Bastage:

Ever heard of a word called "humility"?

You may have a better argument, you may feel morally correct, but superior?
Only complete assholes ever think they're superior. Go take a look at the Christian right. They think they're superior too.

Well done. You exemplified all of my reasoning without any prompting from me.

Yes again.  This charge is what we hear all the time and I bear it without humility especially towards someone like you who is clearly capable of better but are willfully enslaved to some barbaric desert dogma.

Let me explain.  Say I were to meet a tribe of people who habitually beat their fellow men or practice cannibalism as part of their normal and standard culture.  Would I feel superior towards them?  Yes, I would and I will be humble as well and I would obviously find a way to convince them away from such acts.

However, if I were to learn that you practise such acts ( I presume that you have been exposed to the light of the "modern world", but I may be wrong, given the sorts of beliefs you countenance),  I would feel superior towards you without a jot of humility.  It would be like feeling humility towards a burglar who has just burglarise your home,  or a rapist who has just raped your wife or sister or daughter.  Or it would be like feeling humility towards the Taliban/Alquada.   Christianity is responsible for this twisted notion of apportioniing of humility and you are clearly a victim of it here.  What a shame!!!!

Bastage:


I use language to match the mentality of the person I'm replying to.

"Oh, you naughty boy, Bastage. Using bad language means you are unintelligent".

No. Using bad language means that the dipshit who cannot understand my original post can normally understand my second.

I'm not interested in this thread any more Huxley. Any answer I give will be treated with derision and scorn by your superiority complex. Even if I back it up with evidence as above.

The sad thing is, you could have been a beacon for atheism. You showed some knowledge. Instead you let your hatred cloud that knowledge. Now you're just a fundamentalist and the ironic thing is that you do more damage to your cause than good, without you even knowing it.
Fundamentalists who thrive on blind hatred just tend to drive their enemies deeper into the oppositions arms.

Yes, I have every justification to feel superior when faced with this sort of rationalisation of acts or behaviour that is universally regarded as reprehensible. And why would I not be?

Bastage:

You really are a complete prick sometimes.

Saying it's a parable is not an "excuse".

It is a fucking parable. It even says it's a fucking parable.

I've had enough of this one already.

If you were a thinking man, you would not display this outburst of profanities.


Did I say it is not a parable? I assert that I did not. I said that the fact that it is a parable is used as an excuse for loose-handling of the content of the parable. It really bears to make this simpler for those like you:

Suppose someone (say President Obama) were to make a parable about the beating of captives and to paint the parable as though there was some high moral lesson in the parable, without condemning the act of beating. How well do you think that would be received?

Bastage:

No.

It is a parable.

Take it in full context and that becomes clear.

He is also not advocating beating servants. He is saying that it is already a common practice in this instance and is using it as an analogy.

Yes, we have heard this "it is a parable" excuse many times before. Why would Jesus illustrate his point with a parable using such a vile act as beating another human, without condemning the act. In fact, this was an opportunity for him to condemn the habitual beating of servants/slaves by their masters, but he did not address the issue. Yes, it was common practice at the time, but does that make it morally right?

DO you pray in your church, in full view of everyone? Do you pray in the street? Do you pray in view of the whole world, as on TV? Are you in the habit of repeating monotonously some praying mantra?

If you answered YES to all or any of the above, then you are a hypocrite and have been condemned by Jesus, who said such people already have their "reward" (I wonder what that is). Turn to Matthew 6:

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.



Now you know. Stop being a hypocrite and stop praying in public. Get into you closet and pray secretly to your Lord. Maybe this time he will answer your prayers.

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


Reposted from http://whyevolutionistrue./


No conflict between science and religion, you say? Have a look at this article from the Minneapolist StarTribune. Thirteen-year old Daniel Hauser, whose parents are Catholics but adhere to the healing practices of “the Nemenhah religious group” (this appears to be a Native American religion that believes in spiritual and herbal healing) decided that he didn’t want treatment for his Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Instead, he wants herbal treatments, and his parents are supporting him. With chemotherapy, the cure rate is very high; doctors say that without it his survival probability is 5%.

The Hausers are in court:

Colleen and Anthony Hauser are in a legal battle with Brown County, where authorities are accusing the parents of child neglect and endangerment. After Daniel stopped chemotherapy after a single treatment, opting instead for “alternative medicines,” child protection workers went to court requesting custody.

Doctors had recommended six chemo treatments, followed by radiation. Dr. Bruce Bostrom, a pediatric oncologist at Childrens Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota and Daniel’s treating physician, on Friday estimated the risk of death from forgoing treatment at about 95 percent. And he testified that Daniel’s tumor had grown since he underwent one chemotherapy treatment in February.

“What is the ultimate outcome of that process?” Tom Sinas, an attorney for the guardian ad litem, asked of the tumor’s growth.

“Death,” Bostrom replied.

The StarTribune report goes on:

The Hausers declined to speak to reporters after Friday’s court session. But Dan Zwakman, a member of the Nemenhah religious group to which they belong, acted as the family spokesman. He argued that this is a case about religious freedom, noting that the group’s motto is “our religion is our medicine.”

. . . Earlier in the day, Dr. Bruce Bostrom of Children’s Hospitals and Clinics, who first diagnosed the cancer when the boy arrived at a Minneapolis emergency room in January, said Daniel has a 95 percent chance of survival if he receives chemotherapy.

Bostrom also said he believes Daniel does not fully understand his condition.

“I think that he understands that he was sick,” Bostrom testified. “He doesn’t understand that the Hodgkin’s is what’s making him sick, and he was led to believe that the chemotherapy was making him sick, when the exact opposite was true.”

“Religious freedom” is not the freedom to kill a child through withholding science-based medicine. A 13-year-old child, perhaps brainwashed by his parents, simply cannot make this decision for himself. This is a life-or-death conflict between science, which can save the child, and religion, which is killing him. No conflict here? What would Francis Collins say?

Is there any occasion in the bible where Jesus explicitly condemned slavery and slave owners for their treatment of slaves? Did he have amply opportunity to condemn it if he so wished?

Watch his for some interesting ideas.

Would you treat your servant like Jesus commanded in Luke 12:

46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.



Is this not Jesus advocating cruelty to fellow human beings?

What would it cost God (Jesus) to forgive everyone on earth (past, present and future) and thus accept everyone into heaven? Would it cost him his pride, his prestige, his honour, or what? If God is omniscient and omnipotent then repentance on our part is unnecessary for he already knows in advance when we are going to sin and when we are going to repent, if we repent.

If we don't repent, what is the cost to him if he forgives us anyway?

tudor:

Pls huxley throw away that stupid book.in one chapter (i cnt remember) dat clown said xtians shuldn't engage in oral or anal sex not evn with their wives.he wants them to whip out their dicks and keep pounding away.no wonder his wife looks like a sex starved cougar,she's probably digging one of the urshers there

Yes, I know. I posted a thread to that effect a while ago. This is it: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-237849.0.html.

Very interesting Lecture about our past and our future here

[size=18pt]Johann Hari: Dear God, stop brainwashing children

Worship is forced on 99 per cent of children without even asking what they think

[/size]

Reposted from here


Let us now put our hands together and pray. O God, we gather here today to ask you to free our schoolchildren from being forced to go through this charade every day. As you know, O Lord, because You see all, British law requires every schoolchild to participate in "an act of collective worship" every 24 hours. Irrespective of what the child thinks or believes, they are shepherded into a hall, silenced, and forced to pray – or pretend to.

If they refuse to bow their heads to You, they are punished. This happened to me, because I protested that there is no evidence whatsoever that You exist, and plenty of proof that shows the texts describing You are filled with falsehoods. When I pointed this out, I was told to stop being "blasphemous" and threatened with detention. "Shut up and pray," a teacher told me on one occasion. Are you proud, O Lord?

Forcing children to take part in religious worship every day is a law worthy of a theocracy, not a liberal democracy where 70 per cent of adults never attend a religious ceremony. That's why the Association of Teachers and Lecturers – one of the teachers' unions – has recently moved to ask the Government to stop forcing its members to take part in this practice.



Why does this anachronism persist in this blessedly irreligious country? For all their whining that they are "persecuted", the religious minority in Britain are in fact accorded remarkable privileges. They are given a bench-full of unelected positions in the legislature, protection from criticism in the law, and vast amounts of public money to indoctrinate children into their belief systems in every school in the land.

I can understand why the unelected, faltering religious institutions cling to this law so tightly. When it comes to "faith", if you don't get people young, you probably won't ever get them. Very few people are, as adults, persuaded of the idea that (say) a Messiah was born to a virgin and managed to bend the laws of physics, or that we should revere a man who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year-old girl. You can usually only persuade people of this when they are very young – a time when their critical and rational faculties have not yet been developed – and hope it becomes a rock in their psychological make-up they dare not pull out.

But why do the rest of us allow this fervent 5 per cent of the population to force the rest of our kids to follow their superstitions? Parents can withdraw their children if they choose – but that often means separating the child in an embarrassing way from her friends and exposing them to criticisms from the school, so only 1 per cent do it. Most don't even know it is an option.

More importantly still, why is worship forced on 99 per cent of children without their own consent or even asking what they think? As the author Richard Dawkins has pointed out many times, there are no "Christian children" or "Muslim children". I was classed as "Christian" because my mother is vaguely culturally Christian, although at every opportunity I protested that I didn't believe any of it. Children are not born with these beliefs, as they are born with a particular pigmentation or height or eye colour. Indeed, if you watch children being taught about religion, you will see most of them instinctively laugh and ask perfectly sensible sceptical questions that are swatted away – or punished – by religious instructors.

I am genuinely surprised that no moderate religious people have, to my knowledge, joined the campaign to stop this compelled prayer. What pleasure or pride can you possibly feel in knowing that children are compelled to worship your God? Why are you silent?

The prayer-enforcers offer a few arguments in their defence. At first, they claim it instils "moral values" in children. The scientist Gregory S Paul produced a detailed study in 2005 to find out if rates of murder and rape went up as levels of religion went down. He found the exact opposite. On detailed international comparisons, the more religious a country is, the more likely you are to be stabbed or raped there. There isn't necessarily a causal relationship – but it blasts a bloody hole in this claim.

Of course, if you actually followed the morality explicitly commanded by the Bible, Torah and Koran, you would kill adulterers, gay people, apostates, and disobedient children and be sent to prison. Thankfully, the vast majority of religious believers long since decided to disregard much of "God's word", because it is manifestly appalling, and read it metaphorically. But you have to strip away an awful lot of the texts as metaphor before you get to a few bland lessons about being nice to each other. Can't we get the lessons about niceness from somewhere else, without the bogus metaphysics and endless injunctions to kill our friends?

Once the morality defence dissolves, the religious switch tack, and claim that children indoctrinated into religion perform better academically. As "proof", they point to the fact that faith schools perform somewhat better on league tables. It's true – but look a little deeper.

There have been two detailed studies of this, by the conservative think tank Civitas, and the Welsh Assembly. They found faith schools get better results for one simple reason: they use selection to cream off highly motivated children of the wealthy and weed out difficult, poor or unmotivated students who would require more work. Once you take into account their "better" intakes, faith schools actually underperform academically by 5 per cent (and that's before you factor in all the other problems they cause).

I am absolutely not saying that schools should teach children to be atheists. No. Schools should take no position on religion. They should be neutral, and equip children with the thinking skills – asking for evidence, and knowing how to analyse it rationally – that will enable them to make up their own minds, when they wish, beyond the school gates. How can a religious person object to that, without admitting that open-minded, evidence-seeking adults would see through their claims in a second?

And so, O Lord, I ask you – and the British Government – to set our children free, at last, from being forced to worship You. Amen – and hallelujah.

j.hari@independent.co.uk

Ladies, how often do are you unclean in a year? When you are unclean or feel unclean, do you avoid contact with your family and friends. Do you separate yourself from normal society in order to not infect them with your uncleanliness. Do you make a sacrifice of turtle or pigeon to your pastors as an cleansing rite? Well if you don't, then you are falling foul of these injunctions from God's bible:


Leviticus 15:19-30
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

Leviticus 20:18
And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her unclothedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

Ezekiel 18:5-6
But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not , come near to a menstruous woman,

Image123:

The likes of Huxley cannot get/understand spiritual stuff.It'll continue to contradict and baffle them except they were born again.That which is born of the flesh is flesh.Marvel not that I say unto you Huxley,you MUST be born again.thats when you'll truly understand. Considering Proverbs8 where we looked at earlier today in the thread,'Today's Rhema',verse 9 is clear.Words of wisdom are plain to him that understands and right to them that find knowledge.That knowledge you can only find in Christ in whom is the fullness of God. The words of Jesus already explain to us that the Word of God can be choked by thorns and weed in some people's life,but when you take out the thorns and weed and little foxes,the Word and will of God can be fruitful in your life.these things are not new to children of God,and I believe that was what that devotional must have being saying.satan's plans are different from God's plan for each life.may God's will be done in your life

pure and simply rubbish. Address the post, my dear and stop preaching.

Bastage:

Don't talk crap.

Murder is not the same as a lie in any book.

I've also pointed out that it refers to habitual lying.

Which part of that do you not understand?

As far as I know, Christianity has no concept of the hierarchy of sins. At least, that concept cannot be justified biblically. It is a concept civil and secular authorities understand and uphold but NOT christianity.

Can you show me where in Christian doctrine murder is consider a more egregious sin than lying?

because most Nigerians are delusional.

banom:

@ Huxley,
1, can i RAPE three virgins with 150 shekels of silver ?
2, Will my prospective father inlaw give me discount? ( sinse i am raping three).

Of course you can, but a better bet would be to rape all three virgins from the same family. That way you could gain some economies of scale and become eligible from a discount from the family for taking all three virgins off their hands. I would not offer more that about 105 shekels.

banom:

3, What if after raping , i found out that the girls are not virgins ? will my prospective father in law compensate me for disappointment ?

Oh yes. If I were you I would press charges under the deceptive sale of goods act.

Okemoni:

yes it negates Gods will because Gods will is that you marry lady X, but the devil is trying to tell you that its lady z.  the fact that it negates Gods will does not mean it stops Gods will from coming to pass, no Power, human or anyone can stop Gods will from coming to pass. as you can see in the story in the open heavens, the chap finally realised he been tricked by the devil, and returned to try to carry out Gods will.

So there is a contradiction in what the Pastor said. The Pastor says "It will ALWAYS NEGATE" God's Will. So in this case, even though the man in the narrative had this satanic dream, it actually DID NOT negate God's Will, did it. Hence, a contradiction.

Either satanic dreams are capable of ALWAYS NEGATING God's Will, in which case God is not omnipotent and in changeable

OR

It is NOT capable of negating God's will, in which case the Pastor is wrong and deluded.



Take your pick

tubabie:

Huxley the rate at which u show so much interest and study the bible and its study books baffle me
if i was the self -acclaimed atheist u say u are i will simply do my thing and leave the silly xtians to their foolishness


@ Topic
Ur view was twisted, pls go back to read it again! Stop posting gibberish!

Thanks. I am prepared to learn and be corrected. Can you demonstrate how my views are twisted and how I misinterpreted the said words?

Okemoni:

when he said it will negate Gods word, he meant that if you have a dream that is of the devil, it will negate the word of God, that is it will contradict the word of GOd. so as a christian you have to be careful so you dnt fall into the trap of the enemy. hope you get it nw?

What does this really mean? Imagine it was God's Will that you marry lady X. And supposing you had a satanic dream about you marrying lady Z. According to Adeboye, this satanic dream WILL ALWAYS NEGATE GOD'S WILL that you marry lady Y. Or, did I get it wrong? If so, can you show me how I am wrong?

Bastage,

Your perspective on this matter suggests there must be some hierarchy of sins, with things like lying being at the bottom and murder right at the top.  The fact that people tell all sorts of lies daily does not mean that it is not condemn by the bible.  It is catagorically condemned by the bible in no  less than 20 places.  In fact, there is more condemnation of lying than other sins like adultery, murder, etc.

Can I refer you to this story for an example of what I mean: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7967982.stm

Bastage:

Sometimes you seem purposefully pedantic, Huxley.

Use your common sense.

If you're in a conversation with Charles, David walks by and Charles turns to you and says "That guy's a liar", he's referring to his character.
People don't generally call other people "liars" unless they are personally involved in the lie or if the guy they're accusing is a habitual liar.

I doubt there is a single person on this planet who has never told a lie. Is every single person a liar in the sense of the word as it is usually used? Of course not.
Take the word in the context it is meant and stop acting like an idiot.

OK, let us say you are generally a very honest individual who unfortunately finds yourself in a tough legal corner and can only squirm out of it by lying. And supposing your lie is later discovered. Do you think you could be charge with perjury?

Pastor Adeboye has given us a new definition of the attributes of God and this comes as a huge surprise to my erstwhilst conceptualisation of God.  In the Pastor's view, God's Will and Word are changeable and capable of being negated by Satan.  This is an extraordinary claim.  I thought God was unchangeble, worst still how could God's Will, Words and Plans be subject to change by Satan, of all people?

Turn to Open Heaven 2009,  Friday, 8th May.  This is what the Pastor says;

[size=18pt]Remember, satanic dreams will always negate God's Will and Word.[/size]

Are God's Will subject to revision and negation by satan?

In todays Open Heaven devotional, Adeboye say that satanic dreams negate God's Will and Word. I thought God was omnipotent and that his Will was unchangeable.

Bastage:

The word in Latin is "mendacibus".

This refers to a habitual liar.

Not what you would be in the example given.

The Greek word is "yeustai". This translates as "false swearers".

Let's look at another verse, namely Revelation 21: 8,

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

What makes one a murderer or a whoremonger or a sorcerer or an idolater or a liar? Is it habitually engaging in this activities? Or can one act of engaging in one of these acts make you guilty of the act?

So kil you deliberately kill one person, you are not a murderer until you engage in the habitual killing of people?

Before I address the issue of the post from the atheist website, allow me to show you what the NT says about liars. Turn to 1 Timothy 1: 8-10;

8But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Does Christian theology not have an injunction against deliberate telling of falsehoods (ie being dishonest)? Is it conceivable that dishonesty would not have been frown upon in OT times as well as NT times?

There is a school of belief within Christiandom that holds the view that Jesus dispensed with ALL the commandments of the old testament (OT) and replaced it with one single principal law, namely, the injunction to love your neighbour as yourself. Let us, arguendo, concent with this view, if only to put this principle through its paces.

Supposing you live in a country where there is habitual civil unrest, say Nigeria. And that you are a Christian living in a region in Nigeria of mixed Christian and Muslim population. And that you have good relations with your muslim neighbours and are friendly with them. During one of these episode of civil unrest, a "christian" mob are look for muslims to lynch and kill. Your muslim neighbours are hiding in a place known only to you.

The "Christian" mob approach you asking for the whereabouts of your neighbours. What would you do?

1) Because you love you neighbours, are you going to tell a lie to the mob, thus saving their lives?

2) Tell the truth and reveal their hiding place, thus guaranteeing the certain death of you neighbours?

Image123:

I hope you have one tonight.then your questions will be half answered,and then when you come to share,the remaining will be answered.

Why did you not attempt the question? Looks like you are one of those totally brainwashed and addled-minded Christians.

Incidentally, I enjoy a beautiful dream last night. I dream I met up with an ex-girlfriend from many years ago for whom I still have a little flame.

yeswecan:

I did not criminalize prostitution if thats what you meant. I gave a normal view, i think it is wrong both in the sight of man.

Your look ridiculous trying to support prostitution as a decent profession, well, I am sure you will also find it cool if your mum or your sister is into the profession. I am not taking it personal am trying to bring out something because; most diasporic Nigerians have this irritating habit of trying to be someone else. I won’t be surprise if you also think Gay is just fine.

Bawomolo you are a Nigerian, please stop acting like an uncivilized American

The vacuity in this post is simply staggering. To say something is wrong, you must be prepared to show why it is wrong.  But you seem to be incapable to demonstrating why it is wrong. 

Looks like you are one of those whose heads is bury deep in the cesspit that is religion.  Your inabilty to justify your position is testament to your brainwashedness, thus leaving you incapable of any consistent cognitive position.