@therationa,

therationa:

Stimulus,

The purpose of any law is to regulate society. I presume this would also apply to the OT laws, wouldn't it. I stand corrected, of course.

Thank you for attempting an answer. Perhaps I was hoping to see a more specific purpose of the OT Law than a broadly terse quip about any law?

Perhaps then by the same inference we may ask if any law would not be preposterious when asking what type of law you're speaking about? Which was why I specifically was about the OT Law!

olabowale:

By the way am a Great One.

You're a Muslim, not a "Great One".

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Dafidixone: You just proved my point: Instead ofeverything god, like the Hindus, Christianity limited its god to three.

How does this thread present your cowardly argument of the Trinity? Why have you been making this noise endlessly but too scared to acknowledge the invitation to discuss your misconceptions?

olabowale:

But wonders into doing everything paganic: like this valentine (Dung!).

Christianity is not predicated on paganism - and I'm sure that up until today neither you nor any other Muslim has been able to discuss the pagan roots of the Kaaba.

@therationa,

therationa:

Stimulus,

Matt 1: 16 says the following;

"Jacob was the father of Joseph. Joseph was the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus. Jesus is called the Christ"

So to summarise;

David ------------ Joseph - Jesus

And for all that, is your assertion that "Mary's name does not appear anywhere in the tree of[b] both[/b] accounts" sustained by Matthew 1:16? Does that verse not prove your assertion wrong already?

therationa:

According to this account Mary is not related to David.

Mary is related to the Davidic lineage by the fact she was married into that family[i] through[/i] Joseph. Please remember again that this is a legitimate principle even adopted by those in the discipline of genealogies, as in the example cited from GENUKI without reference to religion. Could I highlight again how they applied this principle? Here:

[list][li]Some people aim to produce a "Family Tree" - showing their male-line ancestors (father, grandfather, greatgrandfather, etc.) and the wives, brothers and sisters of these ancestors.[/li]

[li]Yet others attempt just to trace as many as possible of their direct ancestors, through both male and female lines, and so produce what is termed an "Ancestry Chart". [/li][/list]

Now, if such non-religious researchers recognize that the wife is included in the ancestry of a person, what is the rationale behind your argument that it could not be so as in the case with Mary in the lineage of David?

therationa:

Mary is Joseph's wife.

Which all the more strengthens the fact that Mary is not to be disregarded from the lineage.

therationa:

What are you talking about? Lukes account also does not have Mary on the tree.

That Luke does not have Mary is not a direct reference for denying the fact that she is regarded in that genealogy as Matthew demonstrates.

Please notice also that Luke does not mention the names of the women which we find in Matthew's account of the genealogy - does that therefore mean that such women as Thamar (Matt. 1:3), Rachab (Matt. 1:5), and Ruth (Matt. 1:5) are not to be considered in the genealogy of Christ?

My dear therationa, I wonder why you are so desperate to look away from the facts presented to you! Arguing listlessly the way you do is not helping your cause; and the denials you make are not good substitutes for rational thoughts.

@therationa,

therationa:

Stimulus,


Please, please, please. I think you are bullshitting (pardon me, I don't mean to be insulting. I am using the BS word in a "philosophical sense" around.

No worries - I don't feel insulted by the above, actually. What amazes me is that you make such wild and frantic statements when you have said absolutely NOTHING about the points raised in my previous rejoinders!

therationa:

Watch this video and hope you get it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSdkyjszSt4

Should I take that to mean that you can't gather your own thoughts together on the issues I pointed out? And how does the youtube clip answer the points raised in my repostes?

therationa:

This is breathtaking ! So should we believe that he was descended from David?

Do you have something of substance to show that the lineage could not be traced to David?

therationa:

And how was he descended?

Precisely as have been pointed out several times already!

therationa:

Would you apply such levity to the Koran or any other non-christian religious text?

If the Qur'an has such a genealogy in the first place, perhaps you may point it out to us. What Sura and ayat?

As regards non-Christian religious text, please peel your eyes and look again at the example of the source I cited earlier: GENUKI - UK and Ireland Genealogy -- what have you said about the factors involved in that outline?

@therationa,

It is actually becoming worrisome to observe that you either refuse to read the rejoinders already offered while pretending to sound intelligent. Every single item of your argument has been soundly addressed, observations made, and queries offered following those observations - where have you dealt with them?

Let me remind you of how bogus your arguments are:

therationa:

1) Both Luke and Matt give Jesus' father as Joseph but totally different paternal grand-generations. How come?

Because they adopted different approaches to the genealogy accounts - as has been recognized today by other genealogy experts who affirm that there are various ways of tracing genealogies.

Did you deal with that fact?

therationa:

2) You guys have made the case that Luke's is actually Mary's genealogy, although Mary's name does not appear anywhere in the tree of both accounts.

Did you ever settle down to read the accounts yourself? What do you read in Matthew 1:16 before arguing that Mary's name does not apear anywhere in the tree of both accounts?

therationa:

Even if I concede this point, there are still a lot of problems with the account.

Please drop the hypocrisy! What problems have you intelligently produced for your argument that have not been soundly dealt with?

therationa:

3) Luke's account has 15 generations more that Matt's. This simply does not make sense.

It does not make sense - to you - because you have refused to acknowledge the reason thereto, whih I have explained!

therationa:

It would imply Mary's was much older than Joseph when Jesus was born.

How do you establish that idea other than noising it in hope that it would pass for the norm?

therationa:

4) Luke's account extends to the start of humanity, implying humanity started about 10000 years ago. But this is BOGUS.

Your 10000 year gap is even more disastrous than your allegations against Luke and Matthew - because up until now, you have simply been weak in the knees to establish how you arrived at that figure!

therationa:

These are the central issues about this question.

These are no issues at all - just one person's mind doing overtime on matters he can't sustain.

therationa:

Put you thinking hat, please, before attempting them again.

We haven't seen you intelligently argue out the points raised in several rejoinders. Do I suspect that to mean you simply have no clue about your own premise, or you're too embarrassed to reason intelligently thereto?

therationa:

Don't just recite verbiage from the bible.

Don't try reciting the same anthem from other sources that you can't defend.

@therationa,

therationa:

Stimulus,

Pardon me, but I do not want to respond to your posting above.

I'd respect your choice to not respond; but what do I make of the response that followed that initial line?

After having perused your rejoinder, it seems to me that you're largely flawed. This is especially with regards to the meaning of atheism.

No one has to make atheists feel isolated in their respective societies; but it is quite another thing for the atheist to assume it is his prerogative to constantly castigate Christianity. I wouldn't be bothered by anyone choosing to not believe in anything; but the moment such a person seeks to express disaffection and derision on my convictions, it would be my responsibility to take him to task!

@therationa,

therationa:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (to quote Carl Sagan). The christains are making extraordinary claims about the bible, as to its inspiration by god.

Have you demonstrated your willingness to enter an extraordinary discourse on your assumptions?

therationa:

What would you expect from a book that is inspired by an omniscient being. I would expect ABSOLUTE perfection, and nothing less will do.

You make me laugh! If you saw 'perfection', would you be able to grasp it - nevermind "ABSOLUTE perfection". It amazes me that you'd be asking for extraordinary evidence when indeed you haven't been able to hold your own ground when simple responses are presented to you.

therationa:

Otherwise the claim for inspiration or omniscience have been wrongly attributed.

That may again be a cheap conclusion drawn before considering the invitation to discuss.

bawomolo:

what was the purpose of the slavery laws.

I proposed a direct question to entering this discussion: "what was the purpose of the OT Laws?"

You have ducked that question to hide behind the usual excuse of a narrow loop. If you guys can attempt that singular question, I'd oblige to fill the gaps where necessary in your assumptions. Do you care to attempt it?

imhotep:

Okay, stimulus. You have stimulated me. I will indeed stay away from this thread.

Thanks for your posts, I have learnt a lot. May the Lord bless you with both His Hands.

You're such an inspiring gentleman - many blessings all your days!

@imhotep,

imhotep:

@stimulus
How you dey jare.

Bros, I just dey kampe!

I've actually enjoyed the discourses we've had with atheists - and what is more is that I've come to respect a few of them for their sane manner of discussing issues (even though I may not agree with them on many points). Of course, I'd rather not call names just yet; but I especially savour the brilliance and good spirited nature of the debates, compared to the very mindless and caustic rants I've seen in some other forum/blog where I'd attempted to enter discussions with the atheistically inclined.

Of course, not only have the debates intrigued me on many points, but also helped me to harvest a plethora of resources I'd never considered before. For this, my thanks are due to all discussants on either side of the debate for keeping it sane, simple, and serious!

On the other hand. . . I'd rather that we take it easy and condescend to this request:

therationa:

Please, can you refrain from debating on this thread?

The reason why I'd rather ask us to respect such an appeal is that believers are reasonable people who can listen to people. Maybe I'm missing something here; but I'd rather we observe that therationa and others of like-minds have their basic rights to enjoy sharing their ideas on the Forum. I must admit that even though we do not agree on several issues, at least some of them have impressed us enough to be willing to consider our discussions in other threads. Just this one thread (IMHO) should be respected as properly suited to those who have a legitimate claim to share their thoughts on "non-belief" (as Christians and Muslims have had their threads in the past).

Can we do this for them, please? I trust you'd kindly consider.

Many blessings.



- - - -
@therationa,

Please forgive me for showing up again in tis thread - it was just to throw in the above appeal. Thanks.

MC Usman:

if the man decides to give him own opinion on the kind of laws to be appied in England, thats is his own opinion. we should not kill our self on it.

I understand why you'd be so easy-peasy on this one. Perhaps Jack Straw was stating his own opinion when he asked that the veil worn by Muslim women be done away with. In the same way, we should not kill ourselves over honest opinions that do not favour Muslims.

therationa:

So how better to deal with than to encourage the intellectual dwarfs out so that they may be crushed in public.

Good. That's why the several invitations we have offered you guys to discuss issues with your thinking caps on should be taken seriously enough. Running from thread to thread demonstrates that you guys are feeling the squeeze in public, albeit we would not desire to crush you!

bawomolo:

you guys seem to be tip-toeing around the question.

I was willing to discuss the subject/question - therefore I made a proposal. I don't see how you have tried to address it before assuming anyone was tip-toeing around any question.

And no, hiding behind the excuse that either you or therationa does not know the purpose of the law will not do! To do so is to adopt a confirmed position of being intellectually weak in the proposal you made.

@therationa,

therationa:

Stimulus,

"what was the purpose of the OT Laws?"

I do not know. Please enlighten me.

I honestly do not believe you'd have no clue! I was hoping that you'd be able to offer some substance to that question first before assuming some premise thereto.

No, I'm not asking you to first be a law-student; but perhaps it would have been more helpful to understand the nature of the law itself before you make your propositions.

imhotep:

Let us make therationa's fantasy more fantastic:

In John 8:58 Jesus says, "before [i]Abraham [/i]was, I Am"

How can therationa reconcile this with the two genealogies that he is so worried about??

Oh my goodness! You anticipated what I had for him in my next rejoinder!

If this is the petition:

JeSoul:

the onset of a flood of irrational, senseless, insane, pointless, unintelligent topics here in the religion forum

. . . then I be first to append my signature! Of course, with a subscript to invite such proponents of those ideas to help us understand them if they could!

@therationa,

therationa:

What are atheistic principles? As far as I know, there are NONE.

It all depends on what category of atheism you espouse, for I don't know of many atheists who can honestly sustain the argument that there are no atheistic principles.

therationa:

Atheism simply make ONE claim - that all beliefs in gods lack enough supporting verifiable evidence.

That is a revisionistic apology. Atheism proper has always involved the (active) denial of the existence of God or any deity. All others are simply adjectival and admissible remorse.

therationa:

I recognise there are subtle variations to this definition, ranging from weak atheism to strong atheism.

The denominator is "atheism" - properly involving the active denial of the existence of God.

therationa:

A weak atheist simply has no god-belief, although there might indeed exist such an entity.

I'm so sorry for those in this class - no wonder "militant/fundamentalist atheism" is merciless to them!

therationa:

So, for instance, a child who has not learnt about the gods of their culture can be described as a weak atheist.

It does not surprise me that the atheistically-inclined are desperate to make atheists out of babies while asking religious folks not to share their convictions with their children! Cheats! A child is NOT an atheist - and let's stop this intellectual dishonest harrumph of referring to children with such adjectives! One is recognized as an "atheist" (without the qualifiers) only when they are able to respond to the question of the existence of God! Is a child capable of making or defending its own response thereto?

therationa:

A very strong atheist may be defined as one who categorically denies the existence of a god(s). This is philosophy a very hard position to defend as it is logically impractical to prove a negative.

Now, if you have taken that position already when you entered Nairaland, is it any wonder that you have not been able to defend your premise?

therationa:

The norminal atheist claims that from the existence evidence, the likelihood of a god(s) is extremely small.

A more convenient position to adopt - because such people perhaps (yes, 'perhaps') are averse to the more difficult position of defending their own assumption should they be asked to do so.

therationa:

Now, as diverse as these definitions may be, they make ABSOLUTELY NO CLAIMS about morals, metaphysics, principles, ethics, origin of life, carbon-dating, football, sexuality, etc, etc, etc. Anything else imputed on atheism is no longer called atheism.

That is why you need to UnCloth your facade of making Christians out to be "atheists" when they are not. We as Christians make absolute claims on various issues - and we are confident of defending our position, for example on sexuality, ethics, morals, and value systems.

Hence, it is rascally and indeed intellectually suicidal for the atheist who claims to hold absolutely no claim to then try to hold a debate on such issues that he has no clues or claims on!

therationa:

I hope this is clear for those of you finding it hard to understand this simply idea.

It is more of a teaser than an idea! Next!

@therationa,

I didn't see your rejoinder to mine earlier; so I'd like to quickly deal with your assumptions thereto.

therationa:

Stimulus

With due respect you commit several logical flaws in your posts, given above.

I'd like to see the "logical" flaws.

therationa:

First a genealogical list is simply that; whether it is given front-2-back or back-2-front, it should matter not a bit, as long as all the relevant parties are included in the correct order. By itself, it carries not order information but that.

I think that is the colossal mistake you often make, my dear sir. That is why your assumptions keep leaking through, and you have not been able to hold your grounds when discussing your premise on the geneaology.

Biblical genealogy is not a matter of "simply that" - they are given with a specific purpose in mind, and they do not have to be pauperized to your assumptions.

Ordinarily, even those who are beginning to develop the discipline of tracing genealogies have made it clear that there are various approaches to tracing a lineage. Not all genealogies follow a static pattern, as you're pedantically arguing here; and just to illustrate the point, let me refer to one such example online: GENUKI - UK and Ireland Genealogy  --

[list]There are in fact three commonly adopted plans:

[list]Some people aim to produce a "Family Tree" - showing their male-line ancestors (father, grandfather, greatgrandfather, etc.) and the wives, brothers and sisters of these ancestors. (It is of course possible to concentrate on female-line ancestors, but the types of records that were kept, and the common practice whereby a wife took her husband's surname at marriage, can make this difficult.)

Others try to produce what is sometimes termed an "Extended Family Tree". Such a tree shows all the collateral branches of a family, i.e. all the descendants (with their spouses) of some earliest known (typically, but not necessarily) male-line ancestor. An extended family tree therefore will grow to include many of your distant cousins.

Yet others attempt just to trace as many as possible of their direct ancestors, through both male and female lines, and so produce what is termed an "Ancestry Chart". (In fact, even if you re only trying to trace your ancestry it is wise to record any information you happen to obtain about your ancestors' siblings, since such information can sometimes help to resolve tricky questions of identification.)[/list]
[/list]

You can see that even outside the discussion of Biblical genealogy patterns, your own assumptions are too simplistic and often untennable and quite averse to a practical sense of the subject.

The point here is simple: you cannot assume a linear idea in the genealogy - and as long as you fail to examine the purpose of the genealogical accounts in Matthew and Luke, you will continue to fail in seeing that they adopted different approaches (which have already been outlined in my previous rejoinders). You haven't really thought out your premise logically, though.

therationa:

Now the genealogy of Matthew runs thus;

Abraham - David - - - - - Matthan - Jacob - Joseph - Jesus.

The genealogy of Luke runs thus;

Adam - - - Abraham - David - Matthat - Heli - Joseph - Jesus.

You faltered on Luke's account. I already told you it runs backwards from Jesus to Adam, and not from Adam to Jesus! Bobs, was that too difficult to see?

therationa:

What I would have expected in both genealogies from David to Jesus was the same number of generations, or there abouts.

You would have "expected" to see it that way - only if you keep evading the fact that there are different approaches to tracing genealogies; and no less so when considering their purposes!

therationa:

Let's allow for a margin of error of 2 or 3 generations, amounting to about 39-45 years, on the calculation the first children were born to 13-15year old mothers.

You'd first have to define your factors for arriving at those figures.

therationa:

Now, but the generational gap is 15, a staggering 195 - 225 years.

You're cheating yourself because you assume that Matthew starts where Luke began and both ended at exactly the same point! Wrong as ever again!

therationa:

Why don't you go and perform a small experiment. Take a sample of say 10 people of similar age to yourself and your partner. For each of these people, go back 10 generation in their family tree. You will notice that the 10th generation grand-parents will have been born within the same decade or two from one-another.

Let's give you a small experiment: please consult every genealogy expert you know of, and enquire if there is one and only one approach to tracing genealogies!

What is even more amazing is that you don't seem to have a grip on the difference between Abraham and Adam! Goodness!

therationa:

To have a generational gap of hundreds of years is simply unheard-of.

Yeah - as "unheard of" as your zooming presumptions are! My dear sir, I would like you to revisit my rejoinder where I clearly set forth the fact that Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus back to Adam, while Matthew skips no less than 15 names from Adam and begins at Abraham. Bottomline: both Matthew and Luke examined the lineage at a reference point - Abraham, although either of them adopted different approaches!

therationa:

Now, Luke's genealogy is even more problematic given that he extends it to the apparent start of humanity in the garden of Eden. On his calculation, humans have been on earth no more than 10000years. This is simply BOGUS.

Your assertion in itself is quite bogus - for Luke did not tell you that he calculated any figure to arrive at 10000 years! Care to be honest?

therationa:

Humans (Homo sapients) have walked the earth circa 120K - 200K years. Why don't you read Dr. Francis Collins "The Language of God" or Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God".

Thanks for the recommendations - I'd simply like to know how you arrived yet at the figures of 120K-200K; not to mention the whopping gap of about 80K between both figures!

therationa:

Pardon me please, any arguments contravening the genetic/DNA analysis is simply argument from ignorance. Unless you come up with well attested scientifically verified alternatives. Science is always ready for a paradigm shift, until such a time the genetic/DNA analysis remains the most plausible explanation.

I don't see how you have applied scientific reasoning here. You have pretended to do so - and m-e-n, you gigantic leap of a gap 80K wide is more disastrous than your allegations against Matthew and Luke combined!

Lol, at the end of the day, you haven't impressed me with your "logic"!

@imhotep,

I could almost have prophesied that you'd show up here!

imhotep:

An oxymoron is a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms. What distinguishes oxymorons from other paradoxes and contradictions is that they are used intentionally, for rhetorical effect, and the contradiction is only apparent, as the combination of terms provides a novel expression of some concept, such as "cruel to be kind".

You've far excelled my attempt to offer a simplistic dictionary meaning, thank you.

imhotep:

@bawomolo
Please analyse the five proofs of the existence of God, and highlight for us the oxymorons you found in them

Hmm, would that be such a task for our dear friend?

@bawomolo,

bawomolo:

this isn't a thread involving atheists vs theists. this is a thread for atheists/agnostics to share resources.

I respect that.

bawomolo:

circular reasoning among theists(especially christians) is a topic i would touch later on.

I look forward to that, and hope to see you stand to discuss what you propose.

bawomolo:

you obviously didn't expect me to entertain IMHOTEP's thread.

Maybe not; and for what reasons you'd have commented therein is a mystery to observers like me.

bawomolo:

philosophical proof is an oxymoron to start with.

You should have realized that before hinting to apply it in your cause.

m_nwankwo:

The poster is not asking a question but is mocking the concept of prayer.

Good observation - I hope he comes to see that "stimulus" and "m_nwankwo" are not the same persons, yet they could easily see the underpinnings of this thread?

Jairzinho:

I tot The Great Religion Islam was off the books for now?

Sorry about my "typo-correct" attempt to name the "great religion". It wasn't off the books - it was systematically modified.

bawomolo:

circular reasoning.

It is precisely the tool that you guys have been applying for ages and yet have not been able to rationally stay your course in any discussion. WHY is it so difficult for you bawomolo, therationa and your friends to gracefully acknowledge the invitation to discuss your presumptions?

Besides, my dear bawomolo, you disappointed me greatly - I was seriously looking forward to your philosophical argument and was hoping to see how sound your philosophical ideas were. Of course, I'm not bending your neck backwards to force a philosophical debate with upon you; just an observation that I've seen the same pattern again and again with those who typically have made premises that they were not able to sustain.

IDINRETE:

which god are you christians apologetics espousing?

if it is yahweh,jehovah elohim elyon or whatever he is the most brutish, sadistic blood thirsty, slavery lover, supporter of (ravishing virgins/killing of babies) a very forgetful fiendish tribal monster

It is easy enough to make such accusations - afterall, it has become the norm for the "godless" to define their rational in unethical verbiage.

IDINRETE:

therationa et bawomol you guys never cease to amaze and amuse me,

Precisely! They never cease to be so amusing.

In any case, before going on to discuss your misgivings on this subject, I'd first ask that you address this question: what was the purpose of the OT Laws?

It's a one-line, direct and simple question, thank you.

@Aleksys,

Aleksys:

This question is two fold. (1) Does prayer work? (2) Can prayer grow amputated limb?

Thank you: my point simply made.


@therationa,

The highlighted part of the quote above was particularly why I proposed my question. The narrow sense of whether or not limbs grow as a result of prayer does not in itself measure the efficacy of prayer. Your initial query was:

Is anyone aware of any instances where amputed limbs have regrown thanks to prayer?

. . . and it all depends on what exactly you'd be meaning by "is anyone aware?" Now, if you meant by that to ask if anyone was aware of "instances" from reports, of course so many people are "aware" of such instances. But if you were asking if your audience was particularly witnesses themselves, then there are not many such witnesses you may read of on the Forum.

Yet, that in itself should not lead to the inference that prayer does not work as suggestive in the topic: "Does Prayer Work?"

It is easier to dismiss the efficacy of prayer by narrowing your guesses; but the narrowing of assumptions in itself does not negate the efficacy of prayer.

@therationa,

therationa:

What do you mean by saying "defined the efficacy of prayer narrowly"? I just showed you that everything should be possible by your bible. Is that not what your bible says?

If EVERYTHING is possible, then tell me as rationally as you possibly could: why does the efficacy of prayer have to be defined so narrowly?

You see, I keep asking this question because from the onset you seem to have deflated your premise before you began!

Let me explain: as a Christian, I do believe what the Bible teaches, and one of them is what you have enquired about: the teaching that nothing is impossible with God - or quoting the texts directly -

ῦ  with God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26)

ῦ  with God nothing shall be impossible (Luke 1:37)

ῦ  The things which are impossible with men
are possible with God (Luke 18:27)

That said, if the premise is that "all things" are possible with God, why then keep honking on the narrow idea of just growing limbs? The undergirding assumption in my question is that you have narrowed your premise in order to reach a conclusion already before inviting a discussion - and for those who take that backyard thinking (ala Alphazee), I invite them to simply shut up as well!

You guys should be ready to invite discussions that do not assume a cubicle ideology in order to derogate the integrity of your audience.

therationa:

You accuse me of evasion. What am I evading?

Sometimes my argument and persuasions are quite frankly stated strongly. I do apologise (and continue to do so where necessary). However, I was wondering why a simple question in my proposal was being skirted round a few times, although I presented it in equally simple terms as you supposed yours was.

@therationa,

I would simply have replied precisely as Alphazee responded:

Alphazee:

Please stop being evasive. Answer the question or shut up!

You see what I have often called your attention to? Why is it that when you make some propositions to examine faith-related issues, you never seem to be able to hold your own assumptions when presented to you?

Of course, I don't mean to be uncouth as in Alphazee's response; but my question is simple enough: "why does the efficacy of prayer have to be defined so narrowly?"

Alphazee:

Therationa asked a simple question:

Please stop being evasive. Answer the question or shut up!

therationa:

Alphazee,

How come you are the only one who actually spotted the REAL question on this thread? Many thankz for re-stating it.

I'd like to propose another question: why does the efficacy of prayer have to be defined so narrowly?