₦airaland Forum

@Aladunni,

Aladunni:
Do bananas pursue real atheists in their dreams?

No one to answer yet?

_{I will soon go angry}

LOL . . . . no need to get angry. KAG already answered you in the other thread; i initially thought you were joking though.
Personally i must admit i find the banana thingy ridiculous, but that's just me. I don't think bananas pursue atheists in their dreams, however if they did, i probably wouldn't know so i can't totally rule it out
Cheers

@nferyn, dtw_sola, English1 et al
[quote author=dtw_sola link=topic=26417.msg1543205#msg1543205 date=1191087181]English1, you may want to recheck the definition of atheist. Atheists do not believe in deities of any sort. Simple as that.

I personally am a humanist agnostic, who just believes that all the major world religions are false, yet I have not completely ruled out the possibility of the existence of a god.[/quote]AND

nferyn:
Quite a lot of people are reluctant to categorise themselves as atheists because of the - very successful I must say - campaign by theists to define atheism as an active rejection of God, which is only one type of atheism. You can make a typology of belief systems on two axes: knowledge (of the existence of God) and belief (in the existence of God).
On the belief axis, you have:
* atheism: the lack of belief in (a) deit(y)(ies)

I observed the posts by English1 and dtw_sola deciding not to comment. Then i noticed nferyn appear with his rod of correction. However i think it would be fair if i raised some issues that naturally fall out from your statements.

Its obvious that you take issues dtw_sola because of the clause in his statement that he "has not completely ruled out the possibility of the existence of God" and thus his unwillingness to append the 'atheist' nametag to himself, thus you were quick to insinuate that it was entirely unncessary. Although you might say that your intent was to 'correct' his definition of atheism which is not really the case because your definitions are the same. And in that light, i wonder why you had to robe theists into it, considering that it is you guys who keep shifting definitions because there is no logically justifiable premise on which to maintain the 'athiest' appellation. Let me ignore the fact that i could provide a dictionary definition of atheism that is different from what you put up above however and concentrate on your definition.

The problems with the alternative(s) you profer readily pop out. You say atheism is the 'lack of belief in a diety(ies)'. That's a very safe position to take. Lack of belief. Let's personalize that definition so that it doesn't just rest in the air of abstraction. The first issue that comes to my mind though is this: is that a passive lack of belief or an active one? If it is an active one (ie you believe that there is no God(s) or that God(s) do(es) not exist), how does that differ from what theists have criticized, with its inherent logical inconsistencies? Are you trying to delineate that which is believed from that which is proferred as fact?

Of course its passive, you'd say. Afterall, you're trying to make a distinction from what 'true' atheism constitutes as distinguished from what christians have tried to label atheism as. So you redefine it to mean a lack of belief in God rather than an active denial of God.
Then the other issue that arises is; is it a lack of belief in God or the lack of belief in[b] the existence of [/b] God? - the two are very different, and i notice that you equivocate on those definitions in your post. The latter is equivalent to a belief in the non-existence of God and is no way passive.

And as per the former, first off, many creatures and even things, lack a belief in God. My laptop lacks belief in God, and i guess my cat probably did (i can't be sure; i didnt ask him). It might be wise also to note that they do lack a belief in quantum physics. What then? Can i then call my cat an atheist? Even bringing it home to Homo sapiens, are babies atheists? That is a very vague definition of atheism and is at best a retreat to agnostism.
I also remember my days in the roman catholic church as a young boy, although i never did doubt the existence of God (i think i've always been a theist), yet i did not believe in God. What then would you have called me; an atheistic theist?

I could make a lot of analogies from your 'definition'. It follows that if atheism is to be defined as "a lack of belief in a deity(ies)" then it is unwarranted for you to 'correct' dtw_sola when he introduces his "i've not ruled out the possibility of the existence of God" clause, because, if anything, his position is more honest (and logical) than yours. Beleiving in the non-existence of God is not the same as lacking a belief in God. Atheism is not agnosticsm, and even if/when you qualify atheism with agnosticsm, by implication (of your definitions) it is tautological. Furthermore, for all its worth, your definition can be expanded/extrapolated to "i do not believe in God(s) whether or not he/they exist(s)" So much for passivity.

dtw_sola's position, although i don't agree with him, is still a more honest (and albeit logical) position. And your 'correction' is unwarranted. And i do pray he (and you notwithstanding) eventually attains the knowlege of and belief in God that I and many others have, by His grace, attained. Cheers

i just need one line of your statement to show the fallacy in your whole post;

Jen33:
None of the gospels are eyewitness accounts, as every bible scholar knows.

even though that statement is not true, if that is the basis for your denial of Jesus then it is laughable; because the majority of the so-called 'bible scholars' are in agreement as to the historicity of Jesus. So what do you bring to the table that should make us believe you over them? Are you aware of facts these 'scholars' aren't aware of?
Your personal incredulity is of no consequence to any honest historical observer. cheers .

late reply; my apologies.

nferyn:
Can you translate that into plain English?

the bible's requirements for 'living at peace with all men' has never changed - the willingness (or ability) of people to follow that injunction might change

Who's talking about anyone changing? I was only referring to the arguments used (or rather the lack thereof)

and your arguments for denying God's existence have changed even when they've been refuted and your own naturalistic position found wanting?

Not necessarily, but those premises need to be inter-subjective, logically coherent and consistent in their properties.

the core issue here is the lack of 'commonly agreed upon premises'. Your premises are very insufficient to explaining reality, you need to come out of your 'bubble'.

Maybe you can start by defining the God concept in relation to scripture: what is God and what is not God? If you want to discuss ethics and morality, feel free to open another thread, I'll gladly join

i can describe Him based on the attributes he has ascribed to himself. He is the 'I AM'. I'm sure you're familiar with the many descriptors - maybe we can go by that.

Your point? I'm afraid you took on the scriptural practice of talking in parables while using analogy. That's a wee bit too fuzzy for me.

sorry

A concept that cannot be operationalized cannot be inter-subjective and thus any conversation about that concept is merely intellectual masturbation as there is no communication. Lots of data transferred, no content transmitted.

what do you mean by 'operationalized'? and how do you want to go about it - your prayer experiment is ridiculous. furthermore, did you apply those same criteria to evaluate everything in nature including your own logic (not to talk of things that are by their very nature, beyond the natural)?

And i'm guessing you cannot see your assumption that the natural world can be seperated from the influence of its maker, such that at a certain timepoint of self-manifestation he must needs 'have an effect' on it?

Assuming the consequent. You cannot introduce you conclusion (God's existence) as a premise for your argument in which you want to establish that conclusion.

i'm not assuming the consequent. I'm exposing an unwarranted assumption. Let's put it this way; what if the natural world bla bla bla

Rather, it's meaningless. I don't understand what 'God' is and all my conversations with believers haven't brought me any closer to understanding it, as their concepts all differ and are contradicting each other (e.g. the Calvinist God is a God that is very different from the Catholic God).
The day Christians agree on the their God and his message will be the day hell freezes over (pun intended)

that's a good place for you to hide, however, i dont think christians have been so blurry in their description of God. Neither do i think that those minute details of disagreement is what has kept you from embracing their truth-claim.
however, the fact that you say it is meaningless to you is inconsequential. Let's say the concept of quantum physics is meaningless to my cat; what does that prove? it would be good if you just stopped at that 'i dont understand what God is' and retreat to agnosticsm.
Your lack of understanding as regards God does not mean He does not or cannot exist nor even that the arguements are wanting. No-one owes you an explanation for God.
Also, the fact that the concepts of various groups differ is also inconsequential to the larger question. 'His message' however is agreed upon to a large extent (the bible) so there's no need for a freeze.
Perhaps also it would be good to remind you that atheists themselves are seldom in agreement as to what their philosophical position constitutes - i see you readily 'correcting' another of your company on another thread.

The typical Christian answer: analogy and fuzziness. Please elucidate what the right approach may be without retorting to analogy and fuzzyness.

My analogy worked; you got my point.
The right and logical approach for a physical entity to know and relate to a spiritual entity has to be faith. And i definitely do not mean the 'belief without evidence' or 'blind faith' anthem that you guys constantly sing. If you want me to elucidate, i can.

Pray tell me, what then are the right assumptions about God and prayer?

Logically, prayer and unbelief are antithetical. Second, you cant put God to test (again, explanable logically) - so that approach is counter-productive and 'naturally' your 'test' would fail, not because God doesn't answer prayers but because you don't know what prayer is nor how to pray. In my experience my prayer has almost always worked - and it wasn't prayers that the day should turn to night in a few hours; but then again, that can't do for you.

There is none that I know of. Care to elaborate on these findings?

Like i earlier said it depends on who's looking. Everyone judges evidence through the 'eye' of their convictions (or lack therof), however my point is readily made when you consider the case of philosophers and scientists who in the light of (especially recent) scientific discoveries have shifted their postions from atheism to deism and even theism.

the real point is; the mere fact that you choose to reject the evidence that points to God, and instead choose to evaluate the existence of God on your own terms does not help the argument in any way.
Second, THere is a whole load of 'reality' that the philosophical position of naturalistic atheism cannot explain nor understand; if anything it lacks foundation in reality rather than christianity, so quit saying 'all religious claims have no foundation in reality'. Naturalism is a pitiable and reductionist explanation for life and the universe. cheers.

@oladeegbu,
absolutely! If we calculate the age and chronology, we can know he died in the same year the flood was sent, so showing that the prophesy given in/by his name was accurate. So he probably died naturally just a few months before the flood. Cheers!

@electronic,
thanks!

soldee:
After reading your posts, I've decided I really don't owe anyone an explanation how I live out my faith.

You see its possible for one to make any kind of decision he wants about how one want to live his life; if the divine code of conduct is not held in high regard as the unequivocable guide. For christians however, the Word is the standard, the code of conduct. His Word (should be) a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path. (Psalm 119:105) If the Word of God is our lamp, then we cannot but live our lives as it commands.

Let's consider for example this statement you made above. To the cursory reader, that might not seem wrong, but if one were to look through the word, its obvious its a wrong attitude. There are two sides to the statement you made; on the one hand it is defensive; meaning if someone were to ask you about your faith, then you dont have to explain. So what are we gonna do about this scripture:
"but sanctify the Lord the Christ in your hearts, and be always prepared to give an answer to every one that asks you to give an account of the hope that is in you, but with meekness and fear;" (1Pet. 3:15)
obviously, that stance you have taken is sorely at odds with a very clear scriptural injunction.

If however, your statement speaks concerning the offensive, meaning you don't have to explain to anyone (on how you live your faith) in order to convert the one, it is still at variance with a lot of scriptures. Here's just one (or two):
"Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men . . . . (God) gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God." (2Cor. 4:11, 18-20)

I could cite many other scriptures but this one should do. This statement i quoted from you is just one statement out of the many unbiblical and anti-biblical statements that parade themselves on this thread. Perhaps this last scripture i quoted would give an insight into why many of us cannot fold our arms and see error paraded as truth.
The point we have been trying to make repeatedly has not changed and we would still say it again, hoping that some of us would wake up from our slumber and take our faith (and of course our destinies) seriously and check things out for oneself 'whether they be so' (Acts 17:11). The bible, the Word of God, is the yardstick for living one's life as a christian. If one claims to be one and does not live according to its dictates, then . . . .

@palemoon,

palemoon:
'' By this shall men know you are my disciples if ---------''
Complete the statement

Happy Birthday!!
. . . . if you love one another" (John 13;35)

@electronic,

electronic:
AFTER JOB WAS TEMPTED BY THE DEVIL, GOD REWARDED HIM AND DOUBLED EVERYTHING HE HAD RIGHT?
BUT WHO KNOWS WHY HIS CHILDREN (AFTER THE TEMPTATION)
WERE NOT TWICE THE NUMBER THAT THEY WERE.

EVEN WHEN THE BIBLE SAID GOD DOUBLED ALL HE HAD.

There are two explanations that come to my mind right now depending on what 'everything he had' means;

If 'everything he had' means just his pocessions then the sons and daughters are not included. This is hinted at in this quote from Job 1:2-3
(2) Seven sons and three daughters were born to him. (3) His possessions also were 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, 500 female donkeys, and very many servants; and that man was the greatest of all the men of the east
That verse seems to imply that by 'his pocessions' the bible referred to the animals he had, thus distinguishing that from his children. However the word 'also' in verse 3 undermines that argument.

The second argument, which i think is more plausible, is that God actually doubled the number of children he had. Consider it this way; animals are not spirit-beings, and when animals die, they cease to exist since they don't have spirits. Thus God literally had to double the number of those animal pocessions he has since the ones he had before had ceased to exist. However, according to the bible, with humans it is different. When we die, we do not cease to exist. Thus by God giving him 7 more sons and three more daughters, God actually doubled his number of children - because his other (so-called dead) sons and daughters were still existing in another realm and they are or were probably with God, the only difference is they are not with Job on earth.  So its still double. Get my drift? God's Word is sweet. Cheers .

@all,
Kweshun,
How did Methuselah die?

macalurs:
Even after that he wouldn't stop talking. That made the jews reeeaaaly mad.

After he was crucified he kept talking to the jews?

Yes; however, many Creationists I've encountered have had different definitions for the terms.

ok

You'd be surprised at the number of people that have asserted that such is not the case.

i might not blame them

Why not?

Because it's mechanistically implausible/improbable (i probably would address it in detail later)

That's an interesting and not so clear definition. Could you clarify it a little more? What broader aspects? How little broader in relation to micro-evolution?

Example: Reptile to Birds
And; universal common ancestor to all organisms

I don't think having at least a vague idea of what constitutes a species is petty

I didnt say that. Having an idea of what constitutes a species does not mean there can't be unwarranted arguments about the exact definition (and perhaps boundaries) of one.

KAG:
I doubt it would have made a difference either way - although I did take it to mean, at the very least, amniotic eggs.

from your next statement its obvious it makes a difference

KAG:
It's unlikely that it occured like the scenarios you've presented above. Remember, populations not individuals. It's likely the changes were seamless from generation to generation, to put it in simple terms at some point it became organisms with characteristics that we call chickens.

now you have a whole load of unfounded speculation here. How do we know that in this case it involves populations? in the case of humans for example, the common consensus is that all modern day humans came from a single individual (or is it pair? ). So why can't that be the case with chickens? Your third statement (about seamless change) is also speculation, however on getting to the second part of your statement you cannot categorically say that the 'full' chicken came at the level of the hatched chick (or chicken) or at the level of the next egg-laying.

KAG:
For the evolution of chickens, yes. Generally, no.

Horse and human (both very disputable - and perhaps a few others) must make for very good generalizations

KAG:
No, I was referring to change in the genetic structure of a population over time. I'm curious, though, what do you mean by microevolution and macroevolution, and what makes one possible and the other not.

I'm almost sure you've heard the terms before (at least with all your reading). Obviously, everyone knows that the genetic makeup of populations change over time; that is not to be disputed. However, those kinds of changes (which we have continually and repeatedly witnessed) cannot be extrapolated to justify nor imply the TOE, because it (the latter) is mechanistically not feasible from former ie the kind of changes that we see.
Suffice it to say that by macroevolution i refer to some broader aspects of the TOE especially as it relates to a universal common ancestor. Broader because there's no need for petty debates about what constitutes a species and all that.

The predecessors of chickens laid eggs. Basically, prior to the existence of chickens there were eggs - amniotic eggs; ergo, eggs came before chickens

To prevent equivocating on the word 'egg', i'm guessing the author of this thread referred to a chicken egg not just eggs in general (not that i beleive that eggs in general came before chickens though).
If that is the case, the question would then be, did the reptilean ancestor of the chicken lay an egg that hatched into a chicken? (while it itself still remained a reptile or reptilo-avian?) Or let's say there is an avian intermediary between the dinosaur ancestor and the chicken; did it grow up different from a chicken and then laid a chicken egg?
I'm sure you'd say it was a very gradual process - something which is totally lacking in the fossil record.

KAG:
Evolution at its most basic is an established fact.

If you're referring what is now termed 'microevolution', perhaps no-one would dispute that. If you're referring to macroevolution, i disagree.

KAG:
however, competing theories in abiogenesis are showing that life could have arisen naturally.

perhaps you could help those theorists know about this prize; Origin-of-life prize, it could help thier research considerably

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=81767.msg1533872#msg1533872 date=1190826394]

I see what other kind-hearted preachers like Pastor Adeboye, Kumuyi and T B Josuah do for the poor and needy.

This just isn't right. How can you use these 3 people in one sentence. There is one chaff amongst that wheat![/quote]Maybe its another person, this one's name seems to be spelt differently

Carlosein:
so when your "earthly" mother dies, she ceases to be your mother shey?

bros consider this scenario;
Two friends (and thier parents) die. The two friends go to heaven. However, one friend's parents end up in hell and the other's parents in heaven.
Can we then call the one whose parents end up in hell an orphan in heaven? (considering that he no longer has 'parents'?)

_{i don tire for this thread}

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=61317.msg1528335#msg1528335 date=1190696684]Okay I am back, albeit with a new user name. No thanks to the Obatanlapitipiti of nairaland. I was banned for bringing attention to his hypocrisy on the topic about King David.[/quote]Oga T, welcome back jare.

_{wey dat topic sef?}

Now here's an atheist joke:

A college student was in a philosophy class which had a discussion about God's existence. The professor presented the following logic: "Has anyone in this class heard God?" Nobody spoke. "Has anyone in this class touched God?" Again, nobody spoke. "Has anyone in this class seen God?" When nobody spoke for the third time, he simply stated, "Then there is no God." One student thought for a second, and then asked for permission to reply. Curious to hear this bold student's response, the professor granted it, and the student stood up and asked the following questions of his classmates: "Has anyone in this class heard our professor's brain?" Silence. "Has anyone in this class touched our professor's brain?" Again, silence. "Has anyone in this class seen our professor's brain?" When nobody in the class dared to speak, the student concluded, "Then, according to our professor's logic, it must be true that our professor has no brain!"

nferyn:
I guess you couldn't help but laughing (if the joke's funny that is). Maybe you'd feel guilty for laughing afterwards, though.

I really liked the atheist and the bear one. Do you have any more good atheist jokes?

Funny enough, i have much more jokes about christians, if i find any atheist one, i'd post. Here's one;

A pastor was driving on an inter-state road when he met a team of policemen, quite naturally, wanted 'something' from him.Sensing trouble, even when he knew he committed no offense, the pastor called the OC to say he was a priest to which the officer replied: "Please, leave that pastor thing,  in any case, as a pastor, you must have a Bible in your car, bring it.""Please read Matthew 5:25, 26 to me". The incredulous Pastor opened to the recommended passage and read: "Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to a judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth; you will not get out until you have paid the last Penny''

nferyn:
If anyone thinks that I was serious about Mary being a murderer, then then need to have their head examined, I even added the atheist joke for that reason.
re you implying something here, perhaps?
ricadelide, be careful or I might think you're (literally) suffering from a God-complex
Your mum, you said?
As far as I'm concerned, there's little off bounds when it come to humour, except when done with the explicit intention of hurting people, which is definitely not the case here.

Now this is very funny .
Of course i'm not trying to justify or even provide any explanation for this particular thread (i even added to your joke!), i'm just talking generally. You mentioned a discussion on the ontological status of jokes (that's why i quoted you), and i was just offering my thoughts on the said subject, considering that i had been thinking about that subject for a while now.

Now you should take it easy,  

Now this issue interests me because just last week I was asking myself this question:
"If the devil cracks a joke, would i laugh?"

I know you guys (Seun & nferyn) dont believe in a devil concept but allow it for the sake of thought.
Obviously the devil's jokes would be very crude, but then they'd still be jokes. I doubt if I, who will ordinarily not want to indulge in any form of 'crudeness', would find his jokes funny. Just my thought.

nferyn:
Maybe we can extend this thread to a discussion on the ontological status of Jokes

When is a joke funny?

of course that's not mentioning the fact that some 'inside' jokes tend not to provoke a laugh if the hearer does not understand the context of the joke itself. I remember when i was younger and read Reader's Digest, because i wasn't an american i found it hard to understand the jokes, let alone laugh. As i grew to have a broader context, the jokes became much more meaningful and provoked much more laughter.

nferyn:
Maybe we can extend this thread to a discussion on the ontological status of Jokes

When is a joke funny?

I doubt if the objection to laughter (at least in this case) stems so much from the 'funniness' of the joke itself, rather than the status of the hearers. A joke that is not done at the expense of the hearer is always (or usually) funny, whilst if its done at the expense of what the hearer holds dear, it might lose its ability to provoke a laugh.
We are all sensitive beings you know - especially the few that happen to hold some things dear.
Depending on the content (and perhaps context), i may or may not laugh at a joke done at the expense of my mum. However, that does not mean we don't tease her though.

I think its really a tough call.

nferyn:
Jesus was with his disciples walking through Jerusalem when they came upon a crowd that was going to stone a woman to death for adultery. He jumped in front of the woman and said, "Let the one without sin cast the first stone." Suddenly, from out of the crowd, a rock flew toward the woman's head. It struck her square in the temple, killing her instantly. Jesus said, "Mother, I was trying to make a point!"

"Anyways, here's another opportunity for me to perform a miracle"
Then he raised her from the dead .

Let me try to answer for pilgrim because i'm sure if she replies she'd still be accused of 'attacking' people.

[quote author=Atam-Man link=topic=75506.msg1522601#msg1522601 date=1190503186]@Pilgrim.1
I thought you said you were ready for a truce ![/quote]whoever told you there was a war?

Why are you so bent on 'converting' a people who already believe in God? Are there no non-Christians around you? What is this obsession with the Catholicism? Leave these people alone to do what they want to do with their topic on this forum.

And may i ask what your 'obsession' with pilgrim is? When did believing in God become a significant criterion for anything? Have you gone to the prisons to find out the percentage of inmates that 'believe in God'? Did Cornelius not believe in God? Why then was Peter still sent to convert him? And do you think it is only 'christians' that believe in God? Why then must we discuss with non-christians - especially if they already 'believe in God'?
Morever who said this is 'their' topic? Have you read the original post? When did discussion become an anathema, especially considering the decorum that has been shown here?
Bros, if you don't have anything to contribute you can move on. You appear to be the kind of person that'd see a friend walking into a ditch, and rather than warn the person, would encourage the one to walk faster.

BTW, you remind me of the things I have come to dislike about some of those who claim to be Christians. You definitely give me reasons to compare you, once again, to the Taliban, abeg cool down. Why are you so belligerent about the things of God?

If Pilgrim had spoken the way you've spoken in the few posts you've made (with the accusations and all), i wonder if there would have been a discussion at all on this thread. Its so easy to accuse another when one has not dealt with himself. Why are you so belligerent about not demonstrating any maturity?

Remember what Gamaliel told his colleagues in the Sanhedrin cf: Acts 34ff?

And what has this got to do with anything? Have you applied the injunction in verse 38 to yourself? Or you've rather decided to take the whip as in verse 40 - because according to you, no one must speak in the name of Jesus.

Please show some trust in this your God, leave the Catholics to him to sort out.

Just like the Pope has left non-catholics eh? The hypocrisy you're manifesting is seething.

Haba, are you God's avenging angel?

In fact, i can see the ruins and devastation from the burning sulphur that she has rained down on catholics in this forum.

There is every chance Pilgrim.1 is nothing but a religion-minded wind-up merchant

Very nice. Thanks for restraining yourself.

@all,
why is it so hard to discuss? Perhaps that has been the genesis of lots of problems in christianity - because everyone is so afraid to hold what they believe to scrutiny. Is it that we have skeletons in our cupboard that we're afraid will be exposed? Whatever happened to the example set by Paul, and others, who reasoned with fellow-jews, greeks, christians etc (Paul - Acts. 17;2, Acts 18:19, Acts 19;8, Apollos - Acts 18:26-28, 1Pet. 3:15, etc)? Some of us argue with atheists, agnostics, muslims etc - what's the grand barrier that prevents arguing and discussing with fellow christians? Is that to say we can't have disagreements? That we can't correct each other? Even Paul had to confront Peter at a point (Gal. 2:11). If anything, iron sharpens iron (Prov. 27:17).
Furthermore, even God himself invites us to discussion (Is 1:18)
Please let's stop this habit of always resorting to pleas of 'we're being attacked' - especially when that is not the case. This is a discussion forum, if you only had to discuss with people who agree with you 100% what would be learnt?
Cheers all .

*offtopic*

@GL,
Oops, today's your 21st. Happy Birthday!!! Welcome to the officially adult world (oh, there's still 25, and then 30, and 40 and . . . )
just kidding. Have a great day!!

GL:
lol @ the senator guy, this is SOOO funny. afterall, God's "crimes" are not restricted to one country or continent, they happen all over the world. so where does he plan for the trial to take place and who will be the judge? in fact, how do they effect whatever judgement that would be passed?

Germane questions. Obviously, the plaintiff's mind didn't really go that far .

Pardon me, I have some 'issues' to address.

Carlosein:
but on a serious note, i don't want anyone to look at this as if any party wants to really win at the expense of the other (either catholic or otherwise). we have to admit a lot of things were wrong in the catholic church (please my brothers and sisters don't stone me oh!), especially in the actions of some overzealous individuals in the cathoilic church.

Fine. Granted.

Carlosein:
all i find hard to understand is how this can be ascribed to the doctrines of the catholic church.

Now i have to disagree here. I don't think this has been the case on this thread, and there's no need to try to use an excusable point (raised above) to cloud the issue in the hope of still preserving a reputation. that's a false analogy and an appeal to steer the debate away from the real issues. I don't think quotes from catholic websites on the official doctrinal positions conflicting with what the bible clearly teaches constitutes examples of individual overzealousness, rather what might be closer to home is a general 'overzealousness' of the entire leadership (and yes, that's a polite way of not saying the church).
Is it right to ascribe, say, the Pope-sanctioned crusades by overzealous individuals to a doctrine of the catholic church? Perhaps, no. (i doubt if the church would put this into writing though: "a holy war must be fought to spread the gospel" or something like that, right?) However, is it right to ascribe the false confidence or lack therof (and perhaps eventual perdition) meted out to millions of people to a doctrine of the catholic church (purgatory)? Yes. And the real point is, and i wont mince words, it (the doctrine) is wrong.
Now i seem to notice a word you used: "wrong in the catholic church" (that, i guess, is to prevent from using "with"?) and that's where you are missing the whole point. A lot of churches (perhaps every) have lots of things wrong in them, but the churches themselves aren't foundationally wrong. Jesus only had two faultless churches out of seven in the book of Revelations - but the rest five were still his churches. However when a church's core doctrines are fundamentally flawed (as has been repeatedly shown on this thread, will be shown in the next few paragraphs - and can still be shown if required) then there's something wrong with that church, and if one wants to be really fair, one has to take a hard and objective look at those issues.

Carlosein:
Pilgrim.1 oftentimes i've had discussions with christians (yes true simple and trying to be holy christians!) and especially non-catholics and let me tell you one major thing we've always agreed on.
trying to prove/show that the catholic church is wrong has a backlashing effect which is that you would have only succeeded in proving/showing that christianity is wrong.

Now the statement in bold was what really invited a response from me. My mind might be wondering which christians would agree to that, but let me try to understand their rationale; maybe proving that the catholic church is wrong might be putting it too pointedly. Perhaps the better phrasing would be that many of the core doctrines of the catholic church is wrong.
however, the correlation between proving/showing that many of the catholic church's doctrines are wrong and invariably or in so doing proving/showing that christianity is wrong is lost on me. The point is: who or what defines christianity? What is the yardstick for identifying right or wrong within christianity? Are we saying that by definition there can't be wrong within christianity? Even in the early church a lot of things went wrong. How then do we iron things out when things don't align?
The answers to those issues will determine a lot of things. It is fairly obvious that, to prevent things from going out of hand, there has to be an unchanging 'rule', a trustworthy reference point. Now, if i come here and say straight out of the blue: "sola scriptura", some here would say "hey, the bible is not complete" or "there are mistakes in the bible" or even, "we have to follow the traditions of the church" and so on. Are those statements justifiable? What have they resulted in? A lack of accountability - because anything and everything can be explained away as being a product of a particular person's 'revelation' from God or a 'tradition' of the church (might i say, leadership?) - since the axiom is "the bible is not complete".
If there could be traditions (and even doctrines) whimsically churned up by the leadership, who then can question them, if they don't have to be in agreement to the Word? How do we determine that they are wrong? What happens when we have misguided leadership as has been repeatedly shown to be the case in the past? Are the leadership intrinsically above mistakes? Even Peter had issues at some point (see Gal. 2:11) If then the leadership can be wrong, what happens to the 'dogmas' they define? How does one explain for example the fairly recent (1950) doctrine about the assumption of the virgin Mary (which the Word does not teach)? Or how do you explain a situation where people become the designers of Truth and doctrine (rather than God through his Word) as was the case with the millions of signatories pressuring the late Pope John Paul II to declare Mary as Co-Redemptrix - again, clearly against the scriptures? (Acts 4:12, 2Tim 2:5) Or even the (again recent) statement about the 'Immaculate Conception' of Mary, when the bible says 'all have sinned' (Rom. 3;23)?
The questions and issues that can arise are endless, and just as Carlosein is making apologies for now commonly accepted past mis-doings of the church, some will still do so in the future - if there continues the trend of not having any fixed and unchanging yardstick for establishing Truth. There are many statements by God Himself however to the contrary, perhaps this one would suffice;
[center]To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)[/center]the bible, the word of God, is the unchanging yardstick. If that is not foundational with (or to) the catholic church, then something is foundationally wrong.

So in summary let me reiterate: the reason the catholic church gets a lot of things repeatedly wrong is because they have not clearly taken a stand to commit to the rule-book, and to get rid of any inconsistencies (and, quite frankly, i doubt if they can or are even willing to). Rather my appeal would be that each individual, like the berean christians in Acts 17:11, go and check out these things in the scriptures to see what is true.

Where true christianity (and by this term i'm not referring to any particular organization per se) fundamentally differs from Roman Catholicsm is its commitment to that unchanging principle, to that reference point; and that is what ultimately undermines your argument. If the catholic church continually refuses to align itself without reservations to what ultimately defines what constitutes true christianity, the unchanging Word, then there hardly remains any substantive correlation between it (the church) and christianity. If anything, pointing out the errors with the former only bears out the fact that there is something called true christianity - as it must be willing and ready to distance itself from any form of falsehood.
Its not about professions (or, as the case may be, confessions), anybody can do that; its about obedience to that which is written (Matt.7:21). Cheers .

nferyn:
Makes perfect sense for an all-loving God Especially when the punishment is meted out indiscriminately, targeting the weak and the poor more than the evil ones.

Oh, finally, nferyn believes in God. What a great revelation of himself he has given you .

"Morton's demon" is more than simply being biased. It's a lot more deeper and subtler than that.

perhaps i should read about it. the term hardly attracts me though .

As someone who was once neutral on the issue, I disagree.

you know you're still an individual.

I didn't say that. My opinion was based on the impression I've gotten from past debates and discussions with you and other Young Earth Creationist - endorsing Hovind helps with the impression. In any case, what are those inconsistencies and unpalatable underlying assumptions and how do they affect radiometric dating, the dates that have been found?

ok, that may suffice. no need to bring up the past in the case in question though; like many humans i'm dynamic.
Was expecting the question and pardon me i really can't go into an argument about that right now; i have my hands full here and i show up in nairaland in spurts. However i could provide links to some articles i've read. Ok? here's one http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html
*edited* here's another [url]http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon[/url]

Indeed, however, history has shown that many times the majority is right if they go to great pains to not only show their work but also attempt to falsify their work. Furthermore, the chances of being wrong are made even less when the majority use different methods to do the measurements and tests.

indeed as well. High probabilities however always remain probabilities. the few occasions to the contrary precludes from making valid genaralizations.
the cup could either be half empty or half full . . . .

KAG:
1. Okay, I wont call it cognitive dissonance, I'll call it "Morton's Demon". 2. In my opinion, I doubt you've studied or taken the time to understand radiometric dating, natural phenomena that can give scientists an inkling of time passed, and why geologists (practically all of them) can make the claims they have. Just my opinion.

1. LOL . . . . . call it whatever you like. I would not claim to be without bias on the issue, however, neutral people can (and perhaps do) share my reservations if adequately exposed to the process and the data generated.
2. Because i don't buy the inconsistencies and underlying assumptions then i've not understood it? what a cheap way to explain skepticsm away. History has repeatedly taught me that popular agreement (even by so-called specialists) does not validate a claim - although it may buy the claim some time. This applies on either side of the debate. The 'little' i've read and the inconsistencies i've heard just about does it for me. Even the most logical mind is reduced to a fool if his proposition is based off of faulty and unjustifiable assumptions.
just my opinion as well.

KAG:
Yes.

Good for you. I have, and it doesn't do for my critical mind - i dont find it easy to swallow the many 'claims'. And please don't say that's cognitive dissonance.