₦airaland Forum

This is interesting. I just wonder why it is the general view of many of us Christians that we need to 'try our best' to be prepared. Please don't get me wrong, because I know there are many Biblical exhortations to 'be ready'. . but what does that mean?

Deep Sight:
We need to progress this discussion.

Absolutely. . and in due course I shall post a few more. All are welcome to share their thoughts.

Where is KAG? Can anybody draw his attention. He needs to come tell us why time was created at the moment of the Big Bang.

Hmm, that would be interesting.

Hello VALIDATOR,

VALIDATOR:
Can we thrash this out ?

Yes, we can.

We know there are a lot of reasons why people choose to believe whatever they want to, and that is not peculiar or limited to religious beliefs. At the same time, even where they believe anything as such, they have reasons for rejecting a lot of other stuff that do not square with their beliefs. I'd try to limit my observations within the context of the topic of this thread (Why Christians oppose the theory of evolution).

I think the main reason Why Christians reject the theory of evolution is that although the theory of evolution does not rule out the possibility of a creator. However, by implication,it rules out the need for a Messiah/Jesus that will save us from our sins since there was no perfect Adam.

I would respect that view, afterall that is just one possible reason for some people and not for everyone. Even so, such a postulation is froth with problems.

1.  If the question is asked: 'how does evolution rule out the need for a Messiah?', your answer was: 'there was no perfect Adam'. Put in another way, should we assume that if and only if (iff) there was a 'perfect Adam', then the need for a Messiah could not be ruled out? What that argument assumes is this:

         (a) since there was no perfect Adam - it rules out the need of a Messiah

                                            BUT, by the 'iff' -

         (b) if there was a perfect Adam - it does not rule out the need for a Messiah

You see that the argument does not even arise in the first place, because the statement in (b) is equally true as the reflection for (a). This simply destroys that argument and establishes a necessity for a Messiah! How? The next point shows -

2. Salvation and redemption from sin are not predicated upon a 'perfect' Adam. In other words, even if there was a perfect Adam, it still does not rule out the question of redemption - because according to the Bible, God's plan of redemption predates the Adam you might be referring to. Thus, whether or not there was a 'perfect' Adam has nothing to do with the need for a Messiah.

3. The gravest mistake that many evolutionists make is to assume that it is a theory that tries to make any kind of statement about any religion. If that was what the evolution theory was about, then it beggars science and should not even be considered a scientific theory in the first place. Science does not make categorical statements about theology or religion, because that is not how science works.

Atheists:
Could you give us the names of young scientists who have been persecuted by the scientific establishment ?

I could do so. I just first need to know if you're categorically saying that the scientific establishment has never at any time persecuted or ostracised any scientist in any way? If you adamantly argue that there is no such event, then I shall post you a few names to go investigate for yourself and then return so we can discuss further.

But if you already understand that there are such events that have been well documented, then your request is unnecessary in the first place.

Hehehe, debosky. . I'm tempted to scold you badly because you're still returning with the same non-essentials and have said nothing new. But life is not like that, and reason has the better of me these days, that's why I'd leave off drilling you on these useless exchanges. Rather, I would just like to make something clear to you:

debosky:
Again, that may be a valid observation but is not the current subject of discourse, which deals with whether tithing as practiced today is a new testament practice.

Here is the main problem I have with smart asse.s who like to question every other person and yet fail to see their own cancer. (I make that statement generally, so please don't fly over third mainland bridge complaining about whether I was calling you names again - no I am not).

My guy, you may question "tithing as practiced today" because it is convenient to question others. But if someone were to ask you why YOU tithe, what would be your own answer? A quick reference to 2 Corinthians 9:7? Does that verse mention tithes at all? The main strain of the typical anti-tithing argument is that "it is done away with" (and somewhere in your rejoinder you made that same mistake). Now if it was done away with as a practice, why then are you giving "10% every month", my guy? Please don't try to impress me with recycled excuses, because theres nothing new there. You practise what you affirmed has been done away with, and yet never consider that your arguments are simply wasted and unjustified. If you can question others on it and yet not be able to show where you find it in the NT, you're simply wasting your time on a convenient personal travelogue. You should not be doing the very same thing you affirm is done away with while demanding others to prove anything to you where you have proved none yourself!

It is for this reason that I laugh at some of us Christians who are too busy chasing nonsensical arguments with slim muscles to debate intelligently. The arguments are simply unnecessary because we have failed to see the real issue that should be dealt with. It is not a question of struggling to justify it from 2 Corinthians 9 or any other verse, nor is it a matter of percentage. If you think that is one of the most serious issues, you really have no clue what the arguments beyond your locality has been. Sometime soon in the coming months, I hope to address the real issue in these matters and invite others to table their concerns. That is when we shall all get to see the essential issues people have been missing.

So, at this time, I would just let you be. If you're not satisfied, then I shall come back and grow you up a little, trust me.

Demand, request - a matter of semantics and nothing more.

Simply laughable. If they are indistinguishable for you, I'm not surprised.

I have never seen a country so determined to useless its best citizens like Nigeria.

Madam BG, sorry about your plight. I just wonder if your hubby happens to qualify as one of Nigeria's best citizens. . If Nigerians can vote a yes on that, and the guy got 28 years all the same, that says a lot about the country's "best" citizens.

I appeal to Nigerians, most especially those internet warriors and Nigerians in the Diaspora to rally round Chief Olabode George as they did for our two Malams, Messrs Nuhu Ribadu and Nasir El-Rufai during their passport renew imbroglio.

Those internet warriors, you say? ! ! ! !

donnie:
Thanks for your opinion. However, if you want me to teach you the Word of God, I can if you'd ask politely.

My apologies that my comments were considered impolite. And thanks for your offer. . might come in handy someday.

dead thread. where are the mods?

Em, donnie. . I tried to understand you. Are you a member of pastor Chris Oyakhilome's church? My mistake if you're not; it just strikes me that your defence on his behalf seems like one of his apologetic members. Anyway, small point.

I wondered about this in yours:

donnie:
Your post should have read: Somebody help! I have no understanding of the gospel of Jeusus and the teachings of his apostles. . .Help!!

Lol, but no. . that is far fetched. The OP has not argued that he does not understand the Gospel of Jesus or the teachings of his apostles. Rather, he is asking pertinent questions about what pastor Chris teaches from the Gospel - a vastly different thing altogether. anybody can make up some kind of teaching from the Gospels and the epistles; but if questions are asked, it does not mean that the enquirer is ignorant of the Gospel, but rather questioning the maverick who tries to propound new interpretations from that same Gospel.

Now, pastor Chris, according to the OP, has been delving into some esoteric teachings. Some of them are Biblically correct (IMO), but some of them are not so sound.

For example, the OP recognizes the value of meditation by quoting Joshua 1:8; but he wonders if pastor Chris' application of meditation is the same thing that Joshua was asked to do in that verse. If that was so, the simple inference would be that Joshua was not supposed to pray, but just create his own world and circumstances without relying on God! Second, it would mean that Joshua didn't get the hang of what he was being taught if pastor Chris was right in saying that his congregation should see themselves as "gods". Did Joshua see himself as a 'god' by meditating as he was asked to do in Josh. 1:8? A lot depends on your understanding and answer to this.

I don't think that other people should necessarily be declared confused just because they ask questions about certain denominational practices and beliefs. To reply the way you did ('Can you now see why we say you are confused?') sounds desperate. . unless I'm missing something here and mistaking you for one of pastor Chris' faithfuls.

chukwudi44:
The mosaic law is dead and can never be resurected ,anyone trying to be justified by this obsolete law has been cut off from the grace of christ as plainly stated in gal 5;4

But who has been arguing that they are trying to be justified by the Mosaic Law in this thread, chukwudi? Who is being cut off from the grace of Christ because of your wrong interpretations? Please show me where the Bible specifically teaches that the Law was killed or died on the cross, please. I would like to read it, thank you. Remember your quote:

The mosaic law is dead period.It was killed om the cross of calvary on good friday 33 CE.

chukwudi44:
2.Rejecting the sacrificial death of christ on the cross and holding on to the jewish law,thus severing urself from the grace of christ as plainly stated in Gal 5:4.

How does giving tithes sever any Christian from the grace of Christ? Did the Law originate tithes, or are tithes bound only by the Law such that everything in the Bible about tithes have to be interpreted on that Law?

You also run the risk of incuring the curse of the law since obviously you are not complying with the other non-lucrative portions of the law as stated in gal 3 :10

That's just carping and cheating. No Gentile runs the risk of not complying with any non-lucrative parts of it - because the Word makes clear right from the OT that God did not desire those things. Using Paul's epistle in Galatians for what you can't defend is not sound reasoning. . please retire it. That kind of interlocution reminds me of people who want to send other Christians to hell simply because your anti-tither wishes are not fulfilled.

chukwudi44:
The mosaic law is dead period.It was killed om the cross of calvary on good friday 33 CE.

That's fine as long as you want to forever believe that. However, the law was never killed - it is not 'somebody' that you put to death. If we go by Scripture, it was you and me who were put to death and became dead, not the Law.

0sisi:
A true lady never reveals all her secrets

Yes, yes! I like that!

manmustwac:
i doubt if any christians bought up in developing countries will know much about any other religion (other than the religion they were brought up to believe)

I'm not so sure that is widely true. There are many people who have been brought up in developing countries that know much about other religions than the ones they were brought up to believing in.

Hope that makes sense

For me, yes.

VALIDATOR:
Now, lets continue dudes.Here is the thread:

"Why Christians Ignorantly Oppose The Theory Of Evolution"

Yes, and thank you for your calm mediation.

I should add a few to what you have already given (and I trust that some more brilliant posters can critique them):

There are various reasons why some Christians "ignorantly" oppose the theory of evolution -

[list][li]Some are ignorant of what a 'theory' actually is before they try to critique it. For example, we have read many people make the mistake of saying that the TOE is a "mere" theory; or that the reason why it is not a scientific "law" is because it is a "theory" like someone has been guessing for 150 years and has been undetected. I bet that if more people on either side try to understand what science means by "theory", this mistake would be made less frequently.[/li]

[li]Another reason is that the claims by some zealous and enthusiastic evolutionists leave many people confused. This does not mean that only some 'Christians' are amused and bemused; but even skeptics also are put off by some of the claims of people who try to defend evolution. An example is when evolutionists try to apply evolution theory to matters which are far beyond the domains of evolution itself. The result is mass derision and condemnation, with many people shouting one thing and others shouting other things.[/li]

[li]Thirdly, many people (not just Christians) are too zealous to protect "something" - whether it is their evolution or religious beliefs, or the grants they receive in their cherished appointments; or the fear that certain challenges might upset the cart that they've been traveling on for too long and not willing to develop beyond that comfort zone. This happens to religious people at large as well as non-religious and atheistic evolutionists - the result of which you see demonstrated in one form of fundamentalism or the other. Yes, some atheists are actually fundamentalists, nothing appeals to them unless everyone is saying what these fundamentalists like to hear! Such attitudes accounts for why some Christians oppose the TOE out of being reactive than of being reasonable in their criticisms.[/li]
[/list]

There are many other reasons, but those few for now.

Atheists:
Why have so many scientists been persecuted by religion  ?  Why was  the father of modern science Galileo Galilei  persecuted by the Roman catholic church ?

To be honest, I don't know why so many scientists have been persecuted by religious people (not by religion). In the same way, I don't know why many young scientists have been persecuted and ostracized by the so-called 'scientific establishment'. I am sure that not every religiously minded person joined in persecuting Galileo; so it's not my style to make sweeping categorization as in your assumptions.

Meanwhile, your questions, while interesting, have absolutely no bearing on the fact that you made wrong inferences about "fitting" theories to evidence either way. That is not genuine and honest science, and I would not like you to hold unto that mistaken idea.

Edit:

---

By the way, Atheists, I did not mean this directly at you:

Science does not try to fit any theory to any sort of "evidence" - that is not science but stupidity!

I apologise about the bold word there and should have tried to let you know earlier that it was not meant as a jab at your person. I happen to read that idea so many times and forgot myself there when I typed that reply. Please don't take it personal.

alex0026:
Hello viaro,
I would appreciate if you can be my guest on my forum at http://www.mutualinterestsforum.com/ for more discussion.

Your impression about GOD is what you think as a sensible human being.Secondly i want you to recognise the fact that the 'senses'  i am referring to is a collective word and is more than the ordinary  five biological  senses you are made to believe.

Hi alex0026 _{(I should've greeted you earlier),}

Thank you for the invitation. .  i'll save your link and leg over sometime.

Second, thank you for clarifying what you meant by 'senses'. Someday, I hope to dig up this topic again and present to your consideration. Cheers.

Edit

---

@alex0026, I just registered. . just to let you know I'm serious about joining you someday! Cheers.

Atheists:
This thread has taught me that you can't argue rationally with religious people. Science fits the theory to the evidence. Religion fits the evidence to the theory.

This thread has taught me a valuable lesson since coming to NL - that people who like to bash religion are often a confused lot who have lost their self-identities. Science does not try to fit any theory to any sort of "evidence" - that is not science but stupidity! Don't let any loud and cheap professor deceive you on that. Scientific theories are not made to fit anything; but rather, theories arise from hypotheses which have to be tested for their values rather than "fit" them to anything. Dude, who sold you so cheaply?

Religion on the other hand does not have any "theory", in as much as a religion is not an enterprise with theories to be fitted into any hypothesis. Rather, religious inquiries are founded on teleology - where you find even non-religious people discussing the nature of all sorts of realities. They do not try to "fit" anything into anything, but attempt to analyse things in philosophical ways.

The difference between the two is that the former tries to investigate things through a set of systematic protocol, while the other tries to analyse things through various types of logical paradigms.

VALIDATOR:
There may be more. Guys please stop taking things personal. Let's learn

You're a good dude! Again, I over-reached myself where there was no need for me to have played to mazaje's gallery.  

_{And mazaje, if you're there reading this, please let it pass. I will not try to even address your comments as replies to my penultimate rejoinder if you come off in the same manner.}


Now, my comments on yours, VALIDATE:

1 Accepting it means that you agree that the earth is more than 6,000 years old ---- since many fossils are more than that age

I understand why many Christians (particularly the fundamentalists) feel that way. Especially those who are struggling with the concept of a 'young earth' theory (the YECs), it would come as a deep shock for them to see that the earth (and indeed the universe) is older, far older, than they had traditionally interpreted.

For many other Christians (as I have demonstrated), we do not even imagine the Bible teaches that the earth (or the "planet" is 6,000 years old. That is not how we read the creation narratives, as I've demonstrated in the previous page (post #24). Again, there are several indicators that the 'Adam' we read of in Genesis may not be the first human ever to exist! That could be argued, not to bend the Bible to fit fossils, but to show indeed that even the Genesis accounts and what we find in the Prophets indicate that homo sapiens might have preceded 'Adam'.

I know that this claim may upset many religious minds (such as some muslims, etc); but I would like to restrict myself to what I'm comfortable sharing from my understanding, rather than delving into other people's religions that I know very little about.

2 Accepting it means that you agree that man was not made from sand/dust on the sixth day(Friday i.e the day b4 sabbath).---- although many christians now take the 6 days to mean 6 "stages"

I don't know whether evolution has confirmed indeed that man was not made from inanimate material like the dust of the earth. If evolution has indeed confirmed such, then some scientists would not have been trying to experiment to demonstrate that life arose from non-life material like rocks.

3 There will be a possibility of relegating the importance of Jesus to the background- Evolution says that there was never any perfect Adam who sinned.So,remission of sin will not be necessary.

Again, I don't know if that was the original intent of the evolution theory (I'm not saying that it has been so). However, I don't think we should confuse evolution theory with any other human endeavour; because to maintain that would be a huge problem for evolutionists themselves. First, it would mean that evolution is NOT a scientific theory, because scientific theories are not articulated on the basis of any claims of religion whatsoever - whether theism or atheism. Second, for some people to try to use evolution every time to argue against theism or other worldview is confusing matters and cheapening the arguments for monkeys! Science has not yet found its own justification to make categorical statements on religious or teleological matters; and people who cry that science is the "best" means of acquiring knowledge are not doing science but scientism.

4 The theory of evolution does not solve most human problems.

That much we can agree on.

huxley:
Hello Viaro,

You will remember that in the not-too-distant past, we were chatting about the explanation for why whales could be born with fully developed hindlimbs, on this thread; https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=334556.msg4705593#msg4705593.

Hallo huxley, yes I have had that thread in mind all along and was waiting for a period when I know I'd not be too busy to engage deeply on that subject/topic. I have not forgotten, believe me; but I shall look into it in an opportune time - thanks for the reminder.

I said, this can only be explained in terms of evolution. If evolution is false, an animals were made immutably, can you explain why and aquatic animal came to have the gene for making the legs of a terrestrial animals?

No, I cannot explain why (nor how, nor even when) - and I cannot explain why it "came to have" that gene. I can appreciate some theories that attempt to describe this, but I do not necessarily agree with them. Just-say-so stories are not in my domain, no matter how widely circulated; and I think that is a whole lot of what many people do and parade as "science" with a lot of ancillary claims. For example, when people begin to reproduce the arguments of others without having tested out those theories for themselves, the best we can do is argue on endlessly and arrive nowhere - that is not what I'd like to engage in; because I know that not many of those people believing anything about them can categorically produce a water-tight argument as to WHY and HOW and WHEN those aquatic animals came to have the genes they do.

When I have the time (at about Dec or Jan, as I hinted Krayola), I shall gee you a shout and revisit that thread. I may or may not argue endlessly there, though.

Atheists:
Thanks to the  emergence of the telescope and the microscope,religion can no longer offer an explanation of anything important.

That, probably, is because you do not know what the differences are. Has the microscope or telescope told you about your soul? Have those things told you everything about your total makeup as a person?

VALIDATOR:
@viaro
waoh, what an intellect u got there.
Lets move on pally.

My good pal. . . You're in my good books. Thank you for your genial response. . . and yes, let's move on (although I'm not an intellectual, lol). Please forgive my strong responses to yours earlier. Cheers.

mazaje:
Actually my style is to say it as it is and leave it. . .I know you have been wired to believe that any body that questions your belief is deriding or mocking it. . . .This applies to all religions actually. . . take a look at the moslem section when christians point to some things to them that are written in the koran they say christians are mocking islam. . . . .I had a christians tell me that I am the son of satan he just because I said that the bible god accepts human sacrifice. . . .I just say it as it is and if you feel so sad that I come across the way i do then so be it. . . I don't have time pandering to people's delusions. . . .I just state it as it is. . . .

In just the same way, I say it as it is for you. Did that get you on the wrong side? I just say it as it is, regardless your hyperventilating trash here. First, I did not call you the son of satan; and I'm sure not every Christian would address you that way even where you might have derided their faith and called them unpalatable names. You don't use that one example to write off every Christian, just as I don't think that everyone who asks questions is necessarily a bitter little peacock! Second, I'm not wired the way you have assumed - which is why I doubt you got a dot of understanding my previous reply to yours.

You see where the problem lies? You guys claim that you have this trancendantal being that is perfect and whom is above all human knowledge and conception. . .You believe a part of these perfect, all good and trancendental being lives in you guides you all in all you do. . . you believe that this being does not behave like humans (some of you even claim that you are not of this world because a part of this trancendental being resides in you and guides you in all you do) but when we look around we see you are just as confused as every body else. . . .All the various sects of christians that disagree with each other all point to the bible when making their case against each other and all of them claim that the same holy spirit whom they claim is perfect and trancends all human ways of doing things is what inspires them. . .so is that possible?. . .

Yes, mazaje, that is very possible, but that does not mean that everyone is right. This again has nothing to do with the thread or what I was discussing with modupe01 - which was why I summed you up for the cheap interjection you tried to introduce for a yapping that would take you nowhere. Like I said, there are people who argue endlessly within the same system, whether it is Politics, Sports, Economics, Social interactions, even your most cherished Evolution, or Biology, Chemistry, Astronomy, Cosmology, or Scientific theories and hypotheses. Most of us know these scenarios occur every single week - and I asked you to point out just a single one where the players in them are all perfect clones without a shade of disagreement. Did you address that? No. Rather, you jumped again to yap on and point fingers at Christians disagreeing with one another wile making claims here and there. This, mazaje, is why I often don't take people like you seriously - not because I cannot discuss with people, but because you come off making all sorts of pitiful arguments and yet have never been able to see your own problem.

So I  maintain that since there is no god all you guys have to do is to self project yourselves as god and tell each other what you want others to believe about the bible based on your own personal interpretations. . . .Hard facts to justify faith in god is not forthcoming from any area of the world all you guys have to hold unto are only stories and cultural mythologies. . . . .

I hear a weakling crying in you. Hard facts to tell the world that there is NO God is not forth coming from you either - that much we can agree on. The point now in yours is widening to the same grandiloquent style of carping dunces who think you can be smart enough to hurl insults at others and then fail to deliver. Christians (as far as I know) do not assume the ridiculous assertion you made about "your god so weak that he depends ONLY on debates about copies of ancient texts". .  who ever said such rubbish in this thread about any god/gods "depending" ONLY on debates about texts, mazaje? This is why cacophonies from twerps like you do not pass for celebrating your assumed scholarship. You don't stand to ridicule people and misrepresent them, only to turn back like some buffoon making wild assertions in the market place.

Politicians, sports analyst, musicians, atheist do not claims to be guided or recieve inspiration or information from an all perfect and trancendental being that knows everything and has a perfect plan for humanity. . .you guys on the other hand do and when we look around we see that you guys behave like every body else. . .despite your claims of being guided by this being you are yet to agree on his basic nature and who he is. . . .

Nice try. They may not make any claims (buffoon, they do, dude . .  they do!) You have relied only on your small cubicle for far too long for your own good. I know of politicians who have made claims of supernatural guidance. .  as well musicians, and atheists who belief in what some of you lazy buffoons are too scared in your pants to investigate. That still does not answer the question I asked you before:

[list]Where in the world do people ever agree on everything or a single thing like they are clones? Tell me, mazaje? Just where? Politics? Sports? Economics? Social interactions? Even your most cherished Evolution? Biology? Chemistry? Astronomy? Cosmology? Scientific theories and hypotheses? . .  Or, even ATHEISM?[/list]

I have not claimed that these guys are making claims of the sort of inspiration as you have switched onto - that is simply the most stupid way to put you argument forward. In case you still live in a remote part of the world where the radio or other frequency waves do not reach you, please grow up and reason. Most idiots parading themselves as 'smart heads' have stopped using those same lines of pitiful  retired arguments after seeing that they do not add anything to their intelligence. They are often used by pals who are the least intelligent in any classroom, because in the first place, they are not focused on the questions asked. as in this case, I did not ask you whether those examples make claims of any inspirations as in your twist - and to have repeated that pitiful comment is grand comedy. let me ask it again, incase you're too desperate to think:

[list]Where in the world do people ever agree on everything or a single thing like they are clones? Tell me, mazaje? Just where? Politics? Sports? Economics? Social interactions? Even your most cherished Evolution? Biology? Chemistry? Astronomy? Cosmology? Scientific theories and hypotheses? . .  Or, even ATHEISM?[/list]

Just like the idiots that continue to be at each others throats in the myths you subscribe to but still ridiculosly claim that their opinion does not come from this world but from an imaginary sky daddy that lives out side of space time. . .You guys just invent things and ascribe to you imaginary father figure. . .Some people say, for example, that "God is love".  Well, if god is identical to love, then I do think that god exists.  Yet, the same people will start to apply extra bits to the "God is love" -- showing that they don't think that god is identical to love but is some kind of aware force that has many attributes that aren't love.  In that case, why use a loaded word like God when there is a perfectly valid word like love already available?  god isn't love, love is love.

You know how you sound - like the shameless Dawkins whose cacophony not many atheists like to parrot today. When he started mooting the idea of a 'man in the sky', he was allowed to run off cheap on that fuel. . until he made the stupid mistake of the 'FSM' - flying spaghetti monster - as if anyone who knows has spoken of any deity being such! Not even himself with his makeshifts knows what he's talking about, and retired idiots who don't know better are too much in a hurry to parrot him. I wished better for you. . but no, I'm not surprised you couldn't rise beyond that level while parroting the same engine works of idiocy that the likes of new atheism has given you like left-overs.

Other people assert more generally that "God exists", yet they can't describe either part of that phrase.  What's god?  How does it exist?  I'm greeted with either babbling dogmatic quotes or smug silence. . . . . .

That's them - and you may not want to reason with them. I've heard that same line before, so there's nothing grand or novel in that statement. Let me ask you (while not derailing this thread) - how does evolution prove conclusively your claim that there is no God?

I have frends from all faiths in life so i do not even understand what you are saying here. . .

Dude, you should have tried to discuss, then it would not have been difficult for you to understand what people are saying here. When your friends think the best way to keep them as friends is to ridicule them, I have much to say to those "friends". I also have friends in many faiths (not all, because I don't know all faiths); but at least we can live in mutual respect of one another without passing for the buffoon you displayed of yourself here.

alex0026:
You need to understand the word 'GOD'.

. . . The word GOD IS AN ENCOMPASSING WORD which you can give any meaning because a human being like you coined the word.

To me [b]it represent everything you can percieve with the aid of the sense[/b]s.

No, I don't think so; but if that is 'god' for you, I have no problem with allowing you think that way. Yet, I don't agree at all with your statement that defines 'God' as representing "everything you can perceive with the aid of the senses".

Application to test your theory:

There are different senses - touch, smell, taste, hearing, sight, etc.
Take an example from these -

* mr A smells gas in his room and feels that a pipe is leaking

* mr B spilt his cup of tea on his trousers and felt the hot drink burn his skin

* mr C sees a shadow of a cat in the corridor as he came from his room

Now, could we say these are all the same things as 'God' for you, especially going by your definition? Was the gas in mr A's sense of smelling supposed to be his own 'god' as much as the shadow in mr C's case which he perceived with the sense of sight?

@VALIDATOR,

I think what I addressed to mazaje should go for you as well. Following on, my comments to your observations:

VALIDATOR:
If ignorance is not bliss then why would any rational person accept two contradicting genealogies of the same Jesus and smilingly stake his life for it

You may see them as contradictory - I do not. If I do, my ignorance is sweeter to me than yours. That tongue-in-cheek remark is to make you understand that people should not just declare others to be ignorant without seeking to understand them. If at the end of the day, we all see things differently, it still does not mean that the first course of action and reaction is to deride them.

If ignorance is not bliss then why would any rational person blow himself up to go and claim 72 virgins in paradise when the person that gave him the bomb he use is still here on earth and doesn't seem to be in a hurry to go claim his own 72 virgins.

I do not see where Christianity asks me to go and blow myself up with hopes of bleeping 72 virgins. I meet damsels everyday where I work and holiday, so how does the 72 virgins saga come into this? Besides, I do not know if the idea of 72 virgins is in the Quran - I can't defend that, because I was never a Muslim and do not know half of their religion to make any informed statement thereto. I have asked several Muslims politely to defend that claim, and every single one I met without exception said that it is not in the Quran. Now, VALIDATOR, do you care to "validate" that 72 virgins as prize for terrorism is in the Quran? Somebdoy is lying here - either you, or all the muslims I asked who categorically stated that such is not the case.

However, even if that is what they believe, does that make my own belief system "better" than the next man? Does that make your own ignorance better than those you deride as if that is your career since the fall of the Chinese wall?

The thing about the way you guys come off is that you cannot grow beyond your small carpings. I may be mistaken, dude, but pardon me if I say that it makes me wonder if that attitude is peculiar to Nigerians.

Jingoism? NOT near it pally.

Okay. I only mentioned it because you sounded that way, especially because your arguments and remarks are not novel to me - I've heard it too many times and they have long ceased to sound intelligent by those often recycling them.

Please lets not derail the thread.Let's get back to  Why Christians Ignorantly Oppose The Theory Of Evolution

I agree. So, could we say three cheers for our criss-crossings? No ill-feelings, pal.

@mazaje,

I notice on Nairaland that you have a penchant to deride the beliefs of other people. I dare say that is not my style, and where you try to engage me, I would welcome a discourse and not your pitiful remarks. Where you canot endure engaging in discussions, it were better that you don't engage me, but rather pick of those you can litter your harrumph on and get away with it. Not so with viaro, and I hope I would not have to remind you about such.

However, let me pick out just one thing to bring you round what you may have never in your small life considered about the fact of people getting along peacefully where they have different views:

mazaje:
You all believe that the bible is the word of your God but you all hold very very different beliefs and interpret it very differently

Yes, I do. And let me show you that I really do not have an iota of a problem with that at all.

Where in the world do people ever agree on everything or a single thing like they are clones? Tell me, mazaje? Just where? Politics? Sports? Economics? Social interactions? Even your most cherished Evolution? Biology? Chemistry? Astronomy? Cosmology? Scientific theories and hypotheses? . .  Or, even ATHEISM?

If you imagine for one instance that there is an area of endeavour or worldview where every player is exactly in the same cloned mind and interpretation, it is most probably because you have never taken the time to ever in your life read broadly and are just a bitter little peacock!

I can contain the fact that people have varying degrees of agreement; and also that people can indeed read the same data or text and interpret things differently. What I cannot condone is the stupidity of grandiloquent fools yapping about other people's beliefs where they have never imagined that their own coteries are as divided on opinions and interpretations. Within Christianity, different interpretations have continued to this day to see people choose and make new denominations. Sad as it is, that is not my worry as to make me abandon my faith and go where. . atheism? Daft! In atheism, idiots continue to be at each other's throats - you never notice because you simply are too misfooted to find out.

But what about evolution? Great people - let them argue, and keep the trade of words. I'm not a fan of evolution or the various "isms" of that worldview. Yet, I do not go about haranguing anyone about why they "believe" any form of evolution - let it please them as they see fit. Nor do I even go about trying to hoot at every evolving idiot about the differences between evolutionists! It's their world, so let's shrug our shoulders on that and leave it there.

That said, what I detest is the notion of simpletons who don't know a dot about themselves trying to use evolution to denigrate the faith of other people. And if that's what you're about, please pass so the room can sigh without your cacophony.

However, mazaje, if you see the world differently and can contain people who have different opinions (even different opinions within the religion of evolutionism), that is all well and good - then we can talk as gentlemen, respect each other and see the world as larger than our arguments as we trod on as passengers in its orbits. I, for one, can make friends with other people without trying to ask them to hold out a religious badge of identification as the prerequisite for amicable exchanges.

Cheers.

VALIDATOR:
How can you still be imagining that the earth is just about 6,000 years old?
How can you imagine that the contradicting genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are both correct.

Not all Christians hold that interpetation to make the earth 6,000 years old. So, it is not rational to begin to broadly generalize things in that manner. Ignorance is not bliss, especially where some people trail off in arguments by jingoism like in your case.

modupe01:
I guess that you are still in the realm of belief rather than knowledge (my guess is as good as yours).  I accept the fact that you believe that God wrote the decalogue with His own finger, according to Scriptures.  Let's see what He wrote in Exodus 20:11 and see how we can understand what He meant:

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.  Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Can you now see the Scripture that was inscribed by God Almighty Himself?  He did not leave it open to human interpretation, no?.

Lol, modupe01. .  maybe He did not leave it open to human interpretation; but I would rather that He Himself would have us both interpret and understand what He meant by what He gave us. If that were not so, then other scribes and prophets would not have tried to explain anything from the law to others in order to make them understand anything - Ezra and Nehemiah come to mind as an example:

[list]Nehemiah 8:8 -
They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly,
and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.[/list]

Surely, "gave the sense" would remind us of the fact that those who read were trying to interpret the reading, not so?

Now, back to your inquiry proper:

Let's see what He wrote in Exodus 20:11 and see how we can understand what He meant:

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.  Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Can you now see the Scripture that was inscribed by God Almighty Himself?

Yes, I can see that; and I don't think that contradicts with what I hinted at earlier. This was what I stated:

       "I contend that the Bible does not teach that God "created" the planet in 6 days."

But does Exodus 20:11 teach the opposite to my assertion and lead us to think that God created the planet in 6 days? No. here's how.

(a) In Genesis 1:1, God had already created the heavens and the earth.

(b) Then in Gen. 1:2, there was an epoch that is not defined, where the earth became void.

(c)  but according to Isaiah 45:18, God did not create the earth in the state of being "void" - something had occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 to make the earth "become" void.

(d) so, between both verses, there are distinctly two periods that can be understood there:
      * the period where the heavens and the earth were already created
      * the period after the initial creation, where all things were made.

(e) the Bible uses both these words and several others (eg., create, make, form, renew) to show that they are not referring to the same things in the same periods; these words are also different in the Hebrew language.

(f) the differences in the words are these:

                *  create    -     בּרא   (bara')

                *  make      -    עשׂה   (‛aśah)

                *  form       -     יצר    (yatsar)

                *  renew    -    חדשׁ   (chadash)


(g)  in some verses, we see how they are used differently, like in -

          *  God himself that formed the earth and made it  - Isaiah 45:18

          *   thou renewest the face of the earth  - Psalm 104:30

(h) so, while in Genesis 1:1, we read that God created the heavens and the earth, we also see that there are other verses where He speaks about having made, formed and renewed the earth.


What about Exodus 20:11?

Please read that verse well, even as you quoted it:

        'in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth'

Here, Exodus was speaking of events that occured from Genesis 1:2 onwards, not from the initial epoch of creation in Genesis 1:1.  We don't know how long ago creation occured; but the Bible speaks about several epochs of what God did after the initial creation - that is why we read of His making and renewing the earth.

It is for this reason that even the orthodox Jews believe in 974 generations before Adam.

Krayola:
aight. . .just let me know when u have time. i should be trying to avoid nairaland sef cause my grades are going to shit. I spend way too much time here

I guess we're both in the same boat on that! I planned to spend just a short time on NL, but. . .

huxley:
Which decalogue do you accept?  That given in Exodus 20 or that given in Exodus 34?  Remember that God himself said in Exodus 34 that re was replacing the commandments in Exodus 20 with those in Exodus 34.

Hello huxley. I accept both and I'm not given to unnecessary and inconsequential arguments. So, could I simply get on with addressing modupe01's enquiries? Cheers.

@Krayola,
In hindsight, I think another (or separate) thread would be suitable, so we don't run the risk of derailing this one about the ignorance of evolution. When I'm ready, will gee you a shout.

Krayola:
@viaro. Do you believe someone can be 30 years old, grow out of a society, and be completely uninfluenced by it?

I believe that is possible.

If Jesus was born and raised a Jew, is it possible to understand Jesus without understanding Judaism?

I don't know if it is possible to do so. However, I would rather say that a good understanding of Jesus according to the Biblical texts is impossible without a basic understanding of Judaism.

If Jesus' work is understood outside the context of 1st century Jewish life in Palestine, can we really understand HIS message?

I believe so, as long as we do not deliberately decontextualize His message.

Do you think the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are historical or are theysymbolic?

I believe they are both historical and symbolic.

Should I create a separate thread for this, because I really really reaaallly want to discuss this stuff with you. Every other time i tried i've been insulted and pretty much called a devil.  

Lol, Krayo my man! You know we all have our devils (even viaro's has gone on a short holiday)  .  No, I won't cut you anyhow; but I believe we could enjoy some discussions on this when I can have good time to hand. .  say around December and January?