₦airaland Forum

If it was an ibo man that was murdered by the chinese then they did us a very huge favour and they deserve commendation and applauses for a job well done but if it was any other tribe in Nigeria, the Nigerian Nation must revolt and condemn what the chinese did. We Nigerians must stand up for our rights. The remaining nations claiming to be Nigerians can go and die for all i care. Not our problem one bit!

The poster would have appropraitely titled it to say 'IGBOS TOLD TO PLAN FOR PRESIDENCY IN THE YEAR 8015"

Who dash Monkey Banana. There are only 5 Regions in Nigeria.

North East

North West

Middle Belt

South-South

South West

The remaining ones are counterfeits and irrelevant in the scheme of things

Of course Nigerioa should divide. Have you thought of a nigeria without the Eastern part? Imagine all the good things we would no longer have to worry about:

1. Fraud, deception, fake drugs, drug pushing, excessive attachment to grandoize things and money, please repair the niger bridge and a host of crappy things?

The yoruba's and the north can live together although with mutual suspicion but at least we can think straight without all this jobless ibo street hawkers and alaba boys polluting our image.

Very very stupid topic. All this foolish name tags that make no sense, god, satan, heaven, hell, satanist, athiests etc. What a bunch of deluded fools!

AN EASTER CHALLENGE FOR ALL CHRISTIANS
,


As Robert Green Ingersoll stated so well:

"The question is, were the authors of these four gospels inspired?
If they were inspired, then the four gospels must be true.
If they are true, they must agree.
The four gospels do not agree."


I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity.


Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)


The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

I have tried this challenge myself. I failed. Maybe i am slow reader.

Many bible stories are given only once or twice, and are therefore hard to confirm. The author of Matthew, for example, was the only one to mention that at the crucifixion dead people emerged from the graves of Jerusalem, walking around showing themselves to everyone--an amazing event that could hardly escape the notice of the other Gospel writers, or any other historians of the period. But though the silence of others might weaken the likelihood of a story, it does not disprove it. Disconfirmation comes with contradictions.

Thomas Paine tackled this matter two hundred years ago in The Age of Reason, stumbling across dozens of New Testament discrepancies:

"I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted," he wrote, "first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true."

Since Easter is told by five different writers, it gives one of the best chances to confirm or disconfirm the account. Christians should welcome the opportunity


Here are some of the discrepancies among the resurrection accounts:

What time did the women visit the tomb?

Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)

Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)

Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)

John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?

Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)

Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)

Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)

John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)


What was their purpose?

Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)

Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)

Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)

John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)


Was the tomb open when they arrived?

Matthew: No (28:2)

Mark: Yes (16:4)

Luke: Yes (24:2)

John: Yes (20:1)


Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)

Mark: One young man (16:5)

Luke: Two men (24:4)

John: Two angels (20:12)


Where were these messengers situated?

Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)

Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)

Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)

John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)


What did the messenger(s) say?

Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)

Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)

Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)

John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)


Did the women tell what happened?

Matthew: Yes (28:

Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:

Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)

John: Yes (20:18)


When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?

Matthew: Yes (28:7-

Mark: Yes (16:10,11)

Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)

John: No (20:2)


When did Mary first see Jesus?

Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)

Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)

John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)


Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?

Matthew: Yes (28:9)

John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)


After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?


Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)

Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)

Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)

John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)

Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)


Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?


Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)

Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)

Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)

John: In a room, at evening (20:19)


Did the disciples believe the two men?

Mark: No (16:13)

Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)


What happened at the appearance?

Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)

Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)

Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)

John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)


Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?


Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday

Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday

John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)

Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)


Where did the ascension take place?

Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee

Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)

Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)

John: No ascension

Paul: No ascension

Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)


Either one of the apostles were lying or the whole four were lying. These accounts don't just add up. "Yes , No, yes, No, I don't know, "

You have 4 disciples who were supposed to have followed Jesus around during his ministry and gave full detailed account for everything and since they act as the only witnesses to Jesus Ministry, then these contradictions about the resurrection story really casts a dark cloud over the authencity of the resurrection. Take for example this particular one:

Where did the ascension take place?

Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee

Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)

Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)

John: No ascension

Paul: No ascension

Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

Did Jesus ascend or does he still roam the face of the earth? Luke says he ascended, John Disagrees without any explanation as to his whereabouts,

How do you reconcile these fallacies? Most bible teachers, pastors, theologists will never teach their flock all these errors. They just pick up one passage and gloat over it without telling their flock that but the other apostle disagreed with his own account.

It has nothing to do with not being a believer and i don't have the grace of god to see the hidden story. It is just too plain to see. No need for metaphorical, spiritual or literal transalation. All i ask is for you to tell me the full story of the resurrection story and joining all the accounts together to bring out one fabulous Easter story!

Being a perfect book, even if there are interpretation errors, it shouldnt affect something so vital to the christian faith.

I cant complete this Puzzle! Please Christians help me complete it. My little daugher is asking so many questions that i cant answer, true, False, yes, no, lol
 
which one is a poor unbeliever like me supposed to believe? lol

@pilgrim

Actually i didnt want to get into any argument between you and huxley but since you brough me into this atheism orgy fest, then i am compelled to respond:

Now, the next question, as Zino had asked earlier in the other thread (and one which you, huxley, have often made reference to) is this question:

                           "Then who conjured the name athiests?"

So many people again make the mistake of assuming that this term "atheist" (or even "atheism" was devised by Christian theists to use against non-believers. On the contrary, those terms have a rich and interesting etymology, and as we shall see, the term was first used by a philospher who was not a Christian. I'll proffer the reference for you to see for yourself:

(1) Please see this reference on the various etymology of Atheism addressing this issue online. Some of the entries simply define the word, but a few others give us some background understanding of how it was derived; let me quote one such:


In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (from privative a- + theos "god" meant "without gods" or "lack of belief in gods". The word acquired an additional meaning in the 5th century BC, expressing a total lack of relations with the gods; that is, "denying the gods, godless, ungodly", with more active connotations than asebēs, "impious". Modern translations of classical texts sometimes translate atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also atheotēs: "atheism". Cicero transliterated atheos into Latin. The discussion of atheoi was pronounced in the debate between early Christians and pagans, who each attributed atheism to the other.

Please note that even before Cicero, the terms and the derivatives were in use among those in early Ancient Greek period. Cicero was a philospher who lived before the Christian era (January 3, 106 BC – December 7, 43 BC), and you could imagine that as far back as that time, this man had translated the word into Latin. This is why I pointed out to Zino to carefully check his references and see that it was not Christian theists who first derived this term.

But it gets even more interesting, though. The terms in their early usage in Greek were only derived from Greek roots, but they were not Greek words - their meanings quite different from what many of us have wondered about:

The question was who conjured the name athiests and you just continue to run in a zig zag manner without actually stating a name. You use phrases like "ancient greek", which ancient greek are you talking about? That person should have a name or something or clan that could be traced. You just dont assume things written by someone without any veritable evidence to back it up.

At least a lot of pre ancient greeks or greeks in the bible had names and christians flaunt these ancient places and names to buttress their claims. Such arguments like this should be totally rejected because it offers no hope of evidence but just a bland allusion to a group termed ancient greek.

To make this argument even more absurd, it is meant to mean that the first set of "athiests" where in or around the vicinity of ancient greek at that time. Well that also presupposes that nobody in the roman empire then or the egyptians where unbelieving athiests. They must all then had believed in the existence of god or gods as the case may be except the all intelligent greeks. Does such an argument still make sense anymore?

But if i ask any child today where the name christian came from and who the first christians were, in a jiffy that answer will be produced. So please stop alluding and get your facts correct.

Secondly, there was no reason to bring cicero into this because it doesnt buttress any of your points except being a translator of a word to  latin. It still doesnt answer the question of who conjured the name atheist!

Finally your allusion to drachmann's defination of atheism is subject to his own opinion and not all athiest will agree with  him, like wise your other definations from evil bible.com. When ppl state their own opinions it is subject to criticism and suspicion. How do you know that one independent onlooker at this debate wont pick out a defination by pilgrim on nairaland and place it in another forum and claim it is a word of authority because pilgrim is a highly respected member of nairaland so therefor her definations and opinions are law and authoritative.

If i was in such a forum like that, i would roundly denounce such an argument and state it is just your opinion and nothing more.

@pilgrim

I have gone through your entire post but honestly there isnt anything for me to reply to because you didnt say anything that warranted or evoked a response except throwing curve balls here and there and having a serious man crush on huxley.

I better leave you 2 lovers alone to slug it out  

vicero:
Be careful what you say, God's grace and love for man should not be for granted. Do not test HIS patience, BLASPHEMY, Who are we to questions HIS supremacy.

Blasphemy ko, Blas-FEMI ni

Test whose patience? Do you mean the god that virtually was a killing machine in the old testament? Do you mean the god that created people but ended up destroying his own people because they didnt care about him? Why did he go through all these stress of populating the world and later drowning them? Does that show that such an intelligent all knowing god exists or doesnt that smack off a rampaging child who has lost his rattler and is ready to destroy everything in sight until the rattler is found?

Finally who are we to question his supremacy? Can you hear yourself speak? If such a leader gives all these kind of obnoxious laws is living today, dont you think such a person should be in madame tussad art works in the chamber of horrors corner? Deviant and devilish laws such as:

GOD'S LAWS THAT PERMIT KILLING OF INNOCENT SOULS

Exodus 22:18: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," and 22:19 "Whosoever lieth with a beast, shall surely be put to death."

Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god save unto Yahweh only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
Exodus 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
Exodus 21: 17 And he that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 21: 20-21 And if a man smite his slave or his slavegirl with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished: Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.
(Exodus 22:2 If a burglar is caught in the act and is fatally injured, it is not murder; but if he breaks in after sunrise and is fatally injured, then it is murder.

Yeah! after reading such nauseating laws, who am i to contest with this supreme demon and question his supremacy

Sorry, atheism was not a word conjured by theists - and atheists themselves will tell you that! For one, many atheists do not like to use definitive terms which are in currency among theists; and as such, they would not fancy calling themselves by titles devised by theists.

Then who conjured the name athiests? Since your beating around the bush and not specifically trying to zone the idea of the word athiest to a particular founder. At least we can trace the catholics to rome and the protestant churches to the calvins and lutherians. Where will you now say an athiest or group of athiest woke up one morning and decided to tag themselves as athiests. Wasn't it during the inquisition the issues of infidels, heretics,athiests, non believer and a host of nonsensical names were given to people who faulted these christian beliefs?

I'm sure you haven't checked the issue properly. Atheism is actually a movement - Richard Dawkins and his new atheists adulators are passionate about their atheistic worldview. Second, I wonder that if atheism was not a movement, why then do we have several incorporated atheistic bodies as outlined below:

       International Humanist and Ethical Union
       World Atheist Conferences
       Atheist Center (a social change institution founded by Gora)
       Atheist Alliance International
       American Atheists Conference
       
Please note the highlighted words; and even if one were not to highlight them, it is no use gainsaying the fact that those involved in those conferences, unions, alliances and associations have often presented themselves as a cohesion of a movement.

I see from your previous posts your aversion to richard dawkins especially in reference to his book "the god delusion". The beauty of a free world is that you have the right to criticize the book from A-Z but that rule cannot be applied to the bible without a deluge of prophetic doom sayers reciting insults and curses laden verses in the bible and talks of blasphemy. I really cannot hold forte for richard dawkins and you have a right to pick issues with him. Not my problem one bit. I am not a member of Richard Dawkin's movement and i dont intend to be although i agree with some parts of his book and disagree on some. So your argument of using his movement as a general preposition to lump all athiests is faulty once again.

Also in respect of the other world movements that  highlighted as athiest organizations, you are quite wrong there again because these groups have their own philosophy and rational on why they were formed independently to propagate their own views. While some speak about the issues of science, some speak under the banner of humanity and morality and some speak about issues relating to logic and so on and so forth. There is no general banner or tag that so called athiests fall under such as the word "Christians" that covers everyone who believes in jesus christ. All the various christian denominations from catholics to pentecostals  to white garment to mormons etc still fall under the name christians and believe in one book "the bible" and propagate its sole ideology. QED

You cant say all athiests believe in the issue of evolution but i can say all christians believe that jesus christ ressurected. That major difference in ideologies does not make the  International Humanist and Ethical Union,        World Atheist Conferences,Atheist Center (a social change institution founded by Gora), Atheist Alliance International or  American Atheists Conference bind on each other. For you to say athiesm is a movement is totally ill concieved. I dont belong to one and i dont have any fellow athiest Sitting beside me now trying to convert or preach the goodness or beauty of athiesm or on saturday mornings i have to attend a sermon on "why the noah's ark story is the greatest fabrication of all time" like christians will do on sundays. I see the few non believers on nairaland like huxley, manmustwac and the other guy all expressing different views in relation to their dislike of the bible. I havent recieved any form of pamphlet or email about a meeting of minds to propagate athiesm or to form a movement. Even the akieredolu chap who professed he is a rationalist didnt specify that he was in a movement or an athiest movement for that matter. So picking out isolated groups or conferences of athiests doesnt make them a movement.

A movement is formed to influence the happenings and activites of a certain society. What significant gain has the so called athiest movements achieved? Have they prevented national anthems or pledges from using god in it, such as god bless america or so help me god? Have they prevented presidents from being sworn in without using the quoran or bible?

Some movement i say! compared this to the christian cult that controls the very facet and existence of the western world

They do, it's just that you have not found out. Humanists as well as atheistic rationalists have their various creeds that they hold passionately - and these are the very core of their message, their worldview as well their raison d'etre.

Please feel free to share some of them with us and see whether there hasnt been any major criticism from so called athiest themselves over this creed in contrast to finding one single christian that criticizes the bible openly!

That is a reductionist idea of atheism and does not reach an average definition of what atheism actually is

Once again give a better defination and see if your defination doesnt summarize the obvious that non believers simply dont believe in these holy books because of the errancies and fallacies inherent in these books.

Not many like you have demonstrated common sense and reason - and that is why your worldview fails to live up to its claims to rational thought process

Vey funny! You say our world view fails to live up to its claims to rational thought process. Okay quick question that deals with rationality. I read a chapter like 2 kings 2:23-24 and the only thing i can get from there is that a holy prophet under the command of god ordered 2 bears to kill 42 children because they called him a baldy. Logic tells me that such a person who ordered such a massacre is demon to say the least and if it is the same god of the bible that you christians so revere as the alpha and omega of intelligence and mercy, then i see such a god as a cosmic idiot to say the very least for this singular act.

Now that is my rational thought process at work. Now defend the irrationality of my allegations. Try your very best to justify such brutality and see who really fails to live up to its claims to rational thought process. Anyway i wont even bother asking you to do so because you will always pretend that such a verse doesnt exist and skip right through it. By the way, it is a very effective trick of christians when you are confronted with these embarrassing issues.

Concluding remarks shows just how "rational" your worldview tends to be - because often is the case that your fellows assume that the goal of reason is to "attack" others. That is quite unhealthy and unintelligent. But thansk all the same for your attempts.

Very funny! Do you want me to pull out over a 1000 posts attacks from christians towards unbelievers on nairaland? Talk about kettle calling pot black. If we were just as gullible as some folks on nairaland, we would have accepted the bible hook line and sinker without asking any question and just become converts because the bible said so. But when we reply that the bible also said these horrendous things and ask for explanation, you immediately assume that to be unintelligent and unhealthy and a form of attack. Talk about double speak!

What was wrong with my post (Why did god kill little children) that you had to delete it? Even if you alleged that i said something offensive, didnt i back the story or title with conclusive proof to justify my claims?

How does this nairaland religious forum work? What you like you leave and what you dislike you delete and ban? Is this the philosophy of this forum or what? Being an athiest, i get bashed daily by theists on this forum and rude comments but so what! That's life live with it and no one protects us, but when an athiest posts something that supposedly offends a christian sect, then all hell is loose and the moderator becomes ban trigger happy.

Just make it point blank that as long as we are posting something that is against the christian members of this forum and it doesnt augur well with you in your own opinion then you can wield your powers arbitrarily. If you can own up to that, then no problem and we all refrain from something anything remotely negative against the bible or whatsoever and just siddon look.

Maybe one day athiests will have their own moderator and the issues will be balanced. Also maybe your going to ban me for speaking my mind or is that against the rules too to question the moderator when a member feels aggrieved without any concrete explanation?

1. Athiesm is a word conjured by you theists. Athiest is just the opposite of thiest. You dont need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

2. Athiesm is not a world movement. Never was, never being. There is no cult like status or group that practices and preaches a particular doctrine. Athiests are people who dont just believe in stories that emanated from some ancient books as true especially as it relates to a particular deity. Whether you are talking about allah, buddah, zeus, jehovah or whatever.

Once you cannot substantiate its existence in a logical way that makes sense then it has every right to be counternanced and marked rejected until there is a more reasonable evidence that appeals to non theists.

To some atheists, they use science to rationalise their dislike for religion and to some like me we use common sense and reasoning to reject such stories emanating from these so-called holy books.

Whether you call them atheists, rationalists, freethinkers or whatever, bottom line we dont believe these crappy holy stories and we only attack back when you push your ideologies into our faces!

Shikena!

My problem with all this christian bible wielding twits is just that they are like an army of ants. The more you swipe them away, the more they multiple and sting you to death. They are everywhere. 85% of them havent really read that damn book called the bible and only rely on the passages the pastors quote for them to read during their miracle hour.

You ask a typical christian apologist to preach to you and he rants endlessly about the various good passages and screams 'the bible said this, the bible said that, my father in heaven blurted out this etc" but when you show them the utterly nauseating and noxious parts of the bible which they knowingly skip and hope no one notices, they immediately try to explain the metaphorical aspect of it and tell you that you shouldnt quote the bible out of context but you should read it as a whole. It really doesnt make any iota of sense.

The christian world would be much better if they at least conceed to an extent that some parts in the bible are good and some parts are devilishly rotten. But trusting my bible wielding fanatics, they will never admit that and never criticize such obtuse passages that encourages slavery, murders, misgomyn and a host of utterly wicked things in the bible. Imagine a story like Noah. After he came out of the ark, the first thing he did was to till the soil and create a vineyard and became drunk. Why dont pastors teach their teenage congregation this beautiful and morally uplifting story?

I dont give excuses that science is better than creationism but i use logic to ask questions. When you replace logic with belief, then it gives the christians a better platform to brain wash you more. Take out the toga of belief from christianity and they are left with absolutely nothing.

For example a christian will say god created the heavens and the earth but when a biblical unbeliever asks, where did god come from before he created the heavens and the earth, then you hear all sorts of nonsensical explanations that defile reasoning and when they are out of options they come out with totally ridiculous explanations that create fear such as "dont question the lord your god or the lord operates in a mysterious way or you have to uplift your spiritual life to understand god", yeah right!

Prior to that time they had no problem explaining john 3:16 without god working in a mysterious way and sharing pamphlets. When you ask them about the horror commandments given by god in exodus 21, they will tell you that was the god of the old testament as if there are 2 gods in the bible.

Christians never for once amaze me how they can condone such murders and horrific stories done by their god and still open their mouths that such a book is holy. I have always asked my self this question. If god did all these killings and genocidic activities in the bible, then what can satan do to beat such atrocities?

If this is not brain washing at its best, then i dont know what else the defination of brain washing is again.

P:S: Imagine a bible wielding twit that came to a beer palor yesterday to solicit for funds to build a N20MILLION NAIRA church for one of these pentecoastal business franchises. I totally enjoyed the way my dawgs told him off to gerrout .

It is this same twit that would climb the pulpit and preach against people that drink and smoke and warn their daughters not to marry or date people like us but has the audacity to look for money amongst sinners These churches are nothing more than micro finance banks sourcing for clients wherever and instead of paying marketers, they recruit dense and gullible volunteers to market the church and give them targets, haaaaaaaaaa! What a joke!

@pilgrim

To be frank, i am disappointed with your responses. I have gone through most of your last posts and i see you know your bible well and would be a formidable opponet but i wasn't expecting you to follow davidylan's style of posting by dodging issues and trying to rephrase questions with rhetorical questions.

It Doesn't augur well for their status. Dont be like davidylan. He has nothing to offer but the same ol' question replying question quips.

I expected you to reply back with authorities to substantiate your claims. It is just point blank, I said god is a monsterous killing monster who kills babies and i quote passages to show that it is true. What i expect from you is to say "No god did not kill babies in that passage, in fact i am reading the wrong bible and that verse actually states  blah blah blah'

You dont have to merry go round and dodge issues if you even choose to answer them back. For example:

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

How is this possible because the sun separates night from day or


GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.

All these contradictions and confusion is bewildering to say the least and instead you of you to put it in a proper perspective and refute the obvious, you choose to follow davidylan's style or are you no longer dogmatic to the faith and turning into a freethinker to align with whatever doctrine or reasoning you choose to answer your questions?

Please even if you dont want to answer them for me, imagine a person who intends to choose a religion to follow and is hoping you can convert him, please dont disappoint him

@mazaje

No mind dem jare. When they have no excuse to the riches of embarassing passages in the bible they begin to use silent arguments and clinging unto straws to explain what is not there.

There are thousands and thousands of mistakes in the bible that makes it totally incomprehendible that intelligent inspired men of god wrote such rubbish and say it is the owrd of god. Even if there was a god, certainly it can't be the god of the bible for what so ever reason.

the stories there cannot be told to little children at night and they do their best to make sure they cut out these horrifying stories whenever they are in the mood to spread the gospel "of doom"

None of them, i repeat, none of them even their pope or their chief pastor can validly defend such a book when ever darts are thrown at them. They just love to cling unto straws or knee jerk reactions.


Did these words come from the heart of love by a loving biblical god??  

"When the lord thy god shall drive them before thee, thou shalt smite them and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, or show mercy unto them”.

"I will heap mischief upon them. I will send mine arrows upon them; they shall be burned with hunger and devoured with burning heat and with bitter destruction."

"I will send the tooth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust."

"The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin; the suckling also with the man of gray hairs."

"Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow; let his children be continually vagabonds and beg; let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places; let the extortioner catch all that he hath, and let the stranger spoil his labor; let there be none to extend mercy unto him, neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children."

"And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body -- the flesh of thy sons and daughters."

"And the heaven that is over thee shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron."

"Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field."

"I will make my arrows drunk with blood."

"I will laugh at their calamity."

Did these curses, these threats, come from the heart of love or from the mouth of savagery?  Was Jehovah god or devil?  Why should we place Jehovah above all the gods?  Has man in his ignorance and fear ever imagined a greater monster?  Have the barbarians of any land, in any time, worshiped a more heartless god?  

@pilgrim

First, that should have been Genesis 11, not Genesis 5. All the same, it does not state that they had built it, but rather that they began to do so: ["and this they begin to do" - verse 6]. The case of verse 5 ["the city and the tower, which the children of men builded"] is not indicative of an accomplished tense - and that is what verse 6 reminds us about.

N/B
Even when we consider the quote of that verse in yours:

First of all i accept my mistake i erroneously wanted to say verse 5 of genesis 11.

Secondly i pulled out the exact phrase debosky used to illustrate the tower of babel story so i used his own bible to explain what he wrote.

thirdly i am looking at my own bible which states that:

"And the lord came down to  see the city and the tower which the sons of men had BUILT

Is it my fault that you christians are so confused by the folks in babel that you manufacture, doctor and interpolate biblical scriptures to suit your particular desire.

Before you know, the argument of my bible is the original one and your's is the fake one will crop up. How disorganized can a religion be? No wonder over 4 billion people look at christianity and wonder what the "Hell is wrong with these clowns, can't they just agree on something for once"

@pilgrim

freethinking is a terribly hilarious thing

What so hilarious about freethinking? That i dont have the right to chose and i shouldnt be so dogmatic to a belief that cannot be substantiated with conclusive evidence but to rather rely on faith?

What good has religion done to the world? The fact that there are thousands of contradicting passages in the bible makes it so nauseating that a freethinker would do away with such nonsense and pick up the next book to analyse. The fact that i am not dogmatic to the point of stupidity over a book that provides no intelligent claim whatsoever makes me a free thinker.

the fact that everytime i ask a question about the absurdity of that biblical passage instead of using reasoning and logic christians resort to belief and faith. What is that? But when they see a shroud of physical  evidence to back up their claim, they scream to the high heavens to substantiate the very existence of it.

People assume that the bible contains stories which serve as moral guides to live your life by. While the bible does contain some good moral precepts, such as any ethical person could write, it contains some stunningly immoral teachings.

Everyone has bought into the assumption that the bible is the "Good Book", but I have found that few people have even read it. How do they get their information? It is given to them from the pulpit-- by pastors and christian zealots who have chosen non-offensive, morally mainstream stories to read to their congregations. The bible, both in the Old and New Testament, is morally repugnant and should be rejected by every ethical person.

"Talking about love your neighbour as yourself" quote of christ, none of those moral teachings are original. All of the favorable teachings of Jesus can be found in earlier "pagan" writings. Nothing good said by Jesus was original.It was all said before.


Christ came, they tell us, to make a revelation, and what did he reveal? "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? That was in the Old Testament. "Return good for evil"? That was said by Buddha, seven hundred years before Christ was born. "Do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you"? That was the doctrine of Lao-tsze. Did he come to give a rule of action? Zoroaster had done this long before "Whenever thou art in doubt as to whether an action is good or bad, abstain from it."

Did he come simply to tell us that we should not revenge ourselves upon our enemies? Long before, Socrates had said: "One who is injured ought not to return the injury, for on no account can it be right to do an injustice; and it is not right to return an injury, or to do evil to any man, however much we have suffered from him." And Cicero had said. "Let us not listen to those who think we ought to be angry with our enemies, and who believe this to be great and manly. Nothing is so praiseworthy, nothing so clearly shows a great and noble soul, as clemency and readiness to forgive." Is there anything in the literature of the world more nearly perfect than this thought?

Was it from Christ the world learned the first lesson of forbearance, when centuries and centuries before, Krishna had said, "If a man strike thee, and in striking drop his staff, pick it up and hand it to him again?"

Is it possible that the Son of God threatened a vast majority of his children: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels," while Buddha, centuries before, was great and tender enough to say: "Never will I seek nor receive private individual salvation; never enter into final peace alone; but forever and everywhere will I live and strive for the universal redemption of every creature throughout all worlds. Never will I leave this world of sin and sorrow and struggle until all are delivered. Until then, I will remain and suffer where I am"?

What Jesus brought to the world was this: the idea of condemning someone for their honest opinion to eternal torture. The infinite revenge of Jesus, for failing to believe his unbelievable tales, is the most intense form of pain and anguish imaginable, and not just for a long time, but forever. Apparently, his inexhaustible forgiveness runs out when it comes to hell. From hell there is no pardoning-- the gates of hell are one-way only. His "unconditional love" comes with this condition: believe these unreasonable accounts or suffer so much you'll wish you had never been born. And considering that the vast majority of the people who ever lived either never heard of Jesus or didn't believe in him, and are thereby subject to this doctrine of eternal pain, the notion of infinite revenge should be enough to sicken any moral, just person.

By the way you see freethinking as hilarious, freethinkers see christians as a group of imbecilic bunch under the deluge of hypnotism of fear of the unknown and hoping that the unknown would provide future succor for them in an utopian world filled with milk and cookies with no war, anger and rebellion, just a place where you sing praises all day and wear halos in white garments, oops i forgot the wings!

@pilgrim:


I have gone through your posts and i realise you werent directly talking to me so i apologize for my errancy there.

@debosky

Why are you just twisting the whole issue up and tying yourself into knots?
Genesis 5 says thus:

5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."


It is written there in black and white that god came to see the tower they were building. It did not say a house, tent, cage or temple. He specifically came down to see the TOWER.

What makes a building a tower? Your house?

I brought out a defination of the word tower and it expressly used the phrase "exceptionally high in proportion" which differentiates it from a regular building. Buildings like the Trump Towers or the Twin Towers are used to express buildings that are exceptionally high in proportion because they dwarf regular buildings. the biblical passage was explicit enough to name it as a tower and not a small house or shelter and Just because the bible didnt gaff like the dimensions of noah's ark this time doesnt mean it did not goof by saying "god came down to see the Tower"

You can rigmarole and try to squeeze out from this precarious situation but the bottom line is that it is specifically refered to as a tower and not a minute house or mid size temple.

Besides if you trying to wiggle out from that assertion to say it wasnt a tower, how then did god decide to scatter a multitude? If only 8 people built an ark that big then it pre supposes that probably double the size , maybe 16 people were building  the tower and just because of that group, he decides to scatter the rest that had no interest in it?

Talk about a surgeon trying to remove a mole with a gullotine!

You dont need to use lame excuses as to what dimension the so called tower was. A tower is a tower bottom line!
Stupid fairytale!

@pilgrim

1. I didnt post any thing except from my organization's website that i actually stated i was going to post because it was too long and i was too lazy to write it all out. So please correct that assertion that i copy and past my posts.

2.

It's easy to allege it so - but even those who have tried to quiote endlessly from the same source (the Bible) have not been able to make a concrete point in their interpretations.

I have quoted two sources from the bible relating to the nauseating passages about women and the issue of those that have seen god face to face. How then have i not been able to make my point about god and his issues with women?

3.

Defending God is not what a Christian is called to do. Rather, if ideas are put across with reason, it becomes more defined in itself as to what the discussion so far has been about: worldviews.

I dont understand this post , pls clarify !

@debosky

Haaaaaaaa, boy! I love seeing christians squirm whenever they are boxed into a choice of explaining a passage either literally or metaphorically.

All of a sudden the tower of babel story now squarely rests on the height and width of the building which no pastor had alluded to until this very moment. I remember when i used to attend those boring church services, the way the pastor would gloat about how high the tower was used to astonish me but since you have spelt it out that it could probably be a 3 storey building, then i would remind my christian brothers what pastor debosky taught me tonight, lol

P:S: I just looked up the word tower online and this is the defination i got:

. A building or part of a building that is exceptionally high in proportion to its width and length

I guess the world's defination is much different from pastor debosky's own

Lame defense, abeg stop clutching unto straws, a tower is a tower and those fools according to the bible tried to build it all the way to heaven, where ever that is, lol

@davidylan

Funny enough i have been trying to be civil with you when i post things but it seems you actually like the torture of ridicle which i am extremely good at.

Ok let the war of words begin. So far pilgrim seems to be the only one trying to be civil but i guess it is a free for all and i wanna play too!

Lets face the real issue of the bible, why are you guys trying to run away from a simple fact. We boldly say that the bible is a rotten book not fit for the human mind and you are here trying to dodge that fact with imbecilic excuses of freethinkers and  "copy and paste" defenses. Even if they are copy and paste, why dont you copy and past a valid defense instead of gloating endlessly in another manner, pssff!

p:s: I never stated anything about the ice age, you did, you defend your own assertion. I state the noah flood did not occur and i can back it up with all forms of examples and evidence. You back your own ice age theory

bottom line the question is hell is a bundle of lies, prove otherwise!

If you cant defend your god that you swear to to defend in church and during your midnight prayers, you have no right to claim your a strong christian, rather your a weak christian hiding behind a computer.

debosky:
Do you know that 'savages' built the Macchu Picchu in Peru probably even more 'savage' the so called 'savages' that built the tower of Babel? How do you define or measure 'getting close to heaven'? Are you so dense as to be unable to imagine that that term would mean different things to different people? Even a 3 storey building in some villages would be described as being close to heaven, so you have no point there.

PS - its called eucalyptus not eurachypus - at least be correct when trying to make claims.

@debosky

Rubbish post.


iJust because i hurriedly mispelt the eucalyptus leaf, you brought that as the whole highlight of your defence, pssff!

Also your own stupidity in ascribing a 3 storey building as heaven to people so much differs from the ordinary meaning in the bible. Weren't they dispersed by god because they tried to build a tower to get to heaven to see god? Is that what is written in the bible or do you read cosmo mags and term them to be bibles.

Whenever you apologists are boxed into a corner, you now begin to differentiate between the literal meaning of the biblical passage and the metaphorical part.

You have no defense to this argument, your just a meddlesome interloper trying to get your voice heard, sorry mate but your a drowning fella, support your arguments with scriptural passages and stop relying on insertionism and grammatical excuses.

@davidylan

told you the group i belong and i posted it from our website. I didnt claim to write it but to educate you, so why the yawn, at least i am honest enough to show you that i pasted it or would you prefer me to lecture you on a one on one basis?  

But you xtians will never be honest enough to accept that the bible if filled with so many errant passages and unintelligent parts of the scriptures

I'll give you a scenario . . . culture forces demands you to conform to a particular lifestyle . . . does that make you a non-freethinker?

I can choose to leave that culture and move unto another one that pleases my life style. I dont have to be boxed by culture and accept it wholesomely, that's the difference between a believer and a freethinker. The right to choose!

@davidylan

You asked what a freethinker is and i will gladly tell you. I belong to a group that deals with the rationality and logical reasoning of man. So i will pull out a script from our website to educate you more.

What Is A Freethinker?

free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.

No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.

How do freethinkers know what is true?
Clarence Darrow once noted, "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose."
Freethinkers are naturalistic. Truth is the degree to which a statement corresponds with reality. Reality is limited to that which is directly perceivable through our natural senses or indirectly ascertained through the proper use of reason.

Reason is a tool of critical thought that limits the truth of a statement according to the strict tests of the scientific method. For a statement to be considered true it must be testable (what evidence or repeatable experiments confirm it?), falsifiable (what, in theory, would disconfirm it, and have all attempts to disprove it failed?), parsimonious (is it the simplest explanation, requiring the fewest assumptions?), and logical (is it free of contradictions, non sequiturs, or irrelevant ad hominem character attacks?).


Do freethinkers have a basis for morality?
There is no great mystery to morality. Most freethinkers employ the simple yardsticks of reason and kindness. As author Barbara Walker notes: "What is moral is simply what does not hurt others. Kindness . . . sums up everything."
Most freethinkers are humanists, basing morality on human needs, not imagined "cosmic absolutes." This also embraces a respect for our planet, including the other animals, and feminist principles of equality.

Moral dilemmas involve a conflict of values, requiring a careful use of reason to weigh the outcomes. Freethinkers argue that religion promotes a dangerous and inadequate "morality" based on blind obedience, unexamined ultimatums, and "pie-in-the-sky" rewards of heaven or gruesome threats of hell. Freethinkers try to base actions on their consequences to real, living human beings.


Do freethinkers have meaning in life?
Freethinkers know that meaning must originate in a mind. Since the universe is mindless and the cosmos does not care, you must care, if you wish to have purpose. Individuals are free to choose, within the limits of humanistic morality.
Some freethinkers find meaning in human compassion, social progress, the beauty of humanity (art, music, literature), personal happiness, pleasure, joy, love, and the advancement of knowledge.


Doesn't the complexity of life require a designer?
The complexity of life requires an explanation. Darwin's theory of evolution, with cumulative nonrandom natural selection "designing" for billions of years, has provided the explanation. A "Divine Designer" is no answer because the complexity of such a creature would be subject to the same scrutiny itself.
Even a child knows to ask: "If God made everything, then who made God?"

Freethinkers recognize that there is much chaos, ugliness and pain in the universe for which any explanation of origins must also account.


Why are freethinkers opposed to religion?
Freethinkers are convinced that religious claims have not withstood the tests of reason. Not only is there nothing to be gained by believing an untruth, but there is everything to lose when we sacrifice the indispensable tool of reason on the altar of superstition.
Most freethinkers consider religion to be not only untrue, but harmful. It has been used to justify war, slavery, sexism, racism, homophobia, mutilations, intolerance, and oppression of minorities. The totalitarianism of religious absolutes chokes progress.


Hasn't religion done tremendous good in the world?
Many religionists are good people--but they would be good anyway.
Religion does not have a monopoly on good deeds. Most modern social and moral progress has been made by people free from religion--including Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Charles Darwin, Margaret Sanger, Albert Einstein, Andrew Carnegie, Thomas Edison, Marie Curie, H. L. Mencken, Sigmund Freud, Bertrand Russell, Luther Burbank and many others who have enriched humanity.

Most religions have consistently resisted progress--including the abolition of slavery; women's right to vote and choose contraception and abortion; medical developments such as the use of anesthesia; scientific understanding of the heliocentric solar system and evolution, and the American principle of state/church separation.


Do freethinkers have a particular political persuasion?
No, freethought is a philosophical, not a political, position. Freethought today embraces adherents of virtually all political persuasions, including capitalists, libertarians, socialists, communists, Republicans, Democrats, liberals and conservatives. There is no philosophical connection, for example, between atheism and communism. Some freethinkers, such as Adam Smith and Ayn Rand, were staunch capitalists; and there have been communistic groups which were deeply religious, such as the early Christian church.
freethinkers agree in their support of state/church separation.


Is atheism/humanism a religion?
No. Atheism is not a belief. It is the "lack of belief" in god(s). Lack of faith requires no faith. Atheism is indeed based on a commitment to rationality, but that hardly qualifies it as a religion.
Freethinkers apply the term religion to belief systems which include a supernatural realm, deity, faith in "holy" writings and conformity to an absolute creed.

Secular humanism has no god, bible or savior. It is based on natural rational principles. It is flexible and relativistic--it is not a religion.


Why should I be happy to be a freethinker?
Freethought is reasonable. Freethought allows you to do your own thinking. A plurality of individuals thinking, free from restraints of orthodoxy, allows ideas to be tested, discarded or adopted.
Freethinkers see no pride in the blind maintenance of ancient superstitions or self-effacing prostration before divine tyrants known only through primitive "revelations." Freethought is respectable. Freethought is truly free!

I guess i have been officially invited to this party and i love parties. I wont miss this for the world:

ok let's go, starting with papa, dim

I have read through the whole post and it really baffled me that a man at this age and time could deny or refuse to believe that hell/heaven exist. h\Have you ever asked yourself how the whole earth came into existence? How the stars, the moon, the sky and also the chemistry behind day and night. I know you all havnt

I am not going to say i am totally in support of evolution because it does have its own hiccups and scientists are honest enough to say it is a never ending search to get to the bottom of the truth but it is a far cry from what creationist tend to put out as the source of the universe. It is too ludicrious to say the least that man just popped out from no where because god said so without providing any form of evidence to back this assertion up except sheer belief that it is true.

This is sensless to say the least. At least scientists are still trying to discover fossils hidden across the various parts of the world and trying to make sense of its geology and history but the bible offers nothing intelligent what so ever except errant belief that it just happened like that.

Did the bible ever tell us how many planets are there? who discovered them man or the authors of the bible. Did the bible explain the number of stars out there? nope science did. All you believe in is that god said let there be light and voila! Light! How sensible is that  

The Genesis story of creation is certainly not an historical event, as modern science has revealed, as well as the Flood of Noah's time. This flood has been conclusively demonstrated to be a piece of mythology, borrowed from the Assyrians, and probably built up upon a real, localized flood (the Black Sea flood of about 5000 B.C.E. has been proposed as the original model). There NEVER WAS a global flood, it did not happen

@poster, to your question, i can't really convince you otherwise cause you have really reached a point of no return. if you don't believe in spirit, then what powers the real you?

Is this a trick question

Of course water and blood, duh!

In the book of Gen 11:1-9,

it speaks about man trying to build a tower which can reach heaven so that they can see God, but God destroyed their plans. That singular act gave birth to the numerous languages we speak today. if their was no heaven would God have stopped them? NO, since today airoplanes fly in the sky.

Hmm, talking about those that saw god! Trust me you ignorant bible readers, do you think no one has seen god. Of course people in the bible have seen god so why are you alluding to the fact that the tower of babel was destroyed because they wanted to see god. these people have seen god face to face

Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face."
Exodus 33:11 "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."
Isaiah 6:1 "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple."
Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee."

There you have it right from the bible, so wuz up with the nobody has seen god crap?

Beside the story of the tower of babel is too unbelievable to say the least. What is the height of the tallest building on the planet today. Despite the fact that these men were crude illiterate men who didnt have access to modern day technology, according to the bible, they built a tower that was almost getting to heaven. Despite the money and technology accessible to man today, no construction company can still boast of such a feat talkless of savages who werent that technologically adavnced, pssff!

Also read Gen 6 - Gen 9.

This place talks about God destroying the earth through flood. God spoke to Noah telling him to preach and convince the world that he would rain judgement upon the earth. but they all laughed him off. It truely came to pass. So God now decided that he would send his son JESUS to prepare the way for the final judgemnt.

Please dont let me murder you on this subject because your going to be shamefully embarrassed if i begin to methodically destroy the noah's ark story. Only one question though. How did the koala's, kangaroos and wombats found mostly in newzealand and australia get into the ark and back to australia in record time? How did noah get the eurachypus leaf that only koalas eat and can only be found in australia? When god destroyed the world and let the animals to go and multiply, did it occur to you that the herbivores amongst them couldnt find any food since the flood destroyed all form of plants and since the carnivores could only eat meat, wont they have eaten the other species of herbivores hereby making it difficult to reproduce again?

Abeg dont tempt me to white wash you on this subject. You would passionately fail and cover your eyes in shame for your bible and god.

BUT lets go back to the beginging of creation.

LUCIFER (satan/devil) was God's right hand man, but greed overtook lucifer and he wanted to be like God, so God pushed him out of heaven and sent him into the bootomless pit together with his followers.

SO God decided to make man in GOD's image (Gen 1), but before then God created the whole UNIVERSE, and put man to have dominion over all creature and beast (lucifer and his followers) as a continiuos punishment for lucifer (devil/satan), But lucifer decieved eve and man literally gave his authority to the devil.

This passage is what they call insertionism. Where is it stated that satan was god's right hand paddy in the bible?

kai you christians sha, na wah!

Also if god allowed lucifer to tempt eve, if he was so powerful, why didnt he destroy satan before he made his famous creation man. If he knew lucifer would come and spoil his work, why didnt god prevent satan from spoiling his handwork? What kind of cosmic slowpoke creates something that he calls "perfect" and later childishly destroys all of them through a flood and later apologizes for destroying his perfect creation. Doesnt that sound like a script from a dumb king kong movie?

After the second coming of jesus, those that are alive and were found wanting would suffer tormentation and affliction from the devil for seven years and those who still fail to obtain the mark of the beast would escape the final judgement upon the earth, which is eternally BURNING

Second coming my foot. How is he or she or it going to come? using a plane, okada, ferrari or scream "Geronimo" all the way from heaven wearing a cape like super man? Is he coming as a white man, chinese, mongolian, south american or hebrew?

What is he going to wear, jeans, prada sun glasses, kangol or what? am very curious because we no longer wear jerusalem slippers and swadles. Its out of vogue since 3,000 years ago in case you forgot.

How is he going to look like, will he have a model hair like a hollywood actor or low skin hair cut? will there be tatoos on his body and earrings on his ears with big 50 cent chains weilding a bible, oops i forgot the timber land shoes

Pssff!!, abeg grow a life and stop living in a delusional world that is only fit for believers of a harry potter novel  

sorry i am a slow writer but next up is pilgrim

@davidylan

I prefer to stay on the sidelines and come in on the occassional times when you (as is usual) start quoting the bible deliberately and decietfully out of context.

How does one quote the bible out of context and delibrately?

At least it is written there in black and white in the bible. So what is so decietful about it. Isnt it what the holy prophets said women should be and would be?

How decietful is that or should we say the prophets are the decietful ones?

Now coming to the issue of delibrate. Christian apologists are fond of saying"god said this and god said that is luke chapter blah blah verses blah blah" and prech on it endlessly and literally but when someone points out a horrible and dispeakable passage in the bible then you guys clutch unto straws and try to explain it in a metaphorical way and allude to allegory as a saving face to avoid the shameful embarassment inherent in that passage.

How do you pick out the ones that should be read literally and the ones to be seen as metaphorical?

Hmm, major jamb kwesion  

@mazaje

Lol, see as they are attacking my fellow freethinker without any support. I feel like bringing the nuclear bomb to shut them up now but i'll allow you have all the fun for now. If i come back and i still see they havent given up, then walahi, i would decimate them piece by piece until they get to hell (No pun intended there)!

@poetikalz

Hmm, so much anger and hate and so little intelligence to back it up

see you as one of those that has a vaccum field brain when it comes to analysing spiritual things.You have refused to acknowledege the fact that you are a human being that is limited in space and time because you live in a 3 dimensional world and for you to provide answers to these probing questions like this you might need to levitate to higher dimensions of spiritual existence .Know this that there are higher planes of existence that you can't use your earthly intelligence to analyse

Wow all of a sudden, we have left the bible and moved to a spiritual scientific world where by we have to levitate or fly to a higher spiritual dimension which our earthly intelligence cannot analyse, hmm

Let me get this straight. We have to leave this planet and think more like the aliens in mars or angels in planet heaven and we can't do that till we levitate to their level, wow, then what are we doing here on earth? Cant we just all move to this spiritual world and leave everything here including our cars, businesses, buildings, lands etc all because we have to move to this 3rd dimensional spiritual world.

I hope you read what you just wrote over and over again because frankly speaking, this has to be one of the densest things i have ever heard.

Come to think of it.Are you saying you are wiser than all the christains that have chosen to believe God and have faith in Him?

Yes i am, next question

BUT I KNOW YOU CANT BE WISER OR SMARTER OR KNOWLEDGEABLE THAN THE BILLIONS OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE CHOSEN TO FOLLOW
CHRIST.

hmm, 6 billion people on the planet. 4 million dont believe in christianity. That's almost 70% of the world population that doesnt believe in a the contraption called christ. Whose wiser now. You or the rest of the world

Anyway there are too many silly things in your post that makes me want to ignore them in all totality but what got me interested in this post was that you used biblical authorities to back up your lame excuses about god and jesus.

For once dont ever under estimate my knowledge of this fallacy called the bible. I might choose to use sarcasm and ridicule to buttress my point but when it comes to citing these authorities to show how immature, silly and idiotic the bible is, i wont hesistate to humilate you with your own bible.

You talk so glowingly about your god and how intelligent he is. Well for starters, i will break it down to you supported with biblical authorities to show how erroneous your belief and statements are:



Christian Apologists, pastors, jehovah witnesses and so called nairaland christians wonder how I can be wicked enough to attack the Bible.

I will tell them: This book, the Bible, has persecuted, even unto death, the wisest and the best. This book stayed and stopped the onward movement of the human race. This book poisoned the fountains of learning and misdirected the energies of man.

This book is the enemy of freedom, the support of slavery. This book sowed the seeds of hatred in families and nations, fed the flames of war, and impoverished the world. This book is the breastwork of kings and tyrants -- the enslaver of women and children. This book has corrupted governments,parliaments and courts. This book has made colleges and universities the teachers of error and the haters of science. This book has filled Christendom with hateful, cruel, ignorant and warring sects. This book taught men to kill their fellows for religion's sake. This book funded the Inquisition, invented the instruments of torture, built the dungeons in which the good and loving languished, forged the chains that rusted in their flesh, erected the scaffolds whereon they died. This book piled fagots about the feet of the just. This book drove reason from the minds of millions and filled the asylums with the insane.

This book has caused fathers and mothers to shed the blood of their babes. This book was the auction block on which the slave- mother stood when she was sold from her child. This book filled the sails of the slave-trader and made merchandise of human flesh. This book lighted the fires that burned "witches" and "wizards." This book filled the darkness with ghouls and ghosts, and the bodies of men and women with devils. This book polluted the souls of men with the infamous dogma of eternal pain. This book made credulity the greatest of virtues, and investigation the greatest of crimes. This book filled nations with hermits, monks and nuns -- with the pious and the useless. This book placed the ignorant and unclean saint above the philosopher and philanthropist. This book taught man to despise the joys of this life, that he might be happy in another -- to waste this world for the sake of the next.

I attack this book because it is the enemy of human liberty -- the greatest obstruction across the highway of human progress.

Let me ask you and your fellow christian apologists one question: How can you be wicked enough to defend this horrid and nauseating book called the bible?

PAUL SAID, "god is not the author of confusion," (I Corinthians 14:33), yet never has a book produced more confusion than the bible! There are hundreds of denominations and sects, all using the "inspired Scriptures" to prove their conflicting doctrines.

Why do trained theologians differ? Why do educated translators disagree over Greek and Hebrew meanings? Why all the confusion? Shouldn't a document that was "divinely inspired" by an omniscient and omnipotent deity be as clear as possible?

Many of the defensive attempts are arguments from silence. I will use the instance of women to illustrate how silly this bible and god is. For you women that are always at the vanguard of defending such an idiotic faith, this is to you and remember i didnt say it, but your bible commanded this to be done to you.


Organized religion always has been and remains the greatest enemy of women's rights. In the Christian-dominated Western world, two bible verses in particular sum up the position of women:

"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."--Genesis 3:16

By this third chapter of Genesis, woman lost her rights, her standing--even her identity, and motherhood became a God-inflicted curse degrading her status in the world.

In the New Testament, the bible decrees:

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."--1 Tim. 2:11-14

(Why then do women speak when men talk? Arent you contravening this part of the bible)

One bible verse alone, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18) is responsible for the death of tens of thousands, if not millions, of women. Do women and those who care about them need further evidence of the great harm of Christianity, predicated as it has been on these and similar teachings about women?

Martin Luther decreed: "If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it."

"The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of woman's emancipation."

The various Christian churches fought tooth and nail against the advancement of women, opposing everything from women's right to speak in public, to the use of anesthesia in childbirth (since the bible says women must suffer in childbirth) and woman's suffrage. Today the most organized and formidable opponent of women's social, economic and sexual rights remains organized religion. Religious fanatics and bullies are currently engaged in an outright war of terrorism and harassment against women who have abortions and the medical staff which serves them. Those seeking to challenge inequities and advance the status of women today are fighting a massive coalition of fundamentalist Protestant and Catholic churches and religious groups mobilized to fight women's rights, gay rights, and secular government.

[b]Why do women remain second-class citizens? Why is there a religion-fostered war against women's rights? Because the bible is a handbook for the subjugation of women. The bible establishes woman's inferior status, her "uncleanliness," her transgressions, and God-ordained master/servant relationship to man. Biblical women are possessions: fathers own them, sell them into bondage, even sacrifice them. The bible sanctions rape during wartime and in other contexts. Wives are subject to Mosaic-law sanctioned "bedchecks" as brides, and male jealousy fits and no-notice divorce as wives. The most typical biblical labels of women are "harlot" and "LovePeddler." They are described as having evil, even satanic powers of allurement. Contempt for women's bodies and reproductive capacity is a bedrock of the bible. The few role models offered are stereotyped, conventional and inadequate, with bible heroines admired for obedience and battle spirit. Jesus scorns his own mother, refusing to bless her, and issues dire warnings about the fate of pregnant and nursing women.[/b]

There are more than 200 bible verses that specifically belittle and demean women. Here are just a few:

[b]Genesis 2:22 Woman created from Adam's rib
3:16 Woman cursed: maternity a sin, marriage a bondage
19:1-8 Rape virgins instead of male angels

Exodus 20:17 Insulting Tenth Commandment, considering a wife to be property
21:7-11 Unfair rules for female servants, may be sex slaves
22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
38:8 Women may not enter tabernacle they must support


Leviticus 12:1-14 Women who have sons are unclean 7 days
12:4-7 Women who have daughters are unclean 14 days
15:19-23 Menstrual periods are unclean
19:20-22 If master has sex with engaged woman, she shall be scourged


Numbers 1:2 Poll of people only includes men
5:13-31 Barbaric adulteress test
31:16-35 "Virgins" listed as war booty


Deuteronomy 21:11-14 Rape manual
22:5 Abomination for women to wear men's garments, vice-versa
22:13-21 Barbaric virgin test
22:23-24 Woman raped in city, she & her rapist both stoned to death
22:28-29 Woman must marry her rapist
24:1 Men can divorce woman for "uncleanness," not vice-versa
25:11-12 If woman touches foe's penis, her hand shall be cut off


Judges 11:30-40 Jephthah's nameless daughter sacrificed
19:22-29 Concubine sacrificed to rapist crowd to save man


I Kings 11:1-4 King Solomon had 700 wives & 300 concubines


Job 14:1-4 "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one . . ."


Proverbs 7:9-27 Evil women seduce men, send them to hell
11:22 One of numerous Proverbial putdowns


Isaiah 3:16-17 God scourges, rapes haughty women


Ezekiel 16:45 One of numerous obscene denunciations


Matthew 24:19 "[woe] to them that are with child"


Luke 2:22 Mary is unclean after birth of Jesus


I Corinthians 11:3-15 Man is head of woman; only man in God's image
14:34-35 Women keep in silence, learn only from husbands


Ephesians 5:22-33 "Wives, submit . . ."


Colossians 3:18 More "wives submit"


I Timothy 2:9 Women adorn selves in shamefacedness
2:11-14 Women learn in silence in all subjection; Eve was sinful, Adam blameless


Why should women--and the men who honor women--respect and support religions which preach women's submission, which make women's subjugation a cornerstone of their theology?

When attempts are made to base laws on the bible, women must beware. The constitutional principle of separation between church and state is the only sure barrier standing between women and the bible.


LE 15:19 A woman who is menstruating is unclean. Anyone who touches her is unclean.

LE 15:20 Anything which a woman who is menstruating sits on or lies on is unclean.

LE 15:21 Anyone who touches the bed of a woman who is menstruating must wash his clothes and bathe, and is unclean until evening.

LE 15:22 Anyone who touches anything which was sat upon by a woman who is menstruating must wash his clothes and bathe, and is unclean until evening.

LE 15:24 If a man lies with a woman who is menstruating and any of her discharge touches him, he is unclean for seven days. Any bed he lies on is also unclean.

LE 15:28 After her flow stops, a woman who was menstruating must count off seven days before she is considered clean again. On the eighth day, she must present two birds to the priest for an atonement for having had a menstrual discharge.

LE 21:9 If a priest's daughter becomes a prostitute, she is to be burnt with fire.
LE 27:3-7 Males are more valuable than females.
DT 22:5 One must not wear the clothing of the opposite sex.
DT 22:23-24 A betrothed virgin who is seduced in the city is to be put to death unless she cries for help.

DT 22:28-29 A virgin who is raped must marry her rapist (if they are "found".
DT 24:1-4 A man may divorce his wife simply because she displeases him.
1CO 14:34-35 Women are to be silent in church. If they have any questions, they are to ask their husbands at home. It is a shame for women to speak in church.
1TI 2:9, 1PE 3:3 Women should not braid their hair, or wear gold or pearls or costly attire.

1TI 2:11-12 Women are to learn in silence (from men) in all submissiveness.

1TI 2:12 Women are not permitted to teach or have authority over men.




LE 21:14 A priest (or descendant of Aaron) must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, a woman who has been defiled, or a harlot, but only a virgin.[/b]


Now before you open your mouth to say rubbish and defend such an absurd book, you should realise that these are the inspired words of prophets of god whom you worship and adore. Remember that no part of the bible should be read in isolation. It is the holy bible and it is this bible that you use to cast out demons, pray everyday, use to heal so called sick people and used to prosper your own economic gains.

This verses are from the one and only HOLY BIBLE and no other source. Most Christian Women who fill churches to the brim and act as agents of these churches have not read their bible thoroughly. The bible demeans them, makes them stupid creatures, even a goat or sheep is supposed to have more respect than women. They are to be used as foot stools of men and objects of sex only. It is all there in the bible and you cannot claim ignorance of it.

You might be used to the only popular ones like john 3:16 or love your neiighbour as your self but i read the bible well, the bible has told and instructed me to treat women like sh***t and they are first class irritants to the society.

Dont get angry with me for looking down on women as scums of the earth, instead ask your all intelligent and wise god why women have to be dominated by men in such a horrible way. Your god wrote it. In fact i think i have to turn into a christian back so that i have every excuse to treat women like this and say "I am only obeying the word of god because the holy bible said so"

So please try and defend these passages. Dont come back with that tired excuse of it was the old law, remember i also posted ones from the new testament. Please come and explain how intelligent these words are and how inspiring they are especially to women folk.

If it was indeed the old law, then god definately did not see the future that feminism would overtake such a horrid and unintelligent book written by barbarian illiterates hiding under the diguise of inspired prophets of god.


And you said the devil is bad, lol, Trust me the devil can do no worse to women than what god has done already,

What crock of sh***t, pssff!

Praise who?

Usain Bolt for winning a double olympic medal or McCain for securing the republican party nomination?

I dont get it. If you mean praising a non living thing that exists in the mind of delusional beings that constantly kills people in the bible, encourages slavery, murderers and is totally anti females, then i dont think anyone in his right senses should be praising such a monster. If you do praise god then praise bin ladin and hitler because they are all in the same club of murderers

No god whatseoever choses a spouse for you. It all boils down to person traits and characteristics of the people involved. The term the "hunter and the hunted applies to this rule". Men generally chase women that appeal to certain factors that are inherent in them. It could be a sexual thing, bodily thing, material thing or anyother factor that appeals to the other sex. No god tells a woman to choose a man that has money more than a man that is kind and poor, no god tells a man to choose a woman that is sexually seductive over a born again woman. It all boils down to their person choices and if god really chose these spouses for them, how come the rate of divorce is zooming to an all time high world wide? If he chose them and they later divorced then god must be the most incompetent match maker to invest your money in. If god choses a spouse that continously cheats on the other partner, then invariably god is a supporter of cheats. If god choses a partner that lies, steals, maltreats his spouse and is extremely violent for another spouse then god must definately be screwed up seriously because since he knows the beginning and the end of the world, he ought to know how messed up that partner would be and wouldnt sanction it.

But we all know whenever people like me state the obvious about your kind all loving god in a negative way, you all run out of excuses to defend such a person and resort to your usual prayers and fire branding insults.

Bottom line, we are all humans and our greatest religion and attribute is freewill. The right to choose good and bad, right or wrongand you enjoy the rewards personally or suffer the consequences personally.

No god chooses your mr or mrs right. You do! 100%

Where is heaven sef? Upstairs, down stairs, second turning by the right after planet Uranus or where?

I don't believe how people can believe such bunkum and hold it so dear as if its true!

Besides how do you go to heaven when your body is beyond decay and rotten?

Heaven must really be a smelly stinking place filled with rotten corspes and ugly zombies all trying to feed off each other

Besides when your in heaven, do you eat or sleep or shit? Are there toilets and urinals and Agbe kpo people there? Does heaven have a functional suck -away? Are there engineers, bus drivers, vulcanizers in heaven or what? or does everyone just wear white satin laces with golden halos on their head and smile at each other for the next 7,000 years singing praises to one god everyday, 24hours non stop? Please, its going to get boring after 24 minutes and some sort of rebellion would crop up to stop all those solemn racket filtering through out our imaginary heaven

Stop dreaming and wake up from your delusions. If your looking for heaven, visit st moritz, monaco, disneyland or tinapa and stop hoping there is one place that you will end up singing praises to one thing for the next 400,000 years, lol

Well if your scared of saying bad things about your pastors such as pastor adeboye, mathew oshimolomo, chris oyakilohme, okotie, oyedepo and the rest of these goons, i will gladly help you out and express my opinions on your behalf.

1. They are fake assed money grabbing twits who would do anything to make their personal accounts fatter than the golden calf and make their gullible followers far penniless than when they came to church that day.

2. These goons would always quote the sweetest and most interesting parts of the bible to coerce their followers but forget to remind their followers that god also ordered the killing and murders of women and children.

3. These bible weilding charlatants will never confront and engage a person who is about to point to them the errancy of their teachings, instead, they take solace whenever their standing on their pulpits or podiums to castigate anyone who challenges their authority or teachings.

4. How do you know that someone is anointed by a god? by wearing fancy suits, frying your hair and screaming ontop of your lungs shouting Alleluia?

5 How come these freaks can speak aramic, greek and hebrew but can't speak annother nigerian language other than their native tongues?, some holy ghost power indeed

I hope i have been able to help you vent the anger that is embelished in your stomach but your too afraid to confront these christian apologists

Anytime you need my help to take down these microphone motivational speakers wannabe claiming to be anointed pastors, please holla!

The solution is for government to bulldoze those contraptions called miracle churches and replace them with beautiful residential houses like the lekki/ajah express way.

Why did Raji Rasaki and Major general Abdulkarim Adisa not finish the good work they started by trying to fumigate that place