Pastor AIO:

No, I do not believe that is a christian duty to answer any question asked of you. Otherwise even Christ failed miserably when asked by Pilate, 'What is Truth?'. No, What peter was talking about is if people ask us for the reason for our hope then we are adviced to be ready with the answer. I don't think the man's age is the reason for his hope.
And on the subject of Duty, I believe that christians are each given an appropriation according to the spirit in them. It seems to me that Kunle is being inspired to speak about Tithes and it's abuse. That there are worse forms of extortion going on in the church has nothing to do with it. If you all feel so badly about the other forms of extortion then maybe that is your appropriation to speak out about those. However all that is happening now is rather than doing your part you are busying yourself with interfering with someone else doing his part. Kunle cannot solve all the problems in Christianity. He can only do that which has been apportioned for him to do. Everybody had their part to play. It's like a football game. The defenders have to defend, the strikers have to score. The playmakers have to create opportunities. Only the manager should busy himself with the overall strategy. When the striker, instead of trying to score busies himself with seeking faults with the defenders and the playmakers chances are that the entire team will lose the game.

As it stands it sounds like a guy who gets pulled over by police for speeding and then he starts complaining that there are murderers and thieves out there and the police are wasting time arresting people for the relatively innocuous crime of speeding. That argument ain't gonna help him none.

Are you serious? Did Jesus really fail? How could he, being the God, not have answers to so simply a question? Or was he just being stubborn? Remember what should be done to stubborn children!

Have you had a miracle today?

I had a dream about Nairaland and its members last night. If more than 10 members want to know, then I shall reveal it here. Watch this space.

JPot:

Suicide is death without return. Jesus returned.
Sacrifice is an ambiguous term, but it means giving something up.
Christians are sinners. Saved sinners who will stop sinning when they get new bodies in heaven.

What questions have gone unanswered?

Interesting. Does God keep a tally of one's sins and good deeds. Does one get to go into heaven when once sin tally is zero? Thus the equation for heaven is;

Entry into Heaven => Sin = 0; Good deed > 0

OR, is it

Entry into Heaven => Sin = 0; Good deed > 0; Faith > 0

Can one get into heaven with Sin > 0 ?

wendyc:

Sacrifice has some have put here is denying yourself of something, it's in your control to either do it or not, BUT you chose to do it just because you have some concern, love for that person. Jesus Christ had the power to make all these go away, but he chose to do it, go through so that the WILL of GOD will take place. He said in the bible that if only this cup will pass over him, BUT GOD's will should be done.

It's nothing for him to have wiped off all the people who raised their hands on him, but it's all because of these same people, you and i that he came here to earth, left all his spendour and came to this sinful and corrupt world. a famouse song goes "how many kings will step down from their throwns, how many lords will abandon thier homes, how many great will become the least for me, only one did that for me". GOD did that for us all.
to say or ask if this was truely a sacrifice is really not a question, if it was not for him, i can assure you that you and i will not be here. He didn't have to, but he did.

He died and took the key from hell, so that we have the power to over all that this world throws at us, and live eternally. not just die and end up in eternal damnation.

What did he sacrifice then?

Is Adeboye's God really omnipotent? Turn to Open Heaven 2009, Friday 15th May;

God has a purpose for every dream He gives. There are basic, secondary and ultimate reasons for dreams. The basic reasons for dreams could be to tell you what is about to happen according to Genesis 37:5-10. Also, it could be to warn His people of danger ahead. This was the case with king Abimelech in Genesis20:1-18. In Daniel 4:4-27, God gave king Nebuchadnezzar a dream of what was going to happen in the future so that he could repent. [size=14pt]Unfortunately, God's purpose for giving certain dreams may be frustrated[/size]. Why? Because recipients hardly take them seriously. Or never believe at all in dreams. Some don't even seek for clarity of coded dreams. How have you been handling your dreams? Another basic reasons for dreams could be to communicate with those who cannot hear God audibly. It is not everybody who can hear and recognise God's voice. Not even all God's servants. God uses dreams to communicate with a number of His prophets whereas He spoke face to face with Moses (Num 12: 5-. If you are yet to recognise God's voice, carefully watch your dream life. [size=14pt]Also, if God has to wait until night to pass a message across to you, you still have a long way to go[/size]. Grow up and climb the spiritual ladder higher.

Secondary dreams are dreams God gives to other people which may be of benefit to you. Sometimes, it is not the dream you had but the one somebody else had, that God could use to encourage and strengthen you in the battle of life. In Judges 7:9-14, God gave Gideon an assignment which he thought was impossible to accomplish. Then the Lord sent him on a spy mission just to hear the dream of one of the enemies and its interpretation. That put fire in his bones and he rose to fight them. The dreams that will help you to be victorious over your fears, difficulties and doubts could well be given to your neighbours. This is one reason you should treat everyone with care, love and understanding or else they could hijack the dreams you need to move on. Ask God to grant you understanding of your dreams.

Has this God got any powers left? What kind of God can have his purposes FRUSTRATED? What kind of God has to WAIT until the night to pass on his message?

nana:

Whao! When did u start quoting the bible?

Is that some kind of honour or achievement?

Have you ever wondered how to curse your enemies so that it complies with the bible and also render it effective?  Well, wonder no more.  The bible provides copious examples that you could use to cast really strong, long-lasting and effective curses.  Here we go;



Psalm 69:

18Draw nigh unto my soul, and redeem it: deliver me because of mine enemies.

19Thou hast known my reproach, and my shame, and my dishonour: mine adversaries are all before thee.

20Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none.

21They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.

22Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.

23Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake.

24Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them.

25Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents.

26For they persecute him whom thou hast smitten; and they talk to the grief of those whom thou hast wounded.

27Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness.

28Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.

29But I am poor and sorrowful: let thy salvation, O God, set me up on high.



Psalm 137:

6If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.

7Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.

8O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

9Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.


Psalm 139:

20For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.

21Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?

22I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.

23Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:

24And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.


Psalm 140:

7O GOD the Lord, the strength of my salvation, thou hast covered my head in the day of battle.

8Grant not, O LORD, the desires of the wicked: further not his wicked device; lest they exalt themselves. Selah.

9As for the head of those that compass me about, let the mischief of their own lips cover them.

10Let burning coals fall upon them: let them be cast into the fire; into deep pits, that they rise not up again.

11Let not an evil speaker be established in the earth: evil shall hunt the violent man to overthrow him.

Image123:

Another not well thought out huxleypedia definition of things. I don't know why atheists don't think for themselves, especially when another atheist talks. They'll rather copy, paste and share the mostly deluded views of fellow atheists without batting an eyelid. It's sheer hypocrisy to practice what you condemn and ridicule others about.
To sacrifice is simply, to willingly stop having something or stop doing something you want or like in order to get something else. If a parent does away with expensive luxuries for a time to help the child's education, that's sacrifice. Luxuries will come later but the sacrifice made cannot be denied.
If someone takes time out of his usual schedule to help a friend in need, stay with a loved one, that's sacrifice. Its not compulsory to lose a limb before you sacrifice.
Jesus Christ left His glory, his position, his kingdom in heaven to come to earth, and to die for you and me. He came to pay the price for our sins. The price for sin is death. The soul that sins shall die. That death is seperation from God. For one who has being eternally in union with the Father God, to be seperate from God, so that man who knows little or nothing about union with God will be forever united with God, that's sacrifice. Every other thing on the cross of calvary was said. This was cried with a loud voice, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Never was there such agony felt. It's humanly indescribable. It was because of the sins of the whole world, your sins and my sins. He came to take our sins away.
He was made a little lower than the angels (de-de-demoted), that he by the grace of God should taste death for EVERY MAN. He sacrificed for you. He carried your sins so that you do not have to carry them again. All you need to do is allow him to carry them. Allow Him to pay in your stead. It takes accepting him as payment and believing in His Lordship.

This is sheer unadulterated inanity.

Another way to look at it is to ask the perpertrator of an act how they could or would justify their act.   For instance, how would the following have justified their acts:

1)  Pol Pot

2)  Amin

3)  John Calvin

4)  The Crusaders

5)  The parents who refuse medical care from their children

6)  Mother Teresa

7)  The inquisitionists


From here you could determine whether these people were motivated by religions, and also posssibly whether they were essentially good people.

Bastage:

No it is not.
The point I made is that the statement made by Weinberg is incorrect. It summarises that religion is the only motivation for a good person to do evil.
That assertion is totally incorrect - religion is not the only motivating factor.

If you want to be pedantic,  the comment said nothing of the sort.  This is it again:

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.

If you were correct, then it could have said instead.

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes  [ONLY]  religion.


But it said nothing of the sort.

Bastage:


Somehow I doubt that. It's easy to demonise the whole lives of people once they've fallen.
But logically, Pol Pot was not thought of as being an evil man before he committed those atrocities - he had many people who followed him freely because they thought he was morally correct.

What about an atheist who commits a war-crime in the heat of battle? He may be defending his country but committing an act that is evil. By that quote, his evil act isn't evil!!!

Huxley. I don't give a shit about the Crusaders or Popes, Jesus or Calvin, etc - they're irrelevant. I don't deny that evil has been committed in the name of Christianity. My point is that religion is not the root of all evil caused by good men as the quote suggests. My other point is that there are also good atheists who commit evil deeds as well.
To suggest otherwise is ignorant, false, malicious and totally and utterly illogical.

The point we are debating is whether it take religion to motivate an ordinarily good person to do evil. And I wholeheartedly agree with this unless you show me how this is wrong.

Take for instance, the case of Mother Teresa. I would classify her as an "ordinarily good" person but her commitment to her religion and beliefs motivates her to encourage the poor and sick of the slums of Calcutta to give up seeking treatment and means of deliverage from poverty and illness. I think that is an evil act being committed by a "good" person. Why did she do that? Her philosophy of life is beeen warped by her religion.

Take the Pope, imploring people to avoid using condomns. I think this is an ordinarily good person committing an evil act.

Take the case of the child refuse medical care for religious reasons. This is the case of a good parent committing an evil act because of her religion.

Take the case of the murderer of abortion doctors.



I am waiting for some counter-examples where good people have committed evil acts for non-religions reasons. I am not saying that there are no such cases, but I just cannot think of them right now. And that is a difficiency of mine, not yours.

mactao:

Why don't you post excerpts? Some of us don't have spectacular internet connections.

Sorry, I cannot. It is a 2hrs lecture and has to be watched to get the sense of the message. Anything else would do it injustice.


I have just finished watching it and my goodness, WHAT A GREAT LECTURE is it.


Please, Please, Please, if you can, watch it.

Bastage:

I'm not interested in going into philosophy. It's irrelevant.
The quote states that "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

"With or without religion implies that good people can be atheist or religious or that religion is not an issue. It then says that those people can do evil. But it then say that the only good people who commit evil acts do so because of religion."

That is utter, blatant bullshit. Basically, it's saying that the only good people who commit evil deeds are those who believe in religion.

We don't need to define good and evil. Pulling out philosophical concepts is a smoke-screen. The quote was written by an atheist and he uses the words "good" and "evil". We can therefore go off the generally accepted yardstick of atheism that an act of evil is an action that is viewed as immoral by the majority.

By implication, the quote is stating that the only decent people who commit immoral acts are the religious.
That is bullshit.

You have even admitted the Pol Pot could have been a good guy before he began committing atrocities. Do you not see the contradiction there?

I people of your ilk. I am inviting you to do a bit of deeper thinking and it is your failure to think that get you into such muddle.

Supposing Pol Pot was born good and remain good until he turned to politics, maybe thinking that in politics he was going to do the most good to his people. A noble ambition, I might add. Now, supposing having joined the political world he then realises that survive in politics he had to be ruthless and this causes him to abandon all the high goals and standard he had before.

This is a man slowly transmogrifying from a good into an evil man. At this point he would have lost all or most of his previous moral restraint. For some people it might happen very fast (over days, say) for other it is a slow inexorable progress towards evilness.

Yes, Pol Pot must have been an evil man a long while belong he physically killed or murdered the first man. Look at the definition of evil I gave;

Evil consist in intentionally behaving in ways that harm, abuse, demean, dehumanize or destroy innocent others - or using ones authority and systemic power to encourage or permit others to do so on your behalf

It is conceivable that Pol Pot was in the business of abusing, demeaning and dehumanizing people, possibly in words first rather than in action. The action came about from the minds of a man who was already knee-deep in evil.

Let me try another question. Which of these people would you consider evil?

1) Martin Luther

2) John Calvin

3) Mother Teresa

4) Moses

5) Joshua

6) The mother/father that deprive her/his children medical care

7) The Christian crusaders of Medieval Europe

8.) The Christian Inquisitionists of Medieval Europe

9) The Christian witch hunters of Medieval Europe

10) Jesus

Bastage:

*sigh* Then you agree that the quote "but for good people to do evil — that takes religion" is wrong.

It should read "but for some good people to do evil - that takes religion".

I agree with the qualification 100%. In fact, the orinal statements encapsulates a great deal of philosophical concepts that you could write 3 or 4 major tomes just on this subject. Just consider the following:

1) What is Good and What is Evil

2) How does one become good or evil or is one born good or evil and remains so immutably?

etc, etc. These are the sort of questions on which some philosophers build their career.

Let me show you a definition of evil I have recently come across:


Evil consist in intentionally behaving in ways that harm, abuse, demean, dehumanize or destroy innocent others - or using ones authority and systemic power to encourage or permit others to do so on your behalf

Source: The Lucifer Effect

Now, is it possible for one to slowly change from a good person to a bad/evil person over time?

Watch the Lecture here .

Bastage:

Was Pol Pot an evil man before he committed those atrocities?

You're twisting and turning, Huxley.
The fact is that all human beings (good or bad) are capable of committing evil/immoral acts and that a lot of them do.

Blaming it all on religion is lazy and crass.

Well, I know nothing of Pol Pot before he committed his evil acts but I am sure there was a time when he was a good man.  Nothing I have said should be taken to mean that the nature of people is immutable.  People can change from being good to bad and vice versa.

You seem to be missing a point here and you have got many avenues for argumentation but am really surprise why you are not able to take them up.

Bastage:

Pol Pot was an atheist, Huxley.

Yes. But what is the argument?

You said you have committed evil acts in the past and I asked if your evils acts were equivalent to the acts of Pol Pot. Supposing I replace Pol Pot with Emperor Constantine, or the Christian leaders of the crusade?

A-Noetic:

who does an atheist sin against? why should an atheist commit an evil act. . . . .to whom?, . .against whom?

An atheist does not sin against anyone. In the world of an atheist, there is no such thing as sins. However, crimes, offenses, violations, infringements etc are notions recognised in the atheist world.

If an atheist commits an evil act, such acts could be committed againts individuals persons, societies, communities (or against other sentients animals). But never against a supernatural being.

I would like to see some eggs too!

OLAADEGBU:

We can all learn from Moses, who submitted his ability and inability for God's service. Moses who wasn't eloquent, he was a stammerer allowed God's plan for him to be fulfilled. There was an incident in Syracuse, New York in June 2001, when doctors treated a man who had been shot multiple times as he sat in his car but survived. They said that the man, who had driven himself to the hospital, survived the shooting because he weighed 400 pounds, and that the bullets were unable to reach his vital organs before it stopped. We can learn a lesson from this story that what may seem a liability for one person can be an asset for others. It was Moses' inability to speak eloquently that made him to rely on God's ability, so he did what he did because of the ability of God. When it comes to being a spokesperson for God, your weakness can become your strength.

Who is talking about his personal difficiencies? I am talking about the barbaric laws he prescribes. That is what you have got to address. Would you model yourself on Moses?

Bastage:

I've commited acts that would be considered immoral - yes.

I've started fist-fights and I would steal money from my parents to buy sweets when I was younger.

Those acts certainly were not because of religion.

Are you telling me you've never done anything like that?

You seem to have lost all sense of proportionality. Do you think your parents consider you as evil or to have committed evil acts? If you child did similar, would you think him evil?


By the way, how does you "evil" act compare with the evil acts of Pol Pot?

Bastage:

Should we call you "Saint Huxley"?

I would consider an evil act to be something that the majority consider to be immoral.

Call me a saint if you like. Are you also a saint or have you committed some evil acts in your life? If so, we would like to know about these, please.

OLAADEGBU:

The onus is on you who made the claim to disprove or prove your allegations.

It is up to everyone to give the evidence of his or her gods or the uncreated Creator who created all things.  I do not believe in atheists who claim to have created God in their own image.  If you claim to be an atheist let me give you this test for you to see how ridiculous your presupposition is.

Imagine a circle represents all knowledge in the universe.  Someone who had all knowledge would know every hair on every head, every thought of every mind, every grain of sand, every event in human history, etc.  Let's surmise that you know an incredible 1% of all knowledge.  Is it possible that, in 99% of the knowledge you haven't yet come across, there is ample evidence of the existence of the uncreated infinite and eternal God?

I agree with you absolutely. We cannot know what lies in the 99% we do not know about. We can only know about the 1%. Where does you God reside, in the 1% of the 99%?

If he resides in the 1%, then we have sufficient knowledge to draw a conclusion one way or the other.

If he is in the 99%, then for all practical purposes he is non-existent to our epistemic reality. If he lives in the 99%, then by definition, we should have no way of knowing about him, nor him knowing about us. If there is any form of interaction between him and us, then he cannot be in the 99%, but in the 1%.

What do you understand by the word sacrifice?   Simply put, a sacrifice is the giving away of something for a grander cause.  For instance, you could sacrifice a cancerous limb to save your life. Or to use some bible examples, you may sacrifice a goat for the grander cause of redemption from sin.


In every case, you do NOT get back what you sacrifice.  It goes, it is gone and it stays gone.  If it was to come back, then you cannot have sacrifice it.  Anything that has been sacrifice is lost forever from the owner.

On this definition, did Jesus really sacrifice his life for humankind?   Whatever he did cannot be said to be a sacrifice of his life, for he never really lost his life.  If he had really sacrificed his life for the grander cause of human redemption, he should still be dead today.  So in what sense can we say that Jesus sacrifice his life for humankind when he never really lost his life?

What do you guys think?

Bastage:

Good people commit evil acts every day, Huxley. Religious and non-religious alike.

Really?   OK,  what constitute an EVIL act to you.  Can we have your working definition of what evil is?  I attempted a definition of what good is above, can you try the definition of evil?

Which of the following acts would constitute evil by your definition?

1)  Stealing a sweet worth 10 pence  from a shop

2)  Tellings some lies about ones finances

3)  Commiting ethnic cleansing in which hundred and thousands are dispossessed or/and killed such as Hitler, PolPot, Amin, Stalin

4)   Deliberately poisoning a well from which a community draw water.

5)   Raping someone

6)   Wanton murder

7)   Depriving a child of medical care

8.)   Dropping litter on the street

9)   Exceeding the speed limit on the road

10)  Deliberate and calculated defrauding a community/country of its resources; corruption, embezzlement, etc, etc.

Bastage:

So you're a good person? But then I'll bet anything you like that you have committed at least one evil act in your life.
According to that quote, as you're a good man, that evil act must have been the result of religion.
You are your own counter-example.

Good people commit evil acts every day, Huxley. Religious and non-religious alike.

NOPE. I have never committed an EVIL act in my life.

Great video. Just Watch

uchkochi:

Banom, listen to me you are cursed in the name of the Lord already. There are some people you dont insult. i mean NOT PASTOR ADEBOYE.THE man is blessed by meeting peoples spiritual needs and He has paid his dues and thank God for the grace of God on His life.

please if you are so envious go and pay the price for greatness. And start looking for help because prophetic curses are real.Elisha cursed 42 children AND THEY WERE EATEN BY BEARS because they were mocking Him.YOU ARE CURSED ALREADY.NOT EVEN CHILDREN ARE SPARED.REPENT AND ASK FOR MERCY FAST SO THAT YOU LIGHT WILL NOT GO DOWN

Almost every christian I know and have debated see the eating of 42 children by two she-bears approvingly. You see how belief in such immoral doctrines as the bible could completely warp once's moral compass. This is extraordinary

Now that you have cursed him do we expect a bear to chase him down and eat him?

Bastage:

Are you a good person, Huxley? Do most of the people who know you think you're one of the good guys? Or do they think that you are scumbag?

Oh, yes, I am a very good person.

Bastage:

You seem not to understand English. The passage attributes all evils made by good people to religion. That is quite simply bullshit.

Supposing, for arguments sake I say that when ALL good people commit evil, they do it in the name of religion. Can you show any counter-example?


I gave you some examples of "good" people who have committed evil in the name of their religion and you have not responded to that.

[size=18pt]
I await your counter-example with bated breath.

[/size]

Uche2nna:

LMAO

How does ur hatred for religion affect the price of fish?

Supposing you did pay 10% of your salary as tithes to your pastor and you spend another 5% on accessories like bible, tracks, offerings, transport to/from church. Does that not leave you with less month to spend on fish. If you have less money to spend on fish (while the pastors spend their ill-gotten gains of luxurious goods) do you think that might affect the price of fish?

skyone:

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.

–Steven Weinberg

I've discovered that Steven WEINBERG is a more or less a chronic atheist from his articles i've read and therefore i'm not surprised at this awful connotation as well. But as per you i have also discovered that you have a strong biased mind against christianity and you show it to public by posting several meaningless and unreasonable thread on this forum; the reason why you are up this i dont know. if you have personal hatred or bad ideaology against the christian society why not keep it to yourself and live with it.

The reason why i'm referring you to mental home is because it has now gotten to the stage that it is uncontrollable, so i just have to suggest something that can give solution to your problem.

Yes, if the statements or arguments are wrong, please counter them with you own arguments. That is how intellectual or cultural disputes are resolved. If you have arguments, bring them forward. If you have no arguments and have simply been drinking off the cesspit of the bible, with your stinking smelly arse emitting it stench, then go away. You have no place in civilised society, you deserve to be back in the bronze age where this doctrine emanates.


Activist atheist and anturalist are interested in religion in the same way that a surgeon is interested in a cancerous growth. That is why I spend time here. Some people are incurably deluded and such people are the ones that threaten civilisation and retard progress. The enlightened have a duty to help the not-so-enlightened see the light of day. That is why I am here.