin did was exploit these two facts, and place himself in the position of god. Once Stalin was firmly seated in office, he revived the Russian Orthodox Church in order to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. Stalin was part of a council convened to elected a new church Patriarch. Then the Russian theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function. Even the Moscow Theological Academy Seminary was re-opened, after being closed since 1918.

So, while Stalin was no peach, he was not exactly what you would call a died-in-the-wool atheist. He was more a secular minded religious opportunist, which is a personal character trait. He did not use atheism to gain control, but religious principles that were modified to fit his own, sick and twisted method of revolution.

What about Pol Pot?

Truly a monster, having killed some twenty-five percent of the entire population of Cambodia. Pol Pot targeted not just different religions, but education, science and medicine in his quest for total domination. Now, let's take a head count of atheists who are against education, science and medicine. Thought so… Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge were composed of Buddhists and Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist. He studied at a Buddhist monastery and then at a Catholic school for 8 years. Cambodia's communism was influenced by Theravada Buddhism.

Prince Norodom Sihanouk said, "Pol Pot does not believe in God but he thinks that heaven, destiny, wants him to guide Cambodia in the way he thinks it the best for Cambodia, that is to say, the worst. Pol Pot is mad, you know, like Hitler."

So, while Pol Pot was definitely not a Christian, he was also definitely not an Atheist.

Let's get on with some Mass Murder, shall we?

Add up the deaths that were attributed to Hitler, Stalin and Pot. Then round up for good measure. You can safely say that the number is staggering. Probably upwards of fifteen million. However, consider the following conflicts where the only differences between the opposing factions were and are religion:

Albigensian Crusade, 1208-49
Algeria, 1992-
Baha'is, 1848-54
Bosnia, 1992-95
Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1901
Christian Romans, 30-313 CE
Croatia, 1991-92
English Civil War, 1642-46
Holocaust, 1938-45
Huguenot Wars, 1562-1598
India, 1992-2002
India: Suttee & Thugs
Indo-Pakistani Partition, 1947
Iran, Islamic Republic, 1979-
Iraq, Shiites, 1991-92
Jews, 1348
Jonestown, 1978
Lebanon 1860 / 1975-92
Molucca Is., 1999-
Mongolia, 1937-39
Northern Ireland, 1974-98
Russian pogroms 1905-06 / 1917-22
St. Bartholemew Massacre, 1572
Shang China, ca. 1300-1050 BCE
Shimabara Revolt, Japan 1637-38
Sikh uprising, India, 1984-91
Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1834
Taiping Rebellion, 1850-64
Thirty Years War, 1618-48
Tudor England
Vietnam, 1800s
Witch Hunts, 1400-1800
Xhosa, 1857
Arab Outbreak, 7th Century CE
Arab-Israeli Wars, 1948-
Al Qaeda, 1993-
Crusades, 1095-1291
Dutch Revolt, 1566-1609
Nigeria, 1990s, 2000s

If you add up all of the lives that were lost in the name of one religion or another, you come up with a staggering figure that is in excess of eight-hundred-million. That's eight-hundred-million. An eight, followed by eight zeros. So, even if the believers who are uneducated enough to think that Hitler, Stalin and Pot were psychotic mass murderers because they thought these men were atheists, it is horrifically clear that religious murder wins out.

Comfort yourself in your assumption that you are more read than I am. I'm not in a competition here.

You can bring your stats and I'll bring mine. And with regards to a lot of the conflicts you listed, as with most things in life, there were more than religious motives involved. You conveniently ignore the political, social, and most important, the economic.

Ultimately, either atheism will prevail in Nigeria or it won't. I will do my best to ensure it doesn't. I expect you will work in the opposite direction. Only God knows the future. I tell you plainly, blaming religion is not Africa's problem. White society was very religious when they were still advancing. China was thriving when they were still Buddhist. Why can't the black man succeed whether he is in Africa, Asia, Europe, etc...? That's the question and pointing the finger at religion isn't going to change the picture. It's just another excuse to make.

rationalmind: Claiming hitler was an atheist is dubious. Hitler was extremely evil and cunning. You can make a case for him being a christian, you can as well make a case for him being an atheist. You can't beat your chest and claim he was an atheist.

Even if stalin, mao and hitler were atheists as you said, atheism had nothing to do with their genocide.

There is nothing dubious about Hitler's religious views. You can read all about it the works on his biographers and historians. Anyone who denies Hitler was an atheist is just in denial.

cold: You've got to be kidding me. Hitler's principles of Aryan superiority were based on Christianity & the bible. Thus,your argument is invalid. Human conscience is enough restraining factor for any right thinking person. No god needed,no religion needed

Nice try. Hitler was an atheist. Do you aim to deceive by using quotes without knowing the context of the situation? Hitler made those statements in his attempt to manipulate.

Please see the below link:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

Look don't waste your time trying to rewrite history. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were atheists and between the three of them, they killed more people in the 20th century than in the first 19 centuries combined.

Lil'knight:
one question also, is it all cele churches dat does dat, since ma 20yrs in celestial i av never witnessed such b4, and dnt mistake me, i didn't say there aren't fake celestial churches, sure they are and this churches av spoilt d good names of the genuine ones!

Exactly. Since the early church in the book of acts, there have been good leaders and bad ones. Wolves masquerading as sheep. Paul writes about this in his epistles. It's an issue that affects all of Christendom. It is in no way unique to CCC. All our prayers should be that God should remove the thorns and the tares so that the true seed can grow.

haibe: yes the bible is God's word and so I can be sure but did the bible approve of "the God of oshoffa" too?

The God of Oshoffa is the God of the bible.

otipoju: @ajosegabriel. I was born and bred a Celestian.I was christened at Wasimi parish in maryland and currently attend Ayilara parish, Surulere.

I went to deeper life whenever I was on holidays at granny's place!

Also attended meetings at the Kingdom hall ofJehovah witness with my aunt for a while.

I attended masses and went for catechesim at a catholic missionary school during between JSS 1-3 at Obalende lagos.I can still sing quite a number of catholic hymns and particularly enjoyed their Corpus Christi celebrations.

Between 1998 and 2000 I attended Household of God before I gained admission to study Religion at O.A.U

It was at O.A.U that I discovered the beauty of CCC after I had learnt to look at religious phenomena with scholarly eyes.

During Service year it was ECWA in Kano,After service in 2007,it was Christ Embassy where after foundation school the Pastor of the branch in Surulere wanted me to join the ministry part time with a promise to get me a good job at a Telecomms outfit.I politely declined.

In between all of these I have attended Redeemed ,CAC and Foursquare gospel church services with my friends.

I felt I had seen enough and satisfied my curiosity and so became regular at CCC Ayilara Parish and Jehovah has been faithful ever since.

When some of these people talk about what they do not understand, I try to say the little I can and continue with my life. Remember " Awon ti ofe lo pe, Awon to pe lo yan, Awon to yan lo she logo" - not everyone is called to be a celestian it is a tough act to follow.

Please let no Celestian bandy words with anyone on this site or take their insults too personal. Do we do advert to invite anybody? No! Do we hire PR experts to manage our reputation by highlighting our miracles/achievements or doing damage limitation on our scandals. Do we budget and spend millions to enhance visibility on the mass media to build our brand ? No!

Nevertheless When these people see the one wey pass dem, they always know where to find us! Many of our members will say " I never imagined that I could be a celestian but thank God for this church." Don't you hear it often?

Please leave them to say what they wish. If Jehovah calls them, they will come !!!

You've said it all brother. God Bless

haibe: why god of oshoffa?

There's nothing strange about it. He was a man of God. Just like in the bible, there is "the God of Moses", "the God of Abraham", "the God of David", etc.

I'm glad to hear the OP had a pleasant experience. There is so much misinformation about the church because of a person who heard from a person, who heard from another person that...

Of course there are fakes in the church but that is an issue in all churches. No believer should be surprised. After all, the scriptures tell us that there are many hirelings and few true shepherds, and many false prophets have gone out into the world to deceive many in order to fill their stomachs.

CCC is a powerful church where the spirit of God moves and transforms people's lives. All glory to God.

rationalmind: And what makes you feel your concept of God isn't the false one?

The Lord Jesus Christ.

rationalmind: No. I've seen that, for some crazy and stu.pid reasons which I don't know and which uve been unable to tell me, he prefers to keep some people on the "low" till they die.

It's because you have a false concept of God.

rationalmind: Since you evaded the question, here is it again.

WHY did God have to keep him Jobless for four yeas. Your answer that God sets everything to a time and season is no answer as I can repeat the question as,

Why does God have to keep people in untold pain and hardship because he has a set time and season. What prevents him from bringing that time and season forward.

And as for the second part of your reply, that's an obvious lie. I don't get my arguments from anywhere. Every argument I produce comes from my head.

I didn't evade the question. It's just an answer you are unwilling to accept. You assume that something prevents God from doing such and such. And why do you assume it's God who keeps people in pain and hardship. Sometimes our pain and hardship are the result of our choices or the choices of others.

Now I'm sure you can understand that if God is who I believe him to be, then how can I fully comprehend Him. If I have a complete understanding of God, then God is no longer God.

rationalmind: Except that your answer fails to explain cases of christians who died poor and lived wretched lives. Their situation was never used to lead them to the top

You assume God wants to take everyone to the top.

Bidam: ofcos if they claim an angel appeared to them i believed them. Can you tell us the content of the message the angel delivered?

Well said Bidam. To verify the accuracy of the experience, we must look at the content of the message. The bible says to test every spirit.

mrnestyy1985: Like i said before, i dont care what people think about my opinion. I was born a christian and will always remain a christian by birthday. What im saying is that, the world would be a better place if every body, you and i respect every ones religion.

Im So much concerned about the world being at peace. Im not against any religion be it muslim, christian,hindu or african traditional religion or even the atheist them self. Most people who practice christianity or muslim today do so because they grew up in a christian, muslim family so they learnt christian/muslim principles as a kid but it doesn't mean what they are practicing is right or wrong.its a little bit confusing but that how the world has made it. The struggle for religious superiority has made the world an unsafe place.

When an atheist, muslims ask christians question, they end up quoting a verse from the bible.how then do you expect the unbeliever to belief you. Like i said before. The bible was written by different people under different circumstance. Some circumstance were influenced by the people in power as at then. Even until today,they still play politics in the first church (catholic church).

So rather than quoting a random verse from the bible that was influenced by political powers, why not provide valid justifiable evidence to back your stand. You rely on the bible because you parents relied on it and because the old followers of christ rely on it. So you end up believing everything because you have soaked yourself from childhood.

There is God, YES I TRUELY AGREE.i believe in the old testament of the bible to some extend because it was similar to the quaran and some religious book that was published. During the translation of the original bible, there were some gramatically misunderstanding that was interpreted, skipped or replaced with wordings that favoured the then political power.

Look at what happened during Nelson Mandela's final death ceremony, the sign language interpreter said he saw angels that was why he was interpreting wrongly. Is that not crazy?

20 yrs ago, Nigeria had no religious crisis. That was the same time there were fewer christians and muslim and people believed in different african Gods. Christians believed that a different african religion would use ur photo for witchcraft and voodoo. What is happening today?

You and i being christians are uploading our pics freely to facebook and instagram where the same witchcraft you were running from lived. Or do you think witches dont use facebook. Iont live in Nigeria anymore but im wondering what the men of God, "christians, muslims, anf voodoist are saying about the privacy of your photos.

The world is changing, people are gaining knowledge. Yes i believe God bestowed knowledge on every one of us to have a rethink about some politically influenced documented evidence of his creature. Until then, let us respect everyones opinion about his belief.

To my friend who won american visa because of some prophecy- im so happy for you ooo. But i have a friend who the grandpa who was anon christian prophesied to him that he will win a lottery within a Year after playing for several years And 7 months later, the guy won the lottery. So my question is. Who is this miracle working God that is performing all this things through christians and african traditional religion? At the end i think we all worship one God but the medium through which we worship defer. So lets respect one anothers believe and leave the rest to God.

Both in the bible, quaran and the stories of african traditional religion, god assured us that he will reward good and evil. Why una come dey do God work naa. Its not for us to judge peoples belief.

You raised a lot of points but I will speak to what I think is the most important one. And that is that we don't all worship the same God. Do we all have a concept of God? Yes. But we don't worship the same God. Now is there divination, of course there is. The bible makes no secret of this. Consider Moses vs Pharoah's magicians, the witch at Endor, the wise men (astrologers) who saw the star that signaled the birth of Christ.

Now your point is that because these people could tap into the supernatural, it means that they were worshipping the Judeo-Christian God. That is false. The difference was illustrated in the story of Moses. His serpent consumed the others, and then it got to a certain stage where they could not even attempt to do what Moses did; when it became about life and death. One is all encompassing.

In comparing my story with that of your friend's, it only illustrates that God is exact. God said I would go to America soon. He didn't tell me how so I tried a bunch of ways and none of them worked. I had even stopped caring then one day in church, the word of God came through another prophet and He said that this is the year I should play the lottery. There was no guesswork. There are so many other experiences I have had when it was like in the third month if this year, this will be done, and it was done in exact manner.

It is a shame when Christians tell other Christians to disarm themselves when discussing with atheists. Please see my response to an earlier post to @textanomaly when she made a similar remark as yours. It's in the first two pages if the thread. Christ spoke nothing but the word and I do not think I will go in any other direction.

rationalmind: 1. Why did God have to keep him jobless for four years?

2. And there are times when God makes a believer the worst below everyone

You guys repeat virtually the same thing in different ways. You tend to focus on the positives and credit it to God whilst ignoring the negatives.

Another form of the argument is, a look at the design and order of the universe shows there must be a creator

The answer is the same to both questions. God sets everything to a time and season. Again it isn't something you can accept.

Also, all the arguments atheists here on NL make are just arguments they got from the Internet that other well known atheists have made. Sometimes I even see it lifted word for word; so I wouldn't accuse others of repeating arguments.

The answer to your question is no. What you have described isn't prophecy.

@ rationalmind. God works on an individual basis. This is his story fashioned by God. The OP knows what he is talking about. You miss the point. God's working in the OPs life doesn't mean that he will be above. God has put him where he wants him to be.

There are times though when God makes a believer the best and at the top of everyone.

I wouldn't expect you to understand though.

Bidam: Wait until i tell them i saw an angel. They would probably say i am hallucinating.

Yup