₦airaland Forum

TheBigUrban2: Hehe...

All Abrahamic religions can make you arrogant and intolerant....depending on how you practice it.

If you take a conservative approach to christianity and islam, you will become a full time bigot because you will naturally believe that there is only one God (your Allah/Yaweh) and only one truth (through Moses/Jesus/Muhammad). A Jew will reject Jesus as a heretic. A christian will reject Judaism and the law of Moses as the outdated scriptures/convenant. A muslim will reject the bible as a corrupted holy book.


In short, the conservative would take his religion to be the only truth, hence, other religions, gods or practises are false.




A liberal approach to christianity and islam is far better. This because while you believe in your holy books or prophets, you accept that your truth is not the only way to God. There are many ways to God- all that one needs is the love of God's creations. You respect your religion and give people the chance to practice theirs without your judgement.

Unfortuantely, there are very few liberal christians/muslims

i must say i have never seen anyone who is as liberal as you described...if there were such i'll really like to ask them, "if all is relative, why do you even believe your particular holy book and not the other one?".

Sorry, but i think it is hard to be a real relativist and be a christian or a muslim...maybe a budist.

========================================================


Arrogance
-a show of self superiority. Unnecessarily acting better than others


Intolerance
-close-minded disrespect of other viewpoints


my definitions

any ref?

Scyllapatron: when ego runs amuck, it breeds 'arrogance'. it is a human social defect that is common to all of us, it is not exclusive to any group. even we atheists are arrogant 'both online and offline' especially when when we think we are right and others are blind.
however, pentecostal/evangelical/born-again christians are the most arrogant in all religious sects, it's very absurd because they claim to represent a religion which is suppose to promote love and humility. most times it is the arrogance in christians that drive non-christians away from christian teachings. the first and second generations (missionaries, Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Jehovah's witness, etc.) were more humble with their evangelism and they were able to convert people to christianity in a more friendly, peaceable, well-meaning manner,
but today's christians could verbally attack you, lay a curse on you and be happy to see you suffer, even laugh at your plight.

.
.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your chiristians, your christians are so unlike your Christ"

- Mahatma Gandhi

interesting point of view...

I just have a footnote...
The missionaries came with the colonial masters...
The catholics preached the crusade and then the inquisition...
The anglicans killed the monks and the catholics when king henry took over the church...
The Jehovah witness in my street will probably preach to me calmly but i'm pretty sure if i ask he'll surely tell me i won't make heaven in my present state.

Are they really that gentle?

RikoduoSennin: If the bolded is true, what then can be said about Atheism and Agnosticism. They too as much as anybody else manifest these two traits as well as others. Arrogance, intolerance, Pride, haughtiness etc you name it!

It is wrong to believe/Conclude this traits are heightened because of religion. They are in all of us but some religion like christianity helps its members to control/get rid of those traits not the other way around.

a different thought...

Actually doesn't Christainity fuel these trait. Some months ago a heard a pastor teach about some "supposed heresy" in some other church, my pastor actually taught the congregation that they are lucky to be members of the church...these are the cool cases, there are pastors who actually teach that the other church down the street is the "LovePeddler of babylon" and they are all going to hell, there are those who believe they are the only guys going to heaven... The list goes on. I still haven't met a pastor that respect witches and loves native doctors.

Isn't religion in one way or the other and christianity in particular fueling these attitude?

qstar: Religion helps no one get rid of no traits. Personal effort does!

this is a big blanket statement don't you think?

mmsen: Agnosticism is not a religion. If anything it describes an indifference to the allure of religion.

True...
But the same is not true for atheism...atheist aren't exactly indifferent. And agnostics are most times still searching for the good in world religion.

You have zero evidence for your claim that xtianity helps to get rid of these negative traits. It that were truly the case there would not be so many different churches, each with different dogmas and hierarchies.

I think you have it backwards, the "negative traits" aren't the cause for the different Churches and dogmas, it is the other way round, the different dogmas (specific and absolute religious truths) are the cause of the possible negative traits and different churches.

And as to your first comment, i just read a religious article that advises the christain to evangelise without any trace of intellectual arrogance and to tolerate the views of others even when he believes he has arrived at the truth. It advises that evangelisation be a dialogue, so i may disagree with you that there is zero evidence that christainity or even other religions may help people in getting off there high horses.

Did you know that animosity between the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant churches is so great that the keys for some of the major xtian tourist sites in Israel have to be kept by Muslims...

e.g.
http://www.ibtimes.com/who-guards-most-sacred-site-christendom-two-muslims-1161517

hehehe...

Yeah, there is bad blood, it is true, but is this proof of simple human ego that is possible even without religion or does this make religion the cause?

TheBigUrban2: Atheism is not a religion and neither is agnosticism.

this only allows me expand the discussion.

From what i see...the arrogance isn't neccessarily about religion, it comes from the "supposed" certainty of having the "truth", and the ability to spot the supposed errors!

Or do you think this is limited to just christains or religious people?

Freelancer00: What is civil law, what is ecclesiastical law? I'm sure we all know what sharia law is.

google is your friend

OLAADEGBU: The answer to the question was given in the OP if you really want to know.

and somehow you op is omniscient? Was your op in the early church?

Chukwudi gave you a hand written account from people who were there and you dismissed it without a second thought.

Nobody yet to define the terms still waiting for more response.

deebrain: As a religion, Yes.

As a relationship, No.

i have tremendous respect for all who try to distinguish between Christianity as a relationship and Christianity as a religion. That is powerful mental gymnastics and it will take me great mental strength to understand the difference. That aside, if christianity is a relationship then it must be a relationship with Jesus...u remember Jesus right? The guy who said "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life, no one come to the Father except thru me", if you have a relationship with him then you must believe what he says...if you believe what he says then you must agree with him.

So what about those whose religion isn't "Jesuschristious"? What about the pagans? Doesn't that mean that they are in error? That they believe in errors and it is your moral duty to share this "truth"?

Heck, the relationship will not accept all "nonJesuschristious" ideas and religions, it will reject them and brand them as errors.

Certainly this relationship is no very tolerant of other ideas, certainly is presumes to be superior to them.

alentyno: ^^^^^ the poster above me is clueless.
OP if this is what you take christians to be, then I wonder how you will describe muslims

would you say the muslims should be the measuring rod on right and wrong?

Why infact would you mention muslims if it doesn't presume that Christians are inherently better?

I even think Jesus may have set the tone when he said "if your goodwork doesn't surpass that of the pharisees you shall not enter the kingdom...".

Apatheist: Someone finally notices.
Not only arrogant and intolerant, also condenscending. and sanctimonious.
Believers of other religions sometimes act like this, but Christians take the cake.

wow those are plenty big words.

Would you rank all Christains with those words?
Would you say the christain beliefs are the reasons for those "behaviour"?

Would you say those acts of intolerance are offensive?

OLAADEGBU: The topic reads "early Christianity." What did the Christian "religion" look like or function when the followers of our Lord Jesus first got organised.

that is exactly what chukwudi just explained to you but you refused to listen.

JesusisLord85: All these 'ages' you speak of are of the disgusting gentiles, who dumped their perversion in Africa.
It would have been better if they had left out fathers to worship wood and stone.

The early 'christians' were Jews, so sharp there. They simply believed that the four thousand year prophecy was being fulfilled. No mention in the prophets of a new religion. If anything, formation of a new religion would disqualify Yahshua as the prophesied Messiah.

So lets see what these first 'christians' got up to:

Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place
verse 5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.


Acts 10:15 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean
[some of you incorrectly think you can eat swine. If Yahshua said it is fine, how come Peter did not get the memo]

Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
[oh look, they read the law and prophets on the sabbath, as usual. What are you doing observing Sunday]?

Acts 13:44 "44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God."
[Again? Nawa o, I thought observing sabbath is wicked according to some of you]

Acts 18:18 "And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow."
[what this 'christian' doing making nazarite vow, lol]

Acts 21:
23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
[what this 'christian' doing keeping the law. the law is "bondage" to today's christians]

How anyone can think any truth came via Rome is beyond my comprehension.
Let me show you, the culture of those devils is at odds with everything the Most High calls holy:

Acts 16:20
20 And brought them to the magistrates, saying, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city,
21 And teach customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans.


Go away and have a think. Let that marinade. I know all the usual 'christian' arguments for "we can eat anything, God called it holy", or "we are gentiles, we don't need to keep laws, that is for the Jews"...So save it.

Shalom

people are talking about christainity and you are teaching judaism....

Go and read gal 3

So minuites ago i lost my long opening post detailing christainity's teaching on Christ the ultimate Truth and how that has influence Christains down though the centuries.

Well that is gone so here is a simple one.
Christains believe they possess the ultimate truth and Christ is the only way, and the path to the father, do these beliefs make the average christain arrogant? Does it give them a sort of percieved superiority in opinions?

Believing in one sole truth comes with the moral resposibility of teaching it and brands other opinions as errors, does this teaching make christains intolerant to other opinions and religions?


Terms like arrogance and intelerance are not defined, i invite those commenting to attempt to define them with reference before arguing for or against.
I also note that neither arrogance or intolerance are condemned in this post.


So what do you think?

oaroloye: The only important one there is IGNATIUS deLOYOLA.

The Jesuit Order was founded to protect Roman Catholic interests in general, and the Power of the Pope in particular.

The Pope had him summoned to give an account for himself- FOR HIS LIFE.

If he did not like what he heard, the Pope was going to execute him!

This was the sort of people the Roman Catholics were at that time, and have always been.

When Will Blackthorne Adams landed on Japan in 1600, he found that the Jesuits had been entrenched there for about 70 years!

Please go down to your movie rental, or your bookshop, and find the movie and novel: SHOGUN, by James Clavell.

They- the Jesuit Priesthood- tried to have the first Englishman to reach Japan executed by crucifixion, on the accusation that he was a Pirate.

The film did not make it clear until near the end, but the novel tells us from the beginning, that these accusations were more like an understatement! This fellow made Abubakar Shekau look like a Jehovah's Witness selling WATCHTOWER! This was representative of the ANGLICAN Church.

There was no Good-Guy vs Bad Guy in that movie, but Bad Guy vs. Bad Guy.

About five years before Blackthorne arrives in Japan, their government just uncovered a plot by the Roman Catholic Church to invade Japan, overthrow, colonize, and enslave its people, just as they had done in the Americas. The plan failed, and 26 Scapegoats were executed.

These 26 Martyrs are very important to Japanese Culture. They are probably comparable to the 47 Ronin, which is to the Japanese like the story of Jesus and the Twelve Apostles. If you want to understand the Japanese, you must include that story among your studies.

Yet, this factum of history was not included in the movie (and I watched the EIGHT-HOUR version)!

The Jesuits obviously lied their butts off, and basically got away with attempted mass-murder- and then this idiot Englishman came along, and told them about THE TREATY OF ZARAGOSSA! They thought that he was lying!

He was looking at summary execution, until the Abbot in resident confirmed his allegation: that the nice Portuguese they thought were their allies actually regarded them as property!

Unless you see the movie for yourself, and study the history as I have, you would probably never understand why this is so important.

To summarize the entire problem:

The Jesuits have allegedly been expelled from every country in Europe.

I find that hard to believe- because Italy is their headquarters. How could they have been expelled from Italy?

The reason being is that the Jesuits are treacherous seditionists, who work behind scenes to alter the course of history, by undermining governments, toppling heads of State, and setting brother against brother. The greatest example of that is the American Civil War, and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and the Second World War, which was a bid to turn the entire World Roman Catholic- wiping out all other versions of Christianity by force.

To participate in this war, the Jesuit Order educated the Japanese in Western Technology, so that they were a match for the Americans, who had gotten out of control.

The Protocols of Zion document, purported to be the minutes of a top level meeting of the Illuminati, operating out of Freemasonry by about 1897, says, that if any nation refuses to yield to their control:

"...we will respond with the Guns of America, or the Guns of China, or the Guns of Japan!"

They were confident that they would always be able to control at least one of those entities, to do their dirty work.

Here then is the part that concerns you and me:

The Jesuits of Ignatius deLoyola educated Japan, so that it was equal to the most advanced European countries.

WHY DID THAT NOT HAPPEN IN AFRICA?

What resources- intellectual, material, or whatever, do the graduates of Roman Catholic Schools in Nigeria lack, that they could not turn Nigeria in particular, and Africa in general, into a technological paradise?

Why, for instance, are there no Roman Catholic Engineers building Power Stations to supply Electric Power to every State, City, Town, and Hamlet? What is it that they do not know, that they cannot do this for us?

I say, that the only tenable explanation is that they were ordered by their popes never to do so.

sorry dear, the story you just told is a very heavy dose of fiction.


Tell us facts and leave the fiction.

Olamilekan08: I'm not still convinced with this version of the story. Galileo nko what happen in his own case?

you can read it up

copernicus died peacefully, he wasn't tried in court or in the inquisition, nor was he convicted.

Copernicus had a pretty peaceful life, he published his work and at the time he did the church didn't disturb him.


You can read it up.
Copernicus presented his thought as it was at the time i.e as a scientific hypothesis... The church at that time tried to keep theology away from science.

But remember that was also the time of martin luther of germany, king henry of england not to mention calvin and a host of others, this political situation made the church very "observant" of the train of thought around.


Now talking about galileo...
During the time of galileo there were about 4 different hypothesis on the shape of the earth and the movement of the celestial bodies...none of the different models were condemned by the church because the church kept away from experimental science.


Galileo believed that the earth was a spherical because his telescope showed him that other planets were spherical, but unfortunately it was hard for him to prove that the planets revolved around the sun...much of his arguments were heavily flawed. And since aristotle it has been decided that if the planent moved around the sun then it should be detectable from the stars...(the equipment in those days couldn't detect this)

galileo actually published his work... But while some commended him Some priest condemned it, after showing his science was flawed they went on to quote scriptures....


Galileo responded and instead of limiting himself to science he went into theology and tried to use theology to explain his scientific thought (that was what got him into trouble. If it was just science the church had no business with him , but now it was theology and that means he could be tried for heresy.)

He was warned not to teach his thought as facts but the pope then was a friend of galileo and he gave him permission to write another book, but he should present argument for two different systems in the book, in the book galileo indirectly insulted the pope.


That was what caused his problem, after insulting the pope everybody was out for him and they dug up his former book and his previous warning and they they showed that his new book didn't really present two argument for the two system but that it was exactly like the former one.

He was charged for "suspected heresy", he recanted and was sentence to house arrest in his private residence.

He could recieved visitor, continue his other experiments and all, but he was not to leave his residence unless with permission.


That was what happened to galileo...he could only be condemned because he was discussing theology, copernicus on the other hand was never disturbed.


Years laters after better equipment were invented, it was shown that many "proofs" galileo presented were false but the copernicus theory he held was correct.

Galileo died many years later after making great discovery in mechanics.
You can read it up yourself

Greetings...


Ba3 low

Olamilekan08: Hmmm.. From the stories of Copernicus and Galileo that i've come across anywhere, he didnt publish his work for the fear of being persecuted by the church, because then, the church believe in the earth being the centre of the universe. And we all know what happen to those who oppose the church then.
This is the first time i am seeing this.

u are wrong!


Copernicus actually published his work, he dedicated it to the pope...

As long as he stayed on science, the church did distrub him...the pope even commended the work.

Ignatio: May that time never come. Hybrid bees! Na wa o. You want to torture humanity to death. I wonder what happens when this science gets introduced to the human system.

his research is responsible for the agric chicken you eat.

His time is here.

The allegation plenty....
Can you please support them with proof... Anything, new papper repaots e.t.c.

Elijah78: The church is a group of people living with Jesus, sharing their experiences with one another, as they live with Him; nothing more; but certainly, nothing less!

A community of believers undergoing change together, submitting to His will and purpose, being conformed to the image of Christ, as they are being saved (yes, salvation is a continuing process that has a starting point, but no ending point, read Luke 9:23-24; I Corinthians 1:18; Philippians. 2:12-13; Hebrews 3:14 and I Peter 2:2-3 in the NIV, a translation that actually gets it right).

A church is not a group of people who have designed the rituals to undergo when they meet together e.g, worship and praise, offerings, message, intercessory prayers, etc. This one is a religious institution. What the religious institutions we see around us do is ''entertainment''

and the Church is founded by Christ on the apostles...


If your "community" cannot be traced back to the apostles then you are on entertainment

What is he doing far away from the palace?

adsonstone: The same that commissioned the Apostle Paul.

....and you haven't still shown how his teachings contradict what Christ and the Apostles taught.

the elder in jerusalem commissioned paul by the laying of hands...i hope you are not telling me that kumuyi was commissioned in jerusalem.

BreezyRita: There's nothing like the true church.... I love this song - I need you to survive.
We're part of God's body. So it doesn't matter ur doctrines, denominations etc. All that's important is to be Christ like...... People in churches that claim they're the best still manage to go amiss. If you're taught the word of God with nothing being added or subtracted, no favorable teachings, then I advice u stick to it.
Above all, the leading of the Holy Spirit is best, word study and meditation....... 2 Tim 2:15

this is a very big lie that originated from the pit of hell!


My bible says "one God, one Lord, One faith, One baptism".

It doesn't say 33000 diferent faith! It said one faith. So anybody telling you there is no such thing as the true church is lying to you.

Sarassin: Quite plausible, but on the balance of probability I would say the author would be less likely to include the more obscure Jude as opposed to the writings of Peter the "Rock", just my opinion.

this isn't a matter of who wrote what book... The issue is clear from the writting of the early church fathers that some books circulated slower than others 2pt and even revelations just to name a few.


Till this date the Russian orthodox church doesn't read the book of revelation in liturgy, not because it wasn't writting by the apostle john but because it didn't circulate to the russian church.

tim411: So that is why they should spend millions of dollars on buildings and luxurious lives for the cardinals and not invest in people...when there is poverty everywhere.....
Call a spade a spade this is juz wastage

did they say any of the buildings whose pics are there were built with millions of dollars?

dasparrow: Of course not! I don't expect you to see anything wrong since we are talking about AMERICAN peeps here. If the topic were to be about Nigerian pastors and their lavish lifestyles, you and your ilk will be all up on this thread reigning insults on Nigerians and Nigeria as a nation and telling the people how foolish they are. However, since the thread is about your pay masters the americans, the cat has suddenly stolen your tongue or maybe your fingers have suddenly gone numb. SMH!

@Post

God knows his own. These archbishops should remember the bible verse that says in Matthew 19:24 "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." (NIV)

sorry those are NOT lavish homes. A masion doesn't always mean an luxurious residence. A mansion also means a "official residence".


Those buildings above are old buildings, built in th 1900, their prices aren't a reflection of their cost, it is a reflection of their age, historical advatage, their sites among other things.


Lastly, the houses bishops live doesn't make them "rich", they are simply official residences, the bishops actually have a fixed allowance and that isn't even tailored to meet minimum wage, they rest is from personal charitable donations.

Syncan: St. Patrick, I will... again. what am I watching out for?

his first shout out to God.

MOBJECTIVE:
[size=14pt]Protestantism’s Great Heresy – Ignoring the Blessed Mother[/size]

August 12, 2014

By Graham Glover

This Friday, 15 August, the calendars of Lutherans, Anglicans, and perhaps some other liturgically minded Protestants calls for the celebration of ‘St. Mary – Mother of our Lord’. On this same day, Roman Catholics will celebrate the ‘Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary’ and the Orthodox the ‘Dormition of the Theotokos’.

Unfortunately, this feast does not fall on a Sunday, which means most Protestants will hear nothing of it this year. They will not meditate on the readings, the hymns, or the propers assigned for this day. I highly doubt many Lutheran parishes will even reference it in the Prayers of the Church on Sunday morning. And this is sad. For those who believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, it’s tragic, as venerating Mary does nothing but point people to her Son. Yet it’s hardly surprising. In fact, I think it’s emblematic of Protestantism’s greatest heresy – ignoring the role that the Blessed Virgin Mary plays in our faith.

mary

I know this is a strong statement. It’s a stinging indictment of the movement to which I belong and a church body of which I am a pastor. But as much as I wish it weren’t true, I’m afraid it is. We Protestants say we hold the Blessed Mother in high esteem. Our calendars even have a few days set aside during the year to honor her. But this is nothing short of window dressing, as the Blessed Virgin Mary has little to do with the faith we confess. And this must change. We Protestants have to do better. To ignore the Blessed Virgin is to ignore her Son, something no follower of the Christ should ever desire to do.

For starters, I’ve always found it ironic that we who proclaim ‘Sola Scriptura’ seem to ignore the Scriptures when Mary tells us in her Magnificat: “from now on all generations will call me blessed.” But we do – that is, we Protestants almost always ignore this commendation, thereby betraying our own hermeneutic.

How often (if ever) do Protestants refer to Mary as the Blessed Virgin, the Blessed Mother, etc.? We certainly respect her, but we most assuredly do not treat her as the most noble gem in all of Christendom [after her Son], as our own Martin Luther referred to her.

Rather, we lump her together with the other saints of the New Testament. But the Blessed Mother is nothing of the sort. She is no ordinary saint. She is the saint of saints. She is the Theotokos – the Mother of God, a title given her at the Council of Ephesus in 431 and echoed in the Lutheran Book of Concord. The Blessed Mother is the example that all Christians should emulate. Her “Yes” to the angel Gabriel is an act of faith that sets the standard for all of the Church to follow. And yet when was the last time you heard a sermon, sat through a Bible Class, or read a Protestant theologian commend the Blessed Virgin Mary as such?

annunciation

Protestants are quick to criticize Rome for declaring as dogma of the Church the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the Bodily Assumption in 1950. “These things are nowhere in the Scriptures!” Protestants lament. I say, who cares? Is it that offensive to suggest that the God-Bearer was wiped clean of original sin in a single act of grace by the One whom she would bring into the world? Does is not make sense that the New Eve would be a spotless ark for her Son, the Messiah? The Immaculate Conception isn’t about Mary, it’s about Jesus, and to speak of His Mother as sinless (as Luther and other Reformers did) is a most salutary thing to do, especially considering that she remained a virgin throughout her earthly life (a universally accepted belief even among the most radical of Protestant reformers and a teaching taught in the Lutheran Confessions). And her Bodily Assumption? I guess the examples of Enoch and Elijah mean nothing? Again, what is so theologically offensive about this teaching that is deeply rooted in the Church’s tradition? Do we Lutherans, as the Apology of the Augsburg Confessions teaches, no longer believe that this woman prays for the Church?

To ignore the Blessed Virgin Mary makes no sense. Without her our Christology is shot. Without her our hermeneutics are insignificant. Without her our understanding of sin and grace is incomplete. Without her we cannot call ourselves part of the Body of Christ. This woman is our Mother, commended to the Church by our Lord Himself. And to ignore her is something no Christian should ever do.

Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum!

abeg i wan borrow this post.

profeoo: that shows there is lack of faith and trust in the church. Whatever happened to faith in God? Smh. Instead of such 'faithless decree,I think sanitizers should be encourage. Love never fails.....not even ebola should limit the ways we express love for our brothers!!!!!!!

hehehehe.

Only a stupid man will refuse to help himself when it is within his power to do so.

Omexonomy: How proper is it to assume mary is in heaven?

nobody is asuming anything dear, the assumption of mary is a christain teaching and the reason many protestants seem ignorant of this is because their "churches" started about 1500yrs after the death of Christ, and moreso the penticostals are just 100yrs old.


Make your research, this is a belief held by the ancient churches.

Jesus christ grant glory to his mother.