Romeo4real:

Don't be silly. Every adult has a parent, and is thus a "child", and we don't need to guess the context. A quick lesson understanding the Bible though, - To understand any topic  in the Bible, u cannot take a passage or issue in isolation. U need to look at all occurences and incidences of that topic to come to a full comprehension of it.

Now lets look at ALL the occurrences of this topic -
The first is Ex 20:12, followed by Ex 21:15, Ex 21:17, Lev19:3, Lev 20:9, Deut 5:16, Deut 27:16, Matt 15:4-6, Matt 19:19, Mark 7:10, Luke 18:20, Eph 6:2.There are more, but these are the relevant ones. In all the passages, it is clear the speaker is speaking to, and thereby referring to an adult audience, not children.
It really would do you well to research ur subject matter properly before casting desultory arguments.

Even if I grant that this referred to adults with parents, do that make it morally right? I submit that it does not. But I shall not grant that. Let us examine the passages you have given:

Exodus 20: 12 - Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Exodus 21: 15 - And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

Exodus 21: 17 - And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Lev 19: 3 - Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.

Lev 20: 9 - For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Deut 5: 16 - Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Deut 27: 16 - Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Matthew 15: 4-6 - For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Matthew 19: 19 - Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Mark 7: 10 - For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

Luke 18: 20 - Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.


Ephesians 6: 1- 4 - Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 2Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; 3That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. 4And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.




Firstly, I wish to thank you for providing these verses. Now, let us see if the support you point that "Children" referred to "adults with parents". Can you should which of the above verses so much as insinuates that "Children" referred to "adults with parents"? If you insist that it does, then I shall have to ask you where the cut-off age was beyond which one was considered an adult and below which one was a child.

Further, when the bible says that "Children should honour their parents", did it mean that only "adults with parents should honour their parents? If youy want to make that distinction, you have got to clarify when children mean "adult with parents" from when it meant something else.


Like I said above, even if this meant "adults with parents" (a case which remains to be demonstrated) it is still a most evil injunction.

1)  He Demands human sacrifices Lev 27:29 - This is not about human sacrifices, but rather about the punishment of anyone who sells or redeemed a devotional offering already devoted to God.

OK, let us see what Lev 27: 29 (KJV) actually says:

27And if it be of an unclean beast, then he shall redeem it according to thine estimation, and shall add a fifth part of it thereto: or if it be not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to thy estimation. 28Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: [b]every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. 29 None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death. 30And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD's: it is holy unto the LORD. 31And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.


Look at the context (that is why I have included more verses around verse 29) . This chapter is talking about "things" that are given or offerred or devoted to God. Verse 28 says that nothing that has been offerred or devoted to God can be sold or taken back - every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD.

Now, where in the text is punishment even so much as suggested? Did you make that up? Please show US where punishment is suggested. Further, why would god described someone put to death as punishment for stealing as "most holy unto the LORD"?

You explanation make absolutely no sense, but I am not surprise - I have come to expect such nonsense from bible-believers.

Likewise Exodus 22: 29-30 is not about sacrificial offerings, but about devoted offerings - You need to learn about the difference btw the two.[/b]

Let's look at Ex 22: 29-30:

29Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. 30Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.


So what is being offered to god above? Fruits, liquors, oxen, sheep and firstborn of thy sons. Now, what do you thing (Fruits, liquors, oxen, sheep) was done with the other things offered to god. Were they burn in offering as sacrifices, eaten, used as the possessions of the priests? What do you think they would have done with the firstborn of the sons? Were they used as slaves and minoins in the temples, or what?

2) He even gets a human sacrifice when  Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to God, Judges 11 - Now ur just being stupid. God never asked Jephthah for an offering. Jephthah mad the vow himself, and felt he had to redeem it. It was even his daughter (the"sacrifice" who encouraged him to honour his vow

Why did god arrange for Jephthah's deal to come to pass, which comply him to honour his promise to god. Why did god not arrange for a family pet to be the first thing that came out of his house to greet him upon his return. He did not, but arrange for his daughter to come out of the house first, presumably because he was a bit bloodthirsty yet again.

By the way, why did god not intervene to say that this was a silly promise, in view of the potential consequences? Why did god not stay the executtion just as he saved Isaac's life?

3) Numbers 13 - He orders the ethnic cleasing of an entire community save for their virgin girls - No, not Numbers 13, but Numbers 31. It helps to know ur argument - Moreover, God did not command this. Moses did. This is the ignorance of Bible bashers showing through. Not all actions committed by people were sanctioned or even ordered by God. The Bible is very clear and irrefutable on actions ordered by God.

Yes, I meant Numbers 31. I saw the mistake after I posted but was distracted by a number of things and forgot to make the correction. But that is the least of the issue. The more substantive point is that God command this atrocity. Let us look at Numbers 31:


Numbers 31

1 [size=18pt]And the LORD spake unto Moses[/size], saying, 2Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. 3And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian. 4Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war. 5So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war. 6And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand. 7And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. 8And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. 9And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. 10And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. 11And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.


And the LORD spake unto Moses. And what did you say? Let's see: "God did not command this". I submit that the bible contradicts you. Let's look further down the chapter, shall we:

25[size=18pt]And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying[/size], 26Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation: 27And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation: 28And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep: 29Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD.


Here we see god commanding Moses to make a sacrifice to him from the loot of the ethnic cleansing and rampage of the Midianites and other tribes. Do you see anywhere god reproach Moses for his excessive execution of the war? I submit NOT. In fact, with God behind Moses, no amount of atrocity and barbarism could be seen as excessive.

4) He kills all the firstborn in Egypt - Yes, he ordered this, as a final warning, after 9 plagues had proved insufficient. remember, Pharaoh had enslaved God's people and refused to let them go.

You god is such a vindictive god, he first of all hardens the Pharoah's heart, so that the Pharoah would not comply with his directives. Having failed to comply, something that the god had caused in the first place, he then comes along and wipes out all the firstborn the the Pharoahs country. Now, how is that for compassion. What did this children do to deserve such savage action.

This suggests that god approves of punishing people for the sins and crimes of others, doesn't it?

gen2genius:

You sound so confused and miserable. Instead of admitting your ignorance and begging to be enlightened, you're busy ranting like a possessed man.

The Pharisees practised hypocritical righteousness - righteousness that lays emphasis on outward piety and sanctimonious rituals without inward righteousness or sincerity. All their good works - saying long prayers, fasting, giving alms to the poor etc - were done for show, just to look better than others. But deep within them, they were full of evil, deception and corruption. He rebuked them thus:  

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.  Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matthew 23:25-28)

That's why he told his listeners that except their righteousness surpassed (exceeded) that of the Pharisees, they would not be allowed into the kingdom of heaven. In other words, if they were like the Pharisees - pretending to be holy in the public but having evil thoughts and doing immoral things in private - they would not be allowed into heaven. Therefore they must go beyond the Pharisees - they must have both INWARD and OUTWARD righteousness. Simple!

What the hell is hypocritical righteousness? Jesus, of all people should know. You are either good (righteous) or bad, notwithstanding your outwards appearance. If you are "outwardly good" but inwardly bad, you are fundamentally a bad person.

Now, look at the context in which Jesus made the following pronouncement - "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

The context was the relevance of the law in their times. Jesus wants to emphasise just how relevant and important the law was for his listeners. If the law was still important, then abiding by the law in spirit and deed was also important. Consequently, in this context, in makes no sense to Jesus to use as benchmark people who only paid lip service to the law.

Consider the following analogy, in the context of possible entrance into an elite and august society, say Havard or become a Nobel winner. Now which of the following makes sense in this context?

1) To become a Nobel laureate (or be admitted into Havard) you have to be cleverer (or wiser, or more intelligent) than Einstein.

2) To become a Nobel laureate (or be admitted into Havard) you have to be cleverer (or wiser, or more intelligent) than Kent Hovind.

Which of the above statements makes more sense?

On the one hand, Jesus describes the Pharisees as righteous and appears to commend their strict observance of the LAW, as in Matthew 5: 20.

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20[b]For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven[/b].

So according to the above, Jesus likes the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law. So what is he (Jesus) doing calling them HYPOCRITES, as in Matthew 15:

3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 8" 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"

Does this Jesus character know what he is talking about? In fact, does he know anything at all ?

Romeo4real:

@Huxley - ur post are extremely disingenuous, and the stupidity u display here, along with Tudor, in both ur quests to illustrate an extremely spurious argument is breathtaking!

The 1st -  Ex 21:17 concerns when God gave the 10 Commandments to Moses and in addition, other laws guiding the Israelites on various issues - Violence, Animal Control, Laws of the Alter, etc. This particular law (Ex 21:17), is in synergy with Gods view on how children (in this context, meaning adults with parents) should respect and honour their parents.
Remember this was in the time of the Law, before Jesus Christ, who brought the Grace. The Law was harsh, unforgiving, and was expected to be followed to the letter.

Firstly, can you explain how you got the context of children to mean "adults with parents"? Where is this context from? Do you have some sort of previlege access to the context that is not available to a straight-forward reading of the text?

Secondly, why is this God, who is also Jesus, so brutal, violent and barbaric? This is not the only incident where he demands and displays behaviour which would be way beyond the pale today. Let me give some example, just to show you that killing children was well within the purview of this Jesus God:

1) He Demands human sacrifices (Lev 27:29, Exodus 22: 29-30)
2) He even gets a human sacrifice when Jephthat sacrifices his daughter to God, Judges 11.
3) Numbers 13 - He orders the ethnic cleasing of an entire community save for their virgin girls
4) He kills all the firstborn in Egypt

etc, etc, etc.

So, you see - you Jesus is a very bloodthirsty and barbaric god. If he ordered all of these violent crimes in the Old Testament, why would he not do the same in the NT. After all, did he not say that he did not come to change the LAW:

Matthew 5:

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


Does the above suggest that Jesus meant to change the LAWS? Why would he require his followers to be more observant of the laws than the Pharisees and the teachers of the law? What law was Jesus refering to here?

The 2nd - Mat 15:1-9, Here, Jesus actually refers to the original law in Exodus 21, when the Pharisees challenged him on why his disciples transgressed a tradition - eating bread without washing their hands, He reminded them that not only did [i]they [/i]disobey a law (Ex 21), they also challenged it with a tradition that was against the word of God concerning that specific Law

What the deuce is this? Yes, the Pharisees where being hypocritical - that is NOT in dispute. But there were being hypocritical for a good reason - they did not wish to observe a barbaric law, and had reformed this, replacing it with the "the tradition of their elders", including which would have been a relaxation of Exo 21:17. Yes, they challenged with with a much more moral and humane tradition, rather than the barbarism of Exodus 21: 17.

Now, what is wrong with that?

In other words, they were hypocrites! Jesus is saying - Which is worse,  Breaking a tradition enshrined by Man, or breaking the Law of God.

This is very clear in the scriptures, and for you guys to try to obfuscate this in order to score cheap points is hugely disappointing.

Yes, as I said, they are hypocrites because they were calling for the observance of the tradition while flouting the "laws of God". But Jesus too is a hypocrite, because on the one hand Jesus recognises the Pharisees as sticklers for the LAW (Matthew 5: 20, For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven) and on the other hand points accusatory fingers at them.

So they all are hypocrites - Jesus, the Scribes and Pharisees and the Teachers of the Law - All HYPOCRITES. But the worst is the one who falsely claims to be the son of God, Messiah, King of Kings, etc, etc. What a BIG LIAR.

Pastor AIO:

You're obviously new to Nairaland.

I'd like to introduce you to Huxley. Or at least be there to see your face when you discover his posts.

Great line, Pastor. I have laughed my belly out with this one. Seriously, I take it as a complement.


The Nairalander former known as huxley (whose account has been banned from posting)

Gadols:

Remember Profet Elsha and those kids?
Go read ur bible

Ah, the 42 kids and two bears.  Sounds very believable, doesn't it?   Were all the kids hypnotised too so that they all could not run away once the bears had started attacking them.  Or were there instead 42 bears, one for each kid?

Gadols:

@banom,
Its clear you have serious issues with yourself.
I wont be surprised if you go mad in a couple of weeks.
If Adeboye is a devil like you claim leave him to God's judgement.
You are an advocate of evil and an anti Christ who is feeding on
the heretical teachings of TB Joshua. My advse is, you shouldnt
bring curses upon your soul by saying all the rubbish on men of God.
TB Joshua knows himself that he is con man with the aim of making good
money and sleep with women at his disposal.
Banon, there is a venom spitting at you. You may soon go mad. Believe me.

Why would he go mad?

davidylan:

Each time the children of Israel went to war[b] against another nation . . . there was a reason for it[/b]. Most of you never read deeply, you simply run away with your own bias.

Yes, indeed. Very rarely do people (and deities for that matter) do things just arbitarily. They more often than not have reasons and/or rationalisation. The question is NOT whether they had/have reasons/rationalisation.

the question is whether those reasons are good, justified and founded on rational basis

Under this rubric, what are the good, justified and rational reasons for God performing and ordering some of the most barbaric acts in human history? If it was reasonable and rational for God to perform and order those acts then, is it also reasonable for such acts to be performed today?

Tudör:

@seun
email you for what? The email you never read? If you do read your emails them why is my 'tudor' account still banned. Dnt come here and play the 'all efficient administrator' - we're not kids

Why are you denying me the right to call myself a freethinker? Is being a free thinker not withing my grasp? Are you a freethinker? Or would you like to be one?

JIL:

The same similar recycled post by Huxley. You begin to wonder what he intends to achieve. His hated for anything directly or remotely related to Christ can only be surpassed by that of the Antichrist himself.

Huxley, I don't know who you are or who you represent. But one thing I know, whether you believe it or not, everyone including you will give account of every word spoken against the Son of the living God.

The bible has talked about people like you even before your fore-fathers were born (no insult intended). 1 Cor 1;18 says:

NIV: 'For the message about the cross is nonsense to those who are being destroyed, but it is God's power to us who are being saved.'

King James: 'For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.'

It is no surprise that those who are perishing donot understand the things of the spirit.

Huxley, we donot hate you but feel sorry for you. My prayer and those of other christians is that God have mercy upon you and open your heart to know him. I see your name being changed from Huxley to Guxley as Saul was changed to Paul.

Firstly, what do you mean recycled? I don't remember posting about this subject before.

Secondly, why don't you deal with the substanstive point of my post rather than issue the familiar christian threats of punishment and judgement, none of which frightten me. By the way, what reason do you have for believing that what is in the bible will come to pass when it is so full of false prophecies, barbarisms, falsehoods, massacres, etc. Why should one believe such a reprehensible book?

Christian claim that Jesus sacrifice (which I have shown to be a sham in a previous thread) and shedding of blood was required for the forgiveness of sins. However, according to the bible, nothing could be further from the truth. The bible explicitly says, in multiply occasions, that sacrifices of any kind are NOT required for the forgiveness of sins and repentence.

If this is correct, which I contend it is, then Jesus's sacrificial sham suicide was a waste of time. In fact, that is probably why God brought him back to life, because he was NOT supposed to have instigated his own sacrificial crucifixion, given that according to God this was unnecessary. But being the upstart disobedience son, he disobeyed his father and orchestrated his own dead.

Seun:

Just mail me if the spam filter gives you any problems.

Seun, my huxley account is still disabled for posting. This happened immediately after I posted a new thread with a link to another website. It looks suspiciously like the spam filter misfiring again. Can you re-enabled the account for posting.

Or, are we now not allowed to post links to other sites?

For me, it confirmed what I already knew, and these are:

1) The vast majority of Christians and religionists are ignorant, delusional and uninterested in learning and advancing the plight of humankind on earth.

2) That there are a few atheists are there, but that these atheist are reluctant to publically self-identify.

3) That only a small minority of members are amenable to rational argumentation.

4) That the Christian are suckers for the venal pastors and ministers who suck them for their money and that they would die defending their Man of God.

fellis:

And you started this thread, seeking to be unbanned, with one of your different usernames.
Isn't usage of multiple usernames against the rules?

Yes, this is one of my old username the banning of which caused me to created the huxely account. I subsequently realised that it was later unbanned and that is why I have gone back to it rather than start another account.

Obviously, I would much prefer to have the huxley account unbanned as I have a lot of postings under that name and am now more widely recognised under that account.

The story of the good Samaritan surpasses any other narratives in the bible in the moral lesson it conveys. In fact, if the entire bible were reduced to just these few words and the essential ideas implemented by humankind, the world would be a much better place.

Luke 10: 29 - 37:

"A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead with no clothes. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, and he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, he too passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and looked after him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.' "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

What do you guys think?

chidichris:

most professors are partial mad men and they lie a lot. they don't believe what others believe.
a good example of a professor is prof. iwu who lied and decieved all nigerians in april 2007.

How do you know they lied? Did you compare what they said with some authentic standard reference?

Seun, the spam filter has gone crazy. It has flagged and removed a post I (Huxley) made that contain a link to another website (Youtube). Are we no longer allowed to post links to other websites? It has also banned me from posting with my huxley username.

Pastor AIO:

Good Question! Yeah, most Africa cultures that I'm aware of have always been monotheistic.

Without doubt christianity has been used as a tool for imperialism.

Last sunday Chinua Achebe talked on tele about how it was done and how in the mission schools they were made to feel that their parents were inferior and igbo culture was wrong.
http://www.itv.com/PressCentre/TheSouthBankShow/Ep6AchebeandAdichieWk20/default.html

However another very important question is whether religion is just merely a CULTURAL ARTIFACT or whether it is based on a more universal reality beyond culture.
If it is just cultural then you should practice your religion as an affirmation of your culture.
If it is more than cultural then it is important to explore what it is that gave rise to religion and why.

Really, I was not aware of that. I thought that most African religions were polytheistic in nature. At least from my culture, our traditional supernatural beliefs were founded on ancestral and animistic "god" or dieties. And having read Achebe extensively as a teenager, this appears to be true of the Igbos as well. But then again, societies evolve and adopt and discards gods as they see fit.

I get a feeling that underlying this post is the idea the monotheism is "superior" to polytheism. Do you agree with that?

Listen to Ingersoll here

Nearly 30 minutes and still here? C'mon moderator, you disappoint me sometimes!!!!!

JeSoul:

my dear olabowale, christianity is more than just a confession of faith. . . it has to be evident by your fruit. The bible says even the devils believe in God. Tpaine can claim he's turned a new leaf all he wants but until his actions actually prove he has, he remains a liar.

also are you comparing a small man called tpaine to the very words/writing of the bible? the bible is true and believable because it comes from God, tpaine is a man and it is in our very nature to be liars.

It the bible were true it should tell us in no uncertain terms the following;

1) Where JC was born on/before 4BCE or on/after 6CE
2) The order in which god created plants, woman, man, animals, sun
3) When exactly JC was crucified; on day of passover, or day before passover
4) What combination of animals went into the ark
etc, etc.

Does the bible not lie about these things?
3)

olabowale:

@Tpaine: Slow your roll, because. My simple response should not get you so upset like this. Direct me to your claim above. I will read that irrefutably un impeacheable entry you made about the origin of man in Africa. But please could you pin point the spot, area where this first human colony lived in Africa?

I told you my Adam and Hawa lived in Makka. Now direct me to where your nameless first human lived? South Africa, Nigeria, Sudan, Egypt, where?

Read the post https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-120900.0.html and following the links in the references section to see the scientific reports.

Then come back to discuss.

olabowale:

@Tpaine; I do not know who is Mo. But I know who Prophet Mu/hamm/ad bin Abda/lah is. If thats who you meant, then know that his paternal grandmother, the wife of Ibrahim, hagar who bore the first child, a male named Ismail, was from Egypt. She was an Aswan woman. Every Egyptian was black. Look at Nefratiti!

Also when he was born, his mother's breast milk was not enough. A black woman suckled him. Halima, his foster mother was from the bedouin. You will see a black hue in the arabs of today. I have met some Kuwaiti people whose look will not be noticed if they were to be among my family members. Some of my people ae just like the Egyptians. We are all human beings.

I remember the Kuwaiti Ambassador whose daughter spoke as part of the precursers for the 1991 Desert storm war against Iraq. that was before desert shield. This young girl and her father, the Ambassador, look just like any black man in America or Africa. You remember the Saudi Ambassador to Washington, Banda Sultan Bas? He was right in Oval office when this last "Ahock and Awe" started. He looks black as any black man. And please note that hues of blackness ranges from almost white to black.

You tend to be so determine d to prove that Africa is where man originated. That is if you factor in Makka and the rest of the middle east as Africa. I factor that to my understanding, since Suez canal is a new thing between the two lands. In that case Africa is the first settlement of mankind; Adam and Eve.

If your nearderthal mindset is still in play, then you are still not sincere in your seeking a true belief in One God. God created everything. Nearderthal is not a human being like you and me. Just the same way that Cheatter is not the same as leopard. Or Lion and Tiger are not the same. Yet they are all Cats. Every one of them is created, distintively different from the other.

Look, I am NOT concerned about black or white (or brown or yellow). I am concerned about the religions acknowledging the now irrefutable fact that humanity originates from Africa, rather than from the Arabian desert, as the Abrahamicists claim.

I do NOT care one jot who looks black, white etc. Looks like you have been conditioned to think in terms of colour. I do not not think in such terms. So I do not care whether Mo's slaves, mother, pigs etc where black/white. Nor do I care whether the Saudis, Iranians, Jews, Egyptians, Sudanese etc are whatever. These are immaterial to humanity.

Any religion that touts the Adam&Eve account is worthy of total dismissal as falsehood. PERIOD

To get me to believe the A&E account you have got to first refute the genetic studies I posted unimpeachably, and then show evidence why A&E is worthy of believe.

Test of Faith

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/feb/24/1

First for some figures. Last year, an ICM poll found 85% of Americans believe that God created the universe. In Nigeria, 98% claimed always to have believed in God, while nine out of 10 Indonesians said they would die for their God or religious beliefs. Last month, a survey by the market research bureau of Ireland found 87% of the population believe in God. Rather than rocking their faith, 19% said tragedies such as the Asian tsunami, which killed 300,000 people, bolstered their belief. Polls have their faults, but if the figures are even remotely right they illustrate the prevalence of faith in the modern world.

Faith has long been a puzzle for science, and it's no surprise why. By definition, faith demands belief without a need for supporting evidence, a concept that could not be more opposed to the principles of scientific inquiry. In the eyes of the scientist, an absence of evidence reduces belief to a hunch. It places the assumptions at the heart of many religions on the rockiest of ground.

So why do so many people believe? And why has belief proved so resilient as scientific progress unravels the mysteries of plagues, floods, earthquakes and our understanding of the universe? By injecting nuns with radioactive chemicals, by scanning the brains of people with epilepsy and studying naughty children, scientists are now working out why. When the evidence is pieced together, it seems that evolution prepared what society later moulded: a brain to believe.

One factor in the development of religious belief was the rapid expansion of our brains as we emerged as a species, says Todd Murphy, a behavioural neuroscientist at Laurentian University in Canada. As the frontal and temporal lobes grew larger, our ability to extrapolate into the future and form memories developed. "When this happened, we acquired some very new and dramatic cognitive skills. For example, we could see a dead body and see ourselves in that position one day. We could think 'That's going to be me,'" he says. That awareness of impending death prompted questions: why are we here? What happens when we die? Answers were needed.

As well as providing succour for those troubled by the existential dilemma, religion, or at least a primitive spirituality, would have played another important role as human societies developed. By providing contexts for a moral code, religious beliefs encouraged bonding within groups, which in turn bolstered the group's chances of survival, says Pascal Boyer, an anthropologist turned psychologist at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri. Some believe that religion was so successful in improving group survival that a tendency to believe was positively selected for in our evolutionary history. Others maintain that religious belief is too modern to have made any difference.

"What I find more plausible is that rather than religion itself offering any advantage in evolutionary terms, it's a byproduct of other cognitive capacities we evolved, which did have advantages," says Boyer.

Psychological tests Boyer has run on children go some way to proving our natural tendency to believe. "If you look at three- to five-year-olds, when they do something naughty, they have an intuition that everyone knows they've been naughty, regardless of whether they have seen or heard what they've done. It's a false belief, but it's good preparation for belief in an entity that is moral and knows everything," he says. "The idea of invisible agents with a moral dimension who are watching you is highly attention-grabbing to us."

Childish belief is one thing, but religious belief is embraced by people of all ages and is by no means the preserve of the uneducated. According to Boyer, the persistence of belief into adulthood is at least in part down to a presumption. "When you're in a belief system, it's not that you stop asking questions, it's that they become irrelevant. Why don't you ask yourself about the existence of gravity? It's because a lot of the stuff you do every day presupposes it and it seems to work, so where's the motivation to question it?" he says. "In belief systems, you tend to enter this strange state where you start thinking there must be something to it because everybody around you is committed to it. The general question of whether it's true is relegated."

While some continue to tease out the reasons for the emergence of religion and its persistent appeal, others are delving into the neuroscience of belief in the hope of finding a biological basis for religious experience. As a starting point, many studies focused on people with particular neural conditions that made them prone to experiences so intense, they considered them to be visions of God.

At the University of California in San Diego, neuroscientist VS Ramachandran noticed that a disproportionate number of patients - around a quarter - with a condition called temporal lobe epilepsy reported having deeply moving religious experiences. "They'd tell me they felt a presence or suddenly felt they got the meaning of the whole cosmos. And these could be life-changing experiences," says Ramachandran. The feelings always came during seizures, even if the seizures were so mild, they could only be detected by sensitive electroencephalograms (EEGs). Between the seizures, some patients became preoccupied with thoughts about God.

Ramachandran drew up three explanations he thought might explain why the patients with epilepsy seemed so spiritual. First, he considered that the upwelling of emotion caused by the seizure might simply overwhelm, and patients made sense of it by believing that something extremely spiritual was going on. Second, the seizure might prompt the left hemisphere to make up yarns to account for seemingly inexplicable emotions. The ability of the brain's left hemisphere to "confabulate" like this is well known to neuroscientists. Third, he wondered whether seizures disrupted the function of part of the brain called the amygdala which, among other tasks, helps us focus on what is significant while allowing us to ignore the trivial.

Ramachandran decided to test a couple of patients using what is called the galvanic skin response. Two electrodes are used to measure tiny changes in the skin's electrical conductivity, an indirect measure of sweating. In most people, conductivity goes up when they are shown violent or sexual pictures, or similarly loaded words. In the test, Ramachandran found that patients with temporal lobe epilepsy responded very differently from others. Violent words such as "beat" and sexual words produced not a flicker, but religious icons and the word "God" evoked a big response.

With only two patients involved in the study, Ramachandran says it is impossible to draw any conclusions, but if the results stand up to future testing, it might indicate that seizures in the temporal lobe strengthen certain neural pathways connected to the amygdala, meaning we attribute significance to the banal objects and occurrences. "If those pathways all strengthen indiscriminately, everything and anything acquires a deep significance, and when that happens, it starts resembling a religious experience," he says. "And if we can selectively enhance religious sentiments, then that seems to imply there is neural circuitry whose activity is conducive to religious belief. It's not that we have some God module in our brains, but we may have specialised circuits for belief."

At the University of Pennsylvania, radiologist Andrew Newberg has cast a wider net to scan the brains of people performing all manner of spiritual activities. By injecting radioactive tracers into the veins of nuns, Buddhists and others, he has constructed brain maps that show how different practices affect neural processing. "What comes out is there's a complex network in the brain and depending on what you do, it is activated in different ways," says Newberg. "If someone does Tibetan Buddhist mediation they'll activate certain parts of their brain, but if you have a nun praying they'll activate slightly different parts, with someone doing transcendental mediation activating other areas again."

Newberg uncovered the neural processing behind the religious experience of "oneness" with the universe. Blood flow drops off in the parietal lobe, a brain structure that helps us orient ourselves by giving us a sense of ourselves. "We think this latter step is critical," says Newberg. "What seems to be happening is that as you block sensory information getting into the parietal lobe, it keeps trying to give you a sense of self, but it no longer has the information to do so. If that happens completely, you might get this absolute feeling of oneness."

Newberg has been criticised for his investigations into the essence of spiritual experience - the most vehement attacks coming from atheists. "Some people want me to say whether God is there or not, but these experiments can't answer that. If I scan a nun and she has the experience of being in the presence of God, I can tell you what's going on in her brain, but I can't tell you whether or not God is there," he says. Religious groups point out that there is more to religion than extreme experiences. It is a criticism Newberg acknowledges. "The problem is, the people who have these experiences are so much easier to study," he says.

As neuroscientists unpick the biological mechanisms behind religious experience, others are considering what to do with the information. At Laurentian University, Todd Murphy and Michael Persinger are developing devices they think can stimulate parts of the brain to enhance spiritual experiences. Others see the possibility for drugs designed to boost spirituality. Newberg says this would be underpinning a practice that has existed for hundreds of years with scientific understanding. "If you talk to a shamen who takes a substance so they can enter into the spirit world, they don't think that diminishes the experience in any way," he says.

Intriguingly, many scientists, while stressing that they have set out to explore religion rather than disprove its basis, say that no matter what they uncover about the nature of spiritual experiences, mass religious belief will continue. The fastest growing religions in the US are the Mormon church and Scientology, both popular, according to Boyer largely because they are new. In other parts of the world, more fundamentalist religions succeed because they give a clear vision of the world.

"For two centuries, there's been competition between churches and in the free market of religion, the products get better and better as people want different things," says Boyer. "Will science be the death of religion? As neuroscience, it's interesting to see how brains can create very strange states of consciousness, but in terms of threatening religion, I think it'll have absolutely no effect."

Further reading

Darwin's Cathedral , University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0226901351

David Sloan-Wilson argues religion is evolution at work

Religion Explained ,Vintage, ISBN 0099282763

Pascal Boyer on religion as a tool for social integrity

Brain-wise Bradford Book, ISBN 026203301

Patricia Smith Churchland on the neural basis of religion

What Is Good? ,Weidenfeld & Nicolson, ISBN 0297841327

AC Grayling on humanity's search for a moral code

www.andrewnewberg.com

· Todd Murphy will be speaking on the evolution of God at the Art and Mind Festival, Religion, Art and the Brain, March 10-13, Theatre Royal, Winchester. Box office 01962 840440 or www.artandmind.org

olabowale:

Am shocked that you guys are not believing him. Did you see his heart? Do you know whats in his soul? I believe you Tpaine. You want guiance? The first thing is to know there is no deity to be worshipped except the Almight Creator Alone. You must now shun all preconceived ideas that had kept you from belief, all along. God is not a multiple entity. He is One and Only. Thre is no known partner or coequal or associate, or son, etc.

When you have this down in your heart. Then tell this God to strengthen you in this found belief in Him. You can take your declaration of faith in any Mosque in England. There are many available to you. I wish you well. Also change that statement at the bottom of your entries to reflect your new found faith in God Almighty.

Thanks for the advice, but while am still searching, I would like to know if Mo knew we are all Africans. I would really like to know his view,because this would help me evaluate the Mo religion.

Did JC know we are all Africans?

4Him:

what leaves me sickened is how you suddenly lost your voice as soon as your own deciet and half-baked scholarship was exposed by the very same book of matthew. There is no contradiction in the bible . . . Justcool simply needs to go read his bible very well.

If you also want to blaspheme the bible, you have plenty of ammunition by misquoting, misrepresenting and distorting that same bible.

Only foolish people will go pick up snakes and claim the bible told them to do so.

The early disciples owned no slaves.

Funny enough the very same bible frankly frowns at divorce, has a zero policy on fornication and adultery and CLEARLY advocates love, trust, forgiveness, self sacrifice as bedrocks of the marital institution . . . of course hypocrites like you NEVER see that.

No you don't. Christ ate with sinners, sat with publicans, prayed with an adulterous woman, forgave the theif on the cross . . . its all in the bible wooden head.

Tell me what the following verses say;

Matt 5: 29- 32

Mark 9:47

2 Corin 6:14

1 tim 2: 9-15

Goodnite

4Him:

Justcool, you need to grab your bible and study it yourself.

the diversity and contradiction within xianity leaves my gasping . everyone is right depending on how you look at any issue.

if you want to pluck out your eyes, you have support in the bible

if you want to pick up poisonous snakes, you havr support in the bible,

if you want to keep slaves, you have support in the bible,

if you want to "put a woman in her place", you have support in the bible.

if you want to never go into the house of unbelievers, you have support in the bible.

4Him:

Same old exhibition of a lack of biblical understanding . . . this time i wont indulge you with a response.

The last refuge of the credulous - avoidance.

Image123:

You don't believe in the Bible, so why all these stress and paine that you're inflicting on yourself?
2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
take good advice

OK, as a believer in the bible which of the above do you subscribe to? Childbearing for salvation, women not speaking in churches, women not wearing broided hair, jewelery etc? If not, why?

Image123:

You don't believe in the Bible, so why all these stress and paine that you're inflicting on yourself?
2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
take good advice

Exactly, why would I believe in such a horrible book. Do you believe in the qu-r-an? Can you find fault and bad doctrine in the qu-r-an?

justcool:

Once again your argument holds no water. Remember that Jesus never wrote any book. The bible was written by men and not Jesus himself! The words that we are talking about are not actually Jesus' exact words. They are mans transmition of Jesus's words. Apart from the fact that the words were written by man, they were written in another language and have gone through translations. Every educated person knows what translation does to the meaning of sentences! Therefore if any errors are found in those words, such errors should not be attributed to Jesus.

Who said you should believe anything in it! Only religious people tell you that. I have no religion but I am of the conviction that Jesus is the son of GOD. God remains eternally and we humans have the ability to recognize HIS will which is anchored in HIS works. I am as much a humanbeing as the writers of the Bible and the God that they wrote about still remains. Why should I neglect my own ability to recognise him personally and believe what another person recognised. I deal with God personally, and I don't allow any religion or book to interfere with my recognition.
None of the prophets taught of God based on any book. Jesus did not teach based on the Bible. Neither did John the baptise nor Mohamed.
Whoever truly seeks God shall find!
And from your own experiences you can agree or disagree with what others wrote. God can reveal himself to you as much as He revealed to the writers of the Bible, if only you seek keenly, humbly and without prejudice. You will receive as much as you are worthy to receive.

If you think the bible is errant, what then is your basis for accepting Jesus as the Son of God. What if the bit where he says he is the Son of God is a human mistake? That too could be in error?

I would really like to see your criteria for accepting/reject sections of the bible.