₦airaland Forum

clemcykul:
this isnt humour, i don't want to presume ure ill humoured. think of somthing better ok. min u i aint criticizing you maybe its just because am not amused by it. but then most people on the forum find it amusing it doesnt mean i don't get the humour in it or that i don't understand it. its just that am not amused cha cha! catchia baby or bobo?

Looking at your previous post it is crystal clear that you didn't really get it (the parody, that is). Trying to weasel out by saying you don't consider it humour only shows that you're not one of the most quick witted specimens of Homo Sapiens .
It's absolutely incredible how gullible people can be, just look at the reactions on this thread.

Apparently this humour is a little too advanced for some of our fellow nairalanders. Maybe I was expecting too much
Maybe this will make things clearer: DihydroMonoxide = H2O

oge4real:

What's up?

abelix:
now everybody ,one more reason why drugs aint good for you .

Are you under the spell of DHMO now? How did it affect you or have you seen some cases of DHMO poisoning?

doyin13:
Mayo tested positive for EPO.

I think a few years ago he was leading the tour until Armstrong took over as usual.

He's never been a contender for the GC in the Tour, he was an good climber but nothing more than that and he's always been rather suspect when it comes to doping. It's already the second time this year: after testosteron now Epo. He's like a walking medicine cabinet

As a good Belgian, I'm more into one day races anyway. Luckily we have Boonen who took the green jersey and will probably go for his second world championship later this year after the Vuelta

doyin13:
By the way where is Ullrich?

He retired after being involved in the Fuentes case.

doyin13:
One would think with Armstrong away from the scene, he would be supreme contender.

He would have been yes. He was actually more talented than Armstrong. His test results were really off the scale: closer to Merckx than to Armstrong really. He could easily have competed without doping, but he was not focused enough to take care of himself all year round.

RuuDie:
nah. . . just an enthusiast!
u seem to have raced c'uz u know a l'il bit of the ins and outs - i follow the sport but not deeply c'uz it ain't so popular this side of the globe!

I did race, but only for a year. I just wasn't good enough. My younger brother has been racing for about 5 years now, he's much better than I was.
Do you only follow the sport or do you ride yourself? If you ride you can really appreciate the sport better as it can seem boring if you don't understand the tactics. Even though it looks as though it's an individual sport it's far more of a team sport than it looks like at first sight.
Also if you have raced yourself, you can 'read' the race far better than if you haven't (e.g. you know when an attack has a chance of succeeding)

@ RuuDie

What exactly is your background in cycling? Just an enthusiast or have you raced as well?

doyin13:
Men if una believe say Armstrong no cheat, then Naija don dey raise naive individuals.

The most naive people here are the Americans, they assume doping in cycling is only a European phenomenon, but then again, almost all of their top cyclist have been involved (caught or not) in doping one way or another (with the possible exception of Greg Lemond)

doyin13:
I just dey wait when the guy go pai like Flo Jo
(Quite morbid I know. If u don't like it, take me to Judge Judy)

Never going to happen. If he took doping it was probably EPO or one of the drugs with a similar result (such as Aranesp) and only during preparation (to increase the effect of training super compensation). He was smart enough not to get caught and his medical preparation was impeccable. I'm personally an agnostic when it comes to Armstrong's alleged doping abuse.
Whatever they may write about Epo, from a medical perspective it is better to ride a race like the TDF with Epo than without Epo. At the end of the Tour, the hematocrit values of the racers are so low, you could mistake them for those of anemic 80 year olds.

BlackMamba:
Cycling - A sports Jinxed? How about "Threadmill Runner Fails HGH Test" That will really expose the use of performance enhancing drugs in all sports.

American Pro sports are worst of all. They don't even allow doping tests in their sports. Anyway, athletics are also pretty bad when it comes to doping, they only don't get as much exposure as cycling gets.

RuuDie:
Try telling this to L'Equip and some elements in the French media. . . . .

The French are subject to a strange kind of suspension of disbelief when it comes to their national icons. They still revere Virenque who was a far worse doping offender than Armstrong will ever be.

somze:
Nferyn and his elaborated lessons again

Thanks again dude

Well it's good to talk about other stuff from time to time as well. I just hope to find some cycling enthusiasts here too.

RuuDie:
Cycling is a pretty difficult sport. . . .
requires loads of energy expecially guys who go on different courses -

It is very intensive and you need to have a very high pain treshold. Racing means withstanding levels of pain for several hours that would make the average Joe faint. For example Tyler Hamilton finished the Tour de France in 2001 having riden the whole 3 weeks with a broken colarbone or Frank Vandenbroucke finishing seventh in the world championship with two broken wrists.
Another tidbit: during the mountain stages in the TDF a rider cannot naturally have a sufficient intake of nurtients to replenish the energy used during the day (the energy consumption can be up to 10.000 Calories, try imagining that as food standing on plates in front of you)

RuuDie:
even the normal Cycling that takes place indoors is very hectic too;

Normal cycling? I know I usually train on my trainer (bike attached to magnetic resitance unit) indoors, but that's more because my schedule doesn't allow me to go riding outdoors. I'm really an odd duck out here

RuuDie:
talkless of when you exposed to varying terrains over very long distances and at the mercy of climatic unpredictibilty.

The climate doesn't really have that much of an impact. The terrain and distance determine your energetic needs (unless there's a lot of wind).

RuuDie:
thats why its such a wonder that Lance Armstrong could come out of his sick bed after extensive treatment for cancer and win the toughest race on the Cycling tour, 7 consecutive times! Astounding feat!!!

Actually it isn't as strange as it looks.
1. He was an amazing athlete with an incredible aerobic capacity:
from http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Fitness-Cardio-Secret-That-Propels-Lance-Armstrong&id=53623

1. Lungs - 2 times the capacity of the average person
2. Muscle - Accumulates less lactic acid and is more efficient at removing it.
3. Heart - Is about 1/3 larger with a resting heart rate of 32 beats per minute, and peaks around 200 beats per minute.
4. Body Fat - 4-5 percent before the Tour starts, while an average person has 15-20 percent.
5. Food Consumption - Needs 6500 calories per day, and upwards of 10,000 per day when biking in the mountains during his 120 mile race.

2. He reintroduced the concept of riding at a higher frequency pedalling (around 100-110 revolutions of the pedals per minute), which taxes his aerobic capacity more and his anaerobic capacity less, resulting in a lower rate of lactic acid build-up in the muscles and less micro-fissures of muscle tissue
3. His cancer made him lose all the bulk of his muscle mass, which was too high to be successful in multi-stage races like the TDF. He remodelled himself to become a stage racer
4. the ordeal he went through gave him the focus and will to tolerate pain more than any other racer of his era

Anyway, there are very few sports that are as taxing for the body as cycling, that partly explains why doping was so prevalent in cycling, it really makes a significant difference. E.g. using EPO wouldn't turn an average footballer into a star player, cycling is much at the edge of what human physiology can withstand that the impact of using doping is very real.

somze:
nferyn

Thanks for the lesson dude

I had to defend my sport

somze:
Cycling is not a sport, its an excuse to do drugs and escape arrest and prosecution.

All professional sports have issues with doping, it's only that cycling is the most controlled sport in the world and therefore more people are caught. There's a perception problem though, because historically cycling has always been associated with doping. Currently, even though riders are still being caught, there is far less doping in cycling than e.g. in athletics or even football. When considering drug problems (not doping), there are far more problems in football (e.g. Maradonna)

somze:
More than half of them are doing it. Even the great Lance Armstrong had his issues though never proven.

Correction almost 90% were doing it (especially in multi-stage races) in the 90's. I would be surprised if there were even 10% of racers who are still using doping. Each cycling professional gets controlled anything between 5 and 50 times per year. Even my younger brother who is now cycling in the 'espoirs' category (non professional) has already been controlled 16 times starting when he was 16.

somze:
A major overhauling is needed but till then will stick to soccer.

That major overhaul is happening right now. The last bad apples are being thrown out of the basket. Let's just hope it doesn't kill the sport. The problem is that the international cycling federation is in conflict with the ASO (organiser of the Tour de France). Astana should never have received a license from the UCI (there are mixed messages coming from UCI president McQuaid regarding the UCI's anti-doping policy).

honeric01:
[SNIP] but the number one thing is to be born again and accept Jesus as your lord and personal savior, that's all, have no more to say to you or KAG, i rest my case.

Let's just conclude you rest because you have no case. None whatsoever.

honeric01:
So what is your point here? i don't understand what you are trying to clarify here

You were the one 'warning' us for the coming rapture. Let's say the Bible gives mixed messages when it comes to the end times and both your 'concern' and veiled threats are totally misplaced.

@ honeric01:

The end will come within the lifetime of Jesus's listeners.

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." -- Matthew16:28
"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." -- Luke 9:27
"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." -- Matthew 23:36
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." -- Matthew 24:3
"Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Matthew 26:64
"Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." -- Mark 9:1
"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." -- Mark 13:30
"And ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Mark 14:62
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." -- Luke 21:3
"Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" -- John 21:22

The end will come within the lifetime of the the New Testament authors.

"Waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ , that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." -- 1 Corinthians 1:7-8
"But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none." -- 1 Corinthians 7:29
"That ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ. -- Philippians 1:10
"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." -- 1 Thessalonians 4:17
"I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." -- 1 Thessalonians 5:23
"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, " -- Hebrews 1:2
"But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." -- Hebrews 9:26
"Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." -- 1 Peter 1:20
"But the end of all things is at hand." -- 1 Peter 4:7
"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." -- 1 John 2:18

The end will come soon. (Within a couple thousand years or so.)

"The Lord is at hand." -- Philippians 4:5
"For the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." -- James 5:8
"For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry." -- Hebrews 10:37
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass. -- Revelation 1:1
"The time is at hand." -- Revelation 1:3
"Behold, I come quickly." -- Revelation 3:11, 22:7, 22:12
"Surely I come quickly." -- Revelation 22:20

from: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/end.html

k0be:

1. I never claimed that Christians cannot enjoy comfortable lifestyles
2. Christians enjoying comfortable lifestyles mean absolutely nothing when it comes to the value of Christianity in itself. The Christian plantation owners in the pre civil war US south did enjoy comfortable lifestyles as well, what on earth does that do to establish the value of Christianity?

How exactly do the altar boys establish the value of christianity in itself? Did christianity tell them to go out there and commit whatever crimes you're accusing them of, no.

Ah, now I say that altar boys establish the value of christianity. Good to know you can read my mind better than I can myself. No wonder you seem to suffer from a persecution complex. The big bad secularists are coming after you.
More specifically about the altar boys (as apparently I need to spell everything out in detail), in the Roman Catholic church, you have priests that are forced to be celibate. This together with the overall messed up sexual morality in Christianity stunts their normal sexual development and they turn to easy victims: altar boys and others under the loving care of the holy mother the church There have been countless cases like this and the church, in it's overall benevolence, has decided that it is better to cover it up than to tackle the problem at it's roots. As a result thousands of young boys' lives have been destroyed.

k0be:
Here you are, now retorting to blames because you want so hard to eliminate christianity. Put yourself out of your misery, go sip on some orange juice to cool your nerves, blame the people for the slavery that went on in the south, some of the slave owners just happened to be christians(or so they say).

The Bible was the prime justification for slavery in the US. There are countless passages that explicitly or implicitly condone slavery, but of course, as a good Christian, you must selectively pick and choose form the Bible to maintain a semblance of morality and ignore the dark sides of your religion.

k0be:
It was only a matter of time anyway until their Biblical tactics of justifying slavery were foiled.
Morevover, it isn't written anywhere in the Bible that "christians are perfect" or that christians are without fault.

No but all those feeble (or closed) minded people that exclaim that the Bible is the source of our morality have nothing to back up their case. Some foundation for a good [/i]life it is.

k0be:

3. Where exactly did you encounter any instances of me being paranoid or unstable? Or maybe it's the usual Christian apologist tactic of redefining words, like the re-definition of the word 'good' to explain the goodness of God in the face of evil in this world.

Your paranoia and instability are causing you to schizophrenically blame christianity for the shattered ruin that is slowly becoming of your life.

You're nothing if not funny, lol. I guess projection and assertion without evidence must be other esteemed Christian values and let's not forget repetition

k0be:
Why did I say this? Because out of the blue you brought up the story about some make-belief altar boys raping your soul. I want to assure you that it's okay and everything will be alright.

Did I now? You really have a vivid imagination.

k0be:

Condemning molested altar boys? Where did I do that? Anyway, you may or may not know that atheism in itself is not a world view, it's merely the lack of God-belief. Atheists can be just as delusional and destructive as theists (and there have been a few examples in the 20th century), but this does not follow directly from atheism, unlike the rejection of rational thought and it's consequences that follow from Christian theism.

oh sure, you claim you never condemned altar boys, but you blamed christianity for breeding menacing altar boys.

Such a fantasy, you should start writing novels. Maybe you can contribute to the rapture series

k0be:
What difference is it that I also blamed atheism for creating serial killers. You are very good at amalgamating so I guess I learned that strategy from you.

Evidence, my dear Watson, evidence.

k0be:
You are very backwards, you say atheists can be just as destructive as theists yet you're very quick to combat that statement by claiming "it doesn't follow directly from atheism" on top of that you used that opportunity to try and drag christianity down even more.

Backwards, eh? Could you elaborate on that or is it just another one of your empty assertions.

k0be:
Don't mistake me for a fool lol, you're a funny m8. Christianity doesn't reject your rational thought, christians just urge you to listen when they explain to you why certain things are the way they are, is that too hard for you to comprehend?

OK then, [b]why [/b]are [b]which [/b]things [b]what [/b]way exactly?

k0be:

Anyway, I guess Stephen Weinberg captured it very well: Yes 'our world' you know the one you and I inhabit? Perhaps you're an alien from outer-space you certainly reason like one.
You really have a hard time bringing substance to this interchange of ideas, haven't you? Please establish where I reason like an alien from outer-space instead of just merely asserting it.

Why else would you ask the question: our world? Does it take a genius to figure out which world I was implying. Only an alien from outerspace would have asked that sort of question, in my opinion, hence my conclusion.

People with a proper grounding in scientific reasoning would understand that precise definitions are a [i]conditio sine qae non for any attempt at explanation, but I guess that's lost on a muddy theistic mind like yours.

k0be:

Really? Can you then begin to explain why the theories of modern cosmology are shaky and why you have a more parsimonious explanation?
You're still in the process of merely asserting things.

I decided to quench your thirst by providing the post above this, and heads up, there's more to come.

I'll leave the dismantling of your plagiarised copy-paste arguments to KAG, as he's far better in physics than I am. Just a shame chrisd [/i]is no longer active on the board, he would have dissected and dismantled your poor excuse for reasoning with the elegance and aplomb only a christian physicist can bring.

k0be:

Unlike you, I value proper deductive and inductive reasoning from well established premisses and data points. I'm not really fond of vague innuendo and unfounded, unevidenced statements of fact. Or maybe you're denying your own (for once) crystal clear words:Typical apologetics, ignore 90% of one's post and focus on the 10% against which you think you can bring a compelling case. I urge you though to also tackle abiogenesis, biological evolution and to substantiate your claims about my lack of logical abilities.

It appeared to me that you valued backwardsness. 3/4 or 4/5 of your posts to me have been based on nothing but pure shenanigans you pulled out of your as$ so don't try to come at me with that nonsense about statement of facts.
Now will you stop crying&panting, I have responded fully to your post.

Just like the apologetical treatise by [i]CS Lewis, your Mere Christianity seems to be nothing more than Mere Assertion or maybe Mere Insults in combination with Mere Mindreading

k0be:

It hurts me indeed to see how many people's lives have been destroyed in the name of these fables. From molested altar boys to the witches burned at the stake, from the Kathars to the Reconquista , from the sack of Jerusalem to the Ustasha. And we shouldn't forget the tolerant behaviour of Calvin in Vienna or the impact of the anti-Semitic pamphlets of Luther. I must say that that is really an excellent foundation indeed, for bigotry and intolerance

If you weren't so paranoid and unstable you would realize that so many christians enjoy comfortable lifestyles.

False dichotomy based on an incorrect interpretation of what I wrote.
1. I never claimed that Christians cannot enjoy comfortable lifestyles
2. Christians enjoying comfortable lifestyles mean absolutely nothing when it comes to the value of Christianity in itself. The Christian plantation owners in the pre civil war US south did enjoy comfortable lifestyles as well, what on earth does that do to establish the value of Christianity?
3. Where exactly did you encounter any instances of me being paranoid or unstable? Or maybe it's the usual Christian apologist tactic of redefining words, like the re-definition of the word 'good' to explain the goodness of God in the face of evil in this world.

k0be:
George Bush is a christian, I guess America should declare a state of emergency because he will hire some molested altar boys to destroy the nation.

What kind of mental gymnastics did you employ here to construct this [i]treasure [/i]of an idea? Your deductive capabilities are sorely lacking, I'm afraid, but at least now I can guess why you think I can't reason logically

k0be:
While you're in the process of condemning molested altar boys, don't forget the irresponsible atheist men that have gone around destroying innocent lives because they can't distinguish right from wrong.

Condemning molested altar boys? Where did I do that? Anyway, you may or may not know that atheism in itself is not a world view, it's merely the lack of God-belief. Atheists can be just as delusional and destructive as theists (and there have been a few examples in the 20th century), but this does not follow directly from atheism, unlike the rejection of rational thought and it's consequences that follow from Christian theism.
Anyway, I guess Stephen Weinberg captured it very well:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

k0be:

Our world? They definitely have. When it comes to the universe, the currently proposed explanations in cosmology definitely are far more compelling than anything religion has to bring. I don't have very much confidence in your understanding of the scientific method though, so I won't bother to undermine your fantasies.

Yes 'our world' you know the one you and I inhabit? Perhaps you're an alien from outer-space you certainly reason like one.

You really have a hard time bringing substance to this interchange of ideas, haven't you? Please establish where I reason like an alien from outer-space instead of just merely asserting it.

k0be:
Cosmology is just a transparent branch of physics which 'proposes' some shaky theories to explain this worldly phenomena

Really? Can you then begin to explain why the theories of modern cosmology are shaky and why you have a more parsimonious explanation?
You're still in the process of merely asserting things.

k0be:

Could you begin to substantiate that cheap slur instead of dancing around the hot potato?

Lol cheap slur. I'm glad it didn't cost you a fortune. At least I'm not dancing on the hot bananapotato as you would. I did what you asked by the way, it's just unfortunate that your menial skills to correctly interpret the words told to you not only led you down the wrong path, but they also forced you to form the wrong conclusions. You can go back to that post and read it over 100 times, I'm sure you'll understand what I mean on your 101^st attempt.

Unlike you, I value proper deductive and inductive reasoning from well established premisses and data points. I'm not really fond of vague innuendo and unfounded, unevidenced statements of fact. Or maybe you're denying your own (for once) crystal clear words:

christianity tells you all you need to know dear infidel.

k0be:
As far as your little tale about cosmology is concerned I'll be back to tackle it.

Typical apologetics, ignore 90% of one's post and focus on the 10% against which you think you can bring a compelling case. I urge you though to also tackle abiogenesis, biological evolution and to substantiate your claims about my lack of logical abilities.

ricadelide:

It's objectively incoherent and takes a lot of mental gymnastics to give it a semblance of coherence. But then again, what can one expect from a book that is collected from several authors over more than a millennium.

more like subjectively incoherent, because some of us - rather, many of us - do find it very coherent - so obviously the problem doesn't lie in the bible itself (except our minds are decieving us )

Anyone who even looked cursory into the functioning of the human brain will know that our minds are deceiving us all the time. Both memory and perception are constructed realities that do not necessarily correspond with the external, objective reality. The only problem is that most people like to ignore that simple fact or aren't exposed to that knowledge.

ricadelide:

You're sidestepping the issue, whether or not the Bible can be made 'consistent' with our current knowledge is not what I'm arguing for. I only wanted to expose that the claim that christianity is all you need to know is rather silly, if not outright idiotic.

you said,

Go and cast out some demons and - above all - never rely on the germ theory of disease when you get ill, because you know that christianity tells you everything you need to know.

you said,Perhaps i shouldn't have assumed; from your statement, especially your emphasis, you seemed to imply that the bible teaches that diseases are caused by demons; and if you read my post well you'd notice that that was what i was arguing against.

1. I wasn't arguing against you, but against the statement that all you need is the Bible. K0be started the interchange with the following statement (emphasis mine):

Of course he exists. Has your science been very capable of proving why the world is the way it is today?
Nobody in their right frame of mind would lay a foundation of trust on their shaky theories.

2. In this context, my reply was very much to the point. If one rejects scientific knowledge, one should be consequent and also reject the products and applied knowledge that result from it.
3. The Bible indeed doesn't exclusively teach that disease is caused by demons, but it is the only cause of disease it singles out and that, in the context of K0be's statement, is very much to the point

ricadelide:
Of course the bible is not all you need to know. Why do we go to school and study? If that was the issue at hand then why would i even bother to reply? everybody knows that.

Apparently it wasn't all that clear to K0be.

ricadelide:
The bible is very specific in what it address, albeit via different perspectives and through different contexts; the issue of God and his relationship with his people. I assumed you had a more saline (or perhaps, subtle) point - ie the issue of the bible teaching that demons caused every disease - and that was what i tried to address, and if you noticed, i said Luke was a physician - did he become one by reading the old testament? Of course not. Some other scholars are found in the bible, Daniel, Job's friends, Paul (religious scholar) etc, they didnt rely only on biblical information.

Tell that to K0be.

ricadelide:

Apart from the fact that 'prophecising' the germ theory of disease at that point in history would have done far more to establish the validity of the Bible than any of the other vague prophecies it touts, the only possible cause of disease the Bible came up with at that moment was demonic or otherwise spiritual possession.
It's quite obvious that the Bible really doesn't contain any practical (scientific) knowledge that could help to advance the lot of humankind in this day and age

again, all the reading yet not arriving at any new knowledge. From what i addressed, it should be obvious that the point was that He is able to heal any/every disease regardless of the cause. the cause was not important as long as the people get healed. the emphasis is on his power, rather than whatever the cause was.

This is really irrelevant to what I tried to address. Anyway, if that is indeed the focus of the Bible, why don't you (more specifically in your rejection of the TOE) stop reading the Bible as if it were a foundational document for all the natural sciences.

ricadelide:
To your mind prophesying the germ theory of disease might seem to be something of importance, however to God and to folks that mind the things of God, he couldn't care less because the goal is not to glorify the cause, but the ability of the healer. The bible is not about the creation and anything in it (which science tries to study and understand), it is about the creator - Jesus himself.

But still so many Christian apologists like to use fulfilled [/i]prophecy as an argument in favour of the Bible. If it were God's intention to make it abundantly clear to humankind that the Bible is his message, he could have used something that could convince people that don't already believe. For example, prophecising the germ theory of disease would be one thing that could convince me. Or maybe he really doesn't want to save me and people like myself.

ricadelide:
Scientific knowledge has little or no spiritual value, that is why the bible is not a science textbook. NB - The issue of the 'advancement of the lot of humankind' might be something we could discuss later on more specifically. I seem to be interested in that.

I would very much like that. I enjoyed our conversations thus far.

ricadelide:

It seems you're using a more sanitised version of the Bible than the KJV. Anyway, fever is a symptom of disease, it doesn't say anything about the origin thereof. Every time the origin of disease is discussed it's either demonic possession or other spiritual problems that are discussed. One could conclude that the Bible doesn't really contain much useful information at all concerning disease.

I don't use KJV. I use NIV and other newer translations; i don't speak archaic english .

The KJV does have it's literary qualities in the very least and it's the only English version I'm really familiar with anyway.

ricadelide:
Like i have said, my arguement was to show you that the bible does not [i]teach that demons cause all diseases and your post kind of gave me reason to infer that. And again, like i have said, the cause is not important, what is important is getting healed.

Fair enough, but that wasn't really the core of my argument.

ricadelide:

So, what was the cause and how does that make the Bible 'the only thing I need to know? Your defense of the indefensible is astonishing. Why on earth did you study to become an MD when the Bible is 'all you need to know?'

for goodness sake! (j/k) - reading my post would have shown what my arguement was. OK, Let me formally apologize; sorry for misreading you. we seem to misread each other. the last time it was you, now its my turn

My mistake, sorry.

ricadelide:
This point ('the only thing i need to know') was so simplistic, it didnt even come across to me as an issue worthy of a discussion. And I doubt if that was the insinuation of k0be as well (like he explained in his rejoinder).

He did somewhat back pedal, yes, but his original argument was quite clear.

ricadelide:

Funny that there are far less demon possessions than in Biblical times. It's a bit comparable to the declining quality of miracles. no more parting of seas anymore. Maybe the real reason is that the medical profession and medical research have found the real causes of disease instead of ignorantly boasting of demonic possessions like during the heyday of Christianity. Why on earth did Pasteur even come up with his idiotic theories if 'christianity is all you need to know'.

NB - i'm not an MD, i'm a DVM (the difference lies in the number of species studied, and the importance placed on the said species, lol)

I was clearly assuming too much, but the principles remain the same don't they?

ricadelide:
I never did say 'christianity is all you need to know'. If i did, in my own endeavours, i'm already living contrary to that. And no, there aren't 'far less demonic possessions than in biblical times' there might be far less diagnosis, and the cases thereof might warrant far less media attention, but they go on nonetheless. And genuine quality miracles still continue to happen.

And the locality of theses diagnoses gravitate towards those areas where there is a higher level of belief in the supernatural. Perception bias, perhaps?

ricadelide:

Troubled spirituality? Is that the current newspeak for demonic possession? It's similar to collateral damage or maybe pacification. Anything to make it sound 'acceptable' to modern ears. Christians of old thought those demons and spirits were quite real physical entities, but those times have (luckily) long gone. Whatever it takes to salvage the word of God, no?

First, i didnt say; 'troubled spirituality', i said 'troubled spiritually' (there's a considerable amount of difference) and i had spiritually in quotes, for the simple reason that you don't accept nor believe in spirit realm nor in spirits.

Sorry for the cheap shot. I should have worded it differently

ricadelide:
I thought i was being polite; perhaps it didnt help. I try to put myself in the position of the person i'm addressing as much as possible. But i was not trying to belittle the reality of the situation in any way; they are still thought to be real entities by christians today, including me. There's nothing to be 'salvaged', what needs to be done is to help people understand things better. I have witnessed cases like that first-hand, so i'm not rehashing hearsay.

And I wouldn't assume you did. Knowing how belief systems operate and how easy people, even highly educated and intelligent ones, can be fooled, I don't fault you for thinking you really did witness these cases. I hope you can one day bring yourself to employ the same level of scrutiny to your belief system as you would to your every day scientific work.
Anyway, I would every much like to discuss with you how one can operationalise the spiritual realm as you call it in order for it to become tangible. As it does interact with the natural, physical world - as professed by believers - there must be a way to test it.

ricadelide:

There was definitely someone that wrote the gospel of Luke, who it was, nobody can say with any level of confidence.

Although the writer of Luke-Acts did not mention his name, I have a lot of reasons to confidently assume that Luke wrote that gospel. I never did expect you to agree, like i insinuated in my post. Cheers .

You may have lots of reasons to assume the apostle Luke wrote the gospel by his name, but your confidence wouldn't stand the test of historiographical scrutiny, I'm affraid.

k0be:

Foundation? Which foundation? Are you talking about the collection of incoherent fables commonly known as the Bible?

it must hurt you deep down inside that billions around the world are raving about these incoherent fables , most importantly knowing there's nothing you can do to stop it.

It hurts me indeed to see how many people's lives have been destroyed in the name of these fables. From molested altar boys to the witches [/i]burned at the stake, from the Kathars to the [i]Reconquista , from the sack of Jerusalem to the Ustasha. And we shouldn't forget the tolerant behaviour of Calvin in Vienna or the impact of the anti-Semitic pamphlets of Luther. I must say that that is really an excellent foundation indeed, for bigotry and intolerance

k0be:

Our world? They definitely have. When it comes to the universe, the currently proposed explanations in cosmology definitely are far more compelling than anything religion has to bring. I don't have very much confidence in your understanding of the scientific method though, so I won't bother to undermine your fantasies.

yawn. keep hallucinating. your delusions are clearly preventing you from reasoning logically.

I guess you wouldn't recognise logic when it bites you in the ass.
Let's break it down for the less intelligent among us:
* what hallucinations?
* which delusions?
* what illogical reasoning?

k0be:
which "ism" offered this explanation so I can urge google to pull out the faults with these theories.
lol, I didn't mean to hit a very sensitive nerve. I'll do just that, then what?

The origin of the cosmos: the Big bang theory holds out pretty well under scrutiny contrary to Biblical cosmology. Be careful the firmament doesn't fall on your head though.
The origin of life: there are several reasonably well established abiogenesis hypotheses, but of course, instantaneous creation of all the species by God offers a more parsimonious explanation, doesn't it?
The origin of biodiversity: The modern synthesis in evolutionary biology combined with the latest findings of evo-devo do a splendid job in explaining biodiversity, but I guess you must have a far more compelling case.

On the other hand, what really is your foundation and for what reasons? I haven't seen much of substance in your posts thus far.

k0be:

Go and cast out some demons and - above all - never rely on the germ theory of disease when you get ill, because you know that christianity tells you everything you need to know.

I don't understand why you're unable to reason like a normal human being.

If your reasoning ability is anything to go by, I guess I should be glad not to be able to reason like a 'normal' human being like yourself. Proudly 'alien'.

k0be:
Does that little sentence I uttered mean all scientific theories are unusable? no. it's very hard for someone like you to see that however, your hatred for religion diminishes from your ability to think properly.

Could you begin to substantiate that cheap slur instead of dancing around the hot potato?

ricadelide:

Are you talking about the collection of incoherent fables commonly known as the Bible?

Your opinion. Everybody is entitled to his. Just because it is incoherent to you does not mean it is incoherent to everyone.

It's objectively incoherent and takes a lot of mental gymnastics to give it a semblance of coherence. But then again, what can one expect from a book that is collected from several authors over more than a millennium.

ricadelide:

Go and cast out some demons and - above all - never rely on the germ theory of disease when you get ill, because you know that christianity tells you everything you need to know.

I like your passion, but it gets overheated sometimes. I wonder where you got this notion from; i'd assume from the 'incoherent' scriptures. However, yet again, you are misinformed.

You're sidestepping the issue, whether or not the Bible can be made 'consistent' with our current knowledge is not what I'm arguing for. I only wanted to expose that the claim that christianity is all you need to know is rather silly, if not outright idiotic.

Apart from the fact that 'prophecising' the germ theory of disease at that point in history would have done far more to establish the validity of the Bible than any of the other vague prophecies it touts, the only possible cause of disease the Bible came up with at that moment was demonic or otherwise spiritual possession.
It's quite obvious that the Bible really doesn't contain any practical (scientific) knowledge that could help to advance the lot of humankind in this day and age

ricadelide:
Luke 4;39
"Then standing over her He rebuked the fever, and it left her; and she at once rose and waited on them." (it didnt say he rebuked the demon)
I don't think its asking too much of him not to have used the term 'germ' - considering when the term came about.

It seems you're using a more sanitised version of the Bible than the KJV. Anyway, fever is a symptom of disease, it doesn't say anything about the origin thereof. Every time the origin of disease is discussed it's either demonic possession or other spiritual problems that are discussed. One could conclude that the Bible doesn't really contain much useful information at all concerning disease.

ricadelide:
Another example;
Luke 8;44 "Came after him and put her hand on the edge of his robe, and straight away the flowing of her blood was stopped." (Not 'the demon left')

So, what was the cause and how does that make the Bible 'the only thing I need to know? Your defense of the indefensible is astonishing. Why on earth did you study to become an MD when the Bible is 'all you need to know?'

ricadelide:
Yet again,
Luke 4;40-41 "While the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various diseases brought them to Him; and laying His hands on each one of them, He healed them" (NOT; 'he cast out the demons').
In healing people suffering from sicknesses, he might have encountered people that were demon pocessed (spiritually sick) and they also encountered his healing as stated in the next verse there:
"41 Moreover, demons came out of many people," ie In addition, (signifying something extra), they came out of many, not all.

Funny that there are far less demon possessions than in Biblical times. It's a bit comparable to the declining quality of miracles. no more parting of seas anymore. Maybe the real reason is that the medical profession and medical research have found the real causes of disease instead of ignorantly boasting of demonic possessions like during the heyday of Christianity. Why on earth did Pasteur even come up with his idiotic theories if 'christianity is all you need to know'.

ricadelide:
Now i'm not saying the bible doesn't mention instances of sicknesses caused by evil spirits, it does (and i don't expect you to agree with that). But that is just some; the bible doesn't teach that all sicknesses are caused by demons. The bible in luke talks of 'various kinds of sicknesses' (Luke 4;40) - some could be as a result of demonic affliction, but many are caused by other things.
Luke 6;18,19
'who had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases. Those troubled by evil spirits were cured, 19 and the people all tried to touch him, because power was coming from him and healing them all." [Regardless of the cause of their sickness - (my addition)]
the emphasis on 'those' there showed that its just some. And like i earlier said, it is possible to assume that he referred to those troubled 'spiritually' and not necessarily physically - but that might not be necessary (and is not always the case).

Troubled spirituality? Is that the current newspeak for demonic possession? It's similar to collateral damage or maybe pacification. Anything to make it sound 'acceptable' to modern ears. Christians of old thought those demons and spirits were quite real physical entities, but those times have (luckily) long gone. Whatever it takes to salvage the word of God, no?

ricadelide:
BTW, the writer of Luke was a physician (Col. 4;4) (if you care to accept that he even existed). Cheers.

There was definitely someone that wrote the gospel of Luke, who it was, nobody can say with any level of confidence.

davidylan:
no problem, in anticipation of mindsets like this the bible already said: the carnal mind cannot comprehend the things of the spirit.

Now your reasoning has come full circle or should I say you reached the zenith of what can be achieved through circular reasoning (not very much I'm afraid), though you can still take it a little further and go presuppositional like Plantinga.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=3271.msg1271636#msg1271636 date=1183846696]

The bible is just some bloody compilation of many confirmed/unconfirmed stories which was collected and put together to make a book.

Mr Buddhist, you're confirming your true colour. Did you say your religion does not attack others? [/quote]Since when is telling the plain and simple truth attacking other religions? Anyway, the post indeed does make one wonder how far in his path to enlightenment Esss really is. The insertion doesn't show the marks of a deep Buddhist philosophy.

k0be:

Get off the internet and throw away your mobile phone, you silly Luddite

What does that have to do with the foundation I'm talking about here, you silly iconoclast.

Foundation? Which foundation? Are you talking about the collection of incoherent fables commonly known as the Bible?

k0be:
Face the truth, your dear scientific theories haven't been able to explain what brought about our world.

Our world? They definitely have. When it comes to the universe, the currently proposed explanations in cosmology definitely are far more compelling than anything religion has to bring. I don't have very much confidence in your understanding of the scientific method though, so I won't bother to undermine your fantasies.

k0be:
christianity tells you all you need to know dear infidel.

Go and cast out some demons and - above all - [b]never [/b]rely on the germ theory of disease when you get ill, because you know that christianity tells you everything you need to know.