₦airaland Forum

Can somebody here give a clear definition of voodoo? Does this include traditional religions and practices? Is it only the occult or are traditional native doctors also practicing voodoo? Is only part of these practices voodoo or only the supernatural part?

What exactly is voodoo?

As I don't believe in the supernatural, I will probably not believe in voodoo either.

donnie:
The Church is Increasing in strength and influence and there's nothing the devil, the antichrist, nor his spokesmen can do about it!

What do you mean by that?

layi:
I have seen insults but i hav to ignore it.

Here's one...He attacked my person.Nferyn ..the word mugu there means i'm a scammer.
I explained my stance
Yet Some still said this ............

...that insulted me.

But i don't care. Its all good.

Hi Layi,

I think you're a bit too sensitive here. The first poster was making unsubstantiated assumptions about you, and drawing conclusions from it, but it wasn't really insulting. the second one isn't even close to insulting, but if I were in your place I would probably feel insulted as well.

The criticism that was expressed was explicitely targetted to those that abuse their religious stance for personal gain, not all of the pastors or churches

donnie:
What kind of Nonsense is this?

Mr Seun, is there no way you can check the topics that are being put up for discussion?
It is like the latest trend now is people coming up with insults for the church, its ministers or our nation. Please we have heard enough of this kind of talk.

Do you want to impose censorship here?

I have not seen any insults here, you're seeing ghosts.

Do you honestly believe that because you claim to be speaking in God's name that you are beyond criticism or that you're more divine than the common people (this is a general you, not you personally)?

@ donnie

Why the anger?

And who are you to judge others?

[quote author=Hnd-holder link=topic=2412.msg89536#msg89536 date=1130411232]Only he who bestirs himself can advance spiritually. Any one that uses extraneous aids for this, in the form of the ready-made opinions of others, only walks his path as if on crutches, while ignoring his own healthy limbs. The paradise is not far. Please any one that can not go with a topic can leave. Nairaland is not for one religion. Go to the topic Mr man.[/quote]You seem to be a wise person that thought deeply about his position, not someone sputtering empty words. Can you explain why you believe to me?

donnie:
You are the one that brought the creation and flood issues, why throw them on me now. Go dig up your contradictions on the flood and creation stories i am waiting.

Man, i do not have only assertions. I have the living, everpowerful Spirit of God living in and working through me as my evidence. He manifests his presence in the miracles we see daily in our lives, which you do not see because you do not believe.

And what else is this but assertions?
Define the spirit, define how it's working through you
Define the miracles
Establish the connection between those miracles and his presence and than you have something resembling proof.

Right now, all you have are assertions, hollow words

donnie:
Both of you are one of a kind... confused and in search of truth. All that your big grammer will be heard by fellow sense-ruled men like yourslves. But they cannot stand the wisdom of God. They cannot help you pass the exam of life because life itself is spiritual.

HND,

Let me advice you because the kingdom of God has advanced far beyond what you could ever imagine. Dont try to rub your unbelief on me bc i've gone past that level. You are a man of the senses...dominated by the senses. I am a man of the Spirit, led by the Spirit of God.

John 4:23 - But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Romans 8:6 - For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.


Anyway, back to the topic...

You are truly a master at circular reasoning. Using your conclusion as evidence for you conclusion. Trying to prove the Bible from the Bible, excellent reasoning skills.

Let's please have a rational discussion here, if that's possible.

donnie:
nferyn,

Let me quote you: "What about secular knowledge that is in clear contradiction to the Biblical account (e.g. the great flood, creation according to Genesis)? How do you approach this?"

This is ignorance on rampage! i am still waitng for you to reel them all out. Show me the so-called contradictions in creation and the great flood.

I can't believe what I'm reading. You're calling me ignorant? On what grounds? I'l get to the contradictions in the creation account this evening, I curently have no time to summarise the evidence in a board -friendly format, but you'll get plenty, rest assured.

And to try to even out the playing field, why don't you show me some positive evidence for the creation stories and the story of the great flood, then we can discuss the merits of both our arguments.

I find it very arrogant to speak from a position of authority while the only thing I have seen up 'till now are assertion without a shred of evidence

donnie:
Let me tell you something. The truth i know did not come as a result of hard thinking. I did not get it from critical reasoning. The philosophers and Pharisees of Jesus' day had more of that kind of wisdom than you. But Jesus' who is wisdom personified left them dumbfounded. The bible says, they marveled at His wisdom.

Assertions from the Bible, where's the evidence? And of course you don't get it from critical thinking, only obedient acceptance on faith can lead you to these conclusions

donnie:
Philosophers have studied, They tried to find truth, or the essense of life in water, the earth, but to no avail. Budah, before his death said, "i am still in search of Truth". What the people of the world are in search of, we whom you term as foolish, have found in Christ.
[SNIP]

The resposibility i have towards you is to pray for you that your eyes be enlightened by God's Spirit. It is not my intention to bring God's word to the level of arguement. It has never been that way and it will ever be. If you think you can use your free thinking jargon to make nonsense of what we believe, you are joking because i only have one question for you...Show me the power of what you believe...if at all you stand for anything.
[SNIP]

The power of what I believe in? You must be joking, right:
cars, aeroplanes, modern medicine, agriculture, the internet, space travel,.... and I can go on and on and on and on

And what do [b]you [/b]have to show?

@Hnd-holder,

Thank you for your insightful replies

So you're starting from an axiomatic position that you cannot question the Bible and that only by exegetic reading you can reach truth? Am I correct?

To be able to do that you need to be able to disregard the enormous cognitive dissonance resulting from secular knowledge, i.e. if the Bible were to tell you that pigs always fly, you would accept that, even though no pigs have ever been found to fly?

I'll go over your links and come back to you

Motee:
[SNIP]
My issue is that you cannot "re-marry" as long as this man is still alive. The law we are following which says if one commits adultery you can leave him or her was given because of the hardness of their heart by Moses and it was because of his own annoyance also towards them but if you read further into your bible, God does not allow it.
[SNIp]

Thank you for your kind words
Anyway, maybe you should question the law in that case and not take it too literally.
Apply your own judgment and make a decision in good faith

In the Jewish tradition, they take the position that it is vanity of the highest degree to claim that you can know and understand God's truth. According to the Orthodox Jewish tradition, applying your logic and intellect to understand the scriptures is showing good faith and is what you should do.

They have writings of Rabbi's explaining and interpreting the Torah (old testament) that they hold in almost as high regard as the original texts themselves. The Talmud (the interpretations) is very highly regarded indeed.

obong:
I think you're wrong about these countries not wanting to undermine development in africa. Don't you realize that if africa, the most resource rich continent, develops that it will raise the price of basic commodities? Look at what china and india are doing to the price of oil, and add africa to that. that will directly impact negaively on the west's standard of living. Price of cocoa, tea, coffee, oil, coltane, rubber, and various minerals will become more expensive to acquire.

I don't think you know the extent of france's interests in Africa, if you think its limited to a few companies. France's cultural history is also tied to africa, as well as its military, economic and political might. If you have a chance, read the article below.

http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=49310&SelectRegion=West_Africa

I'm very well aware of the unique position of France in that regard. Their colonisation of Africa has been anything except a rational thing (compared to the British) and that still shows in their current interference in the affairs of their ex-colonies.

Now concerning the price of resource, there will indeed be an effect, but you're probably overstating the importance of the cost of basis resources in the pricing of commodities. The main impact would be felt in energy resources (oil, natural gas, hydro electricity). I do not think it will impact the standard of living in the west - except maybe in the US where they turn wasting natural resources into a national sport

I would certainly see a push for a more conservationist approach to development, which is a good thing, but it does not need to have a huge effect on the standard of living (except if you would call the ability to buy Ethiopian strawberries in the middle of the winter at rock bottom prices a major impact on the standard of living )

Can you all please get back on topic?

Unfortunately I still haven't received many satisfactory responses
Why do you hold on to the Bible, what motivates you personally and how can you bring that in line with secular knowledge?

Abstract exegetic readings from the Bible do not even start to address the subject.

[quote author=Hnd-holder link=topic=2412.msg89352#msg89352 date=1130400788]..............and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them......
These are words you can not take literally. Your kind of Christianity is a BABY type[/quote]How do you determine what can and what cannot be taken literally?

allonym:
umm, living together before marriage as in:

the two are engaged and have set a wedding date

or

the two want to get to see how things will work before they consider getting engaged and getting married.

The first may be ok, the second - there are numerous studies in recent years that who people in that category tend NOT to get married or if they do, they have a very high 85+ percentage of getting divorced.

See above:
1. We're not talking about the same people
2. correlation does not equal causation
3. any such study making these claims needs to be watertight. Can you point me to some original sources?

Oracle:
it depends on what u see as living together
if itz stayin together well itz ok
but if it involves sex Boy
itz not ok

Why is it not OK when sex is involved?

layi:
Note however that if you're not an authority in physics ..u may misjudge your findings on the pression iron.
However I'm not against knowledge...but I'm not totally in support of acquiring knowledge at all cost for knowledge sake.

Just my character, I'm the inquiring type. Can't help myself. As a kid, I used to read the milk cartons as I wasn't allowed to read while eating. I read all the tags and names of the conservants, the meaning of the bar codes and other useless stuff just to keep my mind occupied

Of course I don't need to acquire in depth knowledge of everything, the basics will do, enough to understand the logical systems behind it. And here comes the wonderfull thing about science in the picture: peer review. If something (a theory, an experiment, a finding) is presented in the scientific world, the peers of the person presenting the novel idea are going to try everything to discredit the finding. If the idea witstands the critical assault, it can become an accepted part of scientific knowledge. No system in the world is so ruthless like peer review in science. What comes out as accepted theory is very solid indeed.

And that's why I trust, why I have faith in peer reviewed scientific findings. I can build on the knowledge acquired by intellectual giants, far superior to me.

layi:
Why must i know the components of the iron...if it presses my clothes? My knowledge of the mechanism wont make it press the clothes better. Afterall it came with a manual to help me use it. Moreover i can't start researchin the mechaism behind evry gadget in my home. It'll be too burdensome. Why don't I use it for its purpose rather than break my head over the tech behind it.

Again, no rational explanation here, that's just the kind of person I am

layi:
Nothing wrong in knowin this though...but what good will it add to a functioning pressing iron (or me) if i know the components. Same wit some life issues. I love learning though. If the purpose has been achieved , I see no reason researchin. I could do if i so desire but not out of necessity.
I don't need to ask the taxi driver how many gallons of fuel he used OR how the steerrin was handled. The point is; I got to my destination.

That's a very utilitarian approach. I personally do value pure knowledge, but I don't expect every person to do so.

allonym:
Actually, I'm a Christian and currently don't live in Nigeria

My bad. You seen on-line appearances - especially when inferred from posts - can be deceiving.
I like your rational approach to things. Could you explain what exactly makes you a Christian, what parts of the Christian doctrine do you adhere to?

layi:
I no longer trust this Religion. how can the spiritual grandmaster, prophet forsake his followers.

He has not forsaken any. He will surely come back[i] in our lifetime[/i] to take the chosen faithfull to paradise.

Mind you, this lifetime can take more than 2000 years, so don't take it too literally

allonym:
Huh? This was surprising enough that. . i must forgo my usual non quoting strategy:

This is part of my motivation for this thread. . . .

I guess we're in agreement, then. Anyway, are you living in Nigeria and indeed an atheist (my assumption) and if so, do you feel inhibited in expressing your position? Do you feel any hostility when coming out?

I was once talking to my wife's brother, who just arrived in Austria from Nigeria and he just could not grasp the fact that there were people who did not have a god-concept, that were neither christian, nor muslim, nor follower of some traditional belief system, but just a non-believer.

He physically [/i]looked at me like I was coming from another planet. It was proven that I was not the devil, as my wife and I have a good marriage. How come then that I could possibly be [i]an atheist?

Seun:
If indeed human beings are not monogamous, then the idea of living together before marriage serves no useful purpose. Afterall, you're still going to divorce her, so why not go ahead and marry her immediately and get it over with? There are tax benefits in marriage, you know, plus the society's blesing, so why delay marriage if humans are not monogamous?

There are different scales between monogamy and polygamy. You 're living too much in an ideal platonic world, Seun, but being a geek, I forgive you ... go and multiply
Humans are not 100% monogamous: you have affairs, one-night-stands, mistresses, formally polygamous societies, serial monogamy (very popular nowadays)

Seun:
About 'causality': Are you saying that the reason why people in countries like the US live together before marriage is because they notice a high rate of divorce around them? If so, then now that they are starting to live together much more than in the past, is the divorce rate coming down? Is cohabitation really helping or is it just a means of postponing the inevitable divorce?

There may very well be other factors influencing the divorce rate. there is no direct causal relation between the pre-marriage living together and the divorce rate after marriage. And mostly we're talking about other people (generations) anyway, the people divorcing now [/b]are not the ones that are living together before marriage [b]now.

layi:
U r a belgian right? I must say your command of the English is superb. Well i understand where you're standing. Mind you, i used the word ammunition jokingly. You saw the icon after it.

Sure, so did I, just teasing

layi:
Back to the topic

Trust me I (personally) do not detest people of opposing faith. I wasnt born a christian. I found it along the line but i've never regretted beoign one. My Life is the better for it.
Just like a lot of us do not know how the pressing iron was made, but we know how to make the best use of it.. I might not be a historian or christian philosopher..but i know what christianity is and its effect is evident in my life. the end justifies the means. If I can't delve deep enough into research to know its origin ( i do though)..I can measure the efficacy wit my own Life. What does christianity promise in the NOW...Am i getting it. Experiential knowledge is the best teacher when it comes to matters of faith.

No problem here, but this can very well be a placebo effect. If it's real for you, the better. And it is indeed a matter of faith, i.e. belief without evidence or proof, otherwise, why would you need faith?
I personally want to know how a pressing iron is made, what physics are behind it, how electricity works, how the steam is generated, etc. That gives me knowledge that can show me whether or not my faith in the pressing qualities of the iron is warranted.

layi:
I do not believe christians are in conflict or that the Bible is contarcdictory. i however believe that Christianity has been infilterated and lots of half baked and false teachers have polluted what christianity stands for.
But christianity still ramains what it is. A dirty dog isnt a cow.. The pollution however is timed.

The bible in itself is contradictory, especially if you want to take a literalist approach. If you take it as a collection of parables hiding an inner truth, you might have a point

layi:
I often ask myself why every othwer religions sects and atheist go against Christianity. They hardly attack themselves. Doesnt that tell us something.?

I think you're seeing ghosts here. I would never prevent any Christian from being Christian, after all, I'm married to one. It's the claim on truth, exclusive righteousness and exclusive morality that I resent. Proselytizing and imposing their truth on others.

This persecution idea is unwarranted.
Am I being rude if I don't appreciate being woken by church bells at 6:00 in the morning on Sunday? Am I being rude when I say to Jehovah's witnesses that I do not want them to bother me on sunday afternoon? Am I being rude when I say that I do not need a pastor visiting me when in the hospital?

What I'm doing is openly engaging Christians in discussions and calling them on faulty logic, false assumptions, bad science and an incomplete knowledge of history. That's all I'm doing and unfortunately some Christians have such shaky faith that they find that oppressive and rather shy away from the discussion.

Mind you, I applaud you for proving to be the exception to my rule

Seun:
Then how come the divorce rate is so high in countries where living together before marriage is the norm? Countries like the US, Europe? One would have thought that after living together for so long before marriage, they will have no cause to get a divorce later on. Instead, we discover is a very high divorce rate. Why? nferyn please take the stand!

Seun, you mix up correlation with causality, you'd make an excellent talk show host or journalist

btw, Yurop [/b]is no country I know of
I guess (and that's just an informed guess) that there are less divorces in countries like Nigeria because the stigma is much greater, so people stay in unhappy marriages.

Also, don't forget that humans are biologically not 100% monogamous. There's an intersting study on this where sexual dimorphism (differences between males and females) is compared to monogamy rates. They find a very high correlation between differences in size between males and females and their monogamy. the more equal the size, the more monogamous (just make the thought experiment with some species you know). You can read more about this in [b]The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618005838/103-1561542-6984644?v=glance

CimonJorr:
Interesting issues raised...

But lets look at this...

Life inprisonment.. Does that usually punish the offender.. I look at it more like a case of someone being on a paid holiday.. at the tax payers expense.. They hardly suffer any punishment, under the guise of people not wanting to descend to the level of the offenders.. and the victims are usually dead or scarred for life.. (physical or emotional scars or trauma).. So, what would be the best punishment for such offenders...
My only fear are the innocent ones which get caught up in the system.. And this definitely does happen..

Interesting indeed. The points you raise are very valid, but that doesn't make a case for the death penalty (except for the tax payers' money issue).
The death penalty is a form of ritualized revenge. You do not set straight the crime, you only give the victims or their relatives instant emotional gratification, but that only goes skin deep. What happends afterwards?
The fact alone that innocent people get caught in the system should be reason enough not to accept the death penalty

CimonJorr:
Secondly... The issue of progeny of such people.. Are we now trying to say that someone's behavioural characteristics are genetic, and as such inherently hereditary .. By making this assumption, are we not condemning to death people who's lives haven't even started..
Or to look at it from another perspective, isn't leaning in such a direction or bias tantamount to playing GOD ...

That is, if you believe in God.
Anyway, most of the broad character dispositions of people are genetical. If you're a parent, you will understand that you cannot possibly change the character of your child, you can only work at the margins and offer a stimulating environment that brings out their potential.
The most important aspect of our criminal system should be the protection of society. If an offender commits a horrible crime, preventing that person from having children is exactly the kind of punishment, together with taking that person out of active society, I would propose.

CimonJorr:
I most definitely believe that if someone knows his own life is at stake when attempting to take the life of another, the person would most likely think of the consequences of his actions.. And in this case I'm not refering to only the sociopaths, but the hooligans and yobs and all manner of such characters that get away with such violence leading to the loss of another's life (mob-lynchers inclusive...)..

Many studies show that capital punishment does not scare of potential murderers at all (I'm too lazy to look up the sources, but Google is your friend - if you want that kind of friendship

CimonJorr:
When they know they can be held accountable for their actions, they will think twice before committing mayhem..

My only fear are the innocent ones which get caught up in the system.. And this definitely does happen..

See above

Hi Layi,

Nice of you to drop by

layi:
@nferyn
I agree the old testament was written in hebrew. i knew the bible was written in 3 languages, hebrew , greek and aramaic but i misplaced greek for old. A typo there. I accept
I also commend your writeup. Wonderful.

Most of the new testament was written in Greek. The old testament was most definitely written in Hebrew. I don't know about Aramaic though, it was the tongue of the land, but that's as far as my knowledge here goes

layi:
In as much as i do not agree wit a few of your points above...I hav to ask at this juncture. R u a professor of history? I not only like your writeup but the style also.

Anyway, I'll be back to 'fight'. Got to gather more ammunitions.

No, I'm not. I sometimes think I should have gone for an academic career, but I was young and foolish so I ventured off into the world of the private sector
I have always been interested in history though. I even got a special prize for History and English (not my mother tongue) when graduating from secondary school. Now, enough of that self aggrandizing posturing... I might even start to believe what you write about me

Concerning the fight and ammunition: we're not at war, I'm not trying to defeat you. If I can make you think critically about your position and let you consider opposing pov's, I'm perfectly happy. And what do we have to lose? We can only increase our knowledge.

If I can make you understand that we, atheists, are not the perfect pictures of the devils incarnated that some Christians want to paint of us, I would be very happy. I do not want everyone to agree with me, I just want respect for my position.
I take the forefront here (we're talking in battle terms anyway) because I'm just a crazy foreigner and it won't have any repercussions for me. I would especially like my Nigerian brothers in thought to be offered the same courtesy (something that is currently not happening enough)

CimonJorr:
@nferyn..

Any comments on the issues I raised above

Yes, I think you're right.
1. It's not wrong when people that love each other want to be together, it's only natural
2. It does not remove respect and dignity. People that claim that have a skewed perspective on respect and dignity. let them define the terms first.Than we can discuss
3. The Bible is not my favorite reference material when it comes to ethics. I prefer Peter Singer's utilitarism.
4. These issues are indeed based on society trying to impose an arbitrary morality on people that do no-one any harm. If they want to live by the teachings of whatever book they fancy, fine, nobody's stopping them. But let them not impose their particular brand of morality on others

I cannot see when it would be permitted. Capital punishment is not even a real punishment as it relieves the perpetrator of the crime from his pain. Life imprisonment is much more appropriate.

Serial Killers and the like are usually people with a serious personality disorder that goes unchecked by society. When there are a lot of barbaric killers or serial killers in a society that can commit their horrible acts, it tells us more about the difunctions in society than about these killers. You will always have people on the fringe that have abnormal behaviour, it's how you deal with it that makes the difference.

A possible solution would be chemical castration for extra violent criminals (it's usually men anyway) so that these [i]animals [/i]don't produce any offspring and that we have less of these people in our future generations.

michelin89:
absolutely no! I even think it's the best idea a future husband & wife could have! In fact once they get married they have to live in the same house and get used to each other's habits: good and bad. But sometimes you may find out that you don't like most of the things your companion does and this can bring insatisfaction into the marriage..that's why i suggest before getting married to try and live together for at least some months to see the example of life you're going to go into once you pronounce those words: "I WILL"

I cannot agree more. Marriage is a serious thing and you should be very certain that you will fit together. You cannot possibly get to know each other if you haven't lived together. When lovers meet, they always will want to show their best side. Only living together helps you find out if you're made for each other or not.

Formal, organized religions are forming a substitute for thinking. People don't like to think, especially when they're in a bad situation. A morality born out of experience and philosophy is much harder to attain than just following the rules that one or another Christian sect offers. It's instant, fast-food righteousness., at the small price of some tithes or offerings.

On top of that the peer pressure in a religious society can be overwhelming, especially when the righteous church-goers equate religion with morality and claim/assume that someone that is not religious cannot possibly be a good person.

Also take into account that Christianity is a religion of salvation that promises eternal life in heaven to the faithful. The rules you have to follow as a Christian also have less impact on your everyday life in comparison with e.g. Islam.

All in all a very attractive offer for most people.

@ all the people who so elegantly quote the Bible:

Have you ever tried to question your beliefs or are you only looking for confirmation of your beliefs when reading the Bible? What about secular knowledge that is in clear contradiction to the Biblical account (e.g. the great flood, creation according to Genesis)? How do you approach this?

Are you introspectively trying to relate everything in the world to the appropriate Bible passages? How do you get to your personal truth and what are the arguments that convince you?

How would somebody that has not been raised with the Bible as ultimate yardstick for everything be convinced about it's value? What makes it so attractive?

layi:
There are records of his coming on earth. The Bible is one.and if u call that bluff note this; His coming was to turn back d world. Everything he did then was seen as opposing authority and just like magicians and other mystic worker..he was thrown to d doldrums. I do not expect the world to hail his coming and every historian write about him. History then was centred around the kings and what they do not approve usually do not get archived as history. His sole purpose was not to become a political leader but to redeem humanity (..sounding preachy right?).
Its his followeres who can tell us more about him and thats why we study their books today.
the fact that we hav the supernatural followin the tenets we read is enough proove that its divinely ordained and the interpretation has not changed.

Layi, can you give me some evidence that supports your position? The kind of things Jesus supposedly did when walking this earth are quite extraordinary. It must have popped up somewhere. The strange thing is, there are no sources from his followers.
No-one that ever lived during the time Jesus lived has written down anything.
And if you caused such an uproar in front of the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilatus there must have been some records. On top of that , the trial that Jesus supposedly went through is in complete contradiction with the legal rules of the Sanhedrin. That alone should make you wonder if the people that wrote about Jesus were in fact his Jewish followers of that time. They would never show the kind of ignorance of the Jewish traditions that the writers of the gospels show. The authors were most certainly not Jewish.

layi:
The fact that we had philosophers and few learned people around then who had their way of passing messages accross didnt mean that there were formal schools then. Geddit!.

And there were after Jesus death? The first formal schools that are somewhat comparable to what we have now were started by emperor of the Frank Empire, Carolus Magnus (Charlemagne), the one that stopped the Muslims from breaking out of Spain and invading Western Europe, the savior of Christianity in Europe. That was some 750 years after Jesus death.
I suppose you're not aware of the fact that during Roman times, all children of patrician (noble) families were receiving schooling by usually Greek teachers and were quite litterate, something that disappeared for centuries in Christian Europe.

layi:
Jesus Lived in the old testament. He only came to give us the new. U wonder how the books were written? the old was wrtiien in greek and not several wrttings. I've not disputed wrting before him.. I disputed urbanisation of writing...evolution into so many forms as we have today.

It was not. The old testament, the Talmud, to use it's proper name, was written in ancient Hebrew, not Greek. The evolution of writing as both you and [b]WesleyanA [/b]put it, is very recent and actually stems from the time the church was losing its grip on society.
It happened during the late middle ages when more and more people started writing in their mother tongue instead of Latin. I must grant you this, literacy was on the rise after the reformation of Martin Luther and the start of Protestant Christianity. The Roman Catholic church did everything in it's power to hold the monopoly on literacy in Middle Age Europe. After the floodgates of reformation opened though, they could do nothing anymore to stop the tide

layi:
When i said scribes were called to read up scrools in Isreal...I never said there werent scribes elsewhere neither did i say (in any part of my posts) That isreal was the only place in the wrold then. I used isreal as a case study because its was considered developed based on the political activity present in that part of the world. it wont derail us to measure the world by standard in that place as at the time.

This is so very wrong. Israel at that time was not exceptional at all. In most societies, you had a literate clerical caste. The big rise of literacy among the Jewish people actually started after the destruction of the temple and the banning of the Jewish people from Israel. It was the only way they could maintain their religion and roots in an extremely hostile Christian world.

layi:
The nature wit which writing evolved is very obvious...check out history. How many different kind of writings were there before christ. How many were there after christ. Almost all forms (not all..but a whole lot) of writing today evolved after christ.

see before

layi:
Remeber its not the number of years that matter. Its the need for its evolution. Do u know how many years man stayed without writing at all?

Literacy arose by necessity during the formation of big agricultural empires, during the rise of civilization. Christianity has given nothing to the world in that regard - except maybe after the reformation, but that's much later.
Writing is not needed in small farming communities and hunter-gatherer populations. For them an oral transfer of knowledge is sufficient.

layi:
U were very wrong there. Immediately after christ exit. the world experience a great revolution.

This is plainly false, it took several hundreds of years before Christianity caused any significant changes to society and only after Justinianus did it become a power factor.

layi:
The acts of the apostles changed the gentile world. Although those who believed in judaism then were still expecting him till date simply because they don't want to come to facts that they killed him.

The root of Christian anti-semitism. More than 7 million dead and counting (if you want to argue with me about this, go ahead, but in another thread)

layi:
He wasnt a nobody even when alive because everywhere he went multitudes gathered round him. It was for the fact that the kings/preists then forsee him usurpin their government that he was killed. Jesus was a 'somebody' when alive and even after he died.

Sources?

layi:
That fact needs not to be argue.

It most certainly does need arguing

layi:
AD means Anno Domini (in the yr of the lord-referring to christ) and BC means Before Christ. If he was a nobody. Time wont be caliberated after him.

Christianity was most certainly a major factor in history and that's why our time is calibrated after Jesus. It's proof of the enormous power of the Catholic Church. It does not prove that Jesus was a historical person.

layi:
in fact its because he caused a revolution that history made him a focal point. No history can surpas HIS STORY and i'll want us to wait till its changed....
The church (or religion has it was known) wasnt seperated from the state then. Kingdom ruled by belief in deities. So the
coming of Jesus wasnt a religious event. It was HISTORY. It affected the political, social and economic life. Cos the Enitire Nation of Isreal looked forward to him. I used Isreal as an example because its 1 of the oldest (if not the oldest) nation whom's complete history was put down for the world today. Its a good reference point to the world then. We had the greek kingdoms etc then who also believe in their own dieties.

So you're saying that Christianity gave us the separation of Church and state? Don't make me laugh, you are funny
The Greek states with their Philosophy and Democracy and the Roman Republic with its laws and separation of powers were way more influential on the world today.
The Catholic Church was a degenerate perversion of the Roman state, power was their game and not much more than that

And the Bible is a far cry from history. It's so full of factual errors that it even wouldn' t even pass as a high school paper. History, you say?

layi:
Now the big part. Most scientific findings go against biblical tenets because Science aims to explain life from the standpoint of humanity and do not believe in the supernatural while biblical tenets explain life from the standpoint of the supernatural which subsequently explains the physical.
They (both schools) do not stand on the same pedestal and thus are not expected to agree. Science has limited itself by believin that every occurence on earth started from evolution...any findings outside that wont be accepted...therefore i conclude that science is fallible.its still growing.

No, science explains the natural world and limits itself to the natural world. The Bible tries to explain the natural world - and fails miserably at it - and adds divine parts to it to spice it up. It cannot explain the physical at all, it's pseudo science. The only real value it brings is its morality, and even that needs a few serious revisions.

Science does not start from evolution. Evolution is one of the founding principles of modern biology, one of the many scientific disciplines. The evolution theory does not even talk about the origin of life, but only explains life after it started. To say that all science starts from evolution is showing and ill-informed perspective.
Your conclusion is standing on very shaky foundations.
I will grant you this though: your conclusion is correct. Science is fallible, it is growing (and improving constantly). And most importantly: it brings real knowledge. Something that cannot be said about the immutable truth from the Bible

allonym:
then I guess what they did is NOT secular because it DOES have something to do with religion. specifically, they were studying God's creation, therefore, it was not secular

I guess you must be in a Jesuit school After all nobody can turn and twist words in such a way that they serve their position although in essence, they doesn't support it at all. It's a great skill.

WesleyanA is right. Their works were secular. The purpose was entirely secular. Every single text that was written at that time had some reference to God, creation or whatever, even technical manuals about windmills and the like. If you read the great philosophers of the enlightenment age, you will see that they refer to God all the time, even when it's completely irrelevant to the subject at hand - kind of like a lot of people on this board