₦airaland Forum

@Omenuko,

I hope your Sunday has been cool.

Omenuko:
Tell them o. . . .The amount of early church testimony of Peter going to Rome and dieing there is too much. All of the apostolic churches claim that Peter went to Rome, evangelized in Rome, eventually became bishop of Rome, and was martyred in Rome.

How do claims that somebody going to Rome, evangelizing there, and dying there translate into that person becoming a Bishop of Rome? In other words, a "bishop" translates into "Pope"? I'm still amazed at this kind of circular reasoning that is still missing the point. I'm only interested in seeing how the Bible actually indicates that there was any Pope among the early Christians during the time of the apostles. Do you care to simply show us? I often hear Catholics boast that they are the only right interpreters of the Bible they put together. No wahala - all we need is for them to show us the verse referring to Peter as a pope.

It is for this reason I often ask simple questions requesting simple answers in this manner:

(a) give me the answers; and then -
(b) show us the verses.

Nothing could be simpler than that, abi? Where panic begins to creep in and no answers or verses to substantiate people's claims are forthcoming, I simply take it that the calim is a cosmetic fallacy and nothing to invite further discussions. If that is what the trend is, that is why I often log out and let the circular arguments continue for those who delight themselves so much with such roundabout arguments.

To this end, following the above (a) and (b) outline, I have asked and am still asking:

1. How many bishops were there during the time of the apostles?
2. Where do we read that Peter was infact a bishop of Rome?
3. Was Peter a "Pope" because of the title "Bishop"?

If you can be as simple and provide simple answers from the Bible, that would be very helpful. If otherwise, there would be no need to shlepp on the circular argument. To me, I appreciate someone telling me that although they cannot provide the answers, they refuse to change their beliefs. That is more helpful and respectable than the effort to keep dribbling around issues and end up accusing people of lying when there are no answers forthcoming from you guys. Just because one doesn't like to engage in protracted arguments that are retired does not mean you have provided anything sane enough to address the issues of this discussion.

Omenuko:
And you guys (pilgrim.1 and Davidylan) are saying I should prove it.

Yes sir - as simple as I stated in (a) and (b) above.

Omenuko:
Go and read their testimonies again and you (Davidylan, pilgrim.1) come back and disprove it.

I have been reading the Bible long before my conversion - the Bible hasn't changed its message. Not in one verse did I see ~~

(i) any one of the apostles bow down to graven images
(ii) or pray to Mary
(iii) or use the serpent bronze as an excuse to Mariolatry
(iv) or refer to Mary as the Saviour of the people of Rome.

These are simple samples of Catholic doctrine - like them or lump them. The point is as smple as well: please simple answer the questions in the same manner as below -

(a) give me the answers;
(b) show us the verses.

Simplicity will be highly apprecited, thank you.

Omenuko:
You claim that they are biased because they were catholic.

Nope, please re-read my statements. I did not at anytime make such a claim - a direct quote will be appreciated where you find I stated anything of such.

Omenuko:
Knock knock knock, all of the early christians were catholic (well at least the orthodox ones).

I agree - "catholic" with a small "c" is not the C[/b]atholic [b]C[/b]hurch with [b]R[/b]omish [b]P[/b]apacy. All the rites of the Catholic Church with the organized system of the Vatican is a completely strange phenomenon to the apostles who were used of God to found the New Testament churches. I have identified some of those rites - it's all up to you to show us where the apostles practised any one of them. Again, please be simple, thank you.

Omenuko:
Who would they be biased against? These same bishops were the bishops the compiled [b]your bible (by the grace of God and the Holy Spirit).

That is why I have been asking you to show us in the same Bible where they practised any such things as you have been weakly defending. Is that too hard to understand?

Omenuko:
Yet you claim they were biased.

Psst! Quote me where I made such a claim, thank you.

@Cayon,

Cayon:
every Jewish person I interact with seems to be envious and greedy.

Well, someone else could say the same thing about any other group of people. This does not mean that every Jewish person is envious and greedy; nor does it mean that those who complain about them are better off.

Cayon:
I work with Russian Jews - envious and greedy
I work with German Jews - envious and greedy
American Jews - envious and greedy
Israel jews -- envious and greedy

Jews are Jews. What makes them 'Russian-' or 'German-' or 'American-' or 'Israel-' Jews?

Cayon:
The all have one thing in common (envy and greed) but some how they don't get along.

It is just as much as to say that Nigerians are envious and greedy - not that I suppose that to be the case; but it seems that your broad categorization of Jews is quite unhealthy.

Cayon:
Every thing they see they want. Now an Italian Jew just start working with us. Within 4 days he is IMing me about another coworker saying "the boss should give him the other coworker position."

Some years ago I bought my house, a Jewish man asked me to sell it to him. Not that he needed a house but his mentality that a girl like me shouldn't have a big house. . . .he was even willing to offer much more. I just slammed my door in his face. Oh yea, My first boss who was Jewish too couldn't stand me. . . . . but God answered my prayer and they fired his backside.

Something is seriously wrong here. The examples of the coworker and house-contractor are not unique to the Jews: we have people from all over the world in every nation that exhibit the same traits. Envy and greed are common among people of every nation. Accusing others does not make us better than the accused; because I wonder what message people would get from the idea that God answered your prayers to have somebody's backside fired?!? :/ Doesn't that say something about us as well - in just the same way as accusations of vice are made against them?

Cayon:
I know the Bible say "they" are God chosen people, but tell me why these folks so darn envious and greedy?

That anyone makes a claim to be God's favoured does not mean that such matters are absent from their lives. There are many people who do not describe themselves with appellations of "chosen", but they are as envious and greedy, if not worse.

Cayon:
I shouldn't say but i wish there was a modern day Hitler

However one looks at it, antisemiticism (prejudice against or hatred of Jews) is evil [see also reports of [url=http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,453402,00.html]its increase[/url]].

Hebrews 10:25

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together,
as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another:
and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Your presence in His presence should not be missed.

Okay, for all that, why "messenger angel?"

reindeer:
and yeah sis
since the other thread is locked can we have another so we can keep reading testimonies?
i've been trying to get my kid brother to sign up on nairaland and read those stuffs but i guess he isnt taking me serious yet.
please keep it coming.
May the peace of jesus dwell continually in our hearts amen.

Dear reindeer,

How are you doing? I still thank God for you, because I know that talk is cheap and when someone decides for him/her-self to trust Christ, something real and definite must have happened beyond mere talk. I'll try and share a bit more in this thread as to my experiences while searching for the love of Christ, and the many obstacles He helped me overcome during my struggles.

For now, just keep rejoicing in Jesus and remember that it took time before you opened your heart to Him. I will never forget the words I heard that night from my dad's lips: ". . . even though I cannot preach, I trust You to save my family, Lord Jesus." After telling my story/testimony on NL, I was surprised my dad read it! We both live in the UK, but not in the same location. He called me that night and his joy was unmistakable. . .! Praising God, he laughed with joy and teased me about some bits that I skipped. Yes, I skipped some bits because I wanted to cut to the chase. But he is one of the many that have encouraged me to share a bit more, so some others could be blessed some more.

I'll keep praying for many hearts to be reached as I patiently wait until the ripe time to continue. Let me assure you that it won't take too long. Meanwhile, keep rejoicing in Jesus Christ and let Him have His way in your life. Trust Him to do for you what He did for me as my dad waited patiently. He is faithful.

God bless you everyday.

mazaje:
allah's creation story is more coherent than that of jehova at least but that doesnt make him the creator of the earth does it?

@mazaje,

How body? Your statement above reminds me of where I have been before I came to know the grace of Jesus Christ for real. There are questions that went through my mind while I was searching, and your type of attitude was one of the reasons why I just coulnd't see it. Maybe as time goes on, we may have occasion to hear you defend your own worldview. I'm really interested and would begin by first playing ignorant so that you can provide answers to some of the deepest questions of the heart that I would offer you. In the meantime, I still have hope for you that one day you will see what you're not really getting.

Cheers.

1 Peter 1:15-16

But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

Fellowship

Fellowship is a wonderful gift. Think about things that tend to abuse this privilege and things which make it more enjoyable. Of course, at the end of the day, we should aim to embrace those things that make for good fellowship. Whatever we do, let's not abuse this gift. . . as we read in Hebrews 10:25 ~~

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together,
as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another:
and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Enjoy fellowship today. . . in His presence.

hubreality:
I thank God Almighty for I'm a part of this great move of the Spirit to cause a glorious change in this country through our messenger angel "Rhapsody of Realities daily devotional".

Hi hubreality,

I wonder why you guys often refer to the Rhapsody as "our messenger angel" - what's behind that idea?

So, how did it go?

@huxley,

When we talk about misrepresenting the message of Christianity, Richard Dawkins is not a good example for arguing your point. I say this because you mentioned Alistair McGrath's book which was a response to Dawkins' polemic against the Biblical worldview. The list you gave, however, is really not focusing on Dawkins' mishap; so it seems to me that you have already taken a defective approach in this attempt to discuss these issues.

However, let me make a few observations:

huxley:
In his book, The Dawkin's Delusion, the Christian theologian, Alistair McGrauth, accuses Richard Dawkins of attacking a misrepresentation of true Christianity, without really stating what constitutes true Christianity.

First, McGrath was not accusing Dawkins of attacking a misrepresentation of true Christianity, in as much as Dawkins was not attacking a "misrepresentation". What Dawkins did was try to ridicule and attack Christianity directly, rather than discuss issues in an intelligent manner. As we investigate this issue at length, you will see why even prominent atheists have opined that Dawkins wasn't really scholarly but embarrassingly provacative.

huxley:
The apologists for Christianity typically claim that its critics generally misrepresent the Christian position, and consequently all their criticism are really aimed at a carricature version of Christianity. While I generally disagree with this position, it is also true that there is no single one version of Christianity, making it particularly hard for the critic to take aim. Today, there are well over 30000 Christian denomination, each denomination holding onto a slightly different Christian message. Or is that true?

It is true that there are numerous denominations in Christendom - no one is pretending otherwise. What amazes me is the idea that the "critic" hopes to take aim, and yet he himself is largely unaware that atheism has numerous denominations as well. Evidence of this is clear in any discussion on the definition of atheism among atheists. We know that even up until now, there is no consensus of the definition of atheism among its proponents - yet, Christian apologists are not worried thereto with reference to 'taking aim'.

When people worry themselves with excuses of 30,000 sects in any group, it indicates to me that such discussants are not aware of the real issues they set out to discuss. In almost every human endeavour and experience, there are many coteries within any worldview - and no less so is true even in atheism.

Wonderful Jesus, thank You today the last week of this month.
We rejoice for Bisi and her family for perfect health.
Her testimony of Your grace and power will constantly glorify Your Name.
Jesus is Lord. Amen.

[center]Father, I praise you for the gift of Your Son, Jesus Christ:
where would I have been without Him?
And thank You Father, for the gift of the Holy Spirit:
for I would have remained unconvicted without Him.
I praise You dear God for Your forgiveness -
inspite of the bitter things I said and did against the Name of Christ,
and yet what wonderful grace and mercy, that you delivered me,
saved and blessed me.
Today and always, let Your love be known to many who thirst,
that the Name of Jesus Christ may be magnified. Amen![/center]

@ericok,

ericok:
Isn't it funny the way we talk about God, bible and the interpretation of the bible.

It is funny.

ericok:
From the foregoing, it simply shows that the people attacking the Catholic Church mode of confession are either ignorant of the bible or interprete the bible to suit themselves.

The "ignorant" ones have been asking you guys to simply show the verses in the Bible where you read the bowing down to graven images, and sundry other stuff - you haven't shown that; and failing to do so, you interprete it as attacking the Catholic Church?

ericok:
May I state here that priests are the representatives of God and God has already granted them right to forgive sins.

The Bible says that all Christian believers are priests unto God - 1 Peter 2:5 and Rev. 1:5-6.

ericok:
If you feel offended by this, I am sorry about it, but it doesn't change my believe.

Believing in error hurts none other than he who holds them.

Shalom.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=175942.msg2864350#msg2864350 date=1222578636]Secondly we are the proper interpreters of it, after all we did put it together based on the knowledge from the apostles. Those that went against the teachings handed down to us were not included.[/quote]~ None of the apostles made graven images of Mary;
              ~ none of them bowed down to graven images;
              ~ none of them prayed to graven images;
              ~ none of them referred to Mary as the Saviour of the people of Rome.

Where do we find that any one of the apostles did any one of the above from the Bible that you put together?

Omenuko:
Saint Peter and saint Paul both evangelized in Rome.  I agree the bible doesn't explicitly say "Peter was the bishop of Rome".  I'm ok with that because I don't practice 'sola scriptura'.  Does the bible say we should celebrate Jesus birthday on Dec 25., does it list what books are inspired.  Does it say we should go to church on sunday.  Get to your point already.

This is scuttling the question I asked pointedly. When you find the answer, undoubtedly you will see how weak your arguments have been all along. My question had nothing to do with december 25th, so what's the panic all about?

@huxley,

huxley:
I think that one of the reason why atheists have become very vocal recently is because it is taken for granted by the general public that religious views are deserving of respect. Consequently, religions has infiltrated into almost every sphere of life, totally unchallenged. See the extend to which they influence politics now in America & Nigeria. This is what is pissing off a lot of nontheists and secularist.

I understand a lot of non-religious people may feel some unease at the state of affairs described above. The one question that people often ask is this: in publicly affecting issues like politics, for instance, have atheists ask themselves what theoretical framework could establish political sciences of nations from just shade of atheism?

The thing is that there are a lot of non-religious people in the political arena; but what some atheists do not realize is that the lobbying against theists in public affairs is not doesn't make sense because they are failing to understand that politics and other public issues in the nations of the world are not solely controlled by theists.

Omenuko:
O jare, get to your point already. . . .If you say that Peter was not Bishop of Rome and I say he was the Bishop of Rome, what then? You did not prove anything. Bottom line, the early christians, all of the apostolic churches (russian, greek, ethiopian, indian, chaldean, assyrian, coptic, etc.) unanimously agree that Peter was bishop of Rome. The above churches that I mentioned are not part of the Catholic Church (Latin tradition) and claim that Peter was Bishop of Rome. And you want me to go with what you guys are saying (posting arguments from anti-catholic websites) as gospel truth, lol (too funny). I have my own eyes and I'm reading the same things you guys are reading and I disagree. Thats ok, my salvation is not based on the fact of Peter being bishop of Rome.

Let me ask you a pointed question: how many bishops of Rome or any one place were there during the apostles' day?

Omenuko:
Your father is a lier. . . .

Lol. . . easy now. When it begins to descend down this path, I auto-log out.

Lol. . . @Omenuko,

If I were you, I would not be so keen to be cutting and pasting the arguments of early church fathers. I do respect their opnions; but in many cases, we have to understand that not everything that they said on record is actually what happened or what Scripture teaches.

I give you an example: have you read the early church father who said that he was the Word of God? Not many people see this, but I often like to start by asking that question to people who use such arguments to see what they really now about the early fathers.

Anyhow, Irenaeus is attributed with so many quotes that we no longer know what his original thoughts are. Against Heresies 3:3:3 does not have [of Rome] in the original - that is a false and forced interpolation by whoever translated it into English. Meanwhile, we see again that Biblically speaking, apostolic office is not transferred or handed down from person to person - God Himself calls and equips people, and leaders in Church were appointed by the apostles to several capable leaders and not just one individual!!

Thirdly, the episcopate is not something that the RCC has mis-defined today. Quoting church fathers in disregard of what is read in Scripture is not the same thing as establishing one's proper understanding of the Word.

Omenuko:
@pilgrim.1

[list][li]Babylon does not refer to the Catholic Church but to the ancient roman empire[/li][/list]

@Omenuko,

That is the very thing you had implied for 1 Peter 5:13, incase you didn't know. You cannot be forcing that inference every single time you see babylon in the Bible and assume it was referring to Rome. If you make that inference, it categorically is saying that the Catholic Church is as described for babylon in Revelation - a very aweful implication in your argument. You should try to be consistent. Your argument immediately suffers an inward collapse if you make such an inference, and then later come back disengaging yourself from the same thing after you see the implication.

before you make arguments next time, carefully check issues by yourself - don't just cut and paste arguments from theologians just because it sounds sweet to the ears.

Cheers.

[quote author=davidylan* link=topic=116335.msg2862972#msg2862972 date=1222543549]See the references to Rome in Revelations . . . so your church is the hold of demonic spirits and blasphemy? Thanks Omenuko.[/quote]>sigh!<

Omenuko just cannot see what he's saying! I thought I was the only one seeing how weak his argument for Babylon is.


Meanwhile, please take style modify the "girl 2:7-8" in your first paragraph, lol. I know it happens - you write G'al as a word and fiam - it turns to "girl". Maybe if you write it out in full - Galatians?

@Omenuko,

Look at it again:

Omenuko:
Babylon is a code-word for Rome.  .  .  This code name for Rome can also be found in Rev. 14:8; 17:5; and 18:2.

What are you leading your readers to believe by that inference? The thing is that you're using fallacious arguments in support for your doctrine of equating the Roman Catholic Church with Rome. If that was not anything to make us think, I don't see how you could have been using that reference to argue for the origins of the Catholic Church. As long as you did, and the context in which it was presented, it only leads one to check those references in Revelation and see that your "Rome" (aka Babylon) is a system under divine suveillance. Please check it again.

Omenuko:
You do well to think. . . .and I think that it is clear that he is referring to Rome in his epistle.

You may well think it so; and if Rome here is the same as ancient Rome, and therefore your argument for the origins of the RCC, I wonder what you're failing to see.

Cheers.

Omenuko:
Did not the Romans persecute the early christians? Where are you going?

I am asking you to check your references again and think issues through for yourself instead of swallowing what your interpreters have spoon-fed people with.

Omenuko:
Are you telling me that of all the references of Babylon in the New Testament, none of them are referring to Rome?

I think it is clear that Peter did not equate "Babylon" to Rome in his epistle. If he did, please read the referneces in Revelation yourself and see that you're confirming that Rome is a despicable hold of demonic spirits. How do you weave out of that?!?

Dear Omenuko,

There is something that your interpreters may not have handled properly in reference to Babylon. let's quote you again:

Omenuko:
Babylon is a code-word for Rome.  It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1).  Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.  This code name for Rome can also be found in Rev. 14:8; 17:5; and 18:2.

Hmmm, this is terrifying, to say the least. I very much doubt that those who hold this interpretation that Babylon is the code name for Rome actually have not carefully weighed the import of what they were stating. Now, let's simply quote the references again:

[list][list]Revelation 14:8
        'And there followed another angel, saying,
         Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city,
         because she made all nations drink of the wine
         of the wrath of her fornication[/list][/list]

[list][list]Revelation 17:5
        'And upon her forehead was a name written,
        MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS
        AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.'[/list][/list]

[list][list]Revelation 18:2
        'And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying,
        Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become
        the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit,
        and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.'[/list][/list]

Now, if by implication you're saying that Babylon is Rome, hmmm. . . this is something that should make us shudder. Does this not clearly show that your interpreters are saying in no uncertain terms that Rome is the mother of harlots and the stronghold of demonic spirits? Was that what Peter the apostle was commending in his epistle?  This is serious!!

Dear huxley,

Yours is well appreciated, and we shall have occasion to examine issues more deeply when we get there.

huxley:
Supposing I grant your premise about definitions of atheism and worldview, you still have not say anything one way or the other whether worldviews should or should not be crutinised, examined, criticised.

Well, I thought that was stated earlier in one of my repostes, albeit in the other thread. Let me see:
[list][list][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=171391.msg2819662#msg2819662 date=1221744950]However, it is not in my place to come so low as to "greatly attack" your persuasions. Rather, I think a better way is to seek an enabling environment for dialogue and true reason - these are the issues and elements that make for sound intelligent exercises. . . .

One can critically examine the political views, policies, and persuasions of those in government without deliberately attacking anybody.[/quote][/list][/list]

huxley:
Basically, I would like to know whether as a principle, worldviews deserve respect, and thus should be left unexamined. Such worldviews may be as diverse as the Moche of Peru (circa 300 CE), the traditional worldviews of the natives of Papau New Giunea, the Mohammedans, the traditional Igbo beliefs, the Christian beliefs.

This is really the thrust of this thread.

In consonance with what I stated earlier, worldviews should be respected (and by that, I also include atheism). Surprised? Please don't be; because as I have often said, it is not in my place to disparage anyone's beliefs, be that ever as it may.

However, even though I believe that worldviews should be respected, it is not the same thing as saying that they should be left unexamined. Infact, it is by carefully examining the claims of Biblical Christianity that led me to change my prejudices previously held against it. Prior to that time, I had deluded myself into thinking that ridiculing the Biblical faith was the same thing as "examining" it. Yes, one could examine worldviews, appreciate their core values even though we don't agree with them, as well share our persuasions in an amicable manner with others. Very little to absolutely nothing is achieved by disrespecting the worldviews of anyone. Where some issues tend to be aberrations, they can be critical examined rather than disrespect them by default.

huxley:
I have this morning received the book by Kai Neilsen (Atheism & Philosophy) I ordered a few days ago. I also bought a copy of Alistair McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion. So rubbing my hands for some interesting exhange

On the subject of worldview, Kai Neilsen has made a good contribution to the subject. And of course, there many critics of naturalism out there as a worldview. Just check on Amazon, but searching for the word naturalism. For me, one of the best defenders of naturalism is Richard Carrier in book "Sense and Goodness Without God. A defense of Metaphysical Naturalism". Another worldview sometimes adopted by atheist is called physicalism, but this is not a well defended.

Interesting. I wish you a treat in stretching your philosphical outlook - and then maybe someday we shall smoothen and align the kerbs. Enjoy.

Hi huxley,

I haven't forgotten our discussion in the other thread. As soon as I settle down, I'll share a few thoughts with you thereto.

But now:

huxley:
Pardon me to emphasise that this thread was calling for the examination of ALL worldview and not only those one disagrees with.

Good - and that why I directly highlighted atheism to point out that so many people are often forgetting that it is also a worldview itself. My point is this: should atheism, as a worldview, be respected and protected as well? If no, then there is no raison d'être for this thread at all.

huxley:
It was prompted by calls from many religionists that other people respect their beliefs, as their respect the beliefs of others. I put it to the evangelical christian that they do NOT generally respect the beliefs of other people, otherwise they would stop evangelising amongst them.

If evangelizing is the crux of the matter, then as well atheists have no reason to establish unions, call for conferences, or incorporate institutions to speak publicly about their ideas to other people, much less the public. Atheists have also tried to "convert" people in one way or the other - reminder: did Richard Dawkins not say so at the opening pages of his book, the God Delusion?

huxley:
Having lived amongst evangelicals for many years, I have seen how they criticise other "Christians" particularly the Catholics, other Protestans, Moslems, etc, etc. They have sought to change the behaviours and beliefs of non-evangelical. Does this amount to respecting non-evangelicalism?

Lol, atheists have done the same - afterall, we know so many of them who actually have criticized other atheists and sought to change behaviours of their colleagues. Examples are the crituques of people like Thomas Nagel who critiqued and criticised the atheistic ideas and polarized views held among many atheists; again, we saw Ernest Nagel who criticised the atheist definitions of atheism held by George Smith et al. My wonder in all this is that so often, people tend to apply their criticism against theists while they quite fail to remember to apply the same point to their own worldviews. So, if religious people have tried to change the thinking or other religious folks, and you assume that is disrespectful; then for crying out loud, is that not the same thing that has been happening among atheists as well?

huxley:
Nowhere in this post was any mention of atheism made.

That is your very BIG mistake! And that was why I had to weigh in here in my previous reply. Is atheism not a worldview? Now, if it is (as surely it is), then why is it always religion alone that must by default disrespected? WHY are the examples often about religion and never about atheism - is it not also a worldview? Just because nobody has mentioned it does not make it any less a worldview - and if it is okay for atheists to [b]d[/b]isrespect any worldview at all, they should start from their own worldview before anywhere else. Failing to do so is why I wonder about the hypocrisy in that attitude.

huxley:
I know it can be taken as given that because I am an atheist, every argument I make is in defense of atheism. That would be wrong. This was a general point that transcends religion, politics, etc. The rigorous examination of all worldviews is a requirement for human progress and it was in this light that I raised this post.

Then again the "rigorous examination of all worldviews" should include ATHEISM first and foremost, unless you guys are telling us that atheism has long ceased to be a worldview.

huxley:
between, atheism, per se, is not a worldview.

That is a queer statement to make; but unfortunately is not true.

"Western atheism has its roots in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy,
but did not emerge as a distinct world-view until the late Enlightenment."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Classical_antiquity]

huxley:
There are worldviews (naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, humanism, etc) that are based on atheism, but atheism, by itself is not a worldview. It is important to recognise the distinction.

See the above as an example, and then later I would oblige you a very critical analysis even from atheist thinkers themselves who have used the term "worldview" for atheism itself.

What I see here is the mistake to make atheism not a worldview because only on such an assumption does it give you guys to feel that ALL worldviews should be disrespected and unprotected, while at the same time refusing to apply that same rule to the worldview known as atheism.

Even if one were to grant your own ideology of Naturalism and humanism as subsumed within atheism, it still does not make any difference here. Why? because these are merely adjectives describing "types" of atheism, and the term atheism does not stand separate from those other shades all on its own.

@Backslider,

Backslider:
The muslims is not the issue. Their god is a Coward that is why he made a manual of terror.

Please, please and please, dear Backslider, try not to be too polarized. Even though I am a Christian, I know how Muslims feel when they read things like this from people who are supposed to be Christ-like. No, it is not the feeling of terrorism from extreme groups; but a feeling of further disaffection and alienation. I will guarantee you one thing (I know, because that is where I grew up): when you begin to use such tones, you will never, never help a Muslim find Christ! Go and test it out and see for yourself. It is like what one of my most respected teachers have succinctly stated: it is like cutting off someone's nose and then giving him a flower to smell - of what use is that to the victim? [Ravi Zacharias]

Please, try to be more friendly with those who you seek to help find the love of Jesus. It doesn't mean that you should stop telling the truth. The difference is that we should ask God's help to tell the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). Whatever anyone's deity is, leave it to God Himself. Love, respect, and integrity towards others is what will first attract their attention. But the moment you "cut off their noses", it would be a waste of time to give them the aroma of Christ to perceive.

Regards.

jennykadri:
@pilgrim.1

hallo sweets, i tot seun banned u,just d way he banned me(rampagain) ,queen and david ,na waoooooo,but honestly ur testimony really touched lives and i still touching,my prayer is MAY GOD CONTINUALLY GUIDE YOU IN THE RIGHT PATH THAT YOU SHOULD FOLLOW

Wow, jennykadri. . I would never have guessed. Thanks for your prayers. You won't believe that those I have met the last 48 hours are the real blessings in my life. In as much as people remark how my testimony touched them, I feel that meeting you all have further enriched my life. You just simply would not imagine how a few others by email have opened my eyes and taught me a lot in just less than a day! God is faithful - and this reminds me of something someone shared with me sometime ago: we often do not realize how many "7000s" God has reserved unto Himself when we think our own situation is unique! That thought came back to mind when those few ladies emailed me. I wish one day soon they also will come and share their own testimonies. . . you will forget me!! Mine is nothing in comaparison to theirs!

Well, good to read from you again. I hope to add you to my email-list so we can keep in touch, if that's okay by you? Loook forward to seeing more of you.

Plenty blessings to you and your family - Jesus is LORD.

matured:
thats good pilgrim but what if you were to return virtually everything u had?
will you still go ahead ?

I admit that is a very difficult question to answer in practical terms (especially where one defines what is meant by"virtuallt everything". I trust that I would do my best to return whatever I may have defrauded him of. Actually, I've been in a similar situation - "similar", I said, and does not mean that I stole money from anyone to set up my business.

Before I became a Christian, there were a few friends of mine whose stuff I had with me. Okay, technically, I didn't borrow those stuff: I stole them! I regret doing so; but at the time, I didn't even consider how serious it was to do such a thing. It was much later after my conversion that I confessed to my friends my very shameful behavior. Worse than that, I had the money and could have bought mine if I wanted; but. . . alas!

Anyway, after apologising and trying to make good the wrong I had done (even if it meant that I replaced those stuff twice over - I was ready), it turned out that there was more involved than merely having stolen their stuff. Their shock! Imagine me the local champion in religious debates. . . now a . . thief! News quickly spread in the neighbourhood about it, and those whom I had fallen into disfavour chanced upon it and mouthed me about! Even events I was never involved in were accused against me - it was difficult to separate truth from false accusations. Did I learn my lessons? You bet! But even while my heart was bleeding with shame, I was prepared to confess the truth and stick with it. Relationships and friendships had been soured by my theft. Apologies did not easily restore them.

However, after several weeks, those who had been most severely hurt by my behaviour in that event were willing to forgive me. One of them told me plainly that it was the consistency in the change they saw in my life that re-opened our friendship. In one word, they saw the "real" deal in my life this time around and not the old garb of being a religious bigot. The best part was that we became even closer than when we first started as friends. . . although she never accepted my replacement of what I had stolen.

Was that close enough? Well, the point was that I was willing to restore everything. And yes, I would actually make an effort to restore whatever money I had defrauded my former boss of, if I were in that situation.

Regards.

manmustwac:
Pilgrim1 So i guess you will continue your story here now?

Well, if that's going to benefit anyone (as I trust it would), then I'll try and take some time to do so. Cheers.