₦airaland Forum

Just to point out something here:

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Now how does any of those killings you mentioned become unlawful if it is the law itself that sanctions them?[/quote]Agreed, the law sanctioned those killings, making the act at that time lawful indeed. However, your implicit submission here implies that God has failed to meet one of the criteria you set for him (a result of trying to define God). It is the criteria that says:

"It must not waver and must not change with the wind i.e. what was once evil will not suddenly become good and vice versa(note this is different from it's permissiveness)"

Today, we all know Jesus supposedly came to redefine certain things concerning the law (the story of the adulterous woman readily comes to mind). This therefore implies that God indeed wavered and changed with the wind. What was once good (and permissive) suddenly became evil (and not permissive).

lmao. Mr Anony has tried his best, really. Isn't it telling that many of his brethren simply avoided this thread like a plague? It would have been better if he had simply gone the usual route of proclaiming that all his God-related beliefs are simply by faith, not logic, and he would have avoided all these long back and forth arguments.

A little advice from Pastor AIO:

Pastor AIO: If you stopped trying to define God and stopped taking seriously those that do then you might find it a lot easier to deal with the evolution of morality. Or the evolution of absolutely everything else.

While my people still wallow in superstitions and nonsensical beliefs, there are curious minds elsewhere working so hard day and night to help us understand things like this better, exploring practical steps on how to solve these problems.

[size=14pt]Brain Chemicals That Cause Sleep Paralysis Discovered[/size]
Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer
Date: 17 July 2012 Time: 05:04 PM ET

During the most dream-filled phase of sleep, our muscles become paralyzed, preventing the body from acting out what's going on in the brain. Now, researchers have discovered the brain chemicals that keep the body still in sleep.

The findings could be helpful for treating sleep disorders, the scientists report Wednesday (July 18) in The Journal of Neuroscience.

The brain chemicals kick into action during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, a phase that usually begins about 90 minutes into a night's rest. During REM, the brain is very active, and dreams are at their most intense. But the voluntary muscles of the body — arms, legs, fingers, anything that is under conscious control — are paralyzed.

[size=14pt]This paralysis keeps people still even as their brains are acting out fantastical scenarios; it's also the reason people sometimes experience sleep paralysis, or the experience of waking up while the muscles are still frozen.[/size] This sensation has been the basis for myths such as the succubus and the incubus, demons said to pin people down in their sleep, usually to have s[i]e[/i]x with them.

The chemistry of sleep

Exactly how the muscles are paralyzed has been a mystery, however. Early studies pegged a neurotransmitter called glycine as the culprit, but paralysis still occurred even when the receptors that read glycine's presence were blocked, disproving that notion.

So University of Toronto researchers Patricia Brooks and John Peever cast a wider net. They focused on two different nerve receptors in the voluntary muscles, one called metabotropic GABA_B and one called ionotropic GABA_A/glycine. The latter receptor responds to both glycine and a different communication chemical called gamma-aminobutyric acid, or GABA, while the first responds to GABA and not glycine.

The researchers used drugs to "switch off" these receptors in rats and discovered that the only way to prevent sleep paralysis during REM was to shut both types off at the same time. What that means is that glycine alone isn't enough to paralyze the muscles. You need GABA, too.

Treating sleep disorders

Understanding this alphabet soup of neurotransmitters is important for people who have sleep disorders, especially an odd condition called REM behavior disorder. In this disorder, people don't become paralyzed during REM sleep. That means they act out their dreams, talking, thrashing and even punching or hitting in their sleep.

Currently, Clonazepam, an antipsychotic drug, is used to treat REM behavior disorder. The new study could point to new treatments for the problem, sleep researcher Dennis McGinty of the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study, said in a statement. The researchers hope that the results could help explain the link between REM behavior disorder and more deadly conditions.

"Understanding the precise mechanism behind these chemicals’ role in REM sleep disorder is particularly important because about 80 percent of people who have it eventually develop a neurodegenerative disease, such as Parkinson’s disease," Peever said. "REM sleep behavior disorder could be an early marker of these diseases, and curing it may help prevent or even stop their development."

http://www.livescience.com/21653-brain-chemicals-sleep-paralysis.html

An insightful one from cyrexx:

cyrexx: So what is the difference between believers and non-believers.
The same ugly character, but one erroneously believe he will go to "heaven" and condemn others with similar character to "hell".

Link: https://www.nairaland.com/981400/why-even-bother-these-atheists/5#11470103

Oh No, Front page?! No! no no and no!!!

Enigma: Therefore:

- cannibalism can be moral as it has been at some places and times.

- genocide can be moral as it has been at some places and times.

What then is your problem with "God" again?

I agree with Mazaje that morality is always dependent on place and time in history, and as you yourself rightly stated, "morality" is not possible without an objective reference point. I do see your what you're getting at here though.

However, the problem with "God" is that, considering the attributes generously bestowed upon him (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence), one would expect that his own sense of morality should easily transcend any time and place in history. According to the bible, he is the same yesterday, today and forever. Therefore, if God was "right" to have ordered genocide and slavery in the past, then by his very nature described in the bible, he still holds the same views today and tomorrow, and everyone should really be wary of him.

Now, if one of those super attributes were withdrawn, then maybe, just maybe, not many would have much "problems" with "God".

LOL! How often do we see the most caustic NL Christians open a new thread to "say sorry" ?? hmmmm, let's see. . .

- babyosisi in 2007: https://www.nairaland.com/50864/extending-handshake-babs-belloti

- Noetic15 in 2009: https://www.nairaland.com/338767/like-apologise

On both occasions, they went on to become even far more incendiary than they had ever been. babyosisi's anti-islamic threads post-2007 are especially legendary.

So will I give davidylan the benefit of the doubt? Not this time. WHY?

Here's WHY:

davidylan: So while obviously in a state of delirium from a bad flu... i have finally decided to turn a new leaf.

Hi InesQor,

Thanks for clarifying your position, and I really wish you well in your personal spiritual journey.

Cheers!

InesQor: Okay


I don't know if that was Deep Sight's point, I guess he needs to clarify by himself. Unless of course, Deep Sight is Purist under another handle.

To the point, I find it hard to believe that you think only mainstream Christians believe in God's unchanging nature. This is of course, not true. Even if it were true, I said I don't share some of the mainstream beliefs, and not that I don't share all of them. Paul's words were inspired by God, but at the end, Paul is a man and not God. Man is liable to error, but even in any case of error God can produce a beautiful and lasting piece of work. God does not change, but our understanding and relationship with Him over time evolves.

These are only my own convictions, and I do not chide or ridicule those who believe otherwise i.e. believe in female subjugation (which Jesus Christ never once taught).

I'm trying to understand you here.

In essence, you are saying that it is possible to be inspired by God and still be in error. Paul clearly spelt out the role of women in the church, which you admitted were inspired by God. But somehow, you blatantly refuse to reckon with these words. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that in you, I only feel it makes you less Christian.

InesQor: I am not talking about Menstruation. I said "bodily secretion". Bodily discharge, NOT menstruation.
For example, these laws about a gen[i]i[/i]tal discharge:

Oh, my bad. But I believe that the same argument still applies though. A man is unclean when he discharges; anything he touches becomes unclean; he is to be cleansed after seven days, etc. Like I wrote earlier, all these look more like a spiritual exercise, rather than the health reasons you allude to. If it were for health/hygiene reasons, God would simply have given a similar instruction to the ones in verse 5 - 8, 10 and 11. But no, he instead instructs that the man has to count off seven days in order to be completely clean. I believe the number 7 carries a spiritual significance in the bible.

InesQor: It does not belittle God's omnipotence. Rather, it goes to show that God is not more concerned about the issue than he is about the things in which he "enforces his will" (to use your words). Why kill a fly with a sledgehammer? God is infinite in wisdom and does not make rash decisions in an utter abuse of power.

Being omnipotent, being able to do anything; does not mean one HAS to do everything. That is an abuse of power, a corruption popular with men. True magnificent power entails letting some things be (for a time), even if they are not according to your taste.

No matter how anointed or knowledgeable about God we are, there is always so much more to learn, and we are at best fallible man. God had to explain to Peter on his visit to Cornelius house, that non-Jews were also welcome into God's family. Peter, after all, was a man and he didn't know that someday all reaches of the earth will be welcome into the family. Can we then blame Peter when in hypocrisy he refused to eat with the uncircumcised (Gal 2:11) and Paul had to rebuke him? He is, at best, even though inspired by God, STILL a man who cannot see beyond his nose. He lived in times when circumcision and uncircumcision made all the difference spiritually, and he acted according to that notion. Paul on the other hand lived in times where slavery was a normal way of life. God wasn't going to squash slavery in one day, but teaching people about true Christian living could eventually get them there.

Okay.

InesQor: And I believe you are wrong about Paul and slavery. When Onesimus, a slave, offended his master Philemon and ran away from home, do you know that Paul wrote the slavemaster a letter (the book of Philemon) asking him to take the (most likely a teenager) young man back and take him AS a brother, and Paul would pay whatever loss that entailed?

Extracts:

Paul may have been a compassionate man, but the fact remains that he did not preach against these things. Especially concerning women. He was more than clear on how he expected women to behave in the church, all under God's inspiration.

InesQor: Paul's sermon was against the acts of homose[i]x[/i]uality BECAUSE it was rampant at the time. In a world and time where some religions had heavy se[i]x[/i]ual influences, some worshipped their deities by se[i]x[/i]ual or[i]g[/i]ies and by being openly (in some cases, grossly) homose[i]x[/i]ual; it was important for a new religion that Paul distinguished the do's and don'ts. People were not to take liberty for granted. Maybe if Paul hadn't spoken up, the lines actually defining Christianity would have blurred out. Not only because of homose[i]x[/i]uality (there were many other issues he wrote about). Christianity was a tender plant in those days, and he was carefully detailing important guidelines. Today, even if a preacher tells me that homose[i]x[/i]uality is or isn't right with God, I have my personal convictions, I have the Bible, I have the faith of the fathers, I have the history of the church etc. Christianity has gone a long way already. I digress but I hope you see the point.

Okay I see the point, but we seem to be at cross purposes regarding this. Let's be clear here: Being a homösexual person does not mean that one blatantly engages in wild acts of gay örgies, just as being a heterosexual does necessarily not mean that one goes about poking their tool in every hole they see (I'm sure you know this already). Now, having said that, are you saying that Paul was only concerned about their acts of debauchery? Are you saying that Paul did not preach against being a homösexual (just by sexual preference)? If this is the case, why is the vast majority of Christians clearly against just being gay and also against gay unions? You also said yourself that you although you're not homophobic, you do not encourage homosexuality. This seems to me to mean that you see homosexuality as a bad thing. Am I right? If yes, why?

InesQor: Like most respectable theologians (though I'm not one but I have read works of quite some), I do not take the story of creation in Genesis absolutely literally. It is partly tradition and partly (yet deeply) allegorical. In a Jewish community where the women were being subjugated, it is only natural that they will have religious traditions that explain why, in order to keep keeping them under.

It is often hard for people to understand that the Jews didn't see things the way we see them. Say, look at Christ's teachings. He would explain a truth using a story that may never have happened. The lesson in the story is what he's getting at, and NOT the words in themselves. But we, who are heavily influenced by the Western world, think everything is literal. The Bible contains accounts of experiences, and whether you take them literally or not, the lesson in the account is always what it is getting at. The gospel authors wrote of Jesus' stories and they called them parables. If the parables had not been labelled "parables" in his case, today we would be believing all those parables really happened. Like some Christians argue that the "Lazarus and the rich man" story actually happened.

I believe to get the best out of the Bible, we need to look at it the way the Jews did. The Bible contains literal as well as allegorical contents, and the impression it leaves on you when you encounter it, is what matters most. As 2 Corinthians 3:6 says, the letter kills and the Spirit gives life.

Come on man, don't play this card. InesQor, who determines which part of the bible is literal and which is not? Why do I have the feeling that the literalness of biblical texts is actually dependent on how comfortable we personally are with the words in it? What makes your own interpretation more valid than the next person's? Are you saying that you do not believe the events in the Garden of Eden to be true?

Even if the whole story were really allegorical as you say, it still does not take away from the fact that a statement allegorically made by God alluded to women (wives) being inferior to men (husbands). So I ask again: How do you reconcile your personal convictions with the following statement?

"...Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Genesis 3:16

InesQor: If you want to convince us that there are relevant verses subjugating women, refer us to any teachings of Christ on the matter; which to me is where true Christianity (by definition) is found.

Cheers

Are the teachings of other prophets and apostles to be discarded then? If they are not useful or valid (as you seem to imply), why are they in the bible? You appear to me to be practising very selective Christianity. You only pick and follow the parts that go down well with you and dismiss the others as being a result of "culture" or "tradition", or outrightly dismiss them as "allegorical." So true Christianity cannot be found in the words of Paul, et al?

Thanks for your explanation, InesQor. I really find most of your persuasions to be both interesting and refreshing, but I have a few issues to address:

InesQor: Hi Purist,

Thanks for your riposte. I am not a "mainstream" Christian, as some of my beliefs don't align with general practice / belief. Sometimes I simply refer to myself as a Theist.


These are my own convictions, and I didn't exactly say his backward era inspired anything. Rather, I said he lived in those times. In order to directly address to the people he was talking to, he needed to pertinently reference their germane issues. However, as I showed from Gal 3:28, he balanced it by telling them "Hey guys this is what obtains generally, but this is what God really wants". Thus, He was ahead of the culture.


Yes I believe the Bible is entirely inspired by God, and I believe the same for some other religious text. And all are similar to how marvelous works of art and many other inventions and technological breakthroughs have been inspired by God. The desire of a human/the illumination from God, and then the human expresses the light within them. This will of course entail some of the human's background of experiences...


Yes, GOD is the same yesterday, today and forever. But man is not. And our understanding is not. We grow in progressive enlightenment.

As Deep Sight subtly pointed out, it really does appear incongruous to admit that you believe God to be the same yesterday, today and forever, and yet claim not to be a "mainstream" Christian. Regarding your main points however, I'd say that if God is indeed the same yesterday, today and forever, then I do not think that Paul's injunctions about the role of women in the church are simply a matter of man's understanding. If Paul's words were indeed inspired by God, regardless of how much our understanding has evolved over time, those words should still hold true till date. This is apparently what "mainstream" Christians believe (and they are in the vast majority), and it's exactly why we are having this discussion in the first place.

InesQor: Paul in Gal 3:28 said that all are equal in Christ Jesus. THIS was the eternal truth but man was not yet ready to accept it.

Here on NL, I once illustrated how that in the Israelites' early days, God gave them some laws that didn't seem to make sense e.g. someone with a bodily secretion should be separated from the camp and washed until properly inspected and declared clean. In those ancient days, the world civilizations knew nothing about micro-organisms. It would make no sense for us to expect that Leveticus would state that this is to prevent the spread of micro-organisms, these tiny creatures that cannot be seen by the human eye. God knew the END, but he patiently waited until man caught up.

However, as I like to say,
Truth makes its ingress into a human mind in the ratio by which man has attained a capacity to appreciate it.

I see your point, and I understand it quite well. However, regarding your example about the menstruation law in the Old Testament, I'm not quite sure this is what that verse seeks to portray, and I'm fairly certain not many Christians would agree with you on this. At best, it's a soothing apologist explanation.

While you're right that ancient civilizations might have been ignorant about the existence of micro-organisms, I'm afraid that law has more to it than the mere prevention of infections. If it really was about micro-organisms, the law would certainly have been more explicit in its explanation by giving a simplistic reason, rather than seek to cast the women away for SEVEN whole days only to be "purified" thereafter, thus giving an impression of a spiritual exercise and not the health reasons you allude to. We see similar laws given for pregnant women too after delivering their baby. Contrast your explanation with Ezekiel 36:17:

"Son of man, when the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman's monthly uncleanness in my sight." (NIV)

Hope you get my drift.

InesQor: I see the same thing applicable in this case. God knew what he wanted, and Paul knew God's heart. But they had to deal with the CURRENT society, which was still bound to slavery and women domination. The best Paul could do was to entreat peace by asking Slaves to obey, and their Masters to be gentle with them and forgive their wrong (e.g. Philemon). Similarly, he asked that husbands love their wives and wives submit to them. It was all temporary until man was ready to reach beyond their mental captivity.

Unlike (many) mainstream Christians, I am not homophobic, but I don't encourage homosexuality either.

I admit, but I do not consent or approve homosexuality, but I am against homophobia.

As to Paul's letters on homosexuality, it was a rampant thing in Corinthian churches and he was laying down guidelines for the new church to follow, in the new religion. Now, we must understand that joining a church means that you agree with their tenets; just like it is with any other organization. If a member of any organization feels different about an important mission or their vision, it is most wise for them to exit the organization and/or found theirs. I see nothing wrong with Paul talking about homosexuality, it is not a new issue, it is a matter that has apparently been in view since the Stone Age. It is totally accepted in some cultures or religious worldviews, but their own God wanted Jews and then Christians to be different. The new church needed to distinguish itself from the rot of the Roman Age of lasciviousness (if you have watched either series: Rome or the famed Sparcatus, the debauchery is portrayed in very similar light to history).

Now, as I said on another thread about public faith, there may be a serious problem if you think someone's personal sexual preference is more of a problem for God than injustice, people suffering, people wallowing in under-potential, unfair wages and heavy taxes on the poor. Paul did not harp on homosexuality to the detriment of other [/i]important items of faith. God is concerned about the wellbeing of people, and not more about their sexual preferences.

Talking about well-being, Sodom and Gomorrah was another case entirely; it was a city of wickedness, because people were molested, ra[i]pe[/i]d and solicited against their consent to perform illict acts of se[i]x. What people do in their closets is their own problem, but when a child or an adult, any member of society, is affected by someone else's PERSONAL decisions, then it is no longer a personal decision.

Wherever homosexual beliefs may affect the choices of straight citizens, or minors are being corrupted by their decisions; I will [b]immediately [/b]put my foot down against homosexuality. Besides this, it is their business and they are making their choices in freewill. I believe if it is wrong, God will do the right thing.

I believe the important thing for God is for us not to "get lost" and lose sight of life and God; lose sight of what really matters. If it is sexual preferences (or bigotry towards those with sexual preferences) or the ego (slavery or woman domination), then they have to go as well.

I give you thumbs up for this part. It's really difficult to come across a Christian that is not homophobic.

However, I believe that using the "God was waiting for man to catch up" argument does not seem so sound to me. As a matter of fact, it appears to belittle God's omnipotence, especially as he has been shown to enforce his own will whenever he wishes. Meaning that if he really wanted man to understand right away the implication of his laws (such as in your micro-organism argument), it certainly wouldn't have been a big deal for him at all. Also, I think it would only have been right if Paul had stood his ground and spoken out against these ills, rather than play along just because the people were not ready for the truth. They could have dealt with the CURRENT society by preaching what was really moral. If Paul was really ahead of his time, he would not be encouraging slaves to obey their masters; he would have preached against slavery outrightly. If he really was ahead of his time, he would not be silencing women in the church simply because that was what obtained in his day; he would have advocated for their emancipation! The people that fought against slavery and for women's rights in the past centuries did so amid overwhelming opposition to their cause. These were the people that were really ahead of their time. Paul the Apostle, in my opinion, was certainly not in this mould.

Having said that, Paul appeared to preach about homosexuality in the same light that it was condemned in the Old Testament. His sermon was against the act of homosexuality in itself, and not because it was a rampant thing. I stand to be corrected though.

InesQor: A feminist is basically one who allows or supports a female in the pursuit of the exploration of her own choices, as opposed to those imposed on her by her family or society or some unwritten laws and expectations of other people.

Feminism in its true sense means the freedom for a female to be human. Just like males are human

But just like Christianity has lost some of it's meaning in some circles, feminism has also been corrupted and slighted in its meaning.

Jesus Christ never turned the women and children away or put them into subjection, in a society where nobody would have blinked or complained if he ever did. Thus, he was feminist in the true sense of the word. And since Christianity is about patterning your life after the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, it is therefore no oxymoron to be Christian and Feminist.

Okay, so how do you reconcile your own personal convictions with this verse and others like it:

“To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Genesis 3:16

Note that, that was God himself talking this time. (not Paul )

Two wonderful topics by Deep Sight:

- The Noetic Interview: Questions On Humanity And The Quality Of Goodness
https://www.nairaland.com/336988/noetic-interview-questions-humanity-quality

^^ Here, that Noetic fellow is rightly exposed for the hypocrite that he is (or was). I recommend this thread to anyone that is still scared of hell fire, eternal torment, etc. This should help quench those fears.

- Noetic, Purist, Lets Discuss Freewill & Predestination.
https://www.nairaland.com/428003/noetic-purist-lets-discuss-freewill

^^ This one would have been a great thread, but it appears the discussants lost interest too quickly. Even at that, I felt in the two pages it lasted, the fraudulent concepts of freewill and predestination as espoused by Christianity were soundly dealt with.

Hi InesQor,

Honestly, I'm relieved to know that there are still Christians like you around that do not hold such primitive and misogynistic views. If only there were many more people with this mindset in the Christendom, the world would really be a better place and you probably wouldn't have atheists and the likes constantly breathing down your necks as much as they currently do.

Having said that, I think you run the risk of irking your fellow Christians with some of your remarks, especially the bit about Paul's backward era being a factor that inspired some of his teachings. It is believed by all Christians - including yourself I suppose - that the bible and all contained in it is entirely inspired by God. This then implies that Paul's teachings must also have been inspired by God himself, which should definitely transcend any culture or civilization and still hold true in any era no matter what. God is supposed to be the same yesterday, today and forever.

Also, if we go by your reasoning, is it safe to conclude then that all his sermons against 'vices' like homosexuality were also as a result of the backward culture in which Paul found himself? Note that apart from the Sodom and Gomorrah story in the OT, Paul's teachings about homosexuality are the most used and quoted today to justify homophobia, within Christianity at least. Shall we then dismiss those teachings as well on the same grounds that you dismissed the teaching about women's roles, especially as you yourself pointed out that "he perfectly understood God's dream for equality in humanity." ??

Note that I'm only curious about how you manage to reconcile your personal beliefs with the teachings in the bible, because I personally feel that "Christian feminist" is an oxymoron.

“..Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you” Genesis 3:16

The Church of England is procrastinating whether women deserve equal promotion to senior clergy, initially proposing legislation that would mean “it would have enshrined in law the very prejudices against which supporters of female bishops have battled so long. It would, they say, create a two-tier system in which not only female bishops, but men who ordained women or who had themselves been ordained by women, would be considered second-rate.” Meanwhile in Afghanistan, Taliban tribesmen are using ‘Sharia’ law to execute women ‘accused’ of adultery. Religions the world over proclaim peace and equality whilst consistently using their beliefs to promote power and control of women.

As someone who was indoctrinated into an Abrahamic faith from a very young age, I have my issues with religion and whether it can ever be considered supportive of the feminist cause. God is masculine. His first human was male. His first female wasn’t designed exclusively of her own flesh and bone; she was created from one of man’s ribs. In another tradition, Eve is described as being the second wife of Adam. Lilith was God’s first female creation, an equal; she refused to ‘sleep or serve under him’ and was banished for knowing her own mind. This version of events is not in any of the holy books. When God is a man (and a blond blue eyed one, at that) and all the prophets, disciples and saints (more or less) are also men, as a woman you face one of two choices. Accept that man is wiser; pure and blessed, and revere him as the creator and administrator of the life force OR open your eyes, revel in your ability to create fullstop and accept you might have been a little duped by the men holding the pens who, 2-3000 years ago orchestrated the abomination that is the subjugation of women through ‘original sin’.

Read more: http://samambreen./2012/07/09/monotheism-and-the-war-on-women/

My favourite theists in no particular order:

- KunleOshob: Very honest Christian. His crusade against the ecclesiastical fraud called "Tithe" has evidently opened so many eyes here on Nairaland and beyond. For that singular reason alone, he deserves a medal.

- Davidylan: Highly intelligent fellow. Aggressive, plain, appears to have a burning passion for Christ. I always imagine what his keyboard would look like, as I am constantly under the impression that he hits the keys so hard especially while debating Muslims and atheists. He would have been the perfect Jihadist, were he a Muslim. The footsoldiers of Mohammed would love to have someone like him in their ranks.

- Jesoul: Very objective and honest Christian. Always calm, always a breath of fresh air on any thread she participates. I love her approach to Christianity. She exudes so much wisdom. She's one of those few Christians that don't go about trying to use some faulty logic to justify their beliefs.

- Uyi Iredia: Intellectual Christian, although he nurses some questionable beliefs. A decent Christian apologist at best. Often ends up "discombobulating" issues with some strange logic. Reminds me somewhat of my old Christian self. I see him turning to either deism, agnosticism, atheism or full pantheism some day.

- Viaro: Extremely knowledgeable fellow. Way too knowledgeable and intelligent to be a religionist (IMHO).

- Pilgrim.1: Reminds me every bit of shahan, an ancient Nairalander (from writing style to shared opinions and beliefs). Highly intelligent woman, she is.

- Pastor AIO: His username often confuses a lot of people (I've seen many people refer to him as a "fake" pastor ). One of the wisest men and possibly the most misunderstood fella on this forum.

- Deep Sight: Behold, the literary giant of Nairaland! Eloquent, articulate, painstaking, and of course, verbose . He always delivers his points so perfectly, even when he's wrong . Certainly one of the brightest minds I've ever come across. I often find myself wondering what he looks like in real life.

- MyJoe: This man has the aura of some old sage. Whenever his name pops up on any thread, always expect to read something profound from him. His cool demeanour is also something I really admire.

- Anony: Logical and very calm. He's one of those that although I hardly agree with anything he posts, I often look forward to reading them.

- OlaAjia: This guy cannot possibly be a theist, much less a Muslim! He is exceedingly objective in his thoughts, and he's also very articulate and intelligent as well.

- Debosky: Not a regular here, but I find him a really exciting Christian. He's like your typical "Hey, I know this stuff doesn't make sense to you, but I believe it anyway". Much like Jesoul. Doesn't go around attempting to explain away things with some apologetic hogwash.

- Enigma: When he's not harping on evangelical atheists and how much of a "fool" they are, he often makes sense too.

- Joagbaje: As much as he tries, he does a pretty awful job of defending his pay master (Oyakhilome) on Nairaland. But I like him nonetheless. He's probably the most vilified Christian on this board, yet, I don't recall ever seeing him respond in kind. If there's anything like heaven, I reckon he'll get in before most of those that constantly attack him here.

May 3, 2012. . . the following conversation ensued:

davidylan: and why exactly do you think america abandoned space research if it is as promising as you say it is? [size=14pt]What groundbreaking research has CERN come up with to improve our knowledge of how the earth came about by random chaos?[/size]

How exactly do you think voyagers will find something in space worth researching if they cant even get there?

Absurd.

Avicenna: Abeg,read my post properly before replying.
$$$ is the hindrance. America has not abandoned its space research. What it abandoned was a CERN-like project because of $$$ again. [size=14pt]Don't look down on CERN[/size],I am ashamed my country can not even mount a research like that if they wanted to. Check out the Nobel prize winners(when working with CERN) and the nobel laureates working on it. It will do you well to research on their groundbreaking discoveries. Most are even kept away from the public. Afterall,it is a nuclear facility.
One rover was equipped with instrument to test for life on mars. Some will remain travelling till after 2020 and beyond. Please just do the research.
As for your insults,everyone know the kind of person you are. I refuse to get in a mudfight with you.

davidylan: your post is a lot of words but very little said. America has practically given up on government-sponsored space research because after 60 yrs of trying, we still arent any closer to whether we have aliens in space, water on mars or how we virtually appeared out of thin air to land on just one out of hundreds of planets out there. Epic fail!
[size=14pt]and what exactly has CERN achieved that has brought us any closer to figuring out how we came to be?[/size] Why cant you provide evidence when asked rather than the cowardly approach of asking others to "research" (the refuge of the clueless).

Huh the rover testing for life on mars has found exactly what? Epic fail.

Avicenna: ? [size=14pt]'Out of thin air' 'what has CERN achieved?' are you kidding me?[/size]
Dude,you seriously have comprehension problems.
I rarely click on links here so I won't provide links. Anybody that wants to acquire knowledge should be ready to search for it. If you can log on to Nairaland, it will take you less than a minute to google up results.

davidylan: thanks for the tepid excuse but you really wont provide links because you really dont know. Under all the stup[i]i[/i]d blustering is a whole lot of stupefying ignorance. Why cant you at least give us 2 well known CERN conclusions on the origins of man or the earth? surely you dont need links to make a factual statement that we can go research later no?

[size=14pt]Again i ask, what has CERN contributed to our knowledge of man's origin?[/size]

Please stup that cowardly, nauseating claptrap about saying we shld go research... if you dont know, its ok to say so.

Purist: Well, nothing concrete at the moment. [size=14pt]But they are getting quite close to finding that elusive "God particle"[/size], which may very well turn out to be one of the biggest discoveries of the century. One of the engineers at CERN recently said that [size=14pt]the particle may be discovered in a matter of months[/size]. Keep your fingers crossed.

davidylan: or which may well turn out to the world's largest hoax. What does the "God particle" tell you? [size=14pt]they've been "mighty close" since i was 10 yrs old. Next?[/size]

July 4, 2012: Exactly two months later. . .

[size=14pt]Higgs boson-like particle discovery claimed at LHC[/size]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18702455

Oh wow. Just saw this now, I'll be back to give my list.

Deep Sight: PS: I would certainly have put purist at the top of my list, but I am not certain of what he is: he hates labels. Profound, and clear, is what I would call him.

hehe. I'm gradually coming to terms with the "atheist" label, although I still think it's not so necessary.

BRB.

That glossolalia can be learned is also seen in the traces left behind by teachers. An investigation by the Lutheran Medical Center in Brooklyn showed that the influence of a particular leader can shape a group's glossolalia: where certain prominent glossolalists had visited, whole groups of glossolalists would speak in his style of speech.

Sounds totally like something out of Christ Embassy.

Purist: Personally, I have often had the impression that religious and/or supernatural experiences are a result of the brain playing some tricks. . . . However, I also strongly believe that by fiddling with a few neurons here and there, these religious experiences (speaking in tongues, talking to God, "feeling" God, seeing angels, hearing voices, etc) may be reproduced and shown to be nothing particularly extraordinary, and by implication, shown to be unreal.

With respect to the bold part, I am currently reading a Dean Koontz novel, and I came across a word today for the first time -- Glossolalia.

According to Dr. William T. Samarin, professor of anthropology and linguistics at the University of Toronto,

glossolalia consists of strings of meaningless syllables made up of sounds taken from those familiar to the speaker and put together more or less haphazardly .... Glossolalia is language-like because the speaker unconsciously wants it to be language-like. Yet in spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia fundamentally is not language (Nickell, 108).

When spoken by schizophrenics, glossolalia are recognized as gibberish. In charismatic Christian communities glossolalia is sacred and referred to as "speaking in tongues" or having "the gift of tongues."
Source: http://www.skepdic.com/glossol.html

[size=14pt]Scientific explanations[/size]

Scientific explanations for these physical and psychological phenomena have been suggested, including mental illness, hypnosis, and learned behavior.

(1) Neuroscience
In 2006, the brains of a group of individuals were scanned while they were speaking in tongues. Activity in the language centers of the brain decreased, while activity in the emotional centers of the brain increased. Activity in the area of control decreased. There were no changes in any language areas, suggesting that glossolalia is not associated with usual language function.

<<snip>>

(3) Hypnosis
Some kind of hypnosis or trance has often been suggested as the explanation for glossolalia. Much glossolalia takes place in heightened states, whether in Pentecostal Christian or non-Christian contexts. But glossolalia does not require a state of hypnosis or trance.
. . . .
A New Zealand researcher, Heather Kavan, found that whether a person experienced trance or hypnosis depended on the type of group with which they were affiliated. Kavan found that most New Zealand Pentecostals and Charismatics did not experience trance except during the baptism of the spirit. However, meditators in a yoga-based purification group experienced frequent intense trances, of which glossolalia was an occasional manifestation. Kavan suggested that there are two types of glossolalia– spontaneous and context-dependent– and the former is more likely to occur in groups that are radical, experiential and charismatically led.

(4) Learned behavior
. . . .

The admittedly fraudulent preacher Marjoe Gortner described in a 1977 interview how people learn glossolalia in a highly emotional religious setting.

"Tongues is something you learn," he emphasized. "It is a releasing that you teach yourself. You are told by your peers, the church, and the Bible -- if you accept it literally -- that the Holy Ghost speaks in another tongue; you become convinced that it is the ultimate expression of the spirit flowing through you. The first time maybe you'll just go dut-dut-dut-dut, and that's about all that will get out. Then you'll hear other people and next night you may go dut-dut-dut-UM-dut-DEET-dut-dut, and it gets a little better. The next thing you know, it's ela-hando-satelay-eek-condele-mosandrey-aseya ... and it's a new language you've got down."

That glossolalia can be learned is also seen in the traces left behind by teachers. An investigation by the Lutheran Medical Center in Brooklyn showed that the influence of a particular leader can shape a group's glossolalia: where certain prominent glossolalists had visited, whole groups of glossolalists would speak in his style of speech.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#Scientific_explanations

OlaAjia: It's an ongoing process. To be precise, I have merely scratched the surface, but even then, I still have some pretty disillusioning doubts which I fear might eventually lead me further away. I find this process interesting, tasking, somewhat uncomfortable, emotionally draining, occasionally scary, also enjoyable and most of all, genuine. It's my personal quest!

I was able to start it when I summoned up the courage to strip my mind of all fear of the afterlife. That feeling itself was liberating, but beyond that, it gave me an 'excuse' to subject my belief system to appraisal.

All these uncannily sound a whole lot like what I experienced exactly during my own 'soul searching' and transition as well. Especially the part in red. I honestly wish you well in your quest bro.

I just dropped by to say that OlaAjia is the most objective (and possibly the most intelligent) Muslim I've ever come across.

(I remember his posts and e-battles with the likes of babyosisi, davidylan, TayoD, 4get_me, etc from back in the day.)

Oh and by the way, that was an excellent piece by Cyrexx.

^^ Sure, can't fault that at all. I agree with you there.

Kay 17: I don't think their sacrifice was for gratification, they are largely anonymous and forgotten. They were the only ones available to clean up and they took it as a sacrifice without honours.

I meant self-interest, but I see your point anyway.

Enigma: @Kay17

Bear in mind also that Jesus was addressing people who came to listen to Him --- i.e. people who believed in Him at least in some way.

Thus He was addressing the 'love thy neighbour as yourself' statement to people who already had a decent idea of goodness and a decent conscience.

Thus it would be unreasonable to think that the statement should be construed with the background of the conceptions of perverts and people with a seared conscience about love.

Unless it's recorded somewhere, we cannot be entirely sure of the exact kind of audience Jesus had whilst giving that admonition. Having being reported to have wined and dined with all manner of sinners, it is not out of place to assume that there could have indeed been perverts and psychopaths present with him, especially given that he categorically stated that he came for the lost sheep of Israel.

Kay 17: ^^^
I agree with you partially. I watched a documentary on the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and saw people (the liquidators) selflessly exposing themselves to deadly radiation to contain the radiation from spreading across Europe.

These ppl must have felt that urgency, percieved the helpless of the potential victims and also making a mental calculation that sacrificing themselves was a small price in saving the world for little or no praise.

Sometimes Love is the purest instinct.

Interesting, but I still think your story is in line with my persuasions. They felt the urgency and made mental calculations in a deadly situation to help other people, most likely because of the satisfaction they would derive from their daring acts, knowing that they just saved the world, even if that gratification would be the very last thing they would experience before dying. They felt good about themselves knowing they were engaged in a worthy and noble cause.

I do not deny that love is, or could be the purest instinct. I just think that this instinct could be engendered by an innate trait of selfishness we all probably possess. I may be wrong though.

Martian: Under every "sacrificial" act is a motivation. And that motivation is still "self interest". Even acts of charity can be traced back to the feelings they give the person.
Humans rise for their loved ones because of their "self interest" not to lose the loved one.
Humans have died for their countries in times of war in order to protect their "self interest". I've been to war,and it was "self interest" every single time I stepped into that war zone.

Funny enough, I actually share the same sentiment. I have always been of the belief that humans (and probably every other animal out there) are inherently selfish. I believe that when people do things out of "love" or "sacrifice", when we do good generally, it's probably because it makes us feel good ultimately. The sense of satisfaction - that gratification - that comes with the knowledge that you did something worthwhile is usually an incentive to always want to continue in that path. Some people don't feel this sense of satisfaction, they see and feel no need to be good or do good, and so they usually don't bother. These are the people we see as "mean". At the end of the day, it's really about us - ourselves.

I actually think "love your neighbour as yourself" is a sound teaching. The only problem I see with it is that it is impracticable in the world we live in, as not everyone even really "loves" their own selves in the generally accepted sense of the word. This is in line with logicboy's earlier submission that some people do really horrible things to themselves that give them maximum pleasure and satisfaction. Shall we then admonish this lot to "love" their neighbours in the same manner that they "love" themselves?

Just few issues I feel I should address:

Uyi Iredia: * Your anticipation of my reasoning is correct. I await a proper rebuttal.

My "proper rebuttal" has faded already. You keep disappearing for days, only to suddenly show up and then disappear again!

However. . . I do hope you understand the implication of your logic here. I have a feeling you only said that in order to appear consistent with your persuasions and arguments on this thread, and not because you really believe it to be so. I'll rebut with two examples:

(1) There is a growing number of Christians who strongly support and advocate for the doctrine of Universalism. Bear in mind that this doctrine is barely supported, if at all, by the bible. Yet, it is advocated for by Christians. Would you, in all honesty, consider this to be a Christian teaching? Remember that you mentioned here previously that you believe in the concept of Hell Fire - eternal torment & damnation - (which runs antithetical to this doctrine), and which I believe YOU consider to be THE true Christian teaching.

(2) There are currently many gay churches and gay Christians who actively oppose the Church's stand on homosexuality. This set of Christians not only believe that homosexu[i]a[/i]lity is NOT a sin, and that the bible does not condemn it, they also actively advocate for the establishment of gay marriages. Based on this, and going by your reasoning, I guess it safe to assume that the belief that homosexuality is NOT a sin is a ratified Christian teaching; and that homosexuality is perfectly okay, and gay marriage is totally in line with the ideals of Christianity. After all, these things are advocated for by Christians. If you disagree, then I expect that you'd easily see the flaw in your own argument all along. If you agree that it is a Christian teaching, then I'd be forced to consider you as plain dishonest.

Uyi Iredia: * Nonsense ! The only irreligious people I know are atheists. Agnostics don't count because theirs is an epistemological position not a metaphysical one.

How dare you forget the deists?!

Uyi Iredia: BTW, it's obvious you don't agree with my points given thus far.

<<< On a solemn note now. . . >>>

Dear Uyi,

Frankly speaking, I must confess that I have lost steam for this argument already. I find that I have repeated virtually the same points over and over, but we seem to be on separate planes as regards this discourse, thus, making it impossible for us to reach an accord. Should the discussion take a new dimension eventually, or another angle be introduced later on, I may be willing to chip in a few things, meaning I will continue to monitor this thread for new developments. But for now, I think I'm done.

I still maintain my stand though, that it is absolutely fallacious to argue that atheism is a religion. The acts, practices and/or opinions of individual atheists do not suffice to categorize atheism as a religion, otherwise, we might just as well label every other secular/mundane practices as religious. Proselytizing does not suffice either.

I also find it slightly amusing that despite admitting to being 'perfectly aware' of the different types of atheists there are, you still persist with your argument. It would be completely absurd, for example, to put the religion tag on an apathetic agnostic, all in a bid to accommodate atheism as a religion.

Lastly, I apologize for the harsh words I used on you previously in this discourse. #ImpetuousUtterances. . . you know.

Peace! https://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/67.gif

jayriginal: An anecdote:

The story was once told of a carpenter who came to learn that the Constitution granted him freedom of association. Consequently, he decided to join the Nigerian Medical Association. He cried foul when he was not allowed to join and continually harped on his constitutional right to freedom of association.

He insisted on his position, even when it was explained to him that while the provision was indeed in the constitution, it was a 'qualified' right and as such had application only in a particular sense and not universally.

In applying the logic of our beloved enigmatic Enigma, that carpenter should indeed be allowed to join the NMA.

Uyi Iredia: Of course I would call it a Christian teaching. Any Catholic would and I will because it is advocated for by Christians albeit of a particular Christian sect.

Your reason for admitting you'll call purgatory a Christian teaching is suspect - "because it is advocated for by Christians...". Seriously? I thought what qualifies anything to be a Christian teaching is when it is in line with the bible. Here is your argument in a more simplified form:

It is advocated for by Christians (. . . of a particular sect)
Ergo, it is a Christian teaching.

Do you wish to re-evaluate this statement before I give it a proper rebuttal?

Uyi Iredia: In a limited sense it is an atheist thing or a materialistic thing to be more precise.

HOW so?

Uyi Iredia: I did not presuppose anything, hence, your second-guessing falls flat. I'm well aware from discussions I've partook of and read that some atheitst are apathetic. My question was to illuminate the fact that the atheists who doesn't concern himself with humans origins is disenfranchised from a theme which is common to most humans and the theme in question is: human's origins.

Believe it or not, not everyone goes around thinking day and night about where they came from. Even from your submission, you admitted this by saying "most humans", and not "all humans". Yes, every human being may, from time to time, have some passive curiousity about the origin of the universe, the origin of life, etc. But not many, in fact, I dare say most, do not actively concern themselves or preoccupy their minds with such thoughts.

Uyi Iredia: Atheism describes a philosophy which has evolved over the years in direct proportion to the evolution of religions (Christianity in particular). To say that atheists don't bother about how humans come about is VERY DECEPTIVE given the common theme of logic and reason that underlines most atheists thoughts and_this is very critical_ what demographics reveals about the atheist community. A huge percentage of them are in the educated class. You doubtless have witnessed arguments based on this fact. Arguments along the lines that atheists are smarter than theists.

The only VERY DECEPTIVE thing here is you twisting my words to score brownie points. There is a big difference between "numerous atheists don't bother" and "atheists don't bother". Again, you assume that every atheist is a thinking one. And you assume again that every thinking atheist must constantly think along those lines. How about atheists who deliberately choose to not concern themselves about such questions as the origin of humans because they feel that such knowledge cannot possibly be obtained? You are again already unloading assumptions on a group of people by attempting to define what they must think and should not think. Get this straight: Atheists are different - just as theists are different - and barely have anything in common, save for their non-belief in deities. You need to get off this your "I know many atheist groups", "I have debated many atheists", etc.

Uyi Iredia: Lastly, if an atheist doesn't care about humanity's origins I should say such a person is inane because this is a question even our primitive ancestors asked themselves as seen in the mythologies they espoused.

Your opinion, and you're of course entitled to it. Whether such persons are "inane" or not is a matter of opinion and doesn't change the fact that there really are people who don't concern themselves with such thoughts. Hence, your "very obvious question for the atheist who doesn't believe in evolution" is, well, not "very obvious". At the very best, the very obvious answer would be "I don't know."

Uyi Iredia: True. But I'm talking about how they've been specifically tailored for atheists and you are diverting the issue by saying the bolded. The simple fact that these rites are made for atheists answers the question of whether it is exclusive to atheists.

Who "specifically tailored" them for atheists? Which organization or body is responsible for such "tailoring"? How exactly are they specifically tailored for atheists? You keep throwing words and terms around without explicating any of them.

Uyi Iredia: Not all Christians believed that Jesus was the son of God, some were even pagans. Once again you show poor knowledge of the religion. Gnostics believed Jesus was a mere human. Arianism (which persists till today) introduced the concept of Jesus as being lesser than the father, the Ebionites (whom Paul fought) who believed one had to follow Judaism to be saved etc. There are even Christian atheists.See more here or read 70 Great Christians by Geoffrey Hanks. Christianity on the whole is lacks the same rigidity found in Islam.

And you think I am not aware of those other sects? lol. See, you cannot deny the divinity of Jesus and claim to be a practicing Christian. You either accept Jesus TOTALLY as stipulated in the bible and be considered a Christian, or you reject some/all aspects and give yourself another name. The very reason why all those sects you mentioned do not believe in Jesus the Christian way, is the same reason they're not referred to as Christians. Duh!

Uyi Iredia: I have already completed your sentence. BTW, I presented both arguments. Read my opening arguments well I clearly talked of atheism BECOMING a religion & talked of why I believed the term religion can be safely applied to atheism. Also check the topic 'Atheism Is A Religion" where my initial argument was poor but strengthened as the debate wore on. I especially want you to read a long reply I gave to Deep Sight in the first section of the thread.

Uyi Iredia: put the phrase 'non-existence of God/gods' and you are set. You can also put in the phrase 'the invention of religion by man'. Most IMHO religions are believed to be divinely inspired.

You did not say anything new, but instead, you only confirmed what I've been saying so far. "Non-belief in deities is the only thing atheists have in common." The invention of religion by man is a notion that is held by virtually all irreligious people, and isn't peculiar to atheism.

Uyi Iredia: No. Most people agree with that conclusion (i.e the pantheistic implications). Not quite, Spinoza's God isn't entirely impersonal. Are you willing to argue against this ?

Most people from your church, perhaps? And no, I'm not willing to argue that, as it will lead nowhere. I'll let this one pass.

Verily, verily I say unto you: The faithful are being armed against logic indeed.

Praise the Lawd!

Enigma: ^^^ Point proven. QED.

How about you take your own advice: Self-deceit is not good for your health.

^^^ You have been wrong, right from the very beginning - just by the mere declaration that atheism is religion.

How about you triple-dare me? Numbskull.