mazaje:

good. . . . . . . . . what part of naija are you from davidylan?

The new England area

29 miles from the bronx

Queenisha:

The new England area

29 miles from the bronx

you drink ota pia-pai ne? abi na wetin be dis. . . . . .

lady are you a catholic?. . . . . . . . .

yes sir.

@lady
Good points but I think the bible is faulty with historical facts too so don't be too quick to blame only allah, you say the question I asked is ridiculous but the story of cain and abel is big in christianity.
There is historical evidence that the story of cain and abel was already on before moses was born and was widely known in ancient egypt, do you think some of it might have crept in?
Anyway thanks for your input have a good night.

On the contrary, the Bible is not a scientific book, therefore it will not satisfy the scientists taste, when he or she looks at from that view alone. The Bible is more of a send the message book, and telling of the power of God. believe me if every single thing was documented there won't be enough books in the world to contain it.

Now as for the story of cain and abel being on before moses, that has always been true. The Church has never claimed that the world began when Moses started writing. Moses did not witness all these things. Infact Abrahamic period was full of nomads, who did not write. But the stories were carefully handed down as sacred tradition over the centuries that man had occupied the earth. This is why Catholics believe strongly in sacred tradition. The Bible itself is sacred tradition. After all it was by sacred tradition that the Isrealites were able to know the name of God and recognise it when Moses spoke it to the Isrealites and they were able to tell that God truly sent him. Certainly common sense will let everyone know that Moses was not present on the days of creation. But it is our belief that God preserved these truths about himself and the world until when it was able to be documented.
It wasn't until the mosaic period that man was able to write, and much more legibly than before, Also Moses was very educated. He was raised as a prince in egypt, the egyptians were much more advanced than those who surrounded them, so moses could read and write, he basically had first class education.

But these stories, leading up to the Mosaic era, that you read in the Bible were handed down from generation to generation much like how our ancestors in africa did. That was the only way to pass on history. It was quite simple because they always lived as one family, and the community was not as wide spread as you may have it today. Where mum and dad live in one state and the kids are in another. They lived among each other, mother, fathaer, cousin, nieces, nephews, and even at that time cousins were to be righfully married. they couldn't just take a trip and come upon a damsel and choose her to marry as is done today, no they were supposed to marry within their kinsmen.
It is rather something to be admired, because even till today the jews still have the same oral tradition that is passed on and it is unchanged. So i do believe strongly that these stories were well preserved not just by man but by God as well.

I think the misconception is that everyone is expecting these stories to date back to when they were first written down. That is only dating the writings but not the stories. The stories date farther than the time they were actually written.

~Lady~:


It wasn't until the mosaic period that man was able to write, and much more legibly than before, Also Moses was very educated. He was raised as a prince in egypt, the egyptians were much more advanced than those who surrounded them, so moses could read and write, he basically had first class education.

can you substantiate with proof that it was during mosaic period that man was able to write, and much more legibly than before,

@lady
I certainly agree with you the bible is not a scientific book, so also is the quaran but if they are to be held up as holy books or book of truths they should pass simple tests that are believed to be universal its that simple. I personally think that for a book that is holy and is the truth to get the age of the earth wrong or to forget to mention that other human beings were on the earth highly questions it authenticity, so back to the issue at hand. As for moses, yes he had first class education which would have included the story of cain and abel and not that he was inspired. Stories being handed down as tradition without writing cause stories to be distorted, and that is the reason why oral tradition is highly questioned its a lot different from writing. Whenever there is a conflict or a clash of stories one can always refer to the written copy so that they know if the story has been distorted or not. Besides if they were handed down them it might have just being a traditional story and not what really happened.
I think it is wrong to say that the bible is a scared tradition, I am in awe, oral tradition is the worst way to preserve a story and besides if this was a book inspired by God then it should get facts straight. Moses just gave us a piece of ancient egyptian mythology. The dates of the writing are not in any way confused with the actual dates that these events were supposed to have taken place these writings were dated but the dates of the events were calculated from then.
The Catholic Church is one church that has held on to traditions and are becoming increasingly caught up the present day events

Hi Chrisbenogor,

I have tried to patiently read through some of your contributions so that I understand your philosophical outlook before inviting you to consider a few salient points. However, it seems the reason why you may often be getting these difficulties is simply because you are confusing your terms as well the contexts of your own parameters. Let me point out a few:

Chrisbenogor:

I certainly agree with you the bible is not a scientific book, so also is the quaran but if they are to be held up as holy books or book of truths they should pass simple tests that are believed to be universal its that simple.

you are making what is known in literary circles as "implosive" statements. The idea is simply this: when someone tries to negate a point and yet contradicts his premise, his conclusions suffer a "sudden inward collapse". How so? Here:

[list]If you hold that the Bible is a holy book and not a scientific manual, then it becomes only reasonable to follow and discuss that Book in contexts of its premise on holiness. You cannot claim to examine its core teachings against "universal" applications and then try to falsify a discussion on holiness on what you assume to be "science". The one question is this: how does science measure "holiness"?[/list]

When you define the meeting point between "holiness" and "science", you could then proceed on to what you could put forward as "universal" ideas. This is why when I engage people on reason, I often find a lot of them projecting into philosophical ideas and yet violating the very basic principles of that approach.

Chrisbenogor:

I personally think that for a book that is holy and is the truth to get the age of the earth wrong or to forget to mention that other human beings were on the earth highly questions it authenticity, so back to the issue at hand.

The Bible does not indicate that it "forgot" other human beings. You would first have to identify these "other" human beings, and then mirror them against your own presumptions before drawing such conclusions. Secondly, the age of the earth is variously interpreted by many people - it is all a matter of whoever is applying whatever approach they assume.

@pilgrim
Hello, thanks for the insight on "implosive" statements. I get the drift of what you were saying about holiness but here is the point where the bible and science meets, if the bible makes a statement that is about holiness say for example that Jesus is the son of God or that adultery is a sin then on that note it would not be wise to judge that based on science that would be totally wrong. On the other hand if the bible makes a statement that can be verified scientifically then science becomes a yardstick to judge if that statement is right. An example is time, if the bible says the earth was created some thousands of years ago ,it has crossed the threshold of faith and ventured into an area where that can be put to test by scientific means. I have taken the time to read the different techniques used to date the earth and I must say even if they are off by some years( which they would willingly admit) it would be a couple of million years, I urge you to take a look at the techniques.
So like I was saying if the bible says for example that its man's sin that makes things fall back to the earth and that the reason why it would fall at a different rate at the poles of the earth is because the sin less there or more it has ventured into the science world again who will cry foul play and explain to people that it is because of gravity and the rates at the poles are different because the earth is a bit flattened there. I don't know if I am making sense to you. In summary the meeting point for both of them is truth on physical matters, so using my explanation if someone says science does not understand the holy statement made by the bible and goes to jump off a cliff because he or she is righteous then he will have to deal with the consequences. I think there is a bias when science debunks these myths, nobody has problems when they come up with the cure of scores of diseases or when they bring people together on nairaland but when they say the age of the earth is this or that noah's ark is a piece of engineering that would be almost impossible given the tools they had and the time frame and even the fact that it could not hold together, people start to condemn then which to their credit they always take and strive to make everything better.

Finally, if the bible did not forget are you saying there were no others?( I am beginning to sound like the victims in Lost ) does that mean only those people were surviving then? Make that point a bit clearer.

@Chrisbenogor,

I must say that you're one of the rare gentlemen I've come across who discusses issues on the Biblical faith with some decorum. Please keep it up.

Now let's see a few pointers in your reply:

Chrisbenogor:

Hello, thanks for the insight on "implosive" statements. I get the drift of what you were saying about holiness but here is the point where the bible and science meets, if the bible makes a statement that is about holiness say for example that Jesus is the son of God or that adultery is a sin then on that note it would not be wise to judge that based on science that would be totally wrong.

Indeed, I believe indeed that the Bible and science have a healthy romance at some point. The points of seeming departure is only a matter of interpretations, which again leads back to the question of what approach of enquiry the investigators are employing. A fundamental principle that guides my thinking is found in 1 Timothy 6:20 where we are urged to not waste our time arguing on what is falsely called "science". Not every ideology bantered everywhere is actually science, and not in one instance have I come across a derogation of true science in the Bible.

Chrisbenogor:

On the other hand if the bible makes a statement that can be verified scientifically then science becomes a yardstick to judge if that statement is right.

I don't have a problem with that.

Chrisbenogor:

An example is time, if the bible says the earth was created some thousands of years ago ,it has crossed the threshold of faith and ventured into an area where that can be put to test by scientific means.

Here again is the reference point in my discussions with people on grounds of "reason". Did the Bible infact say that the earth was created some thousands of years ago. . . or that idea is what has stuck with so many of us based on our own prejudices?

My point is simple, really. There is a world of difference between what the Bible actually states, as against what many people assume it states but which they cannot find on its pages. Interpretations to texts are as important as what the texts state categorically; yet, one cannot hold up a flag simply because they assume what is not there.

Chrisbenogor:

I have taken the time to read the different techniques used to date the earth and I must say even if they are off by some years( which they would willingly admit) it would be a couple of million years, I urge you to take a look at the techniques.

I'm quite familiar with a lot of dating theories.

Chrisbenogor:

So like I was saying if the bible says for example that its man's sin that makes things fall back to the earth and that the reason why it would fall at a different rate at the poles of the earth is because the sin less there or more it has ventured into the science world again who will cry foul play and explain to people that it is because of gravity and the rates at the poles are different because the earth is a bit flattened there.

While I appreciate your illustration, I am yet to find that it is stated in quite that fashion in the Bible.

Chrisbenogor:

I don't know if I am making sense to you.

Absolutely.

Chrisbenogor:

In summary the meeting point for both of them is truth on physical matters

That is only half-truth. Beyond the physical realm, I believe that there are other aspects of the reality of life that cannot be quantified by physical properties. . . and that is where we cross into another threshold commonly known as "philosophy".

Not many people are mature enough to understand that a proper understanding of "science" or the reality of our observable world is not purely naturalistic or physical (here, I'm speaking in general terms and not putting you on spot). On the surface, we have to grasp the simple fact that science is not a subject studied in a box, and thus therefore necessitates what today is a legitimate field of enquiry on its own: the philosophy of science! On the understanding that the basic quest of life does not end on simplistic enquiries of "what" exists, it is only by a firm understanding the working principles of the philosophy of science that the questions of "why" they exist that one can begin to make sense in this kind of enquiry.

You may have come across the normative idea that science does not critically investigates the question of "why", but more critically the question of "what". Why is it so? For the simple reason that science is basically a tool of measurement and not an end in itself. Science does not tell you everything about everything - and only by the philosophy of science that people have come to understand and appreciate that science has its limitations. One of such limitations is where we ae discussing just now - the solid subject of the reality of life from a spiritual perspective (commonly known as THEOLOGY).

Of course, there again we are cautioned to beware of betaking ourselves carelessly to the task of philosophy done wrongly:

[list][list]Colossians 2:8
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."[/list][/list]

Whether science or philosophy (which are legitimate fields of enquiry), what is often the problem is that they are often done with uncritical biases - and that is where as believers we remove ourselves. On the other hand, as believers we graple intellectually and intelligently with all sorts of enquiries - even those that raise questions on the Biblical worldview. It is not a matter of "science against religion", but rather a matter of "science and religion properly understood".

Chrisbenogor:

so using my explanation if someone says science does not understand the holy statement made by the bible and goes to jump off a cliff because he or she is righteous then he will have to deal with the consequences.

Sad, but true. . . and I'm sure that believers who understand their Biblical faith are not that extreme.

Chrisbenogor:

I think there is a bias when science debunks these myths, nobody has problems when they come up with the cure of scores of diseases or when they bring people together on nairaland but when they say the age of the earth is this or that noah's ark is a piece of engineering that would be almost impossible given the tools they had and the time frame and even the fact that it could not hold together, people start to condemn then which to their credit they always take and strive to make everything better.

You have just amplified what I stated above - science does not in itself log on biases, rather it is those who do not have a proper handle on these enquiries that log on to their biases. But there again, even on both sides of the seeming divide, who doesn't do bias at some point?

Chrisbenogor:

Finally, if the bible did not forget are you saying there were no others?( I am beginning to sound like the victims in Lost ) does that mean only those people were surviving then? Make that point a bit clearer.

My remark was simply this:

[list][list]You would first have to identify these "other" human beings, and then mirror them against your own presumptions before drawing such conclusions.[/list][/list]

Your query was whether or not I'm categorically stating that there were no "others" - and I'm trying to remove the sticker and shine the glass by asking you to define what your "others" actually were.

@Mazaje: Davidylan is from Ijebu Ode. Even though he is a Keferi or kiriyo, We in Ijebu Ode, will not reject him! Some day, InshaAllah, he will wise up!

@pilgrim
Thank you, I love civil discussions and even if we do not agree on some things we both learn a thing or two, in the very least find some common ground and thats a good place to start.
I would like to start from the philosophy of science, Aristotle believed the universe is finite and spherical with a stationary earth at its center. Enclosing the whole universe is the sphere of the Prime Motion turned by the First Unmoved Mover. Inside that were transparent spheres containing fixed and unchanging stars, planets, moon and sun. Aristotle was also a renowned philosopher. Clearly you can see that even as respected as he is as a philosopher he was handicapped without accurate knowledge of science, my point is are you not putting the cart before the horse, I think a thorough understanding of "what" should be there then we can go on to understand why, science in itself is not and end but it does answer most of the "why" questions after understanding what. Let me give you an example of what I am saying
With this conversation,
Chris: pilgrim something happened today
Pilgrim: "what" happened
You can see that in the occasion of an event the sensible thing to ask first is "what" now let me go on,
Chris: well the sky changed and a clear liquid started falling down, we found out it was water.
Pilgrim: really did you guys find out "why"
I hope this simple conversation conveys the point I am trying to make that we have to understand "what" is then we can go on to understand why.
Next to the age of the earth, the biblical age of the earth is about 10000 years old this in itself is not a statement in the bible as you rightly put it but can be calculated from the bible, are you saying you agree with this? What exactly is your stand on the age of the earth?

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:

Thank you, I love civil discussions and even if we do not agree on some things we both learn a thing or two, in the very least find some common ground and thats a good place to start.

As ever, I've continued to enjoy your reasoned discourses.

Chrisbenogor:

I would like to start from the philosophy of science, Aristotle believed the universe is finite and spherical with a stationary earth at its center. Enclosing the whole universe is the sphere of the Prime Motion turned by the First Unmoved Mover. Inside that were transparent spheres containing fixed and unchanging stars, planets, moon and sun. Aristotle was also a renowned philosopher. Clearly you can see that even as respected as he is as a philosopher he was handicapped without accurate knowledge of science,

The interesting point here is that the "Philosophy of Science" is a grounded discipline today and quite distinct and different from what the early thinkers did philosphy. Briefly, what today can be said about 'Greek philosphers' of that age is more inclined to speculations about the reality of our observable world. Of course, they tried to understand the "what" of their world (and ours) - but it was often stating the "what" about the existing world, which was mainly descriptive.

However, Philosophy of Science today is much more intricate and refined (I found this article a good starting point, source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science, although the field in itself is much more profound than that). After all is said and done, the basic questions that science as a tool is employed to investigate are the "what" and "how" of the existing world - and not the "why" of the reality of life issues.

Chrisbenogor:

my point is are you not putting the cart before the horse,

Not necessarily so. From the context of the sourced article on the Philosophy of Science above, one can easily understand that philosophy as a scientific enquiry today is looking at the various approaches in investigating our observable world - the "study of assumptions, foundations, and implications of science".

For example, why are some assumptions held about our world today? What theoretical framework(s) produced the foundations of certain worldviews? And what are the underlying currents that lead to certain implications of scientific enquiries? Notice the first question I asked was "why" assumptions are made; but that is radically different from asking the why question of the reality of our dynamic experiences about the real world - that is something that we have to be careful in understanding on teleological grounds rather than on theological assumptions. On such a ground, science in itself is not an adequate tool of investigating the why about our experiences about the reality of the world.

Chrisbenogor:

I think a thorough understanding of "what" should be there then we can go on to understand why, science in itself is not and end but it does answer most of the "why" questions after understanding what.

True, science is not an end in itself but rather a tool of investigation. As such, it has its limitations and the philosphers of science thereby take the position that science is inadequate to explain the encompassing dynamics of the real world.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:

Let me give you an example of what I am saying
With this conversation,
Chris: pilgrim something happened today
Pilgrim: "what" happened
You can see that in the occasion of an event the sensible thing to ask first is "what" now let me go on,
Chris: well the sky changed and a clear liquid started falling down, we found out it was water.
Pilgrim: really did you guys find out "why"
I hope this simple conversation conveys the point I am trying to make that we have to understand "what" is then we can go on to understand why.

Simple as the illustration is, it still fails to grasp the rubrics of the philosphy of science.

One may "explain" a lot of things about the water from a blue sky - questions would be asked as to "who, where, what, how, why, when and. . . which". But fundamental to scientific reasoning is how to investigate and offer adequate explanations about the particular enquiry. This is where we come over to "assumptions, foundations and implications", and thus are looking at the various ways of scrutinizing that enquiry.

Let me make it simple: putting the assumptions on well-founded theories, one may "explain" the established norms of the water circle (how we understand "rainfall". From that principle we can then apply its theoretical framework to understand other types of "rain" - from acid rain to orographic drifts.

So far so good. But what has been said about another kind of phenomenon that departs from the ordinarily established norm - such as "fish rain" (fish falling from the sky), or "frog rain" (frogs falling from the sky)? See "Weird, Weird Rain" for instance: (http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa082602a.htm). Yes, a lot of people, while not categorically denying the existence of these phenomena, yet they "specualate" upon these things - and some even "explain" them away with an unscientific dismissal.

In such kinds of 'departures' from the norms of "scientific assumptions", how does one go about actualy establishing a well grounded scientific law on such matters?

Chrisbenogor:

Next to the age of the earth, the biblical age of the earth is about 10000 years old this in itself is not a statement in the bible as you rightly put it but can be calculated from the bible, are you saying you agree with this? What exactly is your stand on the age of the earth?

I cannot fault you (or anyone) outright on any age. While some may calculated a figure just under 6,000 years old, others hold a 10,000 year old earth (both are usually under the purview of the school of thought known as 'Young Earth' scientists/creationists). Whether the earth is older than 2 billion years is a subjective derivation of interpretations.

It's my view that the earth dates back to over a hundred thousand years. How did I come to that conclusion? Again, mere "speculation" - and my reasons are basically within the reading of references in the Bible itself. I would not here bore anyone with long theses on this aspect of our discussions for the moment, but let me quickly make a few pointers:

While some people arrive at a certain dating for around 10,000 years or thereabout, I feel it is because they try to base their thinking on the genealogies recorded in human ancestry in Genesis. And that's okay if it suits them well. However, for me it is rather another reference than Genesis that gives the clue to my assumptions: the book of Job. There we read, for instance:

[list][list][li]Job 38:4 - "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."[/li][/list][/list]

When you pause on that question and then carefully read down through the creatures described in the surrounding verses, one cannot but be awed about the creatures mentioned in that book - which many people (earth scientists included) have been unable to decipher. There maybe conjectures, but the point is that the question in the above verse shows that when God laid the foundations of the earth, many was hardly on the scene to witness the details of each event.

This is why I like to sit back and listen to others make their assumptions about the age of the earth. But assumptions (based on whatever theories) are just that: assumptions.

I certainly agree with you the bible is not a scientific book, so also is the quaran but if they are to be held up as holy books or book of truths they should pass simple tests that are believed to be universal its that simple.

It is truthful universally, but it highlights the truth of a Supreme Being and not a scientific truths, so to measure it in the "truth" that you're thinking of is comparing apples and oranges. You can't use another standard to measure another standard.

I think you may believe that religion or at least the christian religion is a theory or an ideaology, that is a big mistake on your part. You're approaching it from an angle that it never claimed.

As for the quran, well I've heard a few muslims claim that it is a scientific book. So you can challenge them on that. But to apply that to the Bible, you will hit a very massive dead end.

But it is our belief that science helps us to understand clearly the truths of the earth. I think you might want to know more about the Christian religion before you start jumping to conclusions as to what it is. As we as humans grow and we educate ourselves more, we learn a lot more about the earth, and to tell you the truth it helps a lot with the Christian religion. I know it seems so impossible, but it is our belief that everything on this earth has been given to us and as time progresses we learn more about the earth and uncover more about the beauty of God's creation.

By the way creationism is not a theory, nope not an ideaology and the Church doesn't think of it as one. But a lot of people on the outside looking in, don't even try to learn and understand it. They make claims which leads to clashing with the religious

I personally think that for a book that is holy and is the truth to get the age of the earth wrong or to forget to mention that other human beings were on the earth highly questions it authenticity, so back to the issue at hand

Be careful not to put your own meaning of holy and truth into the Bible. Holy is sacred, it has nothing to do with outlining every dimension of the earth, or mathematicl methods. Same thing with truth, it is not meant to outline the dimensions of the earth, or the scientific method, or mathematics, it is soley to give focus to the Supreme being and It's relationship to the human race and the earth.

I mentioned that if the Bible was to have ALL the stories of people on the earth, there won't be enough books for it. To even write about ALL the things that Jesus did while he walked the earth, there won't be enough books to contain it, not to talk of what's been happening from the beginning. But you are entitled to your own point of view.

As for moses, yes he had first class education which would have included the story of cain and abel and not that he was inspired.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. First you state that Moses is inspired and that God isn't, and now you're stating that Moses was not inspired. Please choose a standing point.
But to address the issue at hand. Moses was inspired to write down these stories, and while writing it down, God made sure that he wrote what needed to be written, basically the basic points that will send the message. The stories are not the "inspired", his writing of the stories are "inspired". The stories have been passed down from generation to generation for many centuries.
The stories he got it from the Jews, don't forget that the Jews lived in Egypt before Moses birth and while he was growing up. So you are right to know that these stories existed in Egypt at the time Moses was alive, the people who guarded the stories as sacred or holy lived in Egypt.

Stories being handed down as tradition without writing cause stories to be distorted, and that is the reason why oral tradition is highly questioned its a lot different from writing.

So then the histories of people were supposed to do what, linger away until someone who could write would surface, how did they even know of the concept of writing to even wait fo it.
Every people have their own way of preserving their history at that time handing down of tradition was the perfect way to preserve it. Today, writing it down seems to be the perfect way to preserve it, infact the computer is becoming the perfect way to preserve things, soon enough writing down will be gone, and those after us will think that writing down was not an efficient way of preserving things.
You cannot take the "technologies" of today and apply it is efficent for the past. People in the past did not necessarily think like us, and did not live like we do.
It is actually insulting to think that they're not efficient in preserving their history.

With that being said, you do know that the Jews don't have all their tradition or holy "scripture" written down. You do know that for at least the past 5000 years they have efficiently preserved their oral tradition without any changes to it, word for word. You're expecting those people to not be efficient in preserving their history or their ancestors?

Whenever there is a conflict or a clash of stories one can always refer to the written copy so that they know if the story has been distorted or not

There's never been a clash or at least not until 100 AD.  And you know that's a very far time frame from When Moses wrote down these stories.

Besides if they were handed down them it might have just being a traditional story and not what really happened.

You might do well to educate me on tradition really, because tradition speaks of the truth or at least hints at it. It isn't just made up. Tradition is a truth of something that is handed down. Tradition literally means to hand down. It doesn't mean that if it is tradition it is made up and untrue.

I think it is wrong to say that the bible is a scared tradition, I am in awe, oral tradition is the worst way to preserve a story and besides if this was a book inspired by God then it should get facts straight

According to your reasoning. But if you will please define sacred for me? Because I didn't realise that sacred can be defined by science or "fact".
To you oral tradition is the worst way and that's because you live today. Today oral tradition may be inefficient, maybe because the Jews still do a great job preserving their oral tradition, but if you lived in the beginning where writingwasn't invented, it was the most efficient way to hand it down. Or what would you propose that they should have done? Written it down? How? Did they invent writing? You'll have to enlighten me here.

I still haven't seen a "fact" that rebuts the Bible stories.

Moses just gave us a piece of ancient egyptian mythology. The dates of the writing are not in any way confused with the actual dates that these events were supposed to have taken place these writings were dated but the dates of the events were calculated from then.

Really? Because the stories speak about the Jews and not the Egyptians, so did the egyptians all of a sudden think highly of Abraham.
And that's kinda funny seeing that history or factual history tells us that the egyptians didn't believe in one Supreme being, they had several gods. And why would they paint themselves in a bad light. That just doesn't make sense.

Oh you also forget the Jews lived in Egypt and Moses did interact with them a bit.

You expected Moses to know the exact date? I thought I already made the statement that the Bible is not meant to be a factual or scientifc book. So why you're still measuring it with that as the standard, I don't know.

The Catholic Church is one church that has held on to traditions and are becoming increasingly caught up the present day events

The tradition of the Catholic Churc has not changed for 2000 years. If you know what we consider tradition, you won't think tradition has changed.  But before I continue I would like to know what you think the Catholic Church's tradition is. Please enlighten me.

@pilgrim
I need to digest the info on the philosophy of science I don't want to talk about what I do not understand. Some other day we will continue on the issue, you made some good points.
About the age of the earth, even if we add 2 million years to the age of the earth it is not still as old as the human fossil that was discovered in ethiopia to be 5.8 million years old or the dinosaur
Fossils that date back to almost 240 million years how does one fit that into the biblical creation. This has been one of the issues that formed the crux of my refusal to believe in God ( if he exists) from the biblical perspective. When that fossil was discovered I took the pain to read about it and the dating techniques and it did not sound like foul play to me. I reckon if the bible should delve into the issue of the creation of the earth and putting actual time frames only for it to turn out to be wrong that it highly questions the authenticity of the book.
If 240 million year old animals can be discovered then I am afraid it invalidates some thousands of years old.
Life would have been a lot easier if the bible did not leave dates just that it was created some time ago.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:

I need to digest the info on the philosophy of science I don't want to talk about what I do not understand. Some other day we will continue on the issue, you made some good points.

No rush, bro. . . no rush. I'll be avaialble to continue when the time comes.

Chrisbenogor:

About the age of the earth, even if we add 2 million years to the age of the earth it is not still as old as the human fossil that was discovered in ethiopia to be 5.8 million years old or the dinosaur
Fossils that date back to almost 240 million years how does one fit that into the biblical creation.

There are two things I have both learnt to do and not to do:

(a) I refrain from trying to "fit" anything into the Bible, the Quran or any other book. What I often try to do is patiently seek to understand what is presented and how to understand it in its context. (Luke 10:26 -- "He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?".

(b) secondly, I try to carefully define my terms and be consistent in what I present or discuss. As such, I'm careful to make the distinction between the age of the earth and the age of man. I'm sure we can agree that the Bible never gives the idea that the age of the earth necessarily means the age of man, and thus we cannot mix them up and try to measure the history of the earth by the history of man on it.

Chrisbenogor:

This has been one of the issues that formed the crux of my refusal to believe in God ( if he exists) from the biblical perspective. When that fossil was discovered I took the pain to read about it and the dating techniques and it did not sound like foul play to me.

Well, I can well sympathize with your views; but as long as it is clear that the Bible did not teach that the earth is as old as man, we cannot make that assumption on God's behalf.

The second thing here is that when I read a recent report about a fossil named 'Lucy', it was quite light minded to read that it turned out to be something else than what anthropologists and earth scientists formerly held. Hardly surprising to me, to say the least; but you could imagine how long many people held that belief against the Bible, until the Lucy theory was falsified.

Did that incident make me lose confidence in science? Not at all - rather, it affirmed my faith in God as declared in the Bible as well as reinforced the meaning of 1 Timothy 6:12 to my understand: being careful about the "oppositions of science falsely so called".

Chrisbenogor:

I reckon if the bible should delve into the issue of the creation of the earth and putting actual time frames only for it to turn out to be wrong that it highly questions the authenticity of the book.

The problem is that we are the ones putting categorical time frames on the Biblical texts - and that is where we run into various difficulties.

Chrisbenogor:

If 240 million year old animals can be discovered then I am afraid it invalidates some thousands of years old.

The invalidation occurs even in some cherished "scientific" theories - but does that invalidate science as a whole?

Chrisbenogor:

Life would have been a lot easier if the bible did not leave dates just that it was created some time ago.

Life isn't any easier for those who have tried to date the earth - it only becomes even more seriously compounded and complex. However, as regards the actual age of the earth, the Bible doesn't give us an exact date. . . and yet, we know that in itself doesn't make it more complex for simple understanding of issues.

Regards.

@lady
Let me clarify a few salient points for you.
1) I was a confirmed catholic, my whole family immediate and extended are all catholics from both parent's side so I have a fairly good view of where the catholic church stands on some issues.
2) I think you should try and read up the posts between pilgrim and I so you would understand what I explained about where science and religion meet and its not at all about apples and oranges, that is a very wrong way to look at it.
3) I did not contradict myself on moses I only gave 2 different views first I said moses could have been inspired but that does not make him God so he would have been liable to mistakes, next I said I am not so sure he was inspired please go back and read again.
4) On the issue of oral tradition I think you were just all over the place ( I don't want us to debate how long ago writing had started ) , at that time I would say oral tradition was easier, but I think the bone of contention here is if it distorted the story. My dear you can ask any body involved in communication and they would tell you just how bad the distortions can even, better I will urge you to do an experiment write a short story down and read it to a friend, then ask this friend to tell this story to another friend and by the time it gets to the tenth person go and hear the story and compare with your note to see how it has changed. It may have been the best then yes but it distorts story which is very important to us. Plus I do not think its an insult to say it was not effective, sad but thats the truth.
5) Tradition does not always speak the truth, does not always hint at it, traditions are mostly practices that stem mainly from the beliefs of man at a certain period of time. The killing of twins in calabar was a tradition but certainly not the truth or even a hint at the truth of how twins came about. If the story was a message about jealousy fine, just like the stories we were told about the tortise in the moonlight but that does not necessarily mean they happened the way he said it did or at that particular time, thats why I said it could have been a piece of history he learnt and added it, thus the holes in the story.
5) As for the issue of Catholic church tradition I will point out two case scenarios for you,
i) The catholic church adopted the position of aristotle that the sun moves round the earth, it was a well know tradition then. When Galilleo came up with proof that it was indeed not true the church was stuck with the option of either saying its "scared tradition was wrong" or that galilleo was wrong, what did they do? They convicted him for heresy and he was imprisoned for life. The church recently apologized for it and have changed that "tradition"
ii) Fast forward to today, the church has strict rules prohibiting the use of contraceptives even though surveys have shown that 80 percent of sexually active adults do not adhere to this, they however approve of the billings method which is another form of preventing pregnancy but this time naturally and the man ejaculates inside the woman but the intent of contraception is there. Many lives are lost every day in africa to Hiv Aids especially in Kenya where there is a large catholic population, lives are going and you are holding on to tradition?
How does a family do child spacing?
Do you think this tradition would be able to stand for the next 1000 years?
What will your descendants think of you?

@pilgrim
Thanks for your thoughts all very interesting great thing the world is like this.
Cheers.

) I did not contradict myself on moses I only gave 2 different views first I said moses could have been inspired but that does not make him God so he would have been liable to mistakes, next I said I am not so sure he was inspired please go back and read again.

Well if tha was your point you should have been clearer, because the way you said it, seems like you were contradicting yourself, but if you say you're not. Ok.

4) On the issue of oral tradition I think you were just all over the place ( I don't want us to debate how long ago writing had started ) , at that time I would say oral tradition was easier, but I think the bone of contention here is if it distorted the story.

So how is it that after almost 5000 years the Jews have been able to hand down oral tradition without distorting the message. Today it would be difficult to hand things down orally as we've already been conditioned to be writers and "storers" in computers and the likes.
But for a people that lived in a community and held these traditions to be sacred, I doubt they left much room for any distortion.

My dear you can    ask any body involved in communication and they would tell you just how bad the distortions can even, better I will urge you to do an experiment write a short story down and read it to a friend, then ask this friend to tell this story to another friend and by the time it gets to the tenth person go and hear the story and compare with your note to see how it has changed. It may have been the best then yes but it distorts story which is very important to us. Plus I do not think its an insult to say it was not effective, sad but thats the truth.

Using the present day to define the past doesn't make sense. You don't take culture of today to define the culture of yesterday.
If the information I am handing on to my friend is considered sacred, you better believe he or she would transmit it responsible and with reverence. That is the difference between transmitting non sacred information and sacred information. If it is considered sacred it wouldn't be passed down lightly and without reverence. We're talking about sacred tradition not just any random tradition. You're talking about a people that have so much respect for God that they did not see themselves worthy enough to say his name to the point where vowels in their language disappeared form the language. It is not any type of information to be passed on, it is sacred information. If you are treating it like any information, then it won't make sense to you, but it is not just any information, it is sacred, and have you ever tried having a discussion about something sacred with someone who believes strongly in it. They don't take it lightly. So it's not a regular information that would be taken lightly, that's what you're leaving off your discussion, that sacredness of information.

It is offensive, because centuries from now, our great grandchildren or great great granchildren will look at our methods of communication as inefficient, and here you are thinking that it is efficient. It is very relative to time. If you feel that our method of communication is efficient, you would feel offended to know that your own future generations will consider you're reasoning minimal. You are in turn doing to the past generations what the future generations will do to us.

Tradition does not always speak the truth, does not always hint at it, traditions are mostly practices that stem mainly from the beliefs of man at a certain period of time. The killing of twins in calabar was a tradition but certainly not the truth or even a hint at the truth  of how twins came about.

Ok here you're talking about a practice that is stemmed from something. The tradition you're speaking of is behavioral. The tradition I am talking about is oral. There is behavioral tradition that is handed down and then there is oral tradition that is also handed down.
Oral tradition is pretty mush a telling of what happened. The tradition you're speaking of is the doing of something.

i) The catholic church adopted the position of aristotle that the sun moves round the earth, it was a well know tradition then. When Galilleo came up with proof that it was indeed not true the church was stuck with the option of either saying its "scared tradition was wrong" or that galilleo was wrong, what did they do? They convicted him for heresy and he was imprisoned for life. The church recently apologized for it and have changed that "tradition"
ii) Fast forward to today, the church has strict rules prohibiting the use of contraceptives even though surveys have shown that 80 percent of sexually active adults do not adhere to this, they however approve of the billings method which is another form of preventing pregnancy but this time naturally and the man ejaculates inside the woman but the intent of contraception is there. Many lives are lost every day in africa to Hiv Aids especially in Kenya where there is a large catholic population, lives are going and you are holding on to tradition?

There is a big difference between the first scenario and the second. No where in the Bible does it say that the earth is flat or that the earth being round will go against natural law. That is just out of ignorance of the earth.
The second scenario is against natural law. The prohibition of contraceptive is not a "condoms are bad thing" situation, but that it is against the natural law of life or God's will.
Second it is a double standard and against God's law for the Church to permit the use of contraceptives, particularly birth control, most forms of it are abortive, and that is against natural law not just God's law. Life begins at conception period. The fetus is not a thing until it is born, it is human. Just as a baby grows into a full adult, a fetus grows into an infant. If we're going to start to see it as different, then why don't we permit the killing of infants before they are adults, because just as the fetus grows, the infant grows.
Let me put it to you like this, I have an urge to kill therefore the church should permit me to. The church is against killing of people but I don't want to adhere to that rule so the church should go ahead and change its stance on me killing people?
Does that make sense to you?
There is no such thing as a pick and choose commandment to obey. You are not supposed to be having sex before marriage, and then after you marry you are supposed to be faithful to your spouse, tell me if these people stay true to their faith, how then will they contract HIV/AIDS sexually.
If the excuse is that they don't adhere to it, then a murderer doesn't adhere to the no killing commandment either, should the Church change it's view about that. If they're Catholic and decide to go killing, well they're not adhering to the Church's teaching so why shouldn't the Church change it's teaching on the killing of people and allow them to go on a killing rampage.
These people have chosen not to adhere to the commandment of God, then they should go ahead and not adhere to the Church of God. You can't say o I can't maintain myself and I know it's wrong so I will have sex outside of my marital home, and then turn around and decide to obey the Church's teaching on contraception, so all of a sudden they have respect for the church now?
The Church isn't liable for the decisions of these people. They are. Yeah I know they're living with HIV/AIDS and I want to feel sory for them, but they cannot hold the church liable for their actions. They can't in one instance obey the church's teaching and then a blind eye to the other teaching. That is utter disrespect for the Church and God.

The idea that the church should change its teaching on contraception because people want to have sex is absurd.
People want to lie to get themselves out of situations, should the church now say that lying is okay. Lying is even more popular than contraception. Everyone will lie, but not everyone will use contraception.
So should lying be allowed now?

I mean seriously do people reason at all.

By the way the issue on contraception is not a "tradition" or something that we want to do because we want to be hard headed, no it's a law of God. It goes against God's law as well as natural law.

Also studies, yup that's right facts show that marriages that don't use contraception last longer, are much stronger, and are more meaningful. Why? Because both partners take responsibility in the relationship, and they appraoch the relationship not as a something to do, but life itself. They guard it.

Also Pope Pius IX (I believe that's the one) who predicted the troubles we would be having in our society today. One in particular, is that women are not valued as they used to be. Now there's this chance for a man to sleep with a woman and leave her, because he knows he has no responsibility to her. He's not tied to her in anyway, and with the contraception he doesn't fear that she could become pregnant. It is an easy way to get out responsibility.

I will try to find the writing and send it to you.

As for spacing children, the billings method is very effective. It takes responsibility in the marriage from both the man and woman, not just the woman alone. And it promotes trust in the marriage. Why would a married man need condoms? He can freely have sex with his wife. He should have nothing to hide.

It also makes sure that the couple are not objectifying each other, and using each other for sex. If the relationship is built on the foundation of I gotta have sex, then it is more likely to fail.

Do you think this tradition would be able to stand for the next 1000 years?

it has stood for 2000 years so yes, I believe it will. Once again it isn't just some tradition, we're not going to go against the law of God. Whether you like it or not. Whether it is popular or not. Whether people want to adhere to it or not. God's law does not change to fit the popular vote, or to fit what humans want. Humans change to fit what God wants. Not the other way around. But I'm sure this is lost on you because you don't believe in God, but if a person does believe in God and has this view then they need to reconsider if they truly believe in God and worship God or of they believe in themselves. Both can't be masters.

What will your descendants think of you?

They will applaud me for being disciplined in my faith, and putting God above myself. Oh and for not following the bandwagon of "well everyone's doing it"

I am sorry that you weren't properly catechized as a Catholic. I always say, if someone is properly catechized and are active in their faith, even if they're not so active, they will not loose faith. because they will know the truth. I hope you remember what catechized means.

@~Lady~:« #51 on: September 08, 2008, 09:37 PM »
[Quote]
1. Why did God prefer Abel's offering?
.

Since when does God answer to man? It was pleasing to him.
[/quote]

Please apply the same logic to your supposed death of Jesus. Was it not possible that God stopped all the enemies of Jesus to be able to detect that all his vital organs are still working? Since they tortured him all the way to the place of supposed crucifixion. And their intensed hatred of seeing that his soul is accurse. They even did a litmus test to be certain that he is dead, by trusting a spear or sword into his side! They realised that he did not yell or cried out any longer, because he had done so when he complained about been forsaken by his God! But the side wound let out not coagulated blood. BUt to them, since he did not cry, it was a sign that he was no more alive!


We now know today, that some have been declared even clinically dead, but yet still came back to live. Are these people therefore to be titled the same way as the christian titled Jesus? Are the observation in modern medicine in pronouncing death more reliable than just to trust a wound in the side and because the victim did not make any sound, he is perceived to have died? Yet today, the people still come back to live!


Who knew what begin to happen to the body of Jesus, immediately, that is not perceived by human senses, except God Almighty alone, who had promised that He will not shame Jesus? In the Qur'an it is very clear because God said that He will protect Jesus from his enemies. Finally, God said that they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him. But is made to look so. And those who have no knowledge (lacking belief in God's capablity) jump into conclusion and they differ in their conclusions.




[Quote]
3. What was the mark of cain, and why did God have to put a mark on since there were no other people on the earth.


A thunder bolt like in Harry Porter.
Where does it state that there were no other people on earth? Don't use your own assumptions in understanding Scripture
[/quote]

If Adam was the first man. And Eve was the first woman. If they have the first children, then tell us where do you get your other people on earth? I am sure that you know people is the same as saying human! I am sure that the christians have not observed that before Adam, there was no human being, ever on earth or in heaven! What is your source of the other people? When Bible fails you, you can always pick up the Qur'an to rescue you.

Quote
4. Cain goes ahead to marry, where did she come from?
.

Edo State, Benin city to be precise.

Give the correct answer, please. If you don't know, just say so. Thats a noble idea.





[Quote]
5. Why did God even protect Cain if it was a murder?


Maybe love? It makes you do some crazy things, well according to human view anyway.
[/Quote]

Full of conjectures. Always saying things that she is not sure of. Maybe, is a word which gives sign of uncertainty.





[Quote]
What if it comes and you discover that allah is the creator of the heaven and the earth and that mohammed is his last messenger? what will you do then?. . . . . . . . . .


God doesn't contradict himself. He is not bound to time and he certainly won't get historical facts incorrect. He is not a magician so he needs not have an "illusion" as the claim is that God simply made it look like Jesus was crucified. He is not a deceiver, that claim is deceitful.
[/quote]

Contradiction of christian God versus Jewish God must be considered, however! We also read that the God of the Jews, and by extension, that of the Christians, is constrained into a specific schedule in His creation of things process, because He rested after the sixth day! I hear you talking about historical facts, please let us have what you are talking about. It is easy to accuse, but the burden of proof is upon the accuser!



If the Jewish God was not a magician because what happened to Jesus is perceived by you as real death, please tell me here an now what was the same God doing, making an ordinary stick turning to Snake, so that it can swallow the fake snakes of the Magicians of Pharaoh's court?



The reality is that you do not know! God controls all the capabilities and possibilities of everyone of us! Your sight and thinking ability, others, each of them is limited! If God does not wish you to have a knowledge of something, you will never have it! Today, the medical community is capable of bringing a "dead" person to life! You must have heard of the term, "Shocked back to life!" If human can bring a single person who has been determined dead based on the machine that record the heartbeat going flat, then can you imagine how easy for God Almighty to bring anybody back to life, especially when it is only human beings, alone who perceived him dead!




Is it recorded in your Bible that God said to Jesus, "son, I will make the Jews kill you. Then after 3 days that you hav been truly dead, and not in a comma, or some undictectable state, will bring yu to life, so that the people can know tht you are my son and even that you are Me!"? Sometimes, you write a terribly compelling argument agaist yourself! Jesus did not have a coagulated blood throughout! Now tell me how is that possible if he was dead? And your argument will be when does God need to conform to the knowledge or condition of man. I will use the same against you. When it is the role of the people who deitified mere human to restrict God Almighty away from what is unique to only Him?



Must He be a father or human or needing human/god/son blood sacrifice before He can total forgiveness? Wayo, woman! If your god is not a deceiver, why does he have to be raised to heaven by Bigger and more Powerful God, before he talked back to the earth, not to any of his earthly 11 disciples that remained after the death of Judas. But a complete stranger by the name of Saul, who in the long run, was allowed by render useless, in real term, the whole of Moses Torah and and all of the laws and prophets? Have you heard the term, the law was nailed to the cross!? Abeg go study. Just don't let all of that beauty and brain waste without letting some Oga enjoy it and some babies share from it!

Queenisha is sharing all her acutrements with her Oga and babies! At least she is successful on earth. It is the after earth/life success that she must worry about, now!

olabowale:

@~Lady~:« #51 on: September 08, 2008, 09:37 PM »
Please apply the same logic to your supposed death of Jesus. Was it not possible that God stopped all the enemies of Jesus to be able to detect that all his vital organs are still working? Since they tortured him all the way to the place of supposed crucifixion. And their intensed hatred of seeing that his soul is accurse. They even did a litmus test to be certain that he is dead, by trusting a spear or sword into his side! They realised that he did not yell or cried out any longer, because he had done so when he complained about been forsaken by his God! But the side wound let out not coagulated blood. BUt to them, since he did not cry, it was a sign that he was no more alive!


We now know today, that some have been declared even clinically dead, but yet still came back to live. Are these people therefore to be titled the same way as the christian titled Jesus? Are the observation in modern medicine in pronouncing death more reliable than just to trust a wound in the side and because the victim did not make any sound, he is perceived to have died? Yet today, the people still come back to live!


Who knew what begin to happen to the body of Jesus, immediately, that is not perceived by human senses, except God Almighty alone, who had promised that He will not shame Jesus? In the Qur'an it is very clear because God said that He will protect Jesus from his enemies. Finally, God said that they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him. But is made to look so. And those who have no knowledge (lacking belief in God's capablity) jump into conclusion and they differ in their conclusions.




If Adam was the first man. And Eve was the first woman. If they have the first children, then tell us where do you get your other people on earth? I am sure that you know people is the same as saying human! I am sure that the christians have not observed that before Adam, there was no human being, ever on earth or in heaven! What is your source of the other people? When Bible fails you, you can always pick up the Qur'an to rescue you.




Give the correct answer, please. If you don't know, just say so. Thats a noble idea.





Full of conjectures. Always saying things that she is not sure of. Maybe, is a word which gives sign of uncertainty.





Contradiction of christian God versus Jewish God must be considered, however! We also read that the God of the Jews, and by extension, that of the Christians, is constrained into a specific schedule in His creation of things process, because He rested after the sixth day! I hear you talking about historical facts, please let us have what you are talking about. It is easy to accuse, but the burden of proof is upon the accuser!



If the Jewish God was not a magician because what happened to Jesus is perceived by you as real death, please tell me here an now what was the same God doing, making an ordinary stick turning to Snake, so that it can swallow the fake snakes of the Magicians of Pharaoh's court?



The reality is that you do not know! God controls all the capabilities and possibilities of everyone of us! Your sight and thinking ability, others, each of them is limited! If God does not wish you to have a knowledge of something, you will never have it! Today, the medical community is capable of bringing a "dead" person to life! You must have heard of the term, "Shocked back to life!" If human can bring a single person who has been determined dead based on the machine that record the heartbeat going flat, then can you imagine how easy for God Almighty to bring anybody back to life, especially when it is only human beings, alone who perceived him dead!




Is it recorded in your Bible that God said to Jesus, "son, I will make the Jews kill you. Then after 3 days that you hav been truly dead, and not in a comma, or some undictectable state, will bring yu to life, so that the people can know that you are my son and even that you are Me!"? Sometimes, you write a terribly compelling argument agaist yourself! Jesus did not have a coagulated blood throughout! Now tell me how is that possible if he was dead? And your argument will be when does God need to conform to the knowledge or condition of man. I will use the same against you. When it is the role of the people who deitified mere human to restrict God Almighty away from what is unique to only Him?



Must He be a father or human or needing human/god/son blood sacrifice before He can total forgiveness? Wayo, woman! If your god is not a deceiver, why does he have to be raised to heaven by Bigger and more Powerful God, before he talked back to the earth, not to any of his earthly 11 disciples that remained after the death of Judas. But a complete stranger by the name of Saul, who in the long run, was allowed by render useless, in real term, the whole of Moses Torah and and all of the laws and prophets? Have you heard the term, the law was nailed to the cross!? Abeg go study. Just don't let all of that beauty and brain waste without letting some Oga enjoy it and some babies share from it!

Queenisha is sharing all her acutrements with her Oga and babies! At least she is successful on earth. It is the after earth/life success that she must worry about, now!

This is what amazes me about the Muslim mindset - endless pages of empty talk and underscholarship! Repetitions ad hominem like one who is hard of hearing, even after the same issues have been dealt with several times! Is recycling the hallmark of the above?

olabowale:

When Bible fails you, you can always pick up the Qur'an to rescue you.

The Quran failed its own test, that is why I became a Christian. There doesn't have to be a shouting match about that. . . and the restlessness in the failure of the Quran is why you are always attracted to the Christian motherboard. You are always welcome - one day you will also experience the love of Jesus Christ.

olabowale:

Contradiction of christian God versus Jewish God must be considered, however!

There is no contradiction between what Moses, Isaiah and Jesus called God - they all knew God as "Father". Is there any reference where Muhammad ever referred to God as "Father"? Even Arab Christians today confess God as did Moses, Isaiah and Jesus - they call Him "Allāh al-Āb (الله الآب) "God the Father".

I have news for you: do not be deceived anymore - go and search your Quran and you will find where Muhammad himself said he doesn't worship the same God as the Jews and Christians. The moment you see that, you will understand why your endless arguments against the God of the Bible will never satisfy your restlessness. If you have never seen it, then it is no wonder you keep coming to the Christian motherboard to display what Islam cannot give you.

Anyhow, you are always welcome to enjoy fellowship here. We don't need your motherboard - and that should be clear to you by now.

pilgrim 1. Why are you wasting your time with Olabowale. He is a master deceiver, and I know this first hand. I ignore him, because silence is the best answer for a fool.

~Lady~:

pilgrim 1. Why are you wasting your time with Olabowale. He is a master deceiver, and I know this first hand. I ignore him, because silence is the best answer for a[b] fool[/b].

why is he a fool? is it because he disagrees with your faith?

~Lady~:

pilgrim 1. Why are you wasting your time with Olabowale. He is a master deceiver, and I know this first hand. I ignore him, because silence is the best answer for a fool.

Lol. . . ~Lady~,

The apprentice deceivers do not do half as much as their master. However, while it may be ideal sometimes to ignore such folks (apart from their "attention seekers" syndrome), gently reiterating the Gospel truth to them will help them get to their fatigue faster!

@lady
"Using the present day to define the past doesn't make sense"?( shake my head in disbelief ) You continue to awe me, yes our children would look at the methods we have today and improve on it that's bound to happen. If we are perfect then there would be no need to change it don't you think?
If passing it down orally was the best then why are we writing today?
I agree the example I used was behavioural tradition, but there had to be an oral backing the slaying would not go on without an explanation.
As for the two scenarios I gave you yes they have differences but you smartly failed to see the similarity which is the church being stubborn despite the facts facing them.
Lets face it people are going to have sex before marriage and like you pointed out they would be disobeying one of the commandments, now that said you have to understand that these people are not in the habit of carrying condoms as it is not the norm. So after a few bottles of tequila and one does not really have that control they give in to the temptation and have sex, just that once is enough to seal the persons fate.
Next you have to correct the notion that most contraceptive methods are abortive! Maybe as a catholic its not a field you are familiar with but for starters just how are condoms abortive? Most regular contraceptive pills work by thickening the mucous around the cervix and preventing sperm from entering the uterus, is that abortive? Furthermore they also contain hormones that suppress ovulation again I ask is that abortive? These are not even the issue I am talking life savers the Condom, I am very sure you would have heard that the Jehova's witness do not take blood even if their life depended on it, just because of some scripture interpreted to suit the purpose, so also is their refusal . May I even ask, did Jesus say anything concerning contraception? Its just another piece of tradition that is way overdue to be discarded.
I am not saying the church should ok having sex before marriage I am saying the message should be if you must have sex do it safely with a condom, life is very important.
I think you should go ahead and tell me where it is in the scripture that it is against God's law.
What I think is a double standard is saying no to the use of condoms and allowing the billings method when the "intent" to prevent conception is there. Can I smell contradiction in the air, certainly! And please refer me to a journal on your assertion that marriages without contraception last longer.
It is really sad.

mazaje:

why is he a fool? is it because he disagrees which your faith?

No, that's not the point. While I'm not doing the name-calling spin, we all know it is utterly foolish for someone to keep peddling such vast ignorance and allege things he neither has read nor substantiated in the same texts he's arguing. That attitude does not exhibit wisdom.

@pilgrim, mazaje, lady, olabowole
Hello peeps
@pilgrim
I think life would be a lot easier on nairaland if personal attacks are reduced, I could not help but laugh at the way you explained though, talk about an iron fist in a velvet glove, you have a good command of english I like that. That said can you weigh in your thoughts on the whole contraception, "oral tradition" thingy? You too mazaje ( if you guys want to oh, I nearly had my head broken here last time I asked for opinions) I am beginning to feel as though I am paranoid.
@ola
Nice to see you here, I really appreciate seeing a muslim here, I would like you to tell me how cain knew how to kill but not how to bury. Lets start from there(again thats if you want oh)
Cheers guys.

Hi again Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:

I think life would be a lot easier on nairaland if personal attacks are reduced, I could not help but laugh at the way you explained though, talk about an iron fist in a velvet glove, you have a good command of english I like that.

Well, I'm sorry if my reposte sounded a bit tough there, and I'm not making excuses. There's a time when people just have to say the obvious, afterall we're not kids on the Forum and the whole repetition ad hominem is out of touch with mature scholarship.

Anyhow. . .

Chrisbenogor:

That said can you weigh in your thoughts on the whole contraception, "oral tradition" thingy?

Lol. . . I was actually waiting for a few more pages to develop on that subject before I weighed in on it. For now, suffice to say that there is a legitimate basis for oral commuincation in establishing a worldview, but this also has its problems.

As far as the Biblical texts are concerned, there is a divide between what constitutes 'scripture' and what is outside its purview. The former (scripture) comes across to me as the body of established faith - this is our point of reference in matters concerning what defines the Biblical faith. On the other hand, the latter are open to any group identity to which such a tradition is most cherished.

If the question basically is whether there is a genuine basis for 'oral tradition' at any level to be introduced as necessary to Scripture, then we enter upon very serious grounds for discussions. Every one has his or her reasons for or against oral tradition; but at the heart of this would be a need to understand what exactly we mean by such a term.

Chrisbenogor:

I am beginning to feel as though I am paranoid.

You don't sound that way at all to me - which is why i've continued to enjoy our discourses so far.

why is he a fool? is it because he disagrees with your faith?

Not at all, I don't consider you a fool, neither do I consider Chris a fool. Why? Because you come up with logical points.
if you've ever had a discussion with Olabowale, you will see how much he lies about everything. He even changes his own word.
This is the man that couldn't define lying for me. He said that allah permits them to say that they are not muslims if they're facing death and do not want to die. I told him that's lying. He said no it's not because allah says it's ok.
Lying is the opposite of the truth, and he doesn't consider the opposite of the truth lying, so what does that make him?

If Olabowale has twisted your words and misquoted you many times, you will consider him an idiot also.

and beside Pilgrim has given enough explanation.

@Chrisbenegor:

@ola
Nice to see you here, I really appreciate seeing a muslim here, I would like you to tell me how cain knew how to kill but not how to bury. Lets start from there(again thats if you want oh)
Cheers guys.

If humans are the last of God's creations, it is no doubt that animals have been alive on earth before Adam and his partner, Eve! Lions kill there preys, dont they? We also see Chipanzees and other primates that the Evolutionists like to call human ascentors or relatives (I differ with them), they strike to kill, among other ways. It will be very easy to say that the ability to kill was learnt by simply observing all the killings that occurred within the animal kingdom.

But none of these animals, especially the primates dig holes to bury their dead. But whether am correct in my limited human observations, Cain killed his brother and only in the Qur'an is the process of how he learnt to bury his body was provided. You dont have the same in the Bible. If you do, please lets hear it.

olabowale:

Cain killed his brother and only in the Qur'an is the process of how he learnt to bury his body was provided.

What process was described in the Quran that he had to "learn" before he buried his brother?