₦airaland Forum

PastorAIO:
This is very unsporting of you to claim to disagree yet fail to explain why you disagree.

Not to mention your promises to 'revert to more in the evening' regarding countering my earlier post.

Ah well. You force my hand sire. Very well. As you insist, I will have a "sporting" go at it sire.

PastorAIO:
ee ee oo!! Na wa for dis ya indignation.

Where did Idi Amin or Abacha or Mobutu claim that Might is Right? I'm not aware of that.

You are funny. This sort of post is exatly why I have called you a futilist for a long time.
Do you really expect a serious response to this sort of post?

You often remind me of a dog chasing its tail.

If not by the command of Heaven, how can anyone slay or conquer out of his own strength?
Kuyuk Khan to the Pope.

Then no one in the world is or has ever been responsible for anything that they ever said or did.

That's all.
I lack the strength to go further.
That's my "sporting" attempt.

DeepSight:
You are funny. This sort of post is exatly why I have called you a futilist for a long time.
Do you really expect a serious response to this sort of post?

You often remind me of a dog chasing its tail.

I wouldn't expect anything more serious, or less serious (if possible) than your initial post which that is a response to.

Then no one in the world is or has ever been responsible for anything that they ever said or did.

That's all.
I lack the strength to go further.
That's my "sporting" attempt.

Isn't that the implication of having an ultimate Authority. An ultimate authority cannot be thwarted. As they say about the boss in some companies, 'The buck stops here'.

Oga pata pata bears the full weight of the responsibilities. Especially if the oga pata pata is said to be omnipotent.

If God is all powerful then nothing happens that is not sanctioned by him.

PastorAIO:
I wouldn't expect anything more serious, or less serious (if possible) than your initial post which that is a response to.



Isn't that the implication of having an ultimate Authority. An ultimate authority cannot be thwarted. As they say about the boss in some companies, 'The buck stops here'.

Oga pata pata bears the full weight of the responsibilities. Especially if the oga pata pata is said to be omnipotent.

If God is all powerful then nothing happens that is not sanctioned by him.

The existence of an ultimate authority does not obviate free agency or the responsibilities every free agent carries. The ultimate authority has caused natural principles to exist which adamantly cause effect to follow trigger. You know and understand this very well, but as usual you choose to make futilitee merry go round statements. The fact is that if your treatise were consistent, no one should either be punished or rewarded for any actions however noble or repugnant , indeed such concepts as nobility or repugnance should not exist.

DeepSight:
The existence of an ultimate authority does not obviate free agency or the responsibilities every free agent carries.

I never said it did. I'll repeat what I said. An Ultimate Authority cannot be thwarted.
Any free agency out there can remain free to attempt to thwart it all it can, but if it is indeed the ultimate omnipotent Authority then it cannot be thwarted.

The ultimate authority has caused natural principles to exist which adamantly cause effect to follow trigger.

Questionable. This is just another blind assertion, but I don't even see what it has to do with what we are saying so I won't address it too deeply. Other than to say that you have no proof that everything happens by a process of Cause and Effect. To propose such a thing is actually at odds with your claims of Free Agency.

You know and understand this very well, but as usual you choose to make futilitee merry go round statements. The fact is that if your treatise were consistent, no one should either be punished or rewarded for any actions however noble or repugnant , indeed such concepts as nobility or repugnance should not exist.

How did you arrive at all of this? I don't 'know and understand' any of what you said. I only know it as illogical.

If my 'treatise' is correct there would indeed by punishment and reward.

i.e if a man were to live in accordance to his innate character he would be rewarded with a Eudaimonia.

If a mean were Not to live in accordance with his innate character he would be 'punished' by living in a state of disease.

It shocks me every time you have made me realise that after all these years you still have no understanding of this very basic notions that I've presented you with. I'm stunned.

Religion remains to me the most insane of insanities..the worse form of insanity..and it is pertinent to state that all religions have exercised Violence and displayed Terror mongering behavioral dispositions..only Time and Epoch differs...its the Arabs Epoch..not too long ago Christianity held us hostages from Europe to America

Yungbitz:
Religion remains to me the most insane of insanities..the worse form of insanity..and it is pertinent to state that all religions have exercised Violence and displayed Terror mongering behavioral dispositions..only Time and Epoch differs...its the Arabs Epoch..not too long ago Christianity held us hostages from Europe to America

Is it a hyperbolic statement, or do you mean it when you say religion is the worst form of insanities?
If you do, why is religion the worst form of insanities to you?

Yungbitz:
Religion remains to me the most insane of insanities..the worse form of insanity..and it is pertinent to state that all religions have exercised Violence and displayed Terror mongering behavioral dispositions..only Time and Epoch differs...its the Arabs Epoch..not too long ago Christianity held us hostages from Europe to America

I would say that there are many insaner insanities.

PastorAIO:
I would say that there are many insaner insanities.

And a few insane sanities.

PastorAIO:
I would say that there are many insaner insanities.

I will like know about this insaner insanities that could unseat religion

PastorAIO:
I wouldn't expect anything more serious, or less serious (if possible) than your initial post which that is a response to.



Isn't that the implication of having an ultimate Authority. An ultimate authority cannot be thwarted. As they say about the boss in some companies, 'The buck stops here'.

Oga pata pata bears the full weight of the responsibilities. Especially if the oga pata pata is said to be omnipotent.

If God is all powerful then nothing happens that is not sanctioned by him.

he may either sanction it or allow it.

Yungbitz:
Religion remains to me the most insane of insanities..the worse form of insanity..and it is pertinent to state that all religions have exercised Violence and displayed Terror mongering behavioral dispositions..only Time and Epoch differs...its the Arabs Epoch..not too long ago Christianity held us hostages from Europe to America

Hitler and Mao alone are unhappy that you want to upstage the terror they unleashed mankind and place the attention on Religion

KingEbukasBlog:
Hitler and Mao alone are unhappy that you want to upstage the terror they unleashed mankind and place the attention on Religion

Really? To Every Era, to its conflict..historians still remember The Inquisition amongst other reign of terror ordained by different religious sects vividly

KingEbukasBlog:
Hitler and Mao alone are unhappy that you want to upstage the terror they unleashed mankind and place the attention on Religion

I don't think Hitler and Mao added together or even multiplied together sef can reach the level of atrocities committed in Europe by religion.

PastorAIO:
I don't think Hitler and Mao added together or even multiplied together sef can reach the level of atrocities committed in Europe by religion.

. . How many people do you think they decimated ? And how many people do you think Religion decimated ? I have not even mentioned their goons yet .

Yungbitz:
Really? To Every Era, to its conflict..historians still remember The Inquisition amongst other reign of terror ordained by different religious sects vividly

Here are interesting excerpts you need to cogitate on .

Separate again was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, started in 1478, a state institution used to identify conversos—Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert to Christianity for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion[/i][i]

One book popular with Fundamentalists claims that 95 million people died under the Inquisition. The figure is so grotesquely off that one immediately doubts the writer’s sanity, or at least his g.asp of demographics. Not until modern times did the population of those countries where the Inquisitions existed approach 95 million.

Inquisitions did not exist in Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, or England, being confined mainly to southern France, Italy, Spain, and a few parts of the Holy Roman Empire. The Inquisition could not have killed that many people because those parts of Europe did not have that many people to kill! - Catholic.com

cc : PastorAIO

KingEbukasBlog:
Here are interesting excerpts you need to cogitate on .

Separate again was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, started in 1478, a state institution used to identify conversos—Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert to Christianity for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion[/i][i]

One book popular with Fundamentalists claims that 95 million people died under the Inquisition. The figure is so grotesquely off that one immediately doubts the writer’s sanity, or at least his g.asp of demographics. Not until modern times did the population of those countries where the Inquisitions existed approach 95 million.

Inquisitions did not exist in Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, or England, being confined mainly to southern France, Italy, Spain, and a few parts of the Holy Roman Empire. The Inquisition could not have killed that many people because those parts of Europe did not have that many people to kill! - Catholic.com

cc : PastorAIO

The Inquisition is a group of institutions within the judicial system of the Catholic Church whose aim was to combat heresy. It started in 12th-century France to combat religious sectarianism, in particular the Cathars and the Waldensians. Other groups which were investigated later include the Spiritual Franciscans, the Husites (followers of Jan Hus) and Beguines. Beginning in the 1250s, inquisitors were generally chosen from members of the Dominican Order, to replace the earlier practice of using local clergy as judges.[1] The term Medieval Inquisition covers these courts up through the 14th century.

In the Late Middle Ages and early Renaissance, the concept and scope of the Inquisition was significantly expanded in response to the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Its geographic scope was expanded to other European countries,[2] resulting in the Spanish Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition. Those two kingdoms in particular operated inquisitorial courts throughout their respective empires (Spanish and Portuguese) in the Americas (resulting in the Peruvian Inquisition and Mexican Inquisition), Asia, and Africa.[3] One particular focus of the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions was the issue of Jewish anusim and Muslim converts to Catholicism, partly because these minority groups were more numerous in Spain and Portugal than in many other parts of Europe, and partly because they were often considered suspect due to the assumption that they had secretly reverted to their previous religions.

Except within the Papal States, the institution of the Inquisition was abolished in the early 19th century, after the Napoleonic Wars in Europe and after the Spanish American wars of independence in the Americas. The institution survived as part of the Roman Curia, but in 1904 was given the new name of "Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office". In 1965 it became the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.[4]
The above excerpt from Wikipedia clearly shows the scope and atrocities far outweigh the what you posited above

Yungbitz:
The Inquisition is a group of institutions within the judicial system of the Catholic Church whose aim was to combat heresy. It started in 12th-century France to combat religious sectarianism, in particular the Cathars and the Waldensians. Other groups which were investigated later include the Spiritual Franciscans, the Husites (followers of Jan Hus) and Beguines. Beginning in the 1250s, inquisitors were generally chosen from members of the Dominican Order, to replace the earlier practice of using local clergy as judges.[1] The term Medieval Inquisition covers these courts up through the 14th century.

In the Late Middle Ages and early Renaissance, the concept and scope of the Inquisition was significantly expanded in response to the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Its geographic scope was expanded to other European countries,[2] resulting in the Spanish Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition. Those two kingdoms in particular operated inquisitorial courts throughout their respective empires (Spanish and Portuguese) in the Americas (resulting in the Peruvian Inquisition and Mexican Inquisition), Asia, and Africa.[3] One particular focus of the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions was the issue of Jewish anusim and Muslim converts to Catholicism, partly because these minority groups were more numerous in Spain and Portugal than in many other parts of Europe, and partly because they were often considered suspect due to the assumption that they had secretly reverted to their previous religions.

Except within the Papal States, the institution of the Inquisition was abolished in the early 19th century, after the Napoleonic Wars in Europe and after the Spanish American wars of independence in the Americas. The institution survived as part of the Roman Curia, but in 1904 was given the new name of "Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office". In 1965 it became the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.[4]

I dont get the point of this extract from Wikipedia . Anyway , why I cited that excerpt from Catholic.com was to debunk claims that the Inquisition decimated millions . There were killings quite alright which we do not condone of course but the numbers were exaggerated by atheists or anti-religiotards - that's my point

KingEbukasBlog:
I dont get the point of this extract from Wikipedia . Anyway , why I cited that excerpt from Catholic.com is to debunk claims that the Inquisition decimated millions . There were killings quite alright which we do not condone of course but the numbers were exaggerated by atheists or anti-religiotards - that's my point

The Inquisition was commissioned and ordained by the Catholic Church,do you expect an impartial position from them? I quoted the above so that you can grasp how long this act took place and then imagine the lives lost to it.Even the Great Galileo had to flee to over beings burnt alive for his scientific discoveries

KingEbukasBlog:
. . How many people do you think they decimated ? And how many people do you think Religion decimated ? I have not even mentioned their goons yet .

I dunno. Why don't you tell us. Please present the facts and figures for us. Thanks.

PastorAIO:
I dunno. Why don't you tell us. Please present the facts and figures for us. Thanks.

You made the claim bro , the expedient thing to do is to prove your claim

Yungbitz:
The Inquisition was commissioned and ordained by the Catholic Church,do you expect an impartial position from them? I quoted the above so that you can grasp how long this act took place and then imagine the lives lost to it.Even the Great Galileo had to flee to over beings burnt alive for his scientific discoveries

I know but the number is not that much . It should not be less than 50,000 . Here are world populations , we can assume the population of the world from (1200 - 1500) AD were 400 million .

So try reason am

Beginning in the 19th century, historians have gradually compiled statistics drawn from the surviving court records, from which estimates have been calculated by adjusting the recorded number of convictions by the average rate of document loss for each time period. Gustav Henningsen and Jaime Contreras studied the records of the Spanish Inquisition, which list 44,674 cases of which 826 resulted in executions in person and 778 in effigy (i.e. a straw dummy was burned in place of the person). William Monter estimated there were 1000 executions between 1530–1630 and 250 between 1630–1730. Jean-Pierre Dedieu studied the records of Toledo's tribunal, which put 12,000 people on trial. For the period prior to 1530, Henry Kamen estimated there were about 2,000 executions in all of Spain's tribunals. Italian Renaissance history professor and Inquisition expert Carlo Ginzburg had his doubts about using statistics to reach a judgment about the period. “In many cases, we don’t have the evidence, the evidence has been lost,” said Ginzburg. - Inquisition , Statistics , Wikipedia.com

KingEbukasBlog:
You made the claim bro , the expedient thing to do is to prove your claim

Nobody made any claims but you.

KingEbukasBlog:
Hitler and Mao alone are unhappy that you want to upstage the terror they unleashed mankind and place the attention on Religion

I said:
I don't think Hitler and Mao added together or even multiplied together sef can reach the level of atrocities committed in Europe by religion.

I doubted your claims. Can you provide verifiable facts and figures for your claims? If not, I can also accept that you talk gusts of airs with no backing.

KingEbukasBlog:
I dont get the point of this extract from Wikipedia . Anyway , why I cited that excerpt from Catholic.com was to debunk claims that the Inquisition decimated millions . There were killings quite alright which we do not condone of course but the numbers were exaggerated by atheists or anti-religiotards - that's my point

Why don't you go to the place where they are making those claims about the inquisition and debunk the claims there?

I haven't read anybody say that Inquisition killed millions here. Only you came with this:

KingEbukasBlog:
Here are interesting excerpts you need to cogitate on .

[i]One book popular with Fundamentalists claims that 95 million people died under the Inquisition. The figure is so grotesquely off that one immediately doubts the writer’s sanity, or at least his g.asp of demographics. Not until modern times did the population of those countries where the Inquisitions existed approach 95 million.

cc : PastorAIO

Why you'd idiotically go and mention me in such a daft post is beyond me. But I can forgive, so let's just ignore that.

Something that I ought to point out to you though is the meaning of the word 'decimate'. To decimate means to kill one out of every ten people.

So if you decimate millions of people you are actually probably only killing Thousands. Please excuse my pedantry,

Ubenedictus:
he may either sanction it or allow it.

What exactly is the difference between 'Sanction' and 'Allow'?

PastorAIO:
Why don't you go to the place where they are making those claims about the inquisition and debunk the claims there?

I haven't read anybody say that Inquisition killed millions here. Only you came with this:



Why you'd idiotically go and mention me in such a daft post is beyond me. But I can forgive, so let's just ignore that.

Something that I ought to point out to you though is the meaning of the word 'decimate'. To decimate means to kill one out of every ten people.

So if you decimate millions of people you are actually probably only killing Thousands. Please excuse my pedantry,

His insinuation was that the Inquisition decimated millions because it has to be the worst terror unleashed on mankind by Religion . And its not even up to 50,000 deaths I think . Its not a daft post cos Im pretty sure you didnt know either .

And Mister your definition of 'decimate' is obsolete . The word now means to kill in large proportion . Try to keep it up

KingEbukasBlog:
His insinuation was that the Inquisition decimated millions because it has to be the worst terror unleashed on mankind by Religion . And its not even up to 50,000 deaths I think . Its not a daft post cos Im pretty sure you didnt know either .

And Mister your definition of 'decimate' is obsolete . The word now means to kill in large proportion . Try to keep it up

It's funny that that is what you got from reading his posts because I didn't get that:

Yungbitz:
Religion remains to me the most insane of insanities..the worse form of insanity..and it is pertinent to state that all religions have exercised Violence and displayed Terror mongering behavioral dispositions..only Time and Epoch differs...its the Arabs Epoch..not too long ago Christianity held us hostages from Europe to America


Really? To Every Era, to its conflict..historians still remember The Inquisition amongst other reign of terror ordained by different religious sects vividly

At no point do I recall him stating any numbers, or even estimating or guestimating in the thousands not to talk of millions.
It's called straw man tactics when you address something that is not even an issue and you try to make it the issue. Why are you resorting to such twisting tactics? What are you hiding? What are you afraid of?

I would ignore your comment about whether or not I know how many people died in the inquisition if it were not for a curious observation that I've made. What is this obsession amongst 'christians' about who knows what, or who knew what first, and who is teaching who? It is not only you, but a common thread I've noticed amongst you fake religionists. Apart from the fact that it, again, has nothing to do with the topic being discussed you lot keep bringing it up. I suspect that it has it's roots from feeling stupid deep down and you are trying to compensate for the idiotic feeling you get when you attempt to defend your ludicrous beliefs.

Anyway, decimate means to kill one in ten people from the latin word Decem. From which we also get words like Decades, Decimal. If you read somewhere that it is used in a sense that flouts its true meaning then you have a choice. but the facts remain. Like I said, it's pedantry on my part, but it really irritates the hell out of me.

PastorAIO:
It's funny that that is what you got from reading his posts because I didn't get that:



At no point do I recall him stating any numbers, or even estimating or guestimating in the thousands not to talk of millions.
It's called straw man tactics when you address something that is not even an issue and you try to make it the issue. Why are you resorting to such twisting tactics? What are you hiding? What are you afraid of?

I would ignore your comment about whether or not I know how many people died in the inquisition if it were not for a curious observation that I've made. What is this obsession amongst 'christians' about who knows what, or who knew what first, and who is teaching who? It is not only you, but a common thread I've noticed amongst you fake religionists. Apart from the fact that it, again, has nothing to do with the topic being discussed you lot keep bringing it up. I suspect that it has it's roots from feeling stupid deep down and you are trying to compensate for the idiotic feeling you get when you attempt to defend your ludicrous beliefs.

Anyway, decimate means to kill one in ten people from the latin word Decem. From which we also get words like Decades, Decimal. If you read somewhere that it is used in a sense that flouts its true meaning then you have a choice. but the facts remain. Like I said, it's pedantry on my part, but it really irritates the hell out of me.

Thanks for Elucidating and making the already Comprehensive even more Comprehensible to Mr Ebuka..When certain religionist run out of points to defend the flaws of their sects, they often resort to hide and seek tactics or lay all at the altar of faith and belief with no room for Objective scrutiny..."Violence is a salient feature present in all Religion..only Time n Epoch differ".Anthony Sylvester(2015)..take that to the bank Mr Ebuka

KingEbukasBlog:
I know but the number is not that much . It should not be less than 50,000 . Here are world populations , we can assume the population of the world from (1200 - 1500) AD were 400 million .

So try reason am

Beginning in the 19th century, historians have gradually compiled statistics drawn from the surviving court records, from which estimates have been calculated by adjusting the recorded number of convictions by the average rate of document loss for each time period. Gustav Henningsen and Jaime Contreras studied the records of the Spanish Inquisition, which list 44,674 cases of which 826 resulted in executions in person and 778 in effigy (i.e. a straw dummy was burned in place of the person). William Monter estimated there were 1000 executions between 1530–1630 and 250 between 1630–1730. Jean-Pierre Dedieu studied the records of Toledo's tribunal, which put 12,000 people on trial. For the period prior to 1530, Henry Kamen estimated there were about 2,000 executions in all of Spain's tribunals. Italian Renaissance history professor and Inquisition expert Carlo Ginzburg had his doubts about using statistics to reach a judgment about the period. “In many cases, we don’t have the evidence, the evidence has been lost,” said Ginzburg. - Inquisition , Statistics , Wikipedia.com

At no point did I give figures and as Carlo Ginzburg rightly said,statistics aren't reliable.moreover,religious violence aren't limited to the Inquisition alone..that is just one of many atrocities..these atrocities still live with us in one form or the other now and will exist ad infinitum except religion cease to exist

PastorAIO:
What exactly is the difference between 'Sanction' and 'Allow'?

They are antonyms incidentally they are also synonyms

omonnakoda:
They are antonyms incidentally they are also synonyms

So in the context that he used it, which one was it/ antonym or synonym.


I said:

If God is all powerful then nothing happens that is not sanctioned by him.


to which he replied:
he may either sanction it or allow it.


I doubt that he is using them as antonyms because he would logically be following my use of the word.

However if they were synonyms then why does he make a contrast between Allow or Sanction.

PastorAIO:
What exactly is the difference between 'Sanction' and 'Allow'?

TO sanction is to authoritatively approve, to allow is simplier, to let it be. Example, God sanctions my existence and allows my faults.