@therationa,

therationa:

No GOOD god would prescribe such awful acts onto his children, however sinful they may be. This is simply preprostrous that you admit that a due punishment for being sinful.

It is not a question of whether a "god" is good or bad - it was about the joke of your inability to debate issues logically.

Where do you actually stand? That God does not exist (atheism); or that he does exist (theism/deism); or that you simply are confused about your position (perplexity). You cannot be jumping inconsistently from one idea to the other, as doing such potends you as a very unintellectual discussant.

therationa:

BTW, STOP accusing me of plagiarism.

I have a right to make that allegation as many times I see it so. UNTIL you stop the rascal and dishonest pretences, I shall continue to so point it out.

therationa:

Anyone who READS the bible should know this stuff , and I spent a lot of time reading the bible as a kid.

Anyone with a functional brain woyuld know that you did not bring out these issues from your personal effort.

therationa:

To show you that I know them does not make it plagiarism, does it.

No, it does not. But to follow the same trend and precisely the same references should make us ask you what you are up to - and until your come clean, I don't see what you're complaining about. I'm persuaded that's what you did; you're not so persuaded. Good. Just be rational enough to demonstrate that you are above such suspicion, and when I see it, then you'll read me.

therationa:

There are many millions of people out there who are also aware of the MONSTROSITY of the bible but would rather stay quiet. I just don't stay mouth shut.

There are many more millions who know that the Bible is no threat to you - and the earlier you shut your mouth about such otiose remarks and open it with common sense, the happier you'd be as a person.

And no, that's not a fatwa - rather, it's a call to make you think and stop pretending to sound smart.

@KAG,

KAG:

That's fair enough. I have encountered several atheists that focus solely on The Great Religion, though. The last time Davidlan suggested that atheists don't attack The Great Religion, I gave him a link to a group of people headed by a guy that goes under the pseudonym of T.H Huxley.

Yes, I'm quite aware of a few others (atheists and skeptics) who concentrate on debating Muslims on Islam. However, I was inclined to take the view that quite often (but not in every single case), atheistic debates are actually geared more against "Christianity" than any other faith. But like I said, I would not be unreasonable to dismiss your submission that it be explained culturally.

KAG:

Because Christianity as a whole isn't coherent. The necessity of several unifying creeds, "heretical" creeds, and numerous denominations attest to that. Sure, there are a few necessary beliefs for one to be termed a Christians, but that's about it.

I would disagree that Christianity isn't coherent - as a whole. True, the manifestation of numerous denominations as well as unifying and/or 'heretical' creeds may seem on the outside to question its coherence; but at least we can honestly acknowledge that this is based perhaps more on the interpretations that result from the denominational exegesis of Biblical texts.

KAG:

A few of my old threads suffered from loneliness and promises.

Haha! Okay, I knew that was coming; but I was just being too lazy to respond to at least one of such on the Easter question. Goodness - it's nearly another Easter season, and I should be able to address the question and not scoot off with mere promises.

KAG:

They are not so bad. In my opinion, they have raised pertinent issues and made good points. Just my opinion, though

I agree that at the initial stage, they seemed to have been raising legitimate questions - and that was why I was interested in offering answers to some of those concerns. However, when it became pretty obvious that these guys were never quite settled to deal with their own assumptions but have been yoyo-ing from thread to thread, I thought it was best to allow them enjoy their break!

All the same, I acknowledge the legitimacy of your observation.

@bawomolo,

bawomolo:

some arguments are too ridiculous to warrant a response.

Which probably explains why some of the threads floated by you and therationa have been seen for what they are - 'ridiculous'.

bawomolo:

the philosophical proof(an oxymoron) thread was just plain awful.

Nonetheless, it was offered by no other discussant than yourself! Cry 'awful' all you want; but if you had first utilized the better half of your intelligence, perhaps you'd have saved yourself the bruhaha of self-pity in the new excuse that it is an "oxymoron". Whenever you wake up from that sleep, please call - I might just be too giddy to see how philosophical you are!

bawomolo:

it's strange theists call themselves the sane side when they are usually the ones with insults, curses and bible verses on hand.

It's strange that you think yourself a rational and intellectual discussant when you have never been able to stand your own ground and defend your premises.

I wonder what your mewling is about, bawomolo. Do you really have any substance to your arguments that we are yet to see? What is informing your jejune complaints here and elsewhere?

@therationa,

therationa:

Can anyone address the question of when Jesus is suppose to have been crucified?

On what premises do you argue the Crucifixion? What are your own arguments against it?

@bawomolo,

bawomolo:

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination

a statement made based on cultural reasons and not exactly inspired by "God".

What informs your idea that it is rather cultural and "not exactly" inspired by God?

@therationa,

therationa:

Why isn't anyone responding on this one? I thought the answers were in the bible

The answers have been given earlier in other Nairaland threads and other websites - if only you would redeem your integrity by not trying to sound smart as if you suddenly have put your thinking to work!

therationa:

C'mon guys. This thread is going stale. Are you guys/gals avoiding it?

WHY have YOU been avoiding the invitations offered you several times to stand and defend some of your own assumptions? Perhaps the reason why no one initially even bothered saying anything here is because they do not wish to be entertained by recycled and already stale arguments!

therationa:

Any christians brave enough to defend human sacrifice and cannibalism in their bible?

Already defended, so please stay on course. Do you care to honour my invitation to defend your own assumptions wher I have offered that invitation several times?

therationa:

CANNIBALISM IN THE BIBLE;

Deuteronomy 28:53-57

Lev 26:29

You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.


Jeremiah 19: 9

Lamentation 4:10

Ezekiel 5:10

Also see;
2 Kings 6:26-29

Can I rest my case now?

Right. Now see the following links where these allegations have been addressed:

(#1) - the same otiose argument from Horus:

Horus:

Why cannibalism is recomanded by GOD in Deut 28:53, Jer 19:9, Lam 2:20 ??

My response: (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-14450.352.html#msg1160762)

(#2) Again, he tried to whip up the same otiose argument:

Horus:


Cannibalism in the Bible

Deuteronomy 28:53-57 (also Lev 26:29)

. . . .

2 Kings 6:26-29

. . . .

Jeremiah 19:9 (also Ezek 5:10)

. . . . .

John 6:53-56

My response:
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-14450.352.html#msg1161488)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-14450.352.html#msg1161653)

You can see that all you have done here is simply change the topic of the thread/discussion from "Cannibalism in the Bible" (Horus) to "Human Sacrifice In The Bible" (therationa). Do you see why I earlier hinted that you've perfected the art of[i] plagiarism[/i] by harvesting these arguments and dressing them up as your own?

Now you can either indeed rest your otiose arguments; or come forward and enter into a discussion where you can hold your own assumptions and defend your misgivings to a logical end. Do you care to do so?

@TCUBE,

TCUBE:

duh! all your source are from the old testerment,

Lol. It does not matter that they are from the Old Testament - the point is that from whichever (OT or NT), we should be able to look into the allegations and discuss/debate these issues intelligently. Have therationa and bawomolo been able to do so apart from the cheap arguments they propound?

- - - - -

@4Him,

4Him:

Where are the actual examples? surely these accusers shld have been able to find one.

I'm so sorry for these gentlemen, because after ducking from thrad to thread it was quite predictable that they would not be able to enter any debate of their own and see it to a logical end. No be today them begin scoot here and there. Others responsible discussants (even atheists) have been able to soundly sustain their discussions/debates with believers even in this forum. You could imagine if those responsible ones had behaved like the mess we are entertained with from therationa and bawomolo!

@KAG,

KAG:

I suspect this is often down to cultural background than anything else. It isn't coincidental that most of the atheists in the Western world - most of whom make up an astounding number on messageboards - come from a Christian background. The assumption, then, is that since Mohammedianism was shown false while I was Christian, then the religion that remains to be faced (in a manner of speaking) is the one that I came from.

Okay, I see the sense in yours; although I'm not so sure about it being more a matter of cultural background than anything else. Yet, I cannot dismiss that remark; because on the other side of the pane, my background is Muslim-Christian and I think that (or it appears that) Christianity offered more coherence in discussions than I have witnessed in the case of Islam. There again, just my assumptions.

KAG:

I don't think it has much to do with coherence.

Maybe not; but I wonder why?

KAG:

The reverse has often been my experience.

Well, it all depends on what exactly the basic question would be.

KAG:

I disagree, with a degree of reservation.

Well, in the case of therationa and bawomolo (minus yourself, which is why I didn't want to name any names initially), I still hold to that point. These gentlemen have not impressed us with their arguments.

@KAG,

KAG:

I vehemently disagree. Prisons in such countries attest to a different reality.

I'd respect that the assmption in mine was narrow, as I particularly pointed to bawomolo's idea to sound as if religion is the bane of society. The reality is that such an idea is unbalanced.

KAG:

If that isn't enough, from an anecdotal point of view, most of the atheists I know are law abiding and highly moral.

Same argument could be advanced for most of the theists I know (please note: "theists" - in the broad sense of those who have a belief in 'God' and not just Christians alone). However, I agree with the aspect you pointed out - as I've witnessed a few such cases myself.

KAG:

Really? Is that how it happens? Interesting pschoanalysis.

Lol, I was wondering about that too; which was what informed my response to his.

KAG:

I have to agree with Stimulus here.

Forgive me once again for being too strong in my response. Sometimes the assumptions these guys make can't be overlooked.

KAG:

You could probably push it and say, everyone is agnostic at first, but I feel that would be pushing it.

I would like to agree that "agnostic" is more acceptable and digestible - because if it basically means that children are unaware of a belief system of any kind, then they simply do not know. .  until the question is presented to them.

@bawomolo,

It's a good thing you're actually interested in the Bible - not because you can produce any remarkable effort that has not been seen or heard of before now; but because such effort rather manifests your unsettled conscience against the claims of the Bible. BTW, the Bible is not a threat or harm to you; and the 'daily contradictions' have not demonstrated that you're that intelligent to hold your own rationale in the arguments you make.

I'd respect the request you've claimed that this thread is not a matter of daily argument (which has become the solo you and therationa sing in new threads where you're too scared to face up to your own assumptions). However, these seemingly "contradictory" lines could be taken up line-by-line, topic by topic, precept by precept (and they have been addressed in other threads and sites). I have offered that challenge before to you and therationa several times; and you didn't disappoint me by ducking those invitations - because you're only doing the same thing that I've seen others do because they can't hold their own arguments coherently!

It is not as if there are no answers to your misgivings - but even where they are offered, you typically excuse them away as if the excuses in themselves atone for the weaknesses in your assumptions.

In anycase, your efforts typically show that you're being too cheap - as others who have gone down that road before you. I'd like to see you actually hold your own ground rationally one of these days, if you care. The invitations I offered you and therationa are still open. When you can find enough gumption to take that offer, let me know.

therationa:

Are there any corroborating evidence of such a massive earthquake in Jerusalem around 33 CE?

Lol. . this is precisely the excuses that cheapen your intellect. It is like asking if there was any corroborating evidence of any rainfall in Jerusalem in 33 CE.

Of course, if you cannot find such "corroborating" evidence, you assume that Jerusalem would not have experienced rainfall in that year (or perhaps in any year at all). Good one - the argument from silence which has become your first-aid when you have had nothing in defence for your own assumptions!

@Lapkenne,

Lakpenne:

So, how do xtians address atheist? I will elaborate further as we go but I believe the answer for all xtians is based on the same reason why the person became an atheism (there is also more of course).

I think this is rather preposterous. It is now the vogue for Muslims to assume just about anything that flies about Christianity; but having gone through your piece, I don't see how you attempted to address the issue sanely.

What about the fact that the answer for all Muslims is the very factor that led many to become atheists?

However, when atheists bring up the question/denial of the existence of God, a few irrefutable points are always seen again and again:

(a) atheists often launch their attacks against Christianity - often so because Christianity proves to be the most coherent worldview that brings the question of the existence of God to the heart and conscience of man! When atheists say that they are questioning "religion", it doesn't take long to see that their efforts are actually geared more against "Christianity" than any other faith!

(b) when atheistic threads are floated in any public forum/blog, Christians have always been the ones who address atheistic questions - and they often do so in a rational, coherent manner which in fact leaves the atheist unable to defend his assumptions. This is what we have seen even in this forum. How many Muslims have dared to enter such debates with atheists even on this Forum? It seems Muslims have had aboslutely nothing to contribute, and so they remain silent all along, or otherwise absent from the forum, hoping that the tide would pass before they themselves resume their own attacks against Christianity.

(c) Christianity continues to witness an ever-increasing attack from every side - atheism, Islam, paganism, naturalism, etc., - but Christianity continues to weather these attacks without seeking to issue any fatwa to anybody! What is more, Christianity continues to grow inspite of the attacks; and Christians have continued to debate such issues coherently with sound reasoning. We continue to see positive results from such non-violent responses, to the extent that quite a number of atheists themselves have become leading Christians, or otherwise abandoned their atheistic positions.

(d) Even when you check this motherboard carefully, you find that where atheistically-inclined minds have responded to Muslim posts, the threads died prematurely: because Muslims have had no answers to those singular responses from atheists (as in the example of the Qur'an on Human Embryology Development). We haven't seen Muslims entering into spirited debates with atheists to offer sane, sound and serious answers as Christians have done and continue to do so even on this forum. Let's just imagine what would have happened either to Seun (the admin of this site), or to any atheist who dared to question Islam!

(e) And this is even more fascinating: those who think themselves "champions" of atheistic rationalism have never proffered sane, sound or serious answers to the responses Christians have offered in their threads. I have personally challenged both therationa and bawomol/bawomolo to enter seasoned debates with me on their assumptions (even offering bawomol/bawomolo the advantage of his own tool of "philosophy" in debates) - and for all these, they have chickend out and never at any time accepted my invitations to such debates! WHY? The answer is obvious - they were never confident of their own assumptions or premises, and have rather been slaving themselves on the incoherent ideas of others which they cannot defend.

It just is about the same thing that happens in my invitations to Muslims who have sought pedantically to attack the Christian faith. For example, several times where I invited olabowale to enter into a discussion on the exegesis of his misgivings on the Trinity, he has consistently baulked and instead has sought to litter other threads with his noise in precisely the same manner that these gentlemen (therationa and bawomol/bawomolo) have been demonstrating in their own adventures.

(f) Of course, let's not forget that Muslims have perfected the art of "plagiarism" by ferreting most of their queries against Christianity from the same skeptic and atheist websites! What is even more sinister is that the Muslims who have been heralded cheaply as "champions" of Islam on this forum have never demonstrated any rational or critical thinking of their own! Again, I've offered both babs787 and olabowale a few invitations to discuss their misgivings intelligently - while babs787 scooted off several times and never wanted to enter into an intelligent debate, olabowale assumes that running of from thread to thread with the same literary excreta might just be a better alternative for his emptiness!

On the whole, as Christians are not in the business of arguing aimlessly, you will not find them ever so desperate trying to answer every thread floated with the kind of childish queries that we have seen in recent days. It is not he who makes the most noise that is intelligent - but again we have seen that the few answers offered to such trolls make more sense than the noise being made by these gentlemen. We have seen more intelligent inputs from a few other atheists on the forum; but these self-seeking apprentices make this forum a huge laugh and shadow of its former glory!

@bawomolo,

bawomolo:

all humans are born atheist, that's as natural as they come. u were socialized to believe in a supreme being. that's what's unnatural.

Please end this irrational and stupid idea! I have asked your adulator to be clear as to what atheism actually is instead of ducking under the cheap glory of wanting to make atheists out of babies/children. Nobody is an atheist until they answer a basic question as to the existence of God! Again I ask: can babies make a response to that question?

bawomolo:

it's not a coincidence that developed countries are usually more secular and less religious than undeveloped ones.

It is not a coincidence to observe that those who are actively non-religious and "godless" in such developed countries are morally bankrupt.

@TCUBE,

TCUBE:

God is not God? God is use to refer to the supreme vreator of the universe,

I guess you had intended to write 'Allah' inbetween those lines, although not sure which.

However, that is a good example of what we are trying to sort out here. Just because the word 'God' shows up when you type 'Allah' does not mean that you had intended to type the very word that had been translated for you free-of-charge without your asking!

So it is with other words. Muslim automatically gets translated as 'Great One', although you did not mean to refer to a Muslim as '[b]I[/b]ce [b]H[/b]ockey [b]P[/b]layers', [b]IHP[/b]s (remember that Wayne Gretzky' the ice hockey champion was also called "the [b]G[/b]reat [b]O[/b]ne", and he was not a Muslim?).

Or again, when one types "Muslim" and it automatically translates into "Great One", I bet you never intended to offend anybody by hoping it would mean the same as Tawaret (Thoeris, Taurt) - a goddess which has the head of a hippopotamus and is thought to protect women during their pregnancy and childbirth! If you doubt me, please click the link and read the subhead under "Tawaret" which is also called "The Great One".

So that people don't misunderstand me when I'm posting on the forum, I try as much as to be clear what terms I intend. So, I leave simply as 'Islam, Muhammed, Muslim, Qur'an, Mosque,' etc.

At least, oga Seun should have asked for suggestions what terms to use when referring to our fatwa-hungry friends! I don't want anyone to misunderstand nobody just incase people begin to use IHP or Tawaret for Muslims - I beg una well-well O!

In any case, if suggestions are needed, please ask - I have some wunnaful and colourful appellations that might suit them on everybody's tongue!

Gamine:

Bawo
Bawo
. .

Admit you are a failure

Anyone can see that!

@topic,

Good thinking! And this is far more than a semantic complaint!

Many times we are given the excuse that 'Allah' is the name/word of 'God' that so many people know! And the excuse is often rounded off with the idea that Arabic Christians use the name 'Allah' when referring to 'God' in their language.

Let's not cheapen our intellect. We should know that 'Allah' is not the God revealed to the Biblical prophets! There are several serious reasons for this, and when we enter into a serious discussion on this, even the Muslims who on such excuses will inevitably eat their words! You ask them if Muhammed knew the Biblical God (His name ['YHWH'] AND appellation as "FATHER", and you will never get an honest reply that makes sense!

Even when you look at the Greek translaton of the Qur'an, you will not find 'God' there! There are several Greek words for "God" - including theos and theon; but rather than allow the Greek Muslims to read these terms in the Greek Qur'an, the translators have disingenously used 'Allah' for such words in those translations. Please go check it out if you doubt me! 'Allah' is not Greek; and Greek is not Arabic!

doyin13:

word to Richard Dawkins

Haha! I suspected that was where you were going with the preceding lines!

@doyin13,

doyin13:

@Stimulus

I hope I don't sound like a a great one. . .lol

i am a humanist more like.

Oh well, forgive me. I actually had assumed (wrongly) that you were a Muslim. Even so, my point stands as is, and the invitation is still open to you.

BTW, did you change your worldview recently? _{(Or perhaps I might be mistaking you for someone else)}

doyin13:

but bro you are starting to sound like Davidylan. . .you bear all the hallmarks of that legenary Crusader

Hahaha! You won't believe I've had a small chat with him a few minutes ago.

Gamine:

Christians take heed o

Timely admonition.

Perhaps in balance, we need to also remember these:

1 Peter 3:15 - 16 -- But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

imhotep:

This is how God draws good from the evil that men do; including the shallow (irrational) questions you keep asking.

Precisely. And how does this work in therationa's case? I think more people have come to see the big holes in his assumptions; and his inability to stand and rationally debate any issue to a logical end has even worsened his case.

@4Him,

Thanks for that reply. However, I'd be looking forward to a very detailed response point-by-point, line-upon-line, in every premise that therationa propounds hereto. I like #6 that you dealt with, and I'd like to consider it as well when taking the OP through his own misgivings. What I should add here is that it reveals R.G. Price has no clue as to Jewish laws and customs.

@therationa,

therationa:

I have added more historical context to the posting.

Thank you.

therationa:

anybody now cares to comment on the analysis of R. G. Price? about the crucifixion?

Now may I again ask you to stand in defence of your own assumptions thereto? Do you care to discuss these assumptions and see how untennable your arguments are?

@KAG,

KAG:

Not as a collective whole. Atheism is pretty much like Theism. They each describe a very broad range of individuals and communities that share just one aspect between them: disbelief in the gods for the former, belief in gods for the latter.

I appreciate your forthright and honest response - and yes, I agree with that premise contrary to the idea that "atheism [or atheists] has no principles".

KAG:

I think active disbelief is a more apt representation.

I apologise for being so forward; and again, I'd agree.

Cheers.

@doyin13,

doyin13:

But surely, the battle against unbelief and unbelievers, peaceful(there is an oxymoron somewhere I know) in recent times, but violent in times past
goes to the heart of Christianity.

Do you care to examine the history of the several Jihads promulgated by "DIVINE INSPIRATION " as in Muhammad's case?

Before this is termed a "terminal offence", please note that I'm only asking and inviting you to a discussion, as I do not see why Muslims continue to make unwarranted statements about Christianity when they can't stand to defend their own cause in Islam (without threats of fatwa) when publicly discussed.

doyin13:

Sometimes I go to church and I feel assaulted and downright devilish for holding some, shall we say, liberal views.

Hmm, although I grew up in a Muslim-Christian home, I never went to Mosque. But perhaps one may not be far wrong to make the same inference about going to the Mosque (and yes, I could discuss a ready example, if you care).

@therationa,

therationa:

Stimulus,

Enlighten us then

I'm willing to discuss your misgivings, if and only if you're willing to stand and not scoot off from the spirited discourse as you have done in several threads.

therationa:

Are there any reasons for me to believe the "Woman caught in Adultery" story in the bible as authentic?

I'd like to see you present rational and well seasoned arguments for not believing it as authentic.

bawomolo:

[img]http://www.foodservicerumors.com/FS%20Documents/Shut%20the%20fuck%20up.bmp[/img]

Em, perhaps that was supposed to be bawomolo's artistic signature to the petition - and probably his call to his compatriots to cease from distributing what someone has described somewhere as "literary excreta!" 

I particularly like the subscript to his signature: THINK BEFORE YOU SAY SOMETHING STUPID

@imhotep,

Please dear brother, allow me to amplify that call again:


[list]@olabowale
You are YET to convince us why we should believe the stories Mohammed forged about Christ.

Don't think we have forgotten that.[/list]

therationa:

Flew is NOT, NOT NOT a christian.

Dear sir, I never claimed that Flew was one!

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Stimulus: Talk to Seun Osewa. I did not make it up. He is the one running a program to change "Great One" to whatever. Yet I am not a Christian, Jew or other form of disbelieving.

Lol, I don't need to talk to Seun, as you can see that I'm able to take care of what I write. If one of your brethren had not "talked to" Seun about the possible reaction adherents of the peace of Islam, we would not be seeing this political derailment!

olabowale:

I asked everyone, especially the Christians among mankind, when you truly have this verse 25 in your Book along with Mark 12 Verse 29, why then you serve Jesus and call him your God?

We have also invited you to a discussion/debate on the same issue - why then have you always ducked that invitation?

BTW, go again and look at what the prophets called Him; then look at what He called Himself; and you'll understand why Christians do not have to take Muhammed's word in denial as the truth. For a start, did Muhammed know God as FATHER - the same confession as we read in the revelations of the Biblical prophets?

imhotep:

A saved mind is at the least able to differentiate between a man and a woman. In other words, it is not enslaved by homosexuality.

I doff my hat! Welldone!

@therationa,

Lol. I'm rather fascinated that you've become so entranced by Christianity - so much so that you seem to whip up every excuse to not believe its claims when you haven't been able to hold a rational discourse to a logical end in your previous efforts. When your time arrives, we will read you like Anthony Flew.

@bawomolo,

bawomolo:

what's the difference between a saved and an unsaved mind? brainwashing??

Why does 'brainwashing' have to be the immediate premise to come to your mind when you have demonstrated the inability to reason your arguments through, other than the excuses you schlep unto from others?

bawomolo:

why regulate the use of slaves if u are supposed to love thy neighbor. is enslavement or indentured servitude a form of love and compassion.

This is why I asked a simple question earlier: what is the purpose of the OT Laws? Perhaps, I should more specifically say: what is the purpose of the OT LAW (if the plural 'Laws' seems somewhat enigmatic to you and your friends).

bawomolo:

would u mind to be LOVED as a PROPERTY of mine

Perhaps if you had a ratified LAW like the one you're arguing against.