shadeyinka:

You don't have the forgiest idea.
There is no sect or denomination in heaven or hell.

It would have been sufficient for you to establish the 500 pots of death.

So you see, ONE POT on the road!
May be the difference is how the viewers (theists) are treating the pot. Some bow down 5 times a day to the pot while some says "the pot is actually three concentric pots while others even vow that "the snake in the pot spoke to them in their dream"...LOL

But at least, they were ultimately wise in their decision of not putting their hands in the pot.

It's you I am sorry for. If at the end of the day You die only to discover that you exist in a non physical reality. Your wisdom and bravery would indeed be apparent!

Your analogy does not rightly paint the picture of what the Op said,apparently here are some religions that have a concept of hell,or at least some kind of suffering in the after life
1)Ancient Egypt religion
2)Ancient Greek religion
3)African religions like Haida mythology and Swahili mythology
4)Aztec religion
5)Christianity
6)Buddhism
7)Hinduism
Inuit religion
9)Islam
10)Jainism
11)Judaism
12)Mayan religion
13)Sikhism
14)Zoroastrianism

Now these are the few I know of,I believe there are others,they have different paths to a blissful after life so you can not be saved if you follow the wrong path/religion
So your analogy should Look like this as NP suggested

There are at least 14 pots on the road and each of them says "100kg of gold stick your hand and be rewarded,all others contain poisonous snakes",and you have a group of people besides EACH pot who have never stuck their hads in any pot but claim that theirs is the right pot,worse still some of them disagree on how to stick your hand in the pot to get the reward

This is a better representation,sorry your probability of getting saved is 1/14

To add to that,what if
The universe has a creator who his himself from humanity as a test and would give only atheists eternal bliss since they passed the test,but would send religionists to eternal damnation for serving false gods

So let's add that,ur probability is 1/15


P.S. In reality we know that in Christianity (your pot) and some others religions, believing in God is not the ticket to eternal life,a lot of things besides believing in God are involved ,your bible specifically says that it is not all who cry father father that would inherit the kingdom of God,which reiterates my point,in your analogy we should add that too
getting the 100kg gold doesn't end at picking the right pot,it is in fact the first,in the pot you would find a map that would guide u as u go in search of the gold(a journey which u may fail)

shadeyinka:

If I am not mistaking, I do not know any other God/gods who promise eternal damnation to humans for failing to obey and reverence Him other than the God of the Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Although an argument for another day, these three groups believe in ONE God (and sometimes they claim they are one and the same)

If you know any other God's who promise Hell fire for violating exclusive obeisance, let me know please!

Atheists do not ignore the pot. They actually dare to put their hands in it.

Totally speechless,u just took dishonesty to another level just to prove u are right,ur fellow Christians would view this as blasphemy

Again, i will have to repeat myself.

Moral principles always employ the principles of necessary exceptions.

Taking human life are excusable in self defense.

The point remains, that for any moral derivation to make sense or have a basis, there must be a fundanemtal assumption on its subject.

I have demonstrated this over and over again




Christ!!!

You are a making a logical leap of saying something is wrong because of something else that you have not shown to be wrong. How on earth can that be misunderstood?

You have to show how harm is wrong in order to use it as a basis to say murder is wrong.

And saying a reason is unjustifiable is ambiguous, it doesn't have any definite meaning.

What do you mean by justifiability?

How do you derive justifiability?

And on what ground is the justificable nature of an action right or wrong.

I can understand why these questions confuse you, you may not have gone further than that.

So, why is harm wrong?

Oga legality and morality are different things.

You are first assuming that harm is wrong.

Why is harm wrong?

You can go around this all day and won't bring up a basis for your moral assumptions because they simply isn't any.

Morality not legality is the premise.

Again, if killing a humans is wrong then it is.

We can only apply a principle of exception where intention matters as we do for any other subject.

And exceptions do not preclude the whole.

You must first assume that hurting themselves is wrong therefore unjustifiable to warrant them not hurting each other becomes justifiable.

My question is, what is the basis? Why is not hurting themselves right? On what ground is it right?

You didn't answer my question, you simply repeated an example without giving basis on how you arrived at your conclusion.

A Christian would boast of a better basis, if you ask why is this wrong?
He'd simply reply, because the creator of the world says it is.
It is a perfectly sound basis.

We can only argue that a Christian God do not exist but we can't argue against the sound follow of their moral argument.


In other words, it doesn't have any meaning.

Anything subject to any interpretation is meaningless

You are not quite there yet

I've addressed this

Wrong. Kill yourself if you want to.

Interesting,why do u hold that position,because life is sacred ?

Again, self defense.

why must the self defense be from the perspective that the mother is the honest one, is it the baby's fault that its existence poses a threat to the mothers life,why make it suffer for a crime it did not commit,this is what u were saying earlier,that the foetus shouldn't suffer the crimes of the rapist father,why should it suffer for something it didn't wilfully do in this case,no matter how I look at it,it is obvious that u are saying that a mother's life is more important than the baby's, so again I ask do all human beings (going by your classification,which includes a day old foetus) have the same right to life ?

Upholding the principle of sacredness of human life.

fine,I guess the definiton of abortion should be tweaked

I've noted ur points Johnny and I would address ur question again,hopefully my answers wouldn't be ambigious
Again this was my response to ur question

"It is wrong to rape another person or commit murder because the person is hurt in the process and the act is unjustifiable(in the given instance)"

I woylto make my points clearer than before but u have to approach it with an open mind too else everything I am saying is in vain

Everything I say is from my own perspective, and not based on "fundamental belief", although both may agree on the same thing

The universe has no moral codes,hence humans get to determine what is right or wrong

I am of the opinion that nothing is inherently right or wrong,nothing like exceptions here,what determines if a thing is right or wrong is the condition in which it happens which involve the intentions of the individual(s) involved,however because for certain actions in most cases the conditions in which they occur make them wrong they are generally seen to be bad,killing a person is an example

My basis for saying a thing is right(under the conditions it occurs) is if its merits are higher than it's demerits,in certain cases it is difficult to access if this is so,hence it might be difficult to say if that is right ,in other cases it is easy to establish that the merits outweigh the demerits and the act is considered to be right

My basis for saying a thing is wrong(under the conditions it occurs) is if the demerits are higher than the merits,again we face the same problem,in certain cases it is difficult to tell if the demerits are higher than the merits,in other cases it is easy to establish that,hence such things are considered as wrong

When I talk about justifiability(from my perspective) this is what I mean,if the merits outweigh the demerits putting the parties involved into consideration,then the act is justifiable, but if the demerits outweigh the merits then the act is unjustifiable


Now coming to the answer I gave

In an instance where a woman is raped,a harm is done to the woman psychologically,emotionally,physically and otherwise,the harm done is the demerit,now the merit of the act is the sexual satisfaction that the rapist gets,from my own analysis,the demerits clearly outweighs the merits hence the act is unjustifiable and I consider it to be wrong
There may be a situation where the merits can outweigh the demerits and I would consider the act as right,an instance is if the woman in question is the only viable woman on earth and is not willing to mate then in other to preserve the human race a person can do the act forcefully,as gross as that may sound,if such ever happens,I would see the rape as right not wrong

In the case of murder,if an armed robber for instance shoots a person dead,again we look at the merits,I can barely see one here, and of course the demerits abound and are easy to see, hence the act is unjustifiable
In a case whereby a person is killed as a death sentence it can be argued that the merits outweigh the demerits, so even though the ultimate harm is caused to the person it can be justified for several reasons hence the act is right

So in both cases,causing harm to a person is a demerit and if the conditions of the act doesn't provide sufficient reason to see that it is for the greater good (ie the merits outweighing the demerits) then the act is wrong

Yes.

Why do you think that if you touch someone on their hand it is ok but if you touch their private parts it becomes sexual assault and a crime?
Because of the fundamental assumption that sex is sacred therefore the organs involved in sexual acts are equally sacred.

If the whole of the human body is held in the same light, then you might as well finger someone when you want to wake them up, there is nothing special about that, it is just another part of the body that is just like every other part.

Moral basis require a fundamental belief on the subject for foundation

That is the beauty of intersubjectivity, it is not subjective, it doesn't require that you agree with it.

Things like government, monetary value, countries are all operating under similar belief system.

That you do not believe in the value of money doesn't change the value of money, that you don't personally believe in countries doesn't mean you can go wherever you want without going through the formalities.

The point I'm trying to make is the term "morality" as is been used represents peoples views and of course in certain cases they can be wrong,I'm aware that morality is inter subjective and all that,but that position has its own flaws,in certain countries homosexuality is criminalised and as far as such countries are concerned it is "wrong", for people to be involved in homosexual relationships,do u conform to this simply because it is the " fundamental belief" they agree on,I bet ur answer is no.
There is no moral codes written anywhere in the universe,we decide what is right and what is wrong,and I agree that this is the best way to keep an organised and peaceful society but we mustn't approach morality with the mentality that an act is either right or wrong,human life may be considered sacred as you say,but taking of human life is not wrong on its own,the conditions that the act takes place decides if it is right or wrong,I do not agree that something is wrong simply because it is the fundamental belief of the people,it has to be backed up,yes I may not be able to challenge the authorities or overturn a sentence given,but I won't conform to anyones idea of what is right or wrong if it is not reasonable enough or justifiable from my perspective,all the same that is not to say I would disobey the authorities because I disagree with them

That bolded phrase is almost certainly meaningless. How is justifiability derived?

You need to first show the basis of your assumption on something being bad or not
You also need to show the basis on which your quantification of justifiability is based.

I don't know if you people really understand these simple philosophical problems your logical leaps give rise to.

U are being a bit cocky and dishonest here
You asked me a question,I gave u my answer, u responded to it but this time ur response was only based on half of what I said,and now u dismiss the rest as "meaningless",did u ask for the explanations ?

I would repeat what I said

I consider those acts to be wrong because they cause harm and the purpose for the act is unjustifiable

If a person kills another he has done harm to the person and if the purpose of the killing can not be justified before the law,or anyone concerned the person is wrong
Same with rape,the person does harm to the victim and if the purpose of the act is not justifiable before the law or anyone concerned, then the act is wrong

The second part of my response
.......and the purpose of the act is unjustifiable
Is what gives meaning to what I said,because like I previously mentioned, taking a human being's life is not wrong,what is wrong is the purpose behind the act,but of course this is where the differences lie,I might see the reason behind the act to be perfectly fine while you disagree,that is why people have different views on what is right or wrong
To your question," how is justifiability derived",well let's take the case of homosexuality for instance
Two men engage in sexual intercouse,I of course feel that they what they do is justifiable,because they are not hurting themselves in any way,a christian says that they are not justified because his/her bible condemns homosexual sex,the government abiding by the views of the general public also take the position that they are not justified.
"Justifiability" is subjective and differs among different persons but the law presides over all

Everything I just said is still meaningless right ?

And i am saying i do not regard any individual suffering more than a life. I am empathic towards suffering, i however can never equate the severity of individual human suffering to termination of human life

Do you think euthanasia is right or wrong ?

if you have been following my argument on abortion, this is pretty simple. When a fetus threatens the life of its mother, terminating it is an act of self defense. it is totally morally excusable. Even if you kill someone in self defense, you are most likely to go free.

I found your argument interesting,but why should the baby die at the expense of the mother,could it be that you are saying that "all human lives are sacred but some human lives are more sacred than others "
Why should the baby die and not the mother ?

Because moral inhibitions shape the course of our actions.

and in that instance what is the moral implication of a woman having an unwanted foetus removed instead of killed,right I guess(judging from ur previous response) ?

The basis of morality is hinged on a fundamental belief or assumption about the subject of moral value.

Example: Human life is sacred.
This is a fundamental belief about the subject of moral value.

The subject here is Human life

Killing is an action. If you assume killing is wrong without showing how then it is baseless.

Let me demonstrate: Mr Obi killed a goat.

Mrs Ada killed a human.

Which is wrong?

Me: Mrs Ada because human life is sacred.

If you say Mrs Ada is wrong because killing is wrong, then why is mr Obi not wrong? They both killed?

See? The difference is the subject of the action not the action itself.

So, the fundamental belief behind the subject is a determinant for the moral implications of an action.

Do you understand this basis now?

So in essence,human beings made human life "Sacred", if we choose to consider the life of a chicken as sacred it becomes sacred, in fact we have such instances,in India,Hindus don't kill cows therefore the life of a cow is just as sacred as human life.
So what makes a life sacred or not is "the fundamental belief" attached to it
What makes this fundamental belief true,why should I agree with it ?

Why is causing harm bad?

Don't you kill chickens? Don't you cause it harm? Why is that not as bad as killing a human?

What's the difference? Your moral premise is hinged on causing harm, so why is the case of causing harm to a chicken not just as bad?

You see the problem here? You made a logical leap of saying something bad for a reason you have not shown to be bad.

That's the dilema of secular morality.

U did not read my statement,this is what I said
They cause harm and the purpose behind the act is UNJUSTIFIABLE
Why did u take only the part u wanted

I said what i said. A rapist is a horrible human that deserves punishment for his/crime. But, a child cropping up from this unfortunate event is entirely innocent.

I never said the child should bear the punishment of the rapist father,I only drew ur attention to the woman who would be subjected to more suffering if she is mandated to carry the pregnancy

I will never weigh a grown woman's feelings more than the life of another human.

Now this is an assumption,your wife and ur 1 month old baby are sick and about to die,u have the cure to their ailment but the drug can only save one of them,who would you give it to,the child or the woman ?

Their business.
My argument is sorely on the moral implications.

what is so great about the moral implication of the action ?

How i arrived? Lol. That's not me. That is a fundamental belief behind human morality for it to make sense. Without it, human morality do not make sense or have any basis.

That's why secular morality is quite a dilema, they don't always seem to understand why they say something is right or wrong.

And if there is no basis for a moral position, it is inherently meaningless.

I get the point,but if I may ask,what is ur basis for morality, or do u just see whatever people regard as good to be good and what they see as bad to be bad

I have a couple of questions for you;

Why do you think rape is bad?
Why is murder wrong?

For both cases I will give the same reason
They cause harm and the purpose behind the act is unjustifiable

premeditated termination of a human life is murder. A woman has every control of her body and her choice, there is an option not to get pregnant in the first place.

It is my position that nobody, absolutely nobody should have the right to kill another human.

Do you know that if you kill a pregnant woman that you are not charged with 1 count murder but 2?

It is not always an option not to get pregnant,we have instances of rape,I agree on the rest

I do not weigh any one feelings more than another's life.

No,in your previous post u said the child should not be punished for the sin of the father and I was reminding u that the woman doesn't deserve the punishment of carrying s pregnancy she didn't ask for,I know that the baby's life is important as well but I cannot choose it over the woman in this case,even if it is a human being as you say it is still a few weeks old,the welfare of a grown woman is more precious to me than a 6week old foetus

Nope. It is not murder. Murder only occurs when a human life is terminated, not when moved from one place to another.

If you think i am against someone removing the baby in her womb then that's sadly a mistake.

I'm against killing it

OK I guess we have reached a conclusion on this,I now consider it murder to terminate the life of a foetus no matter how young it is,except if a surgical procedure would definitely cause harm to the mother,if anyone does not want to keep a pregnancy they should simply have the foetus removed

johnydon22:
Actually No. A child at viable stage can simply be removed from the womb and placed in incubation.

There is no way killing a viable child is an ever an option.

Unless it is not viable which of course is legal even in Nigeria.

I think we can reach a compromise on this,since u do not support abortion how about we see it this way
If a woman conceives and does not want to keep the baby,she should have it removed surgically,and then the baby can be put in an incubator until it becomes mature enough,the woman would not have the right to claim the baby,maybe an agency or couple who want to adopt a child could fund the expenses and automatically become the kids parents.
I don't really know how you arrived at abortion being immoral and your whole Sacredness of life position,but for me a woman should have the right to say if she wants to keep a pregnancy or not,after all it is her body,but since we are dealing with a "human being" she could simply remove the foetus and whoever is interested can take it up from there,I don't see that as murder

In the instance of rape which u commented on,u said the child is innocent and shouldnt bear the "consequences" but then I ask,is it the mother that should suffer,whoss feeling matters more to you,a 6 week old foetus or a 25 yr old woman

In any case,I want to have your thoughts on what I said,would you still consider it as murder if the woman which in this case doesn't want to have the pregnancy has it removed especially at the early stages,and then those interested in the life of the baby takes it up from there to make sure it grows ?,is that the same as murder ?

Hahn u be monitoring spirit

solite3:
I m yet to met an intelligent atheist on this forum.

Your bible called us fools and you expect to meet an intelligent atheist,are you sure u are ok

TATIME,oya,food don land

3) Obviously, people who haven't heard of Jesus can't fill the Christian purpose of creation ... but that's because they're not Christian. Nor are they required to if they haven't heard. The Bible is very clear people who haven't heard of the gospel are not judged for not knowing, so I see no problem.

FALSE
That is not what the bible says

U were the one who said in the other thread that there is no contradiction on the bible,which means every single passage in the bible that addresses an issue is making the same point, or at least not negating each other,now here is a passage where Jesus himself told us the class of people that would go to heaven

John 3 : 3
Jesus answered and said to him,"Most assuredly,I say to you,unless one is born again,he cannot see the kingdom of God

Please if a person does not hear about Jesus and believe in him can he be born again, NO !

You claim that man can please Yahweh without being born again but here is what your bible says

Romans 8 : 8
So then,those who are in the flesh CANNOT PLEASE GOD

Please justify that what you say is in accordance with these two passages I shared

Ihedinobi3:

There are others on this thread who are arguing and complaining that the writers of the Gospels copied each other so that they cannot be considered independent witnesses. They are together some kind of conspiracy to sell the Jesus story, according to them. Now you are complaining that writers of Scripture do not say the exact same thing to avoid confusion. Do you see why I don't take many of you seriously? I engage in these discussions to help actual believers who have the same questions you do and are willing to hear answers, not for your own sakes. You all would only be happy if a Bible ceases to exist. There is no other way to please you.

Two answers will suffice here:

1. God wrote the Bible the way He did in order to test the readers. If it was easy to understand everything He wrote, then how would we know who actually cares about what God has to say? The degree of trouble that any given reader is willing to take to understand God is conclusive proof of their dedication to hearing God's side of the story.

2. Although it may be hard work to see how the Bible is in perfect agreement with itself, it CAN be seen. If you actually ask questions, you will see the answers. So, if Matthew says Canaanite and Mark says Syrophoenician, the honest reader would ask why, at least and keep reading to see if there is any explanation. The most important answer is that both of them are saying that she is a Gentile. But if the reader is a believer with the pastor-teaching gift, then, of course, he would go further and research the history to find out whether there is a relationship between Syrophoenicia and Canaan so that he can get the larger context within which the two different Gospels work. That is how these things work.

In conclusion, the Bible was deliberately not designed to be easy reading.



I think you completely miss the point. Every time I accuse someone of dishonesty, I explain as clearly as possible why I did. My reason here was clearly NOT that you disagree with me. It is that you insist on discussing an ancient document while demanding that it must be divorced from its cultural origins. If your demand is acceded to, then the Bible can be made to say whatever the reader wishes for it to say. But that would be dishonest. And that is what you were insisting on.

The Bible is not an easy book to understand. That is why we take all the help we can get to understand it.

Dude,I'm all over this,u said I am obstinate, I'm not interested in the conversation again since u choose to see me that way,u describe me of being dishonest,what is the point of arguing again,u have made ur conclusions, let's move on

Ihedinobi3:

You do not know Ihedinobi well. I really don't like to waste time and energy. And I try to avoid getting into situations that produce nothing more than negative emotions. It IS frustrating to talk to obstinate and unreasonable people, you know. So, if I find that I am, I move on. Unless I am breaking discipline.

Mr bible scholar, so whoever doesn't agree with u is termed obstinate,fine,how about you staying off my mention,at least on this thread

NnennaG6:
@Hermes019, I just want to inform you of something... misunderstanding of the bible is very common and it can arise from the following (I'd advise you to focus on number 5)

1. Misunderstanding and confusion can arise simply because readers are imperfect. Often I have discovered I misinterpreted what others have said for that very reason. It was not their fault. It wasn’t really even my fault, as I was not trying to prove anything. I simply misunderstood. When it comes to scriptures such misunderstanding can result in people forming opinions or beliefs that aren’t really sustainable, but do not come from any sort of dishonesty or motive. It just happens.

2. Misunderstanding can occur because we are unfamiliar with the nature of literature. Scripture consists of words and thoughts, whether the be the words and thoughts of humans or of God. When people communicate they do so by a great number of means. Communication is never strictly literal or strictly allegorical. It’s a hodge podge of everything. Because scripture is communication it utilizes all the various genres of communication - metaphor, allegory, parables, similes, anagrams [edit: this should read acrostic. As far as I know there are no anagrams in the scripture.] and musical poetry, narrative, personal letters and official documents. If we are unskilled with such things we will most undoubtably confuse amd misinterpret the meaning. This also means we cannot approach scripture with a one size fits all mentality as so many believers (and non-believers) try to do.

3. Related to the above, misunderstanding can occur because the reader is unfamiliar with facts or customs or any number of things that the original readers were quite familiar with. When it comes to the scripture, we are dealing with documents that are at the minimum 2000 years old. The whole range of scripture was itself written over a period of 1,500 years, in at least 3 different languages, and by authors ranging from shepherds to statesmen. There is so much historical background behind the words that those of us of the 21st century are absolutely bound to misunderstand certain things. The remedy is to educate ourselves as far as possible with the history of the ancient world and be humble enough to know that we simply don’t know all the facts. Archeology has been extremely helpful in this regard in giving us greater insight into the ways and customs of the ancient world. But archeology still at best gives us very fragmentary knowledge of the ancient world.

4. Misunderstanding can occur when we read the scripture through the filter of our experience. We often don’t even realize we do such a thing. If you were raised from childhood to believe that scripture taught such and such a doctrine, it’s a very good chance you won’t even consider questioning that asusmption. A great historical example is that of Martin Luther. He had grave difficulty with the letter of James on account of James’ insistence on the necessity of works. Luther called it “a right strawy epistle” and had he been given his ‘druthers’ he would have removed it from the canon. What he did not recognize was that he was reading James’ teachings about faith and works through the filter of medieval Roman Catholicism which advocated works such as penance. A particularly odious “work” being touted by Teztel was the selling of indulgences. Pay up now and be absolved from that adultery you’re going to commit with your neighbor’s wife later on. These were the kind of works that Luther was familiar with. It simply never occured to him James was talking about something completely different. Which leads to the next.

5. Misunderstanding will occur when people interpret the scripture for selfish purposes. Perhaps at this point misunderstanding is not the proper term as we move from honest misunderstanding to deliberate attempts to justify one’s desires.
5a) Some will misinterpret out of a desire for personal gain. I include in this group all those writing books making fabulous and spectacular claims about this or that of scripture and making quite a name for thsemselves, not to mention money. Books about the 2nd coming are quite popular now as well as books about hidden keys or forgotten truths. As long as the claims are spectacular, people will buy the book and the author gets his check and 15 minutes of fame. I have no use for any of them.
5b) Some will misinterpret out of a desire for power. There’s a lot of people out there who understand there is no greater power to be held over other people than spiritual power. If a man or woman can so interpret scripture so as to make it seem that they hold the eternal destiny of the people, then they wield very great power. Many atheists justify their disbelief on account they see (rightfully so) the horrible abuse of power carried out by individuals in the name of God. The truth though, is that God has nothing to do with these frauds, and they will receive the justice due them.
5c) Some will misinterpret out of pride. They want to be somebody in the church. Therefore they look for novel meanings and interpretations. Preachers are often guilty of this, misinterpreting scripture so as to have a reputation of being novel and clever or for promoting personal opinions as somehow authorized by divine creed.
5d) Some will misinterpret out of a spirit of schism. They are at heart divisive people. Their interest is not in the one gospel, or the one faith, or the one anything. They have their pet doctrine and through cleverness are able to find it established throughout all scripture beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelation. These interpreters do not listen to any else. They cannot be instructed. If someone should happen to successfully point out the error of their thinking, they are quick to pass it off.

Let’s not leave out the self-confessed unbeliever. Many such do not read scripture out of a genuine desire to know what is really contained therein, but out of a strong desire of self-justification. These scour the pages of scripture seeking out fragments and tidbits they may then wrench completely out of any context that they may then accuse and ridicule. As i have noticed, Nairaland is full of such.

I just want you to remember these when next you scrutinize the bible. Don't overrate your intelligence. Humans are fallible.

You should take your own advice too,can we view he Koran through the same lens ?,after all a Muslum would say all you have just said,
"the koran is the infallible word of God,nothing that is written therein is false,humans are rather fallible and give wrong interpretations"

innit

This is the same question that Op asked,why should we see the bible that way and not the Koran and other religious books ?
Madam ur bible is not special,this not the church,this is nairaland,a public forum, be ready to answer questions about ur belief or don't bother trying to convince others


I just want you to remember that when next you say that there is no contradiction in the bible,you are going to encounter questions !!!

Ihedinobi3:

Frankly, she went too far answering you. You really don't deserve the courtesy. But she gave you the time. If she didn't, it may be said that she doesn't care if you go to Hell. Now that she has, she was copping out? Out of what? What was wrong with any of her answers?

You don't care what the cultural subtext of the Bible is. But you want to argue about it. That's like arguing with an astrophysicist about the composition of comets when all you can imagine is sand on a beach or tropical forests and low hills.

Which one be cultural subtext again,I thought u pple said ur Bible is complete

Ihedinobi3:

The test? Yes. I was hoping that you might actually want to have a meaningful conversation but one can't have everything.

The Ihedinobi I know would never run away from an argument unlike kalokalo who doesn't waste time to retort "Peace" or "Shalom" whenever he has nothing else to say ,wetin dy happen today,are atheists boring u to death ?

Ihedinobi3:

"Phoenicia, ancient region corresponding to modern Lebanon, with adjoining parts of modern Syria and Israel. Its inhabitants, the Phoenicians, were notable merchants, traders, and colonizers of the Mediterranean in the 1st millennium BCE. The chief cities of Phoenicia (excluding colonies) were Sidon, Tyre, and Berot (modern Beirut).

It is not certain what the Phoenicians called themselves in their own language; it appears to have been Kenaʿani (Akkadian: Kinahna), “Canaanites.” In Hebrew the word kenaʿani has the secondary meaning of “merchant,” a term that well characterizes the Phoenicians."
- www.britannica.com/place/Phoenicia

"From Issus Alexander marched south into Syria and Phoenicia, his object being to isolate the Persian fleet from its bases and so to destroy it as an effective fighting force. The Phoenician cities Marathus and Aradus came over quietly, and Parmenio was sent ahead to secure Damascus and its rich booty, including Darius’s war chest. In reply to a letter from Darius offering peace, Alexander replied arrogantly, recapitulating the historic wrongs of Greece and demanding unconditional surrender to himself as lord of Asia. After taking Byblos (modern Jubayl) and Sidon (Arabic Ṣaydā), he met with a check at Tyre, where he was refused entry into the island city. He thereupon prepared to use all methods of siegecraft to take it, but the Tyrians resisted, holding out for seven months. In the meantime (winter 333–332) the Persians had counterattacked by land in Asia Minor—where they were defeated by Antigonus, the satrap of Greater Phrygia—and by sea, recapturing a number of cities and islands.

While the siege of Tyre was in progress, Darius sent a new offer: he would pay a huge ransom of 10,000 talents for his family and cede all his lands west of the Euphrates. “I would accept,” Parmenio is reported to have said, “were I Alexander”; “I too,” was the famous retort, “were I Parmenio.” The storming of Tyre in July 332 was Alexander’s greatest military achievement; it was attended with great carnage and the sale of the women and children into slavery. Leaving Parmenio in Syria, Alexander advanced south without opposition until he reached Gaza on its high mound; there bitter resistance halted him for two months, and he sustained a serious shoulder wound during a sortie."
- https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-the-Great#ref249712

In layman's terms, Greece conquered Syria and Phoenicia well before Christ and subsumed it into their empire. And Phoenians were also called Canaanites at the time.

So, the woman was a Syrophoenician, a Greek and a Canaanite. Still feel like fighting about it? This answer was for Nnanna. I wouldn't have bothered otherwise.

I wasn't fighting at the first place,and to be honest I am not interested in knowing which place the woman was from,here us what I am actually interested in
Lets assume you are correct(after your various research), why did the bible have to sound ambiguous,one account says it is a Greek woman and the other says it is a Canaanite woman(it is open to debate if both actually are the same,because even if ur explanations is right only one of the two accounts perfectly portrays where the woman is from) why does it mention two different locations,leaving the reader to give his own interpretation.
This is in fact the problem of Christianity,ambiguity, now you have gone to one site to copy what you pastwd(I really wonder what the use of the holy spirit in u is),anothere person rreads another interpretation online and says something differentd

Why is ur scruptures so
Now I asked a question and Nnenna had to go and research(maybe she new but of course she once had to research) the best literal translation of the text of those passages,why is it not printed like that in English,how many more verses do we need to find the best literal translation to know what they really say,and do u cherrypick the ones u accept,because that verse in Isaiah that says a "virgin" shall give birth to a son,it has been shown that the best literal translation of the Hebrew word written there is "young woman" not virgin,do you accept that too

Saying I am dishonest because I don't agree with u is nonsense, u can refer to me as whatever u like,but that won't make me regard the bible as a divinely inspired book,there are various holy books and until u are able to clearly explain all the issuews in ur bible,it doesn't stand out and it doesn't have mys respect,I would always see it for what it is and that is a 3000 year old mythological crap

Ihedinobi3:

I engage when I think that there is some value to be gained, not merely when I hope or expect my opposite to be honest. Atheists are characteristically dishonest but I have been discussing with them regardless. So, your dishonesty is not all that decides whether I continue or not.

For now, what I have established is that you are not interested in a meaningful conversation. You have a lie you want to sell and you will not permit it to be proven one. Therefore, you will make conversation impossible unless it is admitted that you are right.

So, there. My test is concluded. You have no real contradictions to present, just a load of willful ignorance you want to beat other people's heads in with.

Ok is that why you quoted me again

Seriously,Nnenna,u were the one screaming that the bible is inerrant and contains no single contradiction in the Gospel accounts,but I asked u 3 simple questions and u are coping out with style,asking Ihedinobi to cover up,just 3 questions out of hundred or maybe thousands of them

SMH

Jacob was Joseph's father, hence the paternal grandfather of Jesus.

Excellent
Let us use a simple analogy to make everything easy and expose ur double standards(for those who say that I am being dishonest)
I Hermes wrote an autobiography about my self,and on two occasions I had to reference my fathers name
1)On page 9 of my book,I said my Father's name is Zeus
2)On page 56 of my book,I said my biological Father's name is Poseidon
What would you make of this, now it seems judging from your previous post that u would say my fathers name is Poseidon and Zeus was likely an adoptive father which is why I added the adjective "biological" while maintaining that my book is an autobiography without any need for suspicions,but,a person who is more eager to know the truth and not just ready to accept anything,knowing fully well that he didn't witness me writing my autobiography and also knowing that the book has been handled by various people knows that it is very possible that it has been altered,hence would not just settle that for ur explanation,and besides why would I mention two different names as my father in my book without elaborating them instead leaving the reader to figure out who my real father is especially knowing that I can not risk any misinterpretation,wouldn't it make more sense to say(if thus was the case)
"Poseidon is my biological father but he died when I was young hence Zeus took over the role,which is why I referred to him as my father,therefore Zeus is my adoptive father

Let's get back to the bible story
1)Matthew says that Jacob was Joseph's father and apparently u agree with that too
2)Luke doesn't mention Jacob,rather he says that Heli was Joseph's father,not his adoptive father
Now u say that the holy spirit inspired the bible so let's ignore the fact that they were 2 differt authors,how can u tell me that the holy spirit told Matthew to say that Joseph's father was Jacob(rightly so !),then when it came to Luke he tells him to write that Joseph's father was Heli,the least he could have done was to tell him to include the adjective " adoptive" ,that simple word would have solved not all but at least half of the problem,now let me ask u,how many times did Luke use the Hebrew word whuch means "begotten son" in those other people he mentioned,does that also mean that their fathers are adoptive and not their biological,or was it when it came to the case of Joseph that u made it compulsory that if he was not referenced as "begotten son" then that means that he is definitely adopted.
Ihedinobi said that Heli was Mary's father,u Nnenna is saying that Heli was in fact Joseph's adoptive father,now which are we to choose,is it that the holy spirit is now a liar,talking from different sides of the mouth or is it that one of u is speaking of his own accord or is that non of u is even inspired,which one
Going further on ur own explanation,u say that Heli is Joseph's adoptive father but there us another problem it creates(and this has to be in bold characters)If Heli wasn't Joseph's real father,why did Luke's account trace Heli's ancestors,instead of the ancestors of Joseph's real father ?
I only brought out one of the contradictions in Jesus' genealogy there are others too

"It is finished"

Matthew and Mark gave other answers,again we face the same problem as in question 1,seriously,we are talking about a "divinely" inspired book here,even if ur explanations are right(which actually is not even my problem,I am not here to argue what Jesus' last word on the cross was) I think ur holy spirit did a poor job editing the bible,to create so many holes open for argument, I still cannot understand,why can't the Gospels say the same thing,why do u have to choose ur own meaning and tell us it is what the bible says and then when I ask another Christian he says a different thing
u say that Jesus last word on the cross is "it is finished", but when I attend the Good Friday service,the church says that Jesus' last word on the cross is " Father unto ur hand I commend my spirit"
Again I ask,who is right,u ? ,or my church,or are both of dialling the "wrong number"(as PK would say)

Its conjecture. Besides, I still don't see how not knowing where the woman came from is an issue.

its not conjecture, ur bible is inerrant as u say,and the answer us in ur Bible why can't u simply give the answer or should I quote the passage for u to find it.
Don't worry abt what I would do with the information,just give me the answer

Ihedinobi3:

So, basically, you don't know anything about the Bible about which you were making claims with such authority. You both know and care nothing about the historical and linguistic contexts within which it was written.

That is dishonest debating, sir. Incidentally, it is only more proof that many people who debate Christianity like you only want to rig the debates in your favor. If you have no education in the thing you are attacking, it is unwise to attack it and even more foolish to complain when you are beaten by it.

I remember I directed my questions to Nnenna,so u are not under any obligation to answer them even she doesn't owe me any answers so at any point u feel I am being dishonest,feel free to stop the conversation I am not forcing u after all u are a bible scholar ,aren't u

This is a common question I've heard from atheists and all other skeptics as regards Jesus' genealogies according to the books of Matthew and Luke. First, we should establish that a contradiction occurs when two or more claims conflict with one another so that they cannot simultaneously be true in the same sense and at the same time. Honestly, this is the way I see it...
a) In Matthew 1:16 when it describes "Jacob was the father of Joseph" the Greek verb for "was the father" is ἐγέννησεν and speaks of literal and biologically fathering. Put another way, Jacob begotten Joseph.
b) However when we look at Luke 3:23 it is more general: "Joseph, the son of Eli." It doesn’t say "begotten."
c) Thus it is possible that Joseph had Heli as a father in another sense than the way Jacob was his father. Which means there’s not necessarily a contradiction in terms of it conflicting in the same sense.
d) Nor does it mean there’s necessarily a contradiction in terms of the two claims conflicting at same time if Heli and Jacob were fathers to Joseph in different senses. From Luke 3:23 we can establish that Jacob was the biological father. But then something happened in which Heli became generally speaking the father; very likely it is through adoption. And that takes place in another time than when Jacob was the father to Joseph. So there’s not necessarily a contradiction in terms of timing of when the two were fathers either.
Another thing to note is the custom of levirate marriage. It can be found in the Old Testament laws in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and description of the understanding of this practice in Genesis 38:1-30. It is familiar even in Jesus’ days as some of Jesus’ enemies used this practice to try to argue against Jesus. This is described within the book of Matthew itself in Matthew 22:23-28 and in Luke 20:27-33. It is significant to note that both books that have genealogies also have accounts of the understanding of levirate marriages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage
I don't know if this fully clears the contradiction, but it makes sense to me. Besides, the atheists' claim of a contradiction means they have the burden of proof that there is no possible and no plausible explanation in which Heli and Jacob can’t be fathers in different times and in different senses/means.

Alright I appreciate the explanations but u haven't answered my question,I did not ask u if there was a contradiction there or not,I simply asked "who is Jesus' paternal grandfather",I expect a one word answer for now,explanations would come later

Jesus' last words were "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" according to Matthew 27:46-50. These words from Jesus are specifically found in verse 46. But note what verse 50 states: "And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit." While verse 50 does not record what it was specifically that Jesus cried out it could have been "Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit" that Luke 23:46 record or "It is finished!" that John 19:30 record. It can even be both phrases that Jesus cried out. The point here is that Matthew 27:50 itself indicates that after Jesus said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Matthew was aware that further last words were said. So Matthew 27:46-50 doesn’t show a Bible contradiction but rather suggests strongly that Jesus spoke other words.

I don't mean to be brusque,not at all,but again I'm afraid I didn't get the answer I requested,seriously why do u guyz have to be in defense mode all the time,chill,u are sure ur Bible is inerrant so no need to be all worked up,just give me a straight forward answer confidently
what was the last word of ur saviour Jesus on the cross ?

We don't know exactly

what do you mean by "we",the bible gives two reports of a woman whose child was exorcised by Jesus and made metion of the place the woman came from ,u claim that the bible was inspired by the holy spirirt and is inerrant,how come u don't know the answer to such a simple question,so if u sit for UTME exam and u read "Last days at forcados high school",and u were asked the name of Jimi's brother u would say u don't know,something that was mentioned in the book ?
I don't understand this " we don't know " that u guyz are saying,the bible mentioned the answers to these questions

[/quote]However, we can't call this a conflict. Let me explain why...
Matthew and Mark, the writers of the two seperate accounts, are directing their respective documents to different segments of that ancient society. Thus, they adapt their terminology to the understanding of their targeted recipients.
Matthew tailors his record for the Jews. This is apparent from a number of different vantage points. For example, his heavy reliance upon the Old Testament scriptures indicates this. He is writing for those who accept the Old Testament Scriptures as authoritative.
Mark, on the other hand, is writing for the benefit of the Romans, who controlled the Mediterranean world of the first century. His Roman interest is seen, for instance, in the Latin forms which he employs to render Greek equivalents (Mark 3:17; 5:41; 7:11,34; 14:36; 15:22,34)

so because of that Matthew decided to call a Greek woman a Canaanite and Mark decided to call a Canaanite woman a Greek,u got to be kidding me

Jews typically trace ancestry paternally. But the Lord Jesus is obviously unique. Biologically, He had only one parent, the mother. So, of course, it would make sense to trace His Ancestry through her. You should note that records were kept of everybody's ancestry, not only of the males so it was possible to trace the Lord's Ancestry through His mother.

Another reason is that the Lord Jesus was prophesied to be the Son of David. Tracing His Ancestry through Mary also established that biologically, He truly was the Son of David.

I don't like much yarns,lets go straight to the bible,please show me where the bible referred to Eli as Marys's father as you said and Joseph's father as Jacob

Finally, as to your first question, the story in Luke centered around Mary just like the story in Matthew centered around Joseph. That is strong contextual evidence. The confusion some might face about Joseph's name used there instead of Mary's is possible because familial relationships were somewhat different in that time and culture from what is commonly known today.

There is no such thing as confusion,if the bible says that Mr A is B's father then Mr A not Mr C is B's father as far as I am concerned

Jews reckoned adoptive sons and daughters and sons and daughters in law as actual relatives so that it was not at all strange to substitute Joseph for Mary in that account. [

show scriptural evidence

I am going to ask you one question right now. If you answer it satisfactorily and reasonably, I will honor your questions with comprehensive answers.

Did you offer your questions to demonstrate contradictions in the Bible or not?

Nnenna claims there are no contradictions in the bible,well I think otherwise and I have brought up some of them,if you claim there are no contradictions in the bible then u should easily show me that my views are wrong so far I'm afraid u have been running in circles,I thought u would be quoting the bible in each answer you give to support ur claim but it seems u prefer to guve us ur own personal explanations instead of citing bible texts and explaining what they actually say,as an example,for the first question I asked,u are yet to show me where the bible actually says who Mary's father is,u instead claim that Heli which the bible says is Joseph's father according to Luke is Mary's father

P.s I have always said this Christian don't take the bible to mean what it says but to say what they mean

Matthew say that Joseph's father is Jacob,Luke says that Joseph's father is Heli,Ihedinobi a 21st century bible scholar says that Luke actually meant Mary not Joseph, smh

frosbel2:


Sorry, i wanted to bring his bullshit to a quick end -

I promise to allow you carry on with the debate next time.

Ur input is always welcomed,I wouldn't have said it any better way

.

Frosbel u have crashed my party,I was saving the passages

1. He had two (like every other human being). His paternal grandfather was Jacob. His maternal was Eli.

how do u know that Heli was his maternal grandfather,and since when did Jews indicate the maternal bloodline in a persons genealogy

2. So far, this one is unclear to me. It may have been "It has been accomplished" or "Father, into Your Hands I commit My Spirit". But there is not much reason right now for me to think that He didn't say both.

Ask the holy spirit to give u the right answer,its either u know it or u don't,and if the later is the case then it becomes a problem, how do u even intend to reveal the truth of the bible as you say if u can't give a simple answer to such a simple question,especially when it is there in ur Bible

3. Do you know any reason why the two names were not referring to the same place? Not only did places have multiple names in that period of history, but even for one not trained in history, it would be more natural to assume that Syrophoenicia was part of Canaan or else Canaan was part of Syrophoenicia. It's like being told that someone lives in Lagos by one person and that they live in Nigeria by another. No contradiction.

I only need u to choose one of these answers,no long talk(no offense)
1) she is Greek,syrophoenicia by birth
2) she is a Canaanite
3)she is both a Greek(syropohoeniicia by birth) and a Canaanite since both refer to the same place

Choose one

You are a bible scholar I suppose,so I need straight forward answers to these simple questions,plus the holy spirit which gave the inspiration of the bible is living in you,so no ambiguity should exist in ur response,choose one of the above with confidence

MODIFIED
Nnenna,few questions

U claim that the Gospels don't contradict each other,pls answer the following

1) who is Jesus paternal grandfather
2) what was the last word Jesus said on the cross
3)Jesus had an encounter with a certain woman who had a sick child and likened her to a dog,pls were was the woman from, was she Greek(syrophoenician by birth) or a Canaanite

More would come after u answer those

airminem:


abeg who is this iddiot below ur comment?

I love ur moniker

BluntBoy:


Eternal torture in hell is totally wrong. The idea that man would be burning forever while feeling pains from the fire is totally wrong. Eternal torture is metaphorical for the alienation of man from God.

I beg you to provide Bible verses concerning hell so that I can clear the misunderstandings right here.

As for eternal death, after dying in the eternal flames of hell, the nonbeliever ceases to exist. Death is his punishment while life is the reward of the believer.

Alright,I don't believe in any of them anyways,I just think its interesting that christians have different understanding of the same bible

fire never quenches is not the same as eternal torture in the physical sense.

It is true that the fire would burn forever, but that is not to say the people in it would be in physical pains or torture forever.

The whole idea of eternal torture is metaphorical for the pains of being alienated from the love of God (our Father).

back it up with the bible

Imagine a little child being separated from the love and affection of his parents. That is the torture that nonbelievers would face forever and ever.

but earlier u said that the eternal torture doctrine is wrong

The believers would have eternal life while the nonbelievers would have eternal death (the Second Death).

Yes, they would be cast into a lake of fire just as the Indians burn their corpses. However, unlike any earthly fire, the fire of hell is eternal. But it doesn't mean that the people thrown into it would remain eternally burning. They would die a second time and remain dead forever. The consequences of this death is that they would miss out on Paradise and on the wonderful love of our Father in heaven.

what is ur concept of eternal death ?, back it up with the bible