₦airaland Forum

2cantango:
@nferyn:

for your information I don't take medicines.

I just hope you won't catch a serious bacterial infection and will be in need of antibiotics. Take care.

@2cantango
So an acorn is an oak tree. Good to know. A fetus left alone will die without the mother. Calling a fetus a human is a religious opinion, not a scientific fact.

If you don't give a crap about science, why don't you refuse treatment when you're sick. After all, medicine is the product of scientific research.

New research shows that the sensation of pain and the conscient processing of stimuli by infants might occur later than commonly thought.

A fetus does not posses the neurological machinery to process pain, nor to have any kind of awareness. Even the pain sensations of a newborn baby are very likely only reflexive reactions to ellicit a reaction from the parents.

The idea that abortion (except late term abortions) is the killing of a person can only be maintained on religious grounds. It has no scientific basis.

see:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/fetal_pain.php

wendytilda:
[quote author=nferyn link=topic=272.msg292499#msg292499 date=1145046195]In many cases it is mainly to give the paster a good life. In many of those charismatic protestant churches, the pastor lives a life of luxury while his flock is suffering and hoping that the message of earthly reward will be theirs as well, as long as they keep giving all their money to the church.
If the paster would forsake marriage and live a sober life, then I would somewhat understand it, but this is not for me anyway

Are you talking out of experience or are you just saying what you heard?Which of these churches have you been to?How true do you think what you said is?[/quote]I'm not talking about personal experiencs, but rather about the experiences of some people close to me (even though they don't always see it that way). fact remains, a pastor, who needs to focus on the spiritual salvation of his flock, should not lead a good life on the back of the poor and needy.

wendytilda:
[quote author=nferyn link=topic=272.msg292499#msg292499 date=1145046195]If the paster would forsake marriage and live a sober life, then I would somewhat understand it, but this is not for me anyway

Would you prefer that Pastors don't get married and go ahead committing adultery like some priests that don't get married?Don't you think it is wiser be married so temptations from that aspect will at least be less.
And who says wifes are burdens or hindrances to soberness?[/quote]1. When one is married and has a family, the natural urge to take fist and foremost care of your wife and especially children will take a fron seat. I do not blame them per se, but it is in conflict with the primacy of their calling.
2. A family costs a considerable investment of time and money. that time and money needs to come from somewhere.

wendytilda:
The Gospel of Judas is just nothing but something that was written by anti-Christs to deceive people like you so just get over it.

Not true. the gnostic churches were legitimate churches during the days of early Christianity. The only reason why you don't hear much about them anymore is because they rejected the authoritarian structure of the pontificate and believed that in order to go to heaven, they personally needed to better themselves instead of following an authoritarian priest that wanted his flock to be obedient and dumb. For that rejection of the intermediary role of the orthodox catholic church on their road to salvation, they were persecuted, imprisoned maimed and killed.
Gnostics thought that salvation was only possible through knowledge of Christ as the intermediary to reach the innermost of the divine (God)

wendytilda:
The impression that tithes are just used to finance the "Pastor's SUV" or whatever you call it is a very wrong one.
They are given to charities too,and also used for the up keep of the church and it's physical properties/needs.

In many cases it is mainly to give the paster a good life. In many of those charismatic protestant churches, the pastor lives a life of luxury while his flock is suffering and hoping that the message of earthly reward will be theirs as well, as long as they keep giving all their money to the church.
If the paster would forsake marriage and live a sober life, then I would somewhat understand it, but this is not for me anyway

Wouldn't it be far better if everybody paid 10% of their income to charities instead of using it to finance the pastor's SUV?

Some of you people are masters in circular reasoning.

The first of the gospels, Mark, is likely to have been written around 70 AD. One generation after the death of Christ. The gospels of Matthew and Luke are heavily built upon the Markian gospel and the other gospels are very likely of an even older date. The chance that they were written earlier is very small, especially when you take into account that the New Testament shows a general lack of understanding of Jewish traditions (e.g. trial of Jesus in front of the Sahedrin) and cannot possibly have had a jewish author or audience.
Traditional Christian Bible scholars do everything they can to date the gospels and other parts of the new testament as early as possible. Recent historiography (e.g. the study of the Dead sea scrolls) shows that:
1. The New Testament is a very dubious source when it comes to historical accuracy
2. Evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus is very flimsy (which [b]does not [/b]mean that Jesus did not exist, only that the evidence of his existence is far and in between)
3. There is more and more evidence that shows the date of writing of the gospels to be later rather than earlier

If you only use the Bible to point out it's historical veracity, then that is very poor scholarship indeed. People with that attitude should rather study mythology than history.
The only thing that gives the canonical texts weight above the apocrypha is the political meandering during the council of Nicea. If the Gnostics wouldn't have been persecuted so harshly, we would see a much more humane face of Christianity (closer to Buddhist philosophy) today and the excesses of the orthodox churches could have been avoided

TayoD,

So you are claiming that the canonical gospels were actually written by Jesus' disciples?

@ youngies
Why are you asking? Why would I need to authenticate my birth certificate; I don't even know I have a birth certificate. And if I need one, I would go to the communal administration of my place of birth. What does my birth certificate have to do with all of this?

What yardstick do you all use to determine that the gnostic gospels are less inspired than the canonical ones?

In early christianity, there were actually more gnostics than orthodox. It's only because the orthodox aligned themselves with the political powers, vigorously persecuted the gnostic churches and burned their books/scrolls that there are no more recent gnostic gospels available.
It's a hoax to think that most of the New Testament was written in the first century after Christ' death. There has been a conscious effort by the orthodox (Catholic) church to rewrite history to fit their view of the facts. For example, the much used reference by Flavius Josephus about Jesus life seems to be later insertion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum) and the finding of the dead sea scrolls also give a clearer view on how history was rewritten to fit the orthodox interpretation

thekrafter:
@nferyn: Only you?

Yes, but I've been driving company cars at a high rotation speed. Now I need to get one for my own again (going to Germany to choose this monday, very good deals on nearly new second hand German cars)

I can have a perfectly rational discussion with someone who doesn't read the Bible as the literal truth.
Unfortunately, literalists end up in all kind of end-time prophecies and funny explanations like Africans are the sons of Ham and therefore cursed. To get to that conclusion one needs to cherry pick from the Bible what supports one's initial ideas, ignoring everything that doesn't support one's already made up conclusion and especially ignoring hard information that does not originate in the Bible.

Anyway, what you're saying is that God exists because you say so. Funny rationale

I understand: don't dig too deep before the house of cards starts crumbling down. These arguments are just skin deep (if it even reaches that level).

I still don't understand what you're trying to say. What do you mean by believing in the bible? Believing that all of it's content is literally true? Believing in it in an allegorical manner? believing in it's hidden message? What exactly?

retro:
I'm Agnostic, means I have doubts, I don't have enough proof of "God's" existence, till I do, I'm going to remain this way.

If you are agnostic, it actually means that you have no knowledge (or cannot obtain that knowledge) of the existence of God. It doesn't say anything about what you [b]believe [/b]in.
You can either be a theist, beliving in a personal, active God (like the one from the Bible), a deist (believing in a impersonal God, that is no longer active in in the world) or an atheist (lacking the belief in a God) (I leave out the other options for clarity)

get what exactly?

I'm a hard naturalist. I do not believe that the mind or the spiritual are separate from the physical, but only a manifestation of the material. It's obvious that this link is still very murky and not very well understood, but I have confidence that we will soon find the material basis for the immaterial mind and:or spirit.
I do believe -and there we're touching the thee of memes again - that information can evolve as well, as long as it has an appropriate medium to replicate in. Human brains are prime source material

zatoichi:
@Nfreyn
There are certain kinds of minds i've had the opportunity of interracting with I call them "ELECTS" you rank as one of them, The seat of evolution in man has shifted from the physicals to the more granular levels of mind (a personal opinion,please).
Please tell me what is your area of speciality? What do you do?

Professionally, I'm a project manager. I studied communication science at university, but I stil maintained a keen interest in the life sciences (I'd probably study biology if I could start over again).

What exactly do you mean with[i] The seat of evolution in man has shifted from the physicals to the more granular levels of mind[/i]? Are you talking about memetics?

blinx4real:
Scientific laws describe based on the data available, the big bang theory is crap because it does not have data to back it up. The laaw of inertia however has been validated and proven to be a law, thats why its not called a theory.

It seems that you do not have a proper understandig of what a scientific theory really entails. If you would understand, you wouldn't call the Big Bang Theory just a theory (in it's colloquial meaning)
Have a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
the work of Popper is also very enlightning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

Anyway you still need to explain the creator.

blinx4real:
in other words evolution can return man to ape just as it evolved man from ape?

Under the appropriate selective pressure that is very well possible, yes. But stil, it's not because man has an exceptionally large and powerful brain that he is no longer an ape. We are the third chimpanzee (or chimps and bonobo's are the second and third living species hominins if you prefer that)
There are many cases where the blind force of evolution worked 'backwards', blind cave fish and salamanders with eyes, whales and ostriches just to name a few.

blinx4real:
Have u ever wondered what the effect could be if u had it? Dont u think that u were made a black man(now I am assuming that you're black) for a reason

Well, you're wrong here (see my profile). Skin color is an adaptation that we, hairless apes, underwent because it protects us from UV radiaton. Whites lost that adaptation because it was no longer beneficial in the climate of Europe

blinx4real:
The Law of inertia

Scientific laws are descriptive, not explanative. What about the Big bang Theory? And the creator still needs a cause in this framework. It adds absolutely nothing to our understanding of the universe to put a God at the beginning.

blinx4real:
History, science and religion even evolution does not deny that there was a beginning, they all tell us that there is a starting point to everything, there was a time when there was nothing. Then there were the inanimate things, then living things and finally man.

Even though evolution works cumulatively, it does not have a direction. Man is [b]not [/b]the pinnacle of evolution.
Begining and end imply a linear perception of time. This is far from a given. It is not because it is true in our day to day experience that it must be true in all circumstances

blinx4real:
I think it is only fair to say that all of what we see today is not here by MISTAKE, the perfect synergy of the whole of nature points to the fact that the INITIATOR thought this scheme through before he created anything.

No it isn't. The Theory of Evolution is perfectly capable of explaining our biodiversity without having to bring in any supernatural explanations. By the way, if that initiator thought through this scheme beforehand, than either he did a really lousy job or he is cruel and sadistic.

blinx4real:
Ask yourself how come the only things that don't work right are those made by man. Has the sun ever slowed down its speed? and its been in existence for billions of years

Actually, speed is a relative concept and the sun has changed considerably over those billions of years. Nature is far from perfect and the biological "designs" are even worse. Just think about he blind spot in the eyes of the vertebrates: bad design that can only be explained by the unguided force of evolution.

blinx4real:
Even Physics defines that before anything can occur there must be a CAUSE. . .

Actually, that is not true

blinx4real:
the cause of life, is God

Care to explain?

blinx4real:
and he has revealed himself as more than a force but a personal being.

Where's the evidence?

One cannot [i]choose [/i]to believe in anything. Believing is not a matter of choice. It is consequence of exposure to information.

@ zatoichi
If you go by the definition you posted here, you are a either a religious atheist or a pantheist.

@ zatoichi
You've got many definitions of atheism. All with a different slant, depending on their own position (many theists believe that atheism is only an active disbelief in God(s)). Most atheists would define atheism as a lack of belief in (a) supreme being(s).

So if you believe in a supreme being of any kind, you are not an atheist. Atheism is not limited to the God of the Bible.

nightrider, you have been indoctrinated. There were many large African civilisations prior to colonialism and very few Africans were living in bushes. You're falling for the same arguments that were used to as a justification for the subjugation and enslavement of Africa/Africans

Currently without car (for about 1 week). Will post my new car next week (will probably be VW Passat Variant, Audi A4 or Opel Zafira)

Nrs 8 & 9:
Opel Vectra Break (for about 1 month)
Opel Astra Break

Sixth and seventh:
Citroen Xsara
Opel Zafira

fourth and fifth car:
Volvo S70
Citroen Xantia