₦airaland Forum

Pastor AIO:
I disagree with this statement though:

When a child is born, he has no beliefs or belief system, he is basically an atheist.

Atheism is a worldview and babies cannot be born Atheist. To be an atheist you must first have a concept of God before you can disbelieve in his existence. I also do not believe that one needs to have a concept of God in order to be close to God. If anything it puts a wedge between a man and God.

Thank you for that - "Atheism is a worldview and babies cannot be born Atheist".

@wirinet,

wirinet:
We seem to have a basic misunderstanding or disagreement of my position as above
You should be aware i was talking about belief as opposed to scientific knowledge. First let me give you a definition of belief;

It was not as if I was not aware of the difference between a "belief" and "knowledge". From the onset, there was a clear emphasis of what I was discussing with others before you charged that I was throwing all kinds of stories from around the world. The you went on to ask a pertinent question, which I thought was germane to precisely what I was addressing:

[list]

wirinet:
Pilgrim.1 keeps throwing all kinds of stories from around the world to support her belief in the supernatural - ghosts demons, devils and goblins. How do you expect anyone especially atheists to believe these stories?

[/list]
[list]source: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-279631.192.html#msg4000037 [/list]

Now, how did I expect anyone (especially atheists) to believe the reality of these things? My answer would have been the very same that dalaman ALREADY offered:

[list]

[size=14pt]Most atheist world view relies mostly on empirical evidence[/size]

[/list]
[list]source: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-279631.0.html#msg3972484 [/list]

Then you (wirinet) went on to try to establish how people come to believe in something -

[list]

wirinet:
Let me tell to the process of believing in anything.

[/list]
[list]source: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-279631.192.html#msg4000037 [/list]

This was what particularly got my attention. How could I just expect anyone to believe anything IF it did not undergo some form of examination or scrutiny? Not only would the form of examination or scrutiny be essential, but also HOW that examination is conducted - following a structured control measure. Several people from the atheist perspective have been highlighting just one thing - that however this supposed examination be done, it should be EMPIRICAL. Those who have made allusions to this very thing have been previously highlighted in my reply #316 above.

However, just for your sake, let then examine how you tried to establish the veracity of a claim:

[list]

wirinet:
First you get a piece of information, either directly ( first hand account) or indirectly, you compare the information with your own store of information (what you accept to be possible) and personal experience (belief system). If the said information agrees largely with your own belief system, you take the story as true, but if the information given is either insufficient or contradicts with your own store of experience and stored information, you reject the whole story. Now if we are to believe everything that we are told or read, then we would become a candidate for Yaba Psychiatric Hospital.

[/list]
[list]source: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-279631.192.html#msg4000037 [/list]

Mirror this against the backdrop of your initial question in that same quote: "How do you expect anyone especially atheists to believe these stories?" Atheists (at least most of them) already have this idea they rely on "EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE" - and that, wirinet, was why I replied to your above quote with this:
[list]

First, empirical verification and falsifiability have nothing to do with anyone's worldviews or "belief system" - such an idea is the very crass that informed enquiry does away with.

[/list][list]https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-279631.192.html#msg4000193[/list]

In all of this, I could have gone on to make the same point that Pastor AIO has anticipated me in doing about this fact:

Pastor AIO:
This is a great insight. Although I think that there is a similar process going on with whether or not we accept scientific ideas. Many scientific ideas have been resisted by scientists simply because they contradicted what the scientist believes. A famous case is Einstein's rejection of the finding of Quantum Mechanics. Even here there is a trauma to be experience when what one once believed to be scientifically true is proved unsound.

All these things I ARLREADY know and have discussed them in various other threads. There are so many examples that are currently being observed and reported on.

On the whole, it was not merely the idea that any claim should be accepted on the basis of merely being told so or on the basis of anyone's "belief system". In consonance with what atheists themselves have been discussing, I made the point that "empirical evidence" (or "empirical verification", or "informed enquiry", or "Empirical verification and falsifiability", or "the validity of any claim" have nothing to do with anyone's belief system. That is the whole point I made in my reply. If, on the other hand, any atheist wanted to argue otherwise that an atheist does not rely on "empirical evidence" etc., etc., etc., then all they needed to do was tell us that the validity of any claim should be based on someone's "belief system" - that is, it should be based on the atheist's belief system, and then go on to show how that is better than anyone else doing precisely that same thing.

@wirinet,

wirinet:
@ Pilgrim.1,
You always amaze me with your accusations, you say i am  making an unfounded statement by equating science with atheism.

My dear, please receive my apologies if the only manner in which you read comments from me is "accusations". Such a mindset is dangerous to your health, because it tends to make people look at who's saying something than what is particularly said.

However, what I stated is in essence agreed upon by huxley2 - and I'm glad he made that point distinctly, that your assumptions are not correct. Here again:

[list]

huxley2:
OK, I see what you mean, but I think the phrasing is rather unfortunate. Atheism is NOT science, and Science is NOT atheism.

[/list]

I don't see you coming back to say the same thing to huxley2 about being surprised at his "accusations" after replying you. Was he not saying the same thing as I did earlier? --
[list][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=283156.msg4024470#msg4024470 date=1244927814]Sure, we know that atheism is opposed to theism; but 'science' is not atheism and does not stand opposed to theism.[/quote][/list]

At the end of the day, please understand one thing: science is NOT atheism.

wirinet:
You now make your own unfounded statement by saying that the Wikipedia quote does not lead to the inference that science is opposed to theism. If you say that science is not opposed to atheism then lets go over the basic assertions of both;

I was going to help you; but rather than belabour the point, I'd ask that you settle your mind with what huxley2 has observed. There are atheists who are still able to carefully think issues through and not arrive at the sort of assertions you're trying so hard to maintain unjustifiably. Here's what I find in huxley2's that addresses your problem -
[list]

huxley2:
NOTE that MN does NOT say that the supernatural does not exist. MN is silent about the supernatural - it neither accepts nor denies the supernatural.

[/list]

One could expound on that and still show you that science is not opposed to theism. The unfortunate thing going on here is that folks like you only confuse issues unnecessarily, and that is why other atheists are wondering about whether any atheists is arguing that atheism is science. You may argue whatever you may, but please stop cnfusing issues both for yourself and other atheists who can think for themselves.

wirinet:
Because an scientist is an individual, and as an individual he can believe in a God or a set of gods, that was why i said that ATHEISM IS NOT NECESSARILY SCIENCE. That is why i get annoyed when you attempt to use the belief of one atheist to equate the beliefs of all atheists since the dawn of history.

Lol, you're merely piffling. There's no need for you to get annoyed, because such an unnecessary reaction is founded on false premises. I for one on Nairaland have REPEATEDLY made the point that not all atheists have the same view of atheism or hold the same ideas about their worldview(s). Let me remind you from the other thread:

         1. not all atheists have the same outlook on the world

         2. some atheists tend to believe in what 'strict atheism' rejects or denies

         3. we may allow any atheist to choose what best describes his/her worldview

         [see here, here, here, and here, to show how many times I repeated the same thing!!!]

Do these sound like the accusation you made that I "use the belief of one atheist to equate the beliefs of all atheists"?!? You're only getting annoyed on your own misleading.

wirinet:
If we look closely enough you will find out that no two people have exactly the same set of beliefs. If we apply the same logic to Christians  you will find so many variety and opposing beliefs. I have been to a church that not only accepts divorce but alllows a man to have more that one wife, while i have met Muslims who vows never to have more than one wife. Also beliefs among Christians on trinity, revelation, drinking of alcohol, heaven, what happens immediately after death  and hundreds of other beliefs differ among individuals, even of the same congregation.

Why all these complaints? Did you imagine for one moment that I thought everyone in the world had 'exactly the same set of beliefs'?  I won't take this any further, as long as I've made my points: science is NOT atheism; not all atheists agree with your assertion that it is otherwise so; your getting annoyed was unnecessary; and your arguments were unncessary.

Ciao.

Fox News Ufo Sightings

For some of us, we just watch and shy away from drawing hasty conclusions;
others have their reasons for concluding these reports are authentic and that
there's no reason why anyone should disbelieve them. In the YouTube vidclip
below, a pilot supposedly recounts an experience he had in one of his flights:

[flash=340,285]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVMn1cpQTK8&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

[quote author=$osisi link=topic=282213.msg4025469#msg4025469 date=1244946340]David,have you read this guy's posts on other threads.Don't be deceived by his commas.
He is a Church critic and his mission is singular.[/quote]Gbam.
Such 'inverted commas' or not are not going to confuse people or make excuses where there should be none. Even with inverted commas, what is someone to make by the bold qualifier that lumps churches in this manner --

To cut the long story short i have come to the realization with a renewed conviction that there is no church i am aware of today that is doing the will of our lord Jesus christ and the churches we have today are a marked departure from the churches founded by the apostles.

We're quite aware that the OP has himself said this -

I would never start a church as it is being done today. There is only one true church that was established by christ himself any other one is a counterfeit. However i would seek out true believers who earnestly seek to know God and his will for us and i would fellowship with them this way we would be able to "exhort one and other" and also "not forsake the assembly of believers.

Now, the issue is not about 'inverted commas' etc - that is a non-issue that does not excuse anything here. Even when one may argue that the concern is about 'Institutionalized Christianity', is it not plain that the very things he complains against are the same things that will be found in the group he might be seeking to fellowship with? What makes his own group of "exhorting one another" to be any different from other churhes labelled as "institutionalized Christianity"? Go back to the first page and see TV01's occupation with buildings - as if small groups meet in a vacuum and not in buildings!!

There are many problems in many churches - we all have them. It does not mean that unhealthy issues should be ignored, but it certainly does not establish 'guilt by association'. Some problems should not be stretched to make it a matter of "no church" or "our church institutions" or yet "the churches we have today". It's only a matter of time - when closely examined, one would find that the complaints in this thread are the very things that obtain in the complainant's own 'small groups'. As $osisi astutely observed, bad-mouthing the Church (no 'inverted commas' excuses) does no one any good.

bawomolo:
Doesn't a group like the catholic church have dogma? rituals and doctrines are a typical components of many theist groups.

What fallacious claims of atheism?

Yea, "a group" does not constitute the totality of theism, just as "a group" like the Humanist Church does not constitute the totality of atheism. Rituals and doctrines are also typical components of many atheistic groups, did you know?

_____________________

toneyb:
Pilgrim 1?

Enjoy o jare. .  I just dey watch from distance, abi?  

[quote author=Túdor link=topic=283796.msg4024744#msg4024744 date=1244932360]@seanT21
Atheism is not a movement,central dogma or institution. . .its personal in that you weigh the fallacious claims of religion and choose not to follow.[/quote]That's okay. In just the same way, theism is not a movement, central dogma or institution. . . it's personal in that you weigh the fallacious claims of atheism and choose not to follow.

noetic2:
3. pilgrim allowed huxley to successfully divert the topic and digress the thread.

You can now see why I initially replied that he just can't succeed in diverting the topic - try ever so hard as he may. The drama from their camp is magical in itself, and I enjoy wasting such inconsequential tail-chasing as in huxley2's style in discussions of this nature. After how many pages ago, he suddenly scratched on the idea that "empirical" this-and-that would be his latest magical antic to seize the moment. . . sad it has fallen flat again on its face.

Why is it [size=14pt]NOW[/size] that he suddenly woke up and started complaining about "empirical evidence"? If he'd been paying close attention, he would have seen that I was not the first person to even mention anything about "empirical evidence"; hence, how could I be charged with that piffle of having "introduced" it? I've allowed huxley2 to dwell on that page for far too long and enjoyed the amusement of watching his adulators guys scuttling around him; yet it amazes me that none of them could have helped him wriggle free from that misadventure. Was it 'pilgrim.1' that first spoke about "empirical evidence" in this thread? So, why should that be the only thing that he could chance upon in several replies to spin on the same spot on? Let me remind them of who first made reference to "empirical evidence" --

dalaman:
Most atheist world view relies mostly on empirical evidence.

source: from page 1 of this thread.

Since then, others have also made reference to it:

bindex:
Here is what Toneyb wrote on another thread. "God qualifies as something very mysterious, unintelligible and unfamiliar in the relevant sense. God is not visible, tangible or otherwise detectable by empirical means that we know or use.

source: still from page 1 of this thread.

[quote author=William_C link=topic=279631.msg3987915#msg3987915 date=1244318776]No body can disprove any of the gods, but the evidence provided in terms of religious text, personal experiences like miracles, prayers can be disproved or explained through other ways that are empirically verifiable.[/quote]How then could huxley2 have skipped all these and then chanced on the idea that it was I who "introduced" the 'empirical evidence' idea that has been of deep concern to him? What is all this running round in circles on the same spot supposed to achieve for his atheistic arguments? Ah, indeed. . . they like throwing questions, never seek to answer any themselves; then when they're out of gas, they either mark time on the same spot and repeat inconsequential objections, or resort to unfounded accusations - precisely as someone (perhaps you) predicted! What is even more amusing is the sort of solidarity support of mob back-patting his folks lend to the discussion - in hope that such distractions will speed up the diversion for them. My apologies it doesn't work with pilgrim.1 . . nada!

It only seems that, in more ways than I'd anticipated, they have helped to confirm again what I earlier observed:

'The options open to you now is either move beyond this doodling recurring decimal in your failed logic; or keep repeating the very same boring moil and confirm the hollowness in your logic. I bet the latter would be more appealing to you, but I won't buy.'.

@huxley2,

So what's the new game up your sleeves? You have tried all sorts of diversionary antics, accused where those have failed you, and still have not made progress at all. Are we going to be ever marking time on the same spot with your round-about complaints that lead nowhere? I don't do prisoners, and I've always been open to wholesome dialogue. But I also sounded that my response will be no-nonsense where atheists begin to seek to beggar this discussion. If we're going to progress, please let me see something of good substance forth-coming - as long as they gender on the issues I've been discussing thus far. If not, no worries - at least, saving your drama won't hurt, would it?

@huxley2,

huxley2:
Well, the reason I have been insisting that you explain why you introduced a concept (ie "Empirical verification and falsifiability" that had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion are these:

Thank you for taking the time to draw something out; but how many times would you need to learn the lesson that complaining and whinging like you do is not to be mistaken for intelligent doscourse?

I'll quickly run through your concerns:

huxley2:
1) Your technique of argumentation consists of making fatuous claims and charges, especially against atheists and atheism, with little or no evidence to support your claims/charges. You have this very annoying habit of using big and impressive sounding words/concept, maybe with the hope of bamboozling the readers, the weak ones of whom maybe be intimidated by your apparent "knowledge" of the concept.

I made things simple enough, pointed out my approach, gave links and evidence to the sources of statements I drew from atheist websites, remained consistent throughout my discussions. You didn't complain at that time, nor pointed out that the things I drew from those atheist websites were not true. Your complaint here is inconsequential.

huxley2:
I have repeated asked you to explain your understanding of these concepts and how they relate to the debate at hand, but you have been uniquely incapable to providing any explanation and reasons as to why you introduced these words/concept. That speaks a lot for your dishonesty and the sheer vacuity of your person.

I have followed through by pointing out that I left you the links that are referencing the meanings of what I was talking about. Your refusal to check them and bring forth a good discussion was not surprising, especially since I noticed you had nothing intelligent to add to where you started spinning on the same spot.

huxley2:
Next time you wish to introduce a word/concept, please make sure you have a good grasp of it, as you will be held to account for it, especially if you use such words/concept to calumniate atheists or atheism.

More than 6 pages ago I explained the terms I used particularly to YOU - pretending not to have noticed even after I reminded you is cowardly. See it by [size=14pt]CLICKING HERE[/size].

huxley2:
2) Unwarranted and unmeritted triumphalism in the course of a debate. In the course of a discussion, you annoyingly and childishly shreak out expressions like "any comments/post will be thrown out", "I have won", "you lose", etc, etc. This is exceedingly infantile. The mature way to debate is to leave the content of your post to speak for themselves, or do you think your post cannot speak for themselves and you have to add these annoying phrases to aatempt to sway the debate.

My apologies if you got upset there; but where did I say such things as "I have won"? This duplicity is quite a shame on your part! How many times did you shriek "what the hell is this" as if that was your own way of a "mature" discussion? Indeed, your needless repetitions were a bore not worth being entertained, but did that even help your diversionary antics?

huxley2:
3) You think "Because you say something, then it must be so". This is particularly annoying because you make such adhoc statements with little or no supporting evidence. For instance, I asked you to provide the conditions under which Randi would run his investigating of mediums, since you claimed that the conditions were unfair. How could you make a judgement that they are unfair when you do not know what they are?

Nope, don't try to keep up this falsehood. When you brought that charge of "because I say so", I refuted it and pointed you to what I plainly stated. If you did not agree, why was it you could not show anything to counter it. . . only to turn round in circles and then yap "Correct"? On the other hand, I amused you deliberately over Randi, seeing that you were slaving youself over to him - that's why I claimed temporary ignorance for your sake. The gentleman you pretend to be was not man enough to oblige us the conditions that you were aware of, no?

huxley2:
4) You are particularly wont to make arguments based on personalities, rather than the facts or concepts expounded by the personalities.

I'm not a personality slave like you, so stop this drivel. I was not the one who stated I'd submit myself to Randi or anyone else - you did, live with it. You're only complaining typically because Randi did not work for you.

huxley2:
5) You are very dishonest and deceitful. For instance, you charge Dawkins with being a 100 % there-is-no-god atheist (level 7 on the Dawkins's scale). And although I gave you Dawkins's own postion from his own book (The God Delusion), you dismissed it off-hand and will probably still regard Dawkins as a level 7 atheist.

Thank you. You've only been reading The God Delusion and deluding yourself, that's why you cannot see anything else! Outside of that book, has it ever occured to you that the same Richard Dawkins categorically wrote that "There Is No God"? Let me help you:

         Why there is no God

         >snip<

        © Richard Dawkins 2006

Please see it on the TimesOnline article which was written by Dawkins himself - HERE! Note that he did not start out with "there is probably no God", but a direct heading: "Why there is no God". You charge me with deceit and dishonesty and assume you're now the atheist honest monk - sad you can't see beyond your cubicle.

huxley2:
You are just like all the Christian apologist of the past and in modern days - dishonest. From the likes of Martin Luther, Lee Strobel, McDowell, etc, etc. The one single thread that pervades you all is one of dishonest.

Now, put that in your cup and drink it.

If your claims were half as intelligent as you had hoped to make it sound, then indeed you would have had a feather to your cap. But the insidious tomfoolery and cacophony that runs throw your posts is rib-cracking. Just because you can't discuss an issue, you twist and turn and look for loopholes to exploit for your accusations of dishonesty against others. . just because they're not atheists. If this cheap cackling is your best shot for your brand of atheism, sorry to once again confirm: I do not have the faith to be an atheist!

wirinet:
Atheism is not necessarily science, but Science is Atheism.

Lol, this is not disturbing. . . perhaps dear huxley can now see an example of an atheist who makes unfounded statements in equating science with atheism.

The Wikipedia quote does not lead to the inference that science is opposed to theism - you make that huge 'leap of faith' because you already made a fallacy of assuming "science is atheism". Sure, we know that atheism is opposed to theism; but 'science' is not atheism and does not stand opposed to theim.

Both theism and atheism are worldviews - or simply, 'belief systems'.
On the other hand, science is not a worldview or 'belief system' - as such, both theists and atheists re engaged in the practice of science. I don't know where anyone could be called a scientist on the basis of whether he is an atheist, because that would leave you to explain how MANY theists are also scientists. The idea that 'science is atheism' is the biggest fallacy going in all possible worlds.

davidylan:
Again i am more concerned with the precise wording of the title - [size=18pt]I Am Done With Intituitionalized Christianity, Would Stop Attending "church"[/size]

Note that "church" there was put in inverted commas.

Screaming it does not make any difference - whether church was put in inverted commas or not is inconsequential. But again, it takes nothing away from what you're concerned with.

davidylan:
thou doth protest too much. I was raised in a small church group but have always attended much larger church groups since i started going to college. My present church has thousands in attendance every sunday and i'm comfortable there for one reason - the word is preached there.

I for one am very comfortable with being corrected; so thank you. I do hope that your large church with thousands would not be considered another 'institutionalized' outfit though, otherwise that would be another episode for you to sort out.

davidylan:
The issue is not a blanket condemnation of large churches as most of you here simply assume without any basis.

Glad to know that you make the distinction; and it is not for unfounded reasons that several people have expressed their concerns about such unwarranted broad condemnations.

davidylan:
the term "our church institutions" does not equate to ALL church institutions.

Good one - that's why you ought to clearly contextualize your statements.

davidylan:
We already know. And i mentioned that in an earlier post . . . read my response to fyneguy's question.

I did, and my highlighting it again was to help those who still have their minds on far-fetched generalizations.

davidylan:
The fact that the vast majority of the churches we once looked up to are today monuments of pharisaic decay is precisely what the OP and TV01 were addressing, i agree with them too. It doesnt mean we have abandoned church altogether.

I don't think I ever intoned that you've abandoned church - did I? It would only be fair that you also took time to look at what others are saying and not assume what they haven't said.

[quote author=petres_007 link=topic=282213.msg4023895#msg4023895 date=1244919559]Dear Pilgrim,

I give up. You win.[/quote]Peter, my bros, abge I no mean to be naughty, trust me. I don beg tire - ask ttalks!

Perhaps I went off the curve, and I can admit where I was wrong. The thing is that the group you were speaking about and favouring is not new to me. . . I was very involved with a lot of them, until I saw something that just didn't match up somewhere. But would I speak down on them? No; and I'm trying to discourage this 'HCM' thingy from the mistake of assuming too many things. Blessings.

David,

How body? I understand your concerns, and I'm not the only one who does. I sometimes wonder if people who put up concerns as you do ever take the time to see and appreciate the perspectives of those who were not raised in "small groups". This sentimentality (rather 'complaints') against Christians meeting in large buildings is often misplaced and stretched too far as to make people wonder about statements like this:

davidylan:
Our church institutions are now models of man's greed rather than the Lord's grace.

What exactly do you mean by "our church institutions"? You see, when careless statements like these are made, people tend to comment for perhaps one purpose: to show that statement is not true and very unhealthy. There are many "church institutions" even in the USA that are very involved in ministry that have nothing to do with greed - and they are not few! If you only took time to search them out, you would find them.

Yes, there was a time when I used to be like you: sit for hours glued to some TV station where 'prosperity pimps' (as they're called) would advertise their business. Was it any wonder that I would get up from such presentations and feel so dry that I wondered if "any church" ever preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It didn't take long before I saw how wrong I was - for indeed, there were MANY, MANY churches and ministries that a thoughtful Christian could not accuse with such 'greed' and other complaints. We should be thankful to them, because in so many ways God has blessed us through them, even though they are not 100% "perfect" according to our own subjective evaluation.

What we call "our church institutions" involves more than you were likely to have assumed. We have problems, yes indeed; and na we ourselves suppose solve our problems by discussing in a healthy manner. There's just no room for this broad generalizations that tend to be too inclusive as to border on 'guilt by association'. Perhaps we may get to discuss more - and I could recommend so many, many such institutions, ministries and churches that we ought to be careful how we talk about these issues.

Shalom.

toneyb:
I agree but it is still interesting nevertheless, I am really enjoying pilgrim1 and her mental gymnastics . Very interesting person she is.

I find you a rather interesting fellow as well. . usual song you sing when you stand by the sidelines.

huxley2:
Why did you introduce "Empirical verification and falsifiability" in a thread that has nothing whatsoever to do with these concepts? Was it not you who introduced them in this thread? Were you attempting to divert the thread? If that was your goal, then you succeeded, because we have spent a lot of post discussing something which should not be here in the first place.

Answer this simple question - Why did you introduce it?

This is a non-starter. How many pages ago did I first make reference to "Empirical verification and falsifiability"? And why are you complaining as if you only just woke up and saw it? I made that reference in reply to wirinet's, why didn't you object and complain back then - why now?!? None of your diversionary tactics will work in this thread, trust me. You've played that game far too long that is already weathered now. Think of a new hat-trick.

noetic2:
3. pilgrim allowed huxley to successfully divert the topic and digress the thread.

'Successfully' for where?
He tried, tried again, tried once more, tried repeatedly. . e no succeed!
I don tell una before - there are 10 points about atheistic logic.
Anyhow you slice it, you will find the same 10 points apply. Trust me.

ttalks:
So you do not think that it's pretty too much for a new comer to start up with such heavy language?
Don't u think it's bad that the new comer has imbibed the bad habits popular in NL?
And such a person should not be chided?

But I agreed wid U na. . 

ttalks:

I'm definitely going to tell mummy for you; no holding back this time. 

_{oh my goodness. I don hear helele!}
What can I do to beg U na. . I still dey beg O!
True, I dey beg sir!

We don hear. Make una take am easy. . . or make more informed posts. Enjoy.

@petres_007,

[quote author=petres_007 link=topic=282213.msg4023171#msg4023171 date=1244908873]@TV01, Thanks for that refreshing post. I saw pilgrim.1's and JJYOU's responses to my post and their comments on this thread and felt like fainting! [/quote]What in our reply to yours was making you feel like fainting? Was it grand that you tried to dismiss other people's opinions and flash yours across our faces? If you're going to discuss with others, do so - no need to dismiss others to make space for yours.

[quote author=petres_007 link=topic=282213.msg4023171#msg4023171 date=1244908873]@Pilgrim,
you said something: that no one in this thread has said anything outside of what the apostles taught.[/quote]Did I say that? Really? Okay, I beg you sir! No vex.
The thing I remember having said was this:

'As far as no one here has been preaching any other Gospel than
what was preached by the apostles, what is your point?'

I don't remember saying that no one in this thread has said anything outside of what the apostles taught. if I did, my apologies in advance as you take the time to show where I said so.

[quote author=petres_007 link=topic=282213.msg4023171#msg4023171 date=1244908873]The only way you can say that, is if you yourself haven;t done a proper study of the scriptures to find this out what it is exactly the apostles taught, and then compare it with what is being taught and practiced today. If you had, you wouldn't be wasting your precious time lashing out at me and saying the things you've been saying.[/quote]I don't know all of what the Bible teaches, and I'm certainly still learning. But your attitude and also claiming things which are unfounded do not demonstrate anything about your super spirituality. Em. . _{make I just hold my tongue because of ttalks. .}

[quote author=petres_007 link=topic=282213.msg4023171#msg4023171 date=1244908873]Please study your bible. But first set aside your preconceived notions and ideas, and study objectively. You can take issues one at a time. The tithing issue is actually a very simple one. Though you can't understand that without a proper understanding of the Old and New Covenants. I usually use that as a starting point when studying with friends. Please study your bible. Please.[/quote]Thank you. This is not a tithing thread and that would be a cheap subject to waste your arguements on. Take a more engaging subject and let's discuss, if you may. Yes, I'm open to learning and correction where I don't have a good grasp of what the Word teaches; and I'd be delighted to learn from you where you can show some understanding.

[quote author=petres_007 link=topic=282213.msg4023171#msg4023171 date=1244908873]I read comments like those of @tbaby4purpose2009 and felt like crying.
I don't think it can get worse than that.[/quote]Haha. . what is wrong with this gentleman? If you're not fainting, you're feeling like crying! Wetin happen? Peace bro.

So, let's see a few things about the HCM/HC/HFs -

The origins of the so-called house church movement are varied. In North America and the UK particularly, it is often viewed as a development and logical extension of the 'Brethren' or Plymouth Brethren movement both in doctrine and practice where many individuals and assemblies have adopted new approaches to worship and governance, while others recognise a relationship to the Anabaptists, Quakers, Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites, Moravians, Methodists, and the much earlier Waldenses and Priscillianists. Another perspective sees the house church movement as a re-emergence of the move of the Holy Spirit during the Jesus Movement of the 1970s in the USA or the worldwide Charismatic Renewal of the late 1960s and 1970s. Others see it as a return to a New Testament church Restorationism paradigm and a restoration of God's eternal purpose and the natural expression of Christ on the earth, urging Christians to return from hierarchy and rank to practices described and encouraged in Scripture.

The house church movement has been more recently encouraged by the church planting and publishing initiative of writers like Robert Fitts, Frank Viola, Tony & Felicity Dale, Wolfgang Simson,Wayne Jacobsen,Gene Edwards, Keith Smith, and Steve Atkerson. The Internet itself has contributed to the phenomenon's exponential growth in the past decade, networking many previously unconnected individuals.

source:Wikipedia

Incidentally, I'm quite familiar with the Brethren and Plymouth Brethren groups, and a few others which are not named above. Yes, many of these groups have sound teaching in many aspects or subjects, and some of their publications have been of tremendous blessing to many Christians around the world.

One of the emphasis (it seemed to me at the time) was the aversion for any structure. Simply put - a clergy-laity structure is unwelcome to many of these groups, so that any concept of 'pastor' is rejected in their groups.

Another emphasis is the idea of 'non-denominationalism' - all others are denominations but not their own. This is why you may not find them identified by any denomination names, and in many instance you would find Christians among them say they're 'brethren' or 'Christians' or 'saints', etc.

There are other issues which they find disturbing in larger churches. Apart from the size and the buildings where those other churches meet/gather for worship, the HCM favours home meetings and small groups which operate independent of one another.

In my experience, when someone begins to compare the HCM and what obtains in other churches, I cannot but come to the conclusions that there's nothing significantly or essentially different about the HCM. Whether we believe it or not, the HCM has its own 'forms', meets in a building, are as denominational as other groups, and involve the same things that they complain against other denominations. These 'complaints' are woven in smooth language that has become all too characteristic of the HCM, such as "an organic body" or clichés like that.

I may be wrong; but what essentially are the differences between the churches of the HCM and the denominations that they stand opposed to?

ttalks:
Kai! See post.
Only 3 posts into NL and see what is being spewed.

You don talk am before, and I don quote am again:

_{. . . without being sarcastic/cunningly slanderous/mischieviously provocating . . .}

Thank you sir, for not reporting me!

Abuzola:
Because this is Arabic language, it maintains some principles, just like your english language with come and came or laugh and laughed is the same, it maintains time, Islama, islamu, salama, salami and salam is all the same and in arabic the NAHWU (Part of speech) is vast.
sorry dear go and do more research

I feel sorry you're talking about 'research' when you're vastly hollow about it. Arabic is not the same as other languages, and misusing language-constructs the way you do is a huge minus for your campaign - confused and ignorant cackles such as you display do not serve to make your adventures attractive to those you're trying to reach out to. Putting words in people's mouths does not serve your cause well at all - go find out and let me know if it does.

Hallo,

As some of you might've guessed, this thread stems from another one; but rather than a repetition, I thought it might be helpful to actually discuss this idea of the 'institutionalized church' or 'insititutionalized Christianity'. What really are the concerns Christians bear about these issues that seem to make many swing to the opposite end of the pendulum?

The topic of the thread is (rather unfortunately) named 'Institutionalized Christianity - The Viola Hangover', not for any particularly distasteful reasons against Frank Viola; but as a point of reference for many people who can identify easily in what has become a reaction against large church settings. This reactive movement against large churches is commonly associated with "House Church Movement" (HCM), House Fellowships (HF), or House Churches (HC). There are various expressions to this movement; and it's not my intention to talk down on any group. Rather, I'm seeking to make this a lively discussion, free from group-condemnation(s), and focused on the main issues instead of on persons.

While there are some good points that the HCM might display, I am not particular sure that many within the movement have a healthy modus operandi. Yes, I've read some of Frank Viola's books and concerns extensively, and I'm sure that some may be familiar with one such: Pagan Christianity. Basically, the gist is that the many large Churches with any form of leadership structure (especially pastors) is 'pagan' and quite contradictory to Biblical Christianity. He identifies a number of such issues and believes that they are all contrary to what Biblical Christianity is about.

However, when one tries to read Frank Viola with discernment, it is striking that he essentially dismisses certain issues in large churches while at the same time making the same 'mistakes' in his recommendations for small-group churches (his own flavour). I wonder how many people have actually read Viola's book about this, or listened to one of his 'messages' - perhaps such people would agree or disagree (we're all welcome to our opinions). But what is so fascinating about the HCM to warrant this attitude of interpretating large churches as "institutionalized"? What essentially is 'super' about the HCM that make other non-HCM fit the epitaph of "unbiblical" and a "departure"?

Those are the issues we shall be identifying and discussing, in the hope that we can all benefit and have a good understanding of what the Church is all about.

Cheers.

Here comes another mechanical magic. . .

Why are you not consistent and dashing between two opinions? I knew sooner than later you'd (predictably) come to this turn-around confusion.

So, let's get something from you. First, you argued that:

Abuzola:
What is Islam ? Islam means Peace in Arabic therefore :

. . . then when corrected, your shouted back:

Abuzola:
ISLAM MEANS PEACE the word Peace is derived from salam.

. . . now the same magician comes on board to say:

Abuzola:
Peace in Arabic means Salam, which Islam is derived from

Why didn't you maintian that it should be "islam" and not "salam" as you shouted before? It seems that anything that comes to your head is just belched out without a moment's thought. I would like to see how your clappers will ignore the diversion and come back hooting blindly on the same point.

Abuzola:
replace with Arabic, it becomes:

'Salamu alaikum

Why not "Islam alaikum" instead of 'salam alaikum'? It is very convenient to play these games as you choose - and I deliberately left those verses to help you perform the same non-functioning magic. You want more verses? Just ask.  But for all that, Jesus did not speak Quraish, so please rest your mind and refrain from further entertaining us with this drama of yours.

olabowale:
You must be a fast reader to have easily finished all of that, and came to your conclusion, without giving any expanation. Experiments always, is accompanied by observarions, before conclusions. Please tell us what you disagreed with before you came out with your deceitful statement?

Is it the Silm as in Silmi kaa fa in Surah An Am or the Salaam as in Al Salaam of Surah Hashr?



My Kufar is a description of you, since you are not a Muslim! Kafara is where Kufar is derived from. Unless you are a Muslim, my statement stands as a fact! And as for the Greek Muslim blog, you could have gone to the source; the Muslim Arabs of either Makka or Madina or greater Arabia (the Ijaz) or even the West African Muslims who are enmass muslims, or the Indian Muslims, or the Malaysians or Pakitanis, etc.

I see what you did: Old habit is very hard to shed. You thought Islam is Christianity, since your source for Christianity is Greek instead of Aramaic that Allah made yopu spilled out, earlier. So you have to go to the greek (muslim blog) for Islam, too.

Blog by definition is where people give opinions. Sometimes correct and other times not so. Spare me and don't spear me , Missy. We have a consistence of islam to mean peaceful Submission since the very first time; the lifetime of the Prophet (AS).

Come to think of it: Maybe you know Islam more than him (AS). No?

Any more tomfoolery from you, hmm?

Aremugangan:
Weither u accept or nt, d fact has bin written, d fact is n ll stil remain. Doz wu disbelieve in Islamic monotheism whether u show dem d light(Islam) or nt dey ll nt believe. This is Qur'an 2:6-7 confirmin ur seald heart evn b4 u were born which mins its nt surprisin whether u accept or nt.

There's a motherboard where you can preach your ideas to Muslims and not try to defend what is patently false. Other Muslims (which I've referenced) have made it clear the OP's statement in meaning was wrong and false - is that my worry? I don't have anything to worry about; but you don't have to resort to the mechanical magic of confusing languages just to peddle your ideas. No matter how many times you shout it, what is wrong is wrong, and those Muslims have pointed it out. If you have a problem on this issue, take it right upfront to them and tell them they're wrong.

OBNOXIOUS:
Why does pilgrim hate and despise Muslims and Islam so much with so much bitterness and Venom?

I don't hate or despise Muslims or Islam. What is wrong is wrong, and I pointed out that other well-informed Muslims are not making the same wrong affirmations that the OP has started out with. If those Muslims are wrong, are they also haters of Muslims and Islam for saying the direct opposite of what the OP tried to state?

TV01:
[quote author=$osisi link=topic=282213.msg4021319#msg4021319 date=1244858081]Believers should be careful about any Christian who tells you he has read the Bible thoroughly and now knows the mind of God concerning every issue and everyone else is in error.

I can only shake my head in wonder here, as I have never once suggested anything remotely like that. Wonder as you cannot fail to understand exactly what you are doing here, by falsely ascribing to me a stance I have never taken.[/quote]I don't think your reaction in that manner was necessary. You're not "any Christian", unless you make yourself one and then personalize her quote to yourself;. If $osisi had said it in a general way, I say amen to it - because that applies to me as well if I find myself displaying the same tendency that is stated in her quote. That is why one should not miss her gist in going on to say:

May I never come to a point in my life where I feel like I have arrived in faith
and now know all there is to know about God and his ways.

There wasn't really any need to be reactive and take it personally; but if you do, I respect your right to do so.

ttalks:
Why don't we just say what we want to say about issues without being sarcastic/cunningly slanderous/mischieviously provocating towards others?!

Abeg no report me sir, but make I comment small on that one.
Indeed we can all say what we want to say and bear out our concerns - without being:

     sarcastic/cunningly
     slanderous/mischieviously provocating
etc., etc., etc.

People can bear their concerns without resorting to any such things against the Church. _{I promised to be good to you, so I'll not go beyond this.}  

olabowale:
@$Osisi:
What did she do that you are thanking her for? That woman knows nothing about Islam. You must be so easily taken. Very gullible. I didn't expect you to fall so easily like that. But then what should I expect. You who is very pratical in many things. But when it comes to 1+1+1 you just continue to deny that it is 3 in reality. Let me show you how wrong Pilgrim.1 is, in her statement and no one needs to consult the Web to find out. All you need to do is go talk to Arabs who are linguist in their own language. We are not talking about John Esposito here. Those are people with knowledge that the knowledge have no residual value of goodness for them. For they will be judged for their knowledge, but yet they rejected faith in the day of Judgement.


Arabic as a language in the time of Jesus and also in the time of Muhammad was spoken far beyond the boundary of "Quraish" tribe in Makka. Proof; Yemeni, and others spoke Arabic. Fusat Arabic of Quran came with Quran. But it is still Arabic and it is just a greater level of arabic compared to what was already spoken by arabs, far beyond Quraish. The same Fusat became the purest and standardized Arabic. This is the arab language that the Christian Bible is now written for the Christians of Arabia.

And for sure, Jesus did not speak greek. Why do you put greek in his mouth? What happened to the Aramaic that he spoke? Show us that Gospel first, before you can bring out a "greek" gospel!


And a casual look, will tell you that Islam, though not completely in its total meaning is just "peace". But we see that shlama of Aramaic and Islam have a common root. Look, the both have laam (l), miim (m). That is just going by what you write, above (2 common, out of 3 of shlama and 4 of islam). But if we compare Shlama of aramaic to eirene of greek, what do they possible have in common? Zero! Yet you are bringing it up to express, what exactly?

Is Yoruba not close to Ishekiri, Edo, etc of Nigeria than say English, even though England colonized its people? What you have done above is similar to anyone denying the Yoruba and Isheriki as similar and brought about English language to argue such a point!


Wrong definition> Islam means peaceful (willing) Submission. Islam is formed from two words fused together: Silm and Salaam! Boths are words in Quran. While Silm stand for submission /complete entry as in (enter Islam completely (in Surah An Am). Salaam meaning peace, is also a quality of Allah as in Al Salaam. It is dishonesty to say Islam has nothing to do with peace, because peaceful submission actually means islam in full sense of the word.


How can you a Kufar tell the Muslims what islam really means? You neither practice it nor understand it! You think this is Christianity, where you read your own meanin, as you personaly wish? No. Seriously. And you are yoruba woman, should know that Arabic is not your mother's tongue. You are not a bedouin, for example. Hence you can't tell a bedouin what an arabic word means. Thats his language. Also a bedouin can't tell you what a Yoruba word means either. That should come naturally to you. You do speak yoruba or don't you? (Aji se bi yoruba lanri yoruba o je se bi enikan kan. I know. I intentionally put Yoruba where Oyo is. The Yorubas have their root, also in Oyo).


No arab will tell you that Islam simply means submission, without peace attached to it. Willingly is peace, you know. It means not forced or coarsed to submit. Please stop thinking you can define Islam by a narrow lens of the WWW! Sometimes they are correct and others, they are off the mark. And I don't trust the english language anyhow when it comes to Islam (Example Kun fa yakun does not mean Be and it i. It should Be, so it Be). Consider the fact that fa means So, while wa means And.

olabowale:
It is true Muslims do not believe in the "Bible." Reason is that it is not a revealed Book! Check out the Quran to know what are revealed, including the Suhufi (Ibrahima wa Musa; Surah Al'a).

Muslims believe in the original Toral as it was revealed to Musa (AS), Sabur as it was revealed to Daud (AS) and Injil as it was revealed to Isa bin Mariam (AS). If you know any better, please tell us now and quote the verses from Quran. If you know that Jesus the god revealed the "Bible," please show us the very Verse from your Bible or whereever you can find it!


Grandstanding, unless have a proof against what he said!

More ignorant tomfoolery.

olabowale:
How can you a Kufar tell the Muslims what islam really means? You neither practice it nor understand it!

I didn't know that the Muslims at "Greek Muslims" blog were "kufar". Well done.