₦airaland Forum

olalekan1:
The truth is bitter. I pray may Almighty Allah open their eyes so that they can see the truth.

Indeed, truth is bitter - especially when you can't see that quoting Deuteronomy 18:18 for Muhammad is a blatant lie.

ancel:
Viaro, you're spot on. Please apart from Psalm 68:17, let Chukwudi44 explain away Deut 33:2, 2 Kings 6;17 and Daniel 7:10 as well.

Thanks, ancel - you added to my understanding with those verses.

Which reminds me: chukwudi44, when next you reply, please tell me what you understand by a cherub/cherubim. That would greatly help, thank you.

I enjoyed yours, TrueSeeeker. . . thanks so much.

However, please let me point out something that needs balance:

TrueSeeker:
As for the issue of arch-angel it is only one archangel that Bible refer to, and that is Michael the Archangel.

It might be better to say that the Bible refers to one archangel by name (ie., Michael); but it is understood that there are several archangels indicated in the Bible. How many they are exactly, we don't know - but we could infer that there are several archangels because of the other ways that they are desribed , as you had tried to point out:

If arch means chief, most important or leader then it is logical that we have just one archangel, meaning leader of angels. Read Jude 9.

Indeed, 'arch' is taken to sometimes mean 'chief' (and 'prince'). In this regard, there are several 'princes' who are understandably angelic beings. This is why we read Gabriel in Daniel 10:13 referring to the same Michael as 'one of the chief princes' - language that indicates that there are other 'chief princes' and Michael is only one among them. I hope this helps?

[quote author=Abu-Safwan link=topic=373466.msg5216409#msg5216409 date=1262176465]This exactly as the prophecy has it- 'FROM AMONG THEIR BRETHREN'.(Deut.18:18).[/quote]And that is what I shall dwell upon.

The foundation of Deuteronomy 18:18 is the Mosaic covenant given to Isreal as found reiterated in Deuteronomy chapter 5 - "The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb", and goes on to show that this covenant was not made with any other nation apart from the Jews. For Deut. 18:18 to have any import, it would have to be based on the covenant which forms its foundation - and that is where we shall try to understand what is meant in that context by 'brethren'.

First, Jews do not receive their prophecies from Arabs - which is why that verse in 18:18 clearly points out.

Second, 'brethren' as used there is one of covenant relationship among all those who are home-born as Jews and can show their pedigree from the families of Israel. Others who lived among them but could not point to any Jewish family ties were called 'sojourners' or 'strangers', not brethren. It is for this reason that two distinct groups were recognized in Israel based upon that covenant: "Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel" (Lev. 20:2).

Third, it is important for anyone at that time to identify their pedigree - otherwise it would be practically impossible for such a person to know where they stood in relation to the covenant life of Israel. Some of these covenant living include:

[list][li]the feast of the Jews[/li]
[li]political and civil life[/li]
[li]covenant relationships in prophecy[/li][/list]

Where is Muhammad in all that?

But more to the point is that there was only ONE LAW applicable to all who dwelt within Israel (Lev. 24:22); yet, sojourners (that is non-Jewish people dwelling in Israel) could not partake of the feasts of the Jews in exactly the same ceremonial standing as a native Jew. Why? Because when the covenant was made and ratified, it was representing only Jews - "The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day" (Deut. 5:3). So what then does this entail? Look below:

A. Jewish Feasts - Conditions for the Sojourner:

[list]Exodus 12:43-45, 48 ~~ "And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof." . . . "And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof."[/list]
[list]Exodus 29:33 - "And they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate and to sanctify them: but a stranger shall not eat thereof, because they are holy."[/list]
[list]Lev. 22:10 - "There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing."[/list]


B. Jewish Political Governance - Strangers Cannot Be Kings

[list]Deuteronomy 17:14-15  ~ "When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother."[/list]


The Law makes a clear case for the following regarding Jews and sojourners/strangers:

[list](a) a sojourner or stranger (a non-native Jew) could not be a Jewish priest
(b) a sojourner or stranger (a non-native Jew) could not be a Jewish king
(c)  a sojourner or stranger (a non-native Jew) could not be a Jewish prophet[/list]

And all those 3 elements were pointing to the very Messiah in Jewish prophecies.

You can see that the Law does not confuse a Jew for a non-Jew; and nowhere in the Law is an Arab included in the covenant of the Jews. Muhammad is not one of the Jews, nor could he have been one of their 'brethren' to rise from among them based on that Jewish covenant. Deedat should have pointed all this to you and told you the plain truth - no, he did not; rather he just trailed off wherever he saw 'brethren' and assumed it applied to Muhammad; yet, not even Muhammad recognized the Jews as his 'brethren', and that is no surprise to see why the Arab Muslims hate the Jews to this day.

[quote author=Abu-Safwan link=topic=373466.msg5216735#msg5216735 date=1262179458]Yes of course it is distorted scripture and I use it as a reference not for the Muslims but for you christians to become convinced with what your bible is saying.[/quote]Lol, I don't see Christians playing these dubious games of trying to use the distorted texts of the quran to prove anything about Jesus Christ. Christianity does not have to give credibility to itself on the basis of what Islam states, whether from the quran, hadiths, or anywhere wlse of your Islamic jurisprudence.

[quote author=Abu-Safwan link=topic=373466.msg5216409#msg5216409 date=1262176465]Viaro qoutes me and says:

viaro:
Let me just point out one false foundation upon which Salim I. Hassan built his arguments:
Please let me know: was Muhammad ever a Jew? How was Muhammad 'from among their brethren'?

perhaps he did not rear the post in full but I let him read this again:[/quote]I read the post in full before raising that enquiry. I see your own explanation failed once again to make any case for Muhammad as a Jew. But let me humour you on your own ideology on these things:

"“And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation”.
And we have already known that an angel had appeared to Hagar (the Abraham’s wife) and giving her glad tidings of a son to be named Ishmael

Hagar was not Abraham's wife. Get over it. In Genesis 16:3, Sarai told her handmaid Hagar and gave the latter as 'wife' to Abraham; but this very act violates marriage customs back then, and that is why you won't find anyone addressing Hagar as Abraham's wife. In Genesis 16:6, Abraham still referred to Hagar as Sarai's maid; in verse 8 the angel addressed Hagar as Sarai's maid and asked her to return to her mistress Sarai in verse 9.

(Gen. 16:11, and God did bless Ishmael, the first son of Abraham, and promised to make a great nation out of him (Gen. 17:20 & Gen. 21:13). His eminence, the late Deedat wrote: “If Ishmael and Isaac are the sons of the same father Abraham, then they are brothers. And so the children of the one are the BRETHREN of the children of the other.

Deedat is neither an 'eminence' nor an intelligent expositor. Where has any Muslim recognized any Jew to be his brother? Ask the late Deedat that question when you stir him up from his grave. You can't use a lie to cover up for what Muslims all over the world deny! But I shall come back to this to point out why Deut. 18:18 does not make Muhammad a Jew.

The children of Isaac are the Jews and the Children of Ishmael are the Arabs - so they are BRETHREN to one another.

Then why do Muslims never refer to or recognize the Jews/Israel as their own brethren even today?




[quote author=Abu-Safwan link=topic=373466.msg5216409#msg5216409 date=1262176465]The Bible affirms, 'AND HE (ISHMAEL) SHALL DWELL IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL HIS BRETHREN.' (Genesis 16:12). 'AND HE (ISHMAEL) DIED IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL HIS BRETHREN.(Genesis 25:18).[/quote]Hehe. . you just use a concordance and see 'brethren' without noting the context and distinction. Let me help you: Genesis 16:12 says of Ishmael, 'his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him' - and that is what the Arabs today have shown again and again to the Jews. I don't remember once when the Arabs have tried to bury their hatchet and lived peacefully in the midst of Israel. Do you?

But Genesis 25:18 shows again that Ishmael died in the presence of 'his brethren', which is not referring to the Jews. In verse 6, Abraham had already sent Ishmael away from Isaac and that is clear fact that they could not have been dwelling together. But who are the brethren of Ishmael? Verse 18 you quoted gives the clue - Ishmael dwelt 'from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria - and this place of Ishmael's dwelling is where he died: for that is where 'his brethren' dwelt at the time, and that was a very different location from where Isaac dwelt, since Abraham had sent all the others away unto 'the east country' as verse 6 says.

The children of Isaac are the brethren of the Ishmaelites.

I don't know how many Muslims believe that - otherwise you tell me why Muslims hate the Jews.

In like manner Muhummed is from among the brethren of the Israelites because he was a descendant of Ishmael the son of Abraham.

Muhammad was not descended from the lineage of Israel and cannot be a Jew. Period. When Ishmael was being sent away from Isaac, it was then declared that the covenant of the Jews would be with ISAAC, not Ishmael - see Genesis 17:19 "Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him". Where is Muhammad in that covenant of the Jews?

[quote author=Abu-Safwan link=topic=373466.msg5216635#msg5216635 date=1262178437]Once again, I intervene with simple answer. Habib Let him know that the Bible identified that Ishamael is the son of Abraham meanwhile Ishmael is the ancestor of prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Addtionally, Jesus said about that prophet: “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is to your advantage that I go away. For I go not away, the comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart he will be sent to you, he will guide you unto all truth for he shall not speak of himself but whatever he shall hear that he shall speak” (John 16: 7&13). Likewise, The coming of prophet as God’s messenger foretold in the books of John 16:12-14, Habakkuk 3:3, Song of Solomon 5:10-13, Deuteronomy 33:1-2, Matthew 23:39, John 14:30 and e.t.c. His eminence, the late Deedat had once wrote and proclaimed that: “Muhummed is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon 5:16. The Hebrew word used there is Muhammuddim. Can you still reject your bible? Habib you know that the problem with most of this people is that they know nothing about the original Gospel. If Allah wishes Viaro will accept the truth and I wish him the best. I also wish that Banom will accpet the truth in the near future for he is still seeking for it with rational objectivity. I once again felicitate him for making a first good step toward the truth when he diverted from Atheism to Christianity. Much effort remained to be done by Banom in realizing the next truth but it is easy to acquire.[/quote]It's nice for you to try and intervene on Habib's behalf. I was looking through the threads to see where these things have been discussed soundly to the conclusion that no Muslim was able to show that Muhammad is ever called 'the Holy Spirit' anywhere. When I find them, I shall post the links. . or just repost the whole thing here from the discussants. I've become a tard lazy these days to keep reposting links of subjects that have already been discussed too many times. But I would like to address your reply to me directly.

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=373466.msg5216519#msg5216519 date=1262177339]just watch out for Viaro response. he will pretend as if he does not understand english and say something offpoint without adressing the challenge.
this is the usual christian tactics when cornered[/quote]Instead of typing childish one-liners like someone biting his finger nails, why don't you just wait until viaro responds? Are you almost pis.sing in your drawers?

I know far more about Galileo than you could imagine, so humour me if you please. It is not religion that is your problem, but fundamentalism. You have no clue that your attitude reveals as much fundamentalism as those you accuse. The conclusion you drew is amazingly empty - which probably explains why I didn't read your reasoned answer to my initial comments and query.

If you're looking to make a mark for bashing religion, you're a late comer - there are many threads where concerns like yours have been spewed. We should be careful in the way we tend to generalise issues, especially as the case of a 23 year old is not enough to draw any conclusions about all Muslims or all Nigerians.

^^^ Lol, I would not want to go that far in response to toneyb.

We all make mistakes (sometimes very annoying mistakes) in what we say or the ideas we espouse - all of us bar none. When such statements as appeared in his are made, we should try to contextualize it and show some deference to the poster, because whether theists or atheists many of us have the tendency to generalize issues.

Anyhow, happy new year in advance!

Akindolu:
simply nothing and yet a 23-year old is down in the name of religion.I have been to it all.THE, please fill in the blank.Disappointed!

Why is the case of one 23 year old the determining factor for all you know about religion? Could I also say that just one demented 23 year old settles everything about all Nigerians or muslims?

Habib16:
@viaro look at u, u fool u have nothing say/do that will change the unchangeable just admit it THEIR IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH AND MHAMMAD IS A PROPHET OF ALLAH. In addition admit this too ALLAH IS THE CREATOR OF ISA HE IS THE CREATOR OF your grand father and grand mother, HE IS THE CREATOR OF your father nd mothe not to talk about u. ALLAHU AKBAR! ALLAH IS GREAT!
@viola u are the Phat, Phatz, Phatest fool i've ever ear of or seen Otondo like u. u are a very very big Duldrum! Lol

When someone reacts like the above, it confirms just one thing for me: rationale has taken flight and idiocy has come to roost.

Habib, if allah has answers rather than shouting, just calm down and provide a sane answer to the simple questions in my previous post: "was Muhammad ever a Jew? How was Muhammad 'from among their brethren'?"

It is when you do so that we can then proceed and discuss. To begin spewing derision does not help your allah - and I wasn't joking in saying that muslim apologists are often found stealing verses from other religions to dress up claims for Muhammad.

@tonyeb, while there are some salient points you put forward summarily, you must have spoilt everything with the claim about modern science:

toneyb:
The God hypothesis is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of a God.

That is not true (and I don't think anyone should attack you for that, though). Where has modern science tried to 'explain' -
             *  the origin of the universe?
             *  the origin of living things?
Where? By who? Many times when atheist naturalist make such statements, they immediately make an about-face and place disclaimers that they are not dealing with 'origins'.

The thing is that people often make these kinds of statements without having carefully thought about the implications and weight of such statements - it only reveals that the speaker has left the domain of science and is tending to atheistic materialism and naturalism.

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=372698.msg5215802#msg5215802 date=1262171147]christian that condems the roman catholic have no sense. How can you condemn the mainstream institution of christiany for over 1,500 years. Are you saying all the xtians from the rise of roman catholism to the advent of protestanism were idolators?[/quote]Muslims who condemn the whole of Christianity are even far more idiotic. How can you condemn the Biblical faiths from which Islam draws heavily?

MrPrsdent:
this happened in 2008.old news

http://nickpoolenow.com/2008/07/23/muslim-man-buries-his-wife-and-kidsalive/

Lol, we know it's old news - but we don't know if it actually happened. For many months I have tried to source that story and found no credible source for it. It's just recycled again and again and again. .

VALIDATOR:
@viaro,
You usually quote a little statement out of a whole write up, you dwell on that and try to give it a meaning that doesn't convey the idea of the whole write up.

What meaning have I given yours in quoting and replying earlier? I don't think it is fair to just make such accusations just because of your own misunderstanding.

There are both theist and atheist scientists, bla bla bla. When people blow themselves up on airplanes do they do it on scientific or on religious grounds Do you hear any scientific group claiming responsibility for suicide attacks.

And your point is. . .? Do all religious people blow themselves up to prove that religion is superior to science? What you're arguing is the same dense extremism that is as confused as ever. I know some doctors who have murdered patients without claiming to do so on any religious grounds. Does that make the medical profession murderous? Just because you find nuts who go about with dementia does not mean therefore you should apply broad strokes to religion as a whole and pit it against science.

I stand by my word on the HS issue. _{If you didn't understand my initial post it's up to you.}

Standing or falling by your post does not pass across any sense until you make yourself clear.

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=373466.msg5215604#msg5215604 date=1262169129]just wait and see the kufrs derail the topic again with their sensless posts. Any sensible post would be to prove Abusafwan wrong or show that the verses do mean as he claimed. Lets watch this one unfold[/quote]No, those of us who bother to post messages and comments on subject-threads like this do not dash for derailment as first-aid. The fact is that this very cacophony has already featured on Nairaland a couple of times (can't presently find examples, but came across some when I joined Nairaland - will provide a few links when I have the time).

Be that as it may, it is quite funny that the prophethood of Muhammad cannot stand on its own until your Muslims have tried to steal quotes from the scriptures and writs of religions that you condemn. It is not only from the Bible that muslim apologists are seeking to plaster credibility for Muhammad, but some have gone as far as trying to seive through so many writs (including Hindu and Parsi) and just bring up any fanciful tale to argue that this and that "confirms" the messengership of Muhammad. Poor scholarship.

Let me just point out one false foundation upon which Salim I. Hassan built his arguments:

Fact 1: Deut.18: 18: "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.”

Please let me know: was Muhammad ever a Jew? How was Muhammad 'from among their brethren'?

source, please?

mazaje:
We don't even know what the universe is and you are here labeling it a closed system?

Lol, the idea that the Universe appears to be a closed system is not predicated on what beneli says in this thread - that is a given in general cosmology. However, the question of either a closed or open system applicable to the Universe is relative and depends on the context of the cosmologist or other geoscientist who postulates the view in question. While some argue for a Universe as an open infinite system, others are persuaded to argue for one as a closed infinite system (yet others argue close to the same thing except that the Universe is 'finite'). Therefore, I don't think it is fair to say that beneli is the one labelling the Universe as a closed system.

Perhaps the one thing that anyone could say as descriptive on current cosmological thinking is that nothing is 'final' as concrete evidence and proof of the nature of the Universe: cosmologists and geoscientists are only speculating in this regard according to certain approaches and scientific theories and laws.

The way I believe we could conceive of the universe as a closed thermodynamic system is to start with a known finite and closed TD system, and add to that a surrounding part, which still match a closed TD system, and repeat that untill we cover all of the universe.But since the universe is probably infinite, we could never conceive of it as a closed TD system IMO.

This would present problems too many for you to solve on the basic level - Mathematically. The first thing you have done is taken out all mathematical constants from the equation, and one of the most enigmatic of this is what has been described as the ME - 'mathematical embarrassments'.

In the conviction that planetary bodies as spherical entities are also dependent on the behaviour of the Universe, it is germane to make postulations that do not neglect the constants that govern these planetary and cosmological entities. If I were to think of just one (the earth) within the Universe, the first thing that comes to mind is the volume of that spherical body, calculated as 4/3 ∏r³. But here is where the transcedental number comes in, the '∏', which is approximated as:

                     ∏= 3.14159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279 50288 41971 69399 37510
                     58209 74944 59230 78164 06286 20899 86280 34825 34211 70679
                     82148 08651 32823 06647 09384 46095 50582 23172 53594 08128
                     48111 74502 84102 70193 85211 05559 64462 29489 54930 38196
                     44288 10975 66593 34461 28475 64823 37867 83165 27120 19091
                     45648 56692 34603 48610 45432 66482 13393 60726 02491 41273
                     72458 70066 0631,   (on and on and on)

But this is only the beginning, and it is very important to understand something about the behaviour of the cosmological bodies before suggesting that we add anything to "that a surrounding part, which still match a closed TD system". Bro, you're asking for an explosion - not a cosmological expansion!  _{forget me - I'm no mathematician but can hardly resist playing with numbers!}

Besides the above, the question that logically comes next is: from where (from what external environment outside the Universe) do you derive anything to "add" to the Universe - whether considered as a closed or open infinite TD system? When you think carefully about that, then you would have to proceed to think of the basics: proffer a simple mathematical model upon which you build the physics of your suggested cosmology. Let's see yours, mazaje.

The universe is a closed system in the sense that it is self contained, but it is expanding so that more and more states are made available to the particles in it, so it definitely isn't closed in the thermodynamic sense.

Like I noted, the persuasion for the nature of the Universe falls on the context of the cosmologist or geoscientist.

VALIDATOR:
i don't see any scientist detonating a bomb on himself just to drive home his point.
Religion has more tendency for extremism than science.

This is where you get all wired up and very, very confused. Religious worldviews (and there are many of them, including atheist religions) are not to be confused for science. Both theists and atheists are involved in science, and that enterprise does not belong exclusively to anyone. There are very many theists who are scientists - and they have not blown up themselves just to drive home any point in either science or religion. To make simplistic statements like yours is very laughable indeed and borders on the extreme.

______
Added:

VALIDATOR:
I said religionists have been more guilty of claiming to know things that they don't because the christian religion for example lay claim to having a personal relationship with a certain omniscient Holy Spirit.

How does a relationship with the Holy Spirit translate into claiming to know things that we as Christians don't? Please just sort out that for me.

While i can not directly dispute the existence of a HS, I can not pretend to be unaware that on the same issue, there are usually various brands of the said HS message. each claiming to be the only authentic one.

That is no surprise; but your inferences are beginning to border on arrogance of a queer sort.

manmustwac:
The bible dose say thaat the world was flat according to the evidence i have posted above

This was why I said earlier: "Frankly, skeptics who try to suggest a flat earth into those verses are no better than religious people who misread the simple statements in them out of context."

Expressions such as "the four corners of the Earth" and "the ends of the Earth" have been dealt with and have been referred to several times:

The Four Corners of the Earth

Other Uses In Common Language

The Circle of the Earth

beneli:
@Viaro,
You've answered for me, a lot better than i would have done myself. Thanks!

Well, I didn't want to risk putting words in your mouth. . . but when I saw this from you as quoted below, I pinched myself and wondered if you were reading my mind:

beneli:
Unless of course, as some suggest, the 'universe' is no longer a closed system, which would be giving creationists like myself more guns for our arsenal!

Oh lawd!! I should've guessed that's where you were going! That was just too clever! The only thing was that at first glance it may not be apparent to the reader (which happened to me, and I guess also happened in toneyb's first reading). I may be wrong though. . I tend to often misread people until later.

chukwudi44:
@viaro

The bible makes it clear that there are only seven angels who stand in God's presence period.

That's false. The Bible mentions seven angels in God's presence in Revelation 8:2; but other verses tell us there are many more angels who stand in God's presence. That same Revelation 8 does not tell us that those angels are 'archangels', and to make it sound like what it does not say is forcing a lie into that text.

Meanwhile, did you notice that in that same Revelation 8 there is yet another angel - bringing the number to eight? Read it for yourself and see. Why does the Catholic Church not also name this eighth angel as an archangel in that same chapter? Do you notice the prominent role of this eighth angel? Simple: NONE of the other angels could do anything UNTIL the eighth angel had taken the censer, filled it with fire of the altar, and cast it into the earth (verse 5).

Just because you read angels in God's presence does not mean you should just turn round and twist it to mean 'archangels' as if other angels do not stand in God's presence as well. Tradition is a very dangerous thing if the job it does is to calsify our thinking so that we refuse to look at the verses we are discussing!

Look through Scripture - and you will find that there are numerous angels who stand in God's presence! There are far more than seven; even though Catholic tradition (for reasons best known to them) would recognize only seven - divided into 3 main ones and four (or five) others. But you ought to understand that if Catholic tradition is wrong, it is quite simply wrong - and there is nothing you can do to give that wrong Catholic teaching a face lift.

This is why I requested you try and explain Psalm 68:17 about chariots. The moment you study that verse and try to see what it means, you will shock yourself and retract many of your arguments!

Shalom.

Hehe, toneyb. .  if I were to cast my last minute vote for a fav atheist poster, you and KAG would be tops on my list. I can't understand how calm and collected you guys remain throughout a passionate subject most often when you discuss.

Anyways, sorry for my initial tone.

toneyb:
I think he did just that.

Aiight - I'll let beneli himself speak and not risk putting words in his mouth.

This is not about what the atheist thinks, I just wanted to know why he made that conclusion. If he made it based on what atheist like Dr. Krauss have said then I will like to believe he does not really know what he is talkking about because I was not at all impressed with Dr Krauss lecture because it was full of suppositions and personal appeal.

Okay then.

chukwudi44:
There is no in the bible where chariots of fire are used to describe angels,and psalm 68:17 was definitely not talking about angels.

Okay, please tell me what Psalm 68:17 is talking about. Don't just deny it, take one step further to provide reasonable answers.

Rev chapter actually mentions the seven spirits in front of his thron e,though it did not use the word angels,we all know that angels are spirits.

I know that angels are spirits - Hebrews 1:14. But the Bible nowhere confuses angels for archangels. When the Bible uses the latter term in referring to specific angels, it does so in unmistaken language, such as: 'archangel' (1 Thes. 4:16 and Jude 1:9), 'the chief princes' (Daniel 10:13), 'principality and power' (Colossians 2:10), or 'authorities and powers' (1 Peter 3:22).

It is interesting that you will find in the last reference above (1 Peter 3:22), the distinctions are given - 'angels and authorities and powers'. . . all these are referring to angels but in their distinctions according to their glory and divine hierarchies. We know that these 'angels and authorities and powers' are also spirit beings; and it is peculiar that in Daniel 9:21 the angel Gabriel is called a man.

However, just because Revelation 8:2 mentions 'the seven angels which stood before God', we should not therefore twist that to mean that there are only seven archangels who stand in God's presence. As shown earlier, the Bible notes that there are many more angels that stand in God's presence beholding the face of God - Matthew 18:10 makes that point so very clear.

toneyb:
All what you have said can be applied to theist no?We have theist scientist trying to tell us that science agrees with what ever assumption is written in their various religious text. We have the so called theist scientist telling us how evolution is a lie because their religious assumptions does not agree with it, We also have theist scientist trying to tell us that the universe is young or that scientific finding about the cosmos agree with their YEC views.

This is nonsensical, sorry. Did you read me disagreeing with VALIDATOR's first statement that BOTH religious people and 'scientists' are guilty of that very thing? How many atheists have not been as empty in their drivel? The problem here is that many people like to point fingers at religious people as if atheists are any less guilty of that very same thing!

The atheist that believes in science and the scientific process know very well I don't know is part of science and the scientific process, The theist on the other hand lays claims to the supernatural and claims that this supernatural knows all and everything and then point to his/her religious book claiming it has answers to everything about the universe.

This is your first mistake. Science is not based on any worldview - whether theistic or atheistic. So the idea that 'the atheist who believes in science' is plain empty talk, in so far as there are many theists who also believe in science without trying to be heady and arrogant in their enterprise. These scientists who are theists are not as arrogant to assert that they know all and everything - and as many of such who make those kinds of statements, there are as many atheists who make unscientific drivels about what they "know" about everything in the world.

When asked for scientific answers or to justify his claims scientifically he/she begins to invoke the supernatural that has never explained and will never explain anything scientifically.

Science and worldviews are not to be mistaken for the same things - and we know that 'science' does not answer everything about the world. For those who invoke the supernatural, that is not a default position that many theists today adopt in looking at the natural world.

Personally (and I know you will disagree with me here) But I believe that the theist are more guilty here.

Yes, I disagree with you. Basically because you are sounding off very simplistic as if we don't know of atheists who make very unscientific assertions and we all laugh at them as if they are kneejerk party jokes.

Howdy tonyeb,

toneyb:

beneli: So, I am curious to see the atheists here defend their position that everything has come out of nothing, in spite of the ‘fact’ that in an ideal natural world where there is no supernatural interference, nature should tend towards chaos and not order. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

On what basis are you making this ridiculous assertion? You are just begging the question because you have not even began to show that there is any supernatural entity out there that is interfering on any part of the universe.

Lol. I don't think it sounds like he was trying to "show" that there is a supernatural entity who was interferring on any part of the Universe. If it seems that way, I won't argue endlessly on that.

On the other hand, it would seem that the statement is quite simple - 'in an ideal natural world where there is no supernatural interference', one would expect that 'nature should tend towards chaos and not order'. At least, this is what atheist scientists have been singing all along! An example is in the other thread where Dr. Krauss tries to jump to that conclusion in his cosmological talk. How does the atheist explain the idea that nature on its own just popped into existence and resulted in an ordered or orderly universe? Hardly do they show how this is demonstrated; rather, they make the statement, pretend to sound like 'science' leads to that idea; and then take huge leaps to arrive at their conclusions - everyone applauds happily and the meeting is over. What is achieved scientifically when 'scientists' try to gull the public in such a manner?

You as a "scientist" should not be making this kind of off hand comments, On what objective and empirical basis did you conclude that nature tend towards chaos and only the super natural tend towards order?

A good question. This is one possible way to think about it: do you, tonyeb, know of nature just popping into existence on its own and coming into an ordered and orderly universe? What science has empirically confirmed this accurately? No, I have not jumped to any conclusions about the 'supernatural', as I do not mix them up - my posts can testify to the fact that I do not mix worldviews and science together. But what science gives us a cosmology of the natural world popping into existence on its own to produce the ordered universe?

The real problem many people fail to see is that endless arguments spring from people arguing worldviews into science. This is what usually happens, and at the end of the day answers are never forthcoming. Just think carefully about it.

Hi VALIDATOR,

VALIDATOR:
Well said Viaro.
IMO, both scientists and "religionists " have been arrogant all along in making assertions about what doesn't lie in their domain.

While I agree with your first statement above, this one is not quite true:

But I think the "religionists " are more guilty of the offense.

No, and that was what I was trying to set straight. Religious people are not more guilty if you take a good look at the many atheists who think they know far much more to draw conclusions about the world than anyone else does. It is only when the spotlight is on them that they turn round and make disclaimers that they do not 'know'. I find it quite arrogant for an atheist to assert that the universe had been around forever and would be around forever while claiming that is 'science'; but the same 'science' now leads us to understand that such an assertion is quite dogmatic especially in the face of the fact that thinkers had leaned towards the possibility of the fact that the Universe had a beginning.

Even today where cosmology is discussed in the corridors of science, people who know what they are talking about try as much as possible to do their science without colouring it with any type of worldview - whether theistic or atheistic. It is quite unfortunate, however, that many atheists in these fields can hardly talk science without interpolating their own atheism into their type of 'science'. It is just that these type of behaviour, laughable as it is, has gone on for too long that we're all now used to it and laugh it off for the emptiness they portray.

@beneli, thank you. This is a fine thread - the topic is well discussed in the OP, and the title well thought out.

beneli:
So, I am curious to see the atheists here defend their position that everything has come out of nothing, in spite of the ‘fact’ that in an ideal natural world where there is no supernatural interference, nature should tend towards chaos and not order. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

I've wondered about this as well when I opened the other thread, 'Can Anything Come Out Of Nothing?' (I should have added 'on its own', so that readers would have understood the question was trying to address if anything could come out of nothing on its own).

mantraa:
Do you not think that it is the religious leaders who are being arrogant by claiming to already have all the answers.

No. Arrogance does not have to be blamed as a default on 'religious leaders'. Indeed many 'scientists' have been as arrogant in some of the assertions they have made about cosmology. For example, we understand that some scientists argued assertively that the universe is all there is and all there has been and all there ever will be. In other words, they argued that the universe had been around forever and would be around forever (as Dr. Krauss notes in one of his talks - here; please note that this is not to accuse Dr. Krauss of making that mistake).

The real problem here is not 'science' per se. Rather, it is actually scientists who try to argue from a bias that is neither scientific nor rational.

No worries. Cheers.

ElRazur:
From the previous link I posted, it is clear that at least two different versions and translation of the bible made reference to the "end of the earth".  If you look at one of the version, it dated from 1985 and you will have to take into context what "ends of the earth" meant during the times of the translation.

The question of the meaning of 'ends of the earth' has been sorted. See posts #1, #2 and #3 in The Bible Says The Earth Is Flat While Quran Says Its Spherical, Wow.

I am of the belief that it supported the notion of a flat earth.

And my response to such is this:

"These latter quotes show that such expressions found in Daniel 4:11 (or 4:8 in Douay Rheims) are not meant to be literal but rather figurative. The problem is that many readers (whether religious or skeptics) take them out of context and force their own misapprehensions into them to argue for a flat earth. Frankly, skeptics who try to suggest a flat earth into those verses are no better than religious people who misread the simple statements in them out of context."

I've been there, didn't see your reply. Please provide a link and maybe I might be able to follow up.