viaro:

Has anyone claimed that the modern world would "work" SOLELY on any singular basis?

Which one singular basis could you propose as the SOLE basis for the outworkings of the modern world?

Tonye-t:

@Poster,

Huxley my friend,

What you dont know is that God's word is static in itself yet dynamic in its application.

The bible itself poses two solutions to every single life's instance. but one endures eternally.

Great philisophers have at one time or the other come with the mind blowing ideas but in the end they fizzle out, but God's word remains the same and when applied provides solution to every life's questions.

Yea, masturbations and their likes may give solutions but guess what they are but temporary because they all look like "PERFECT THINGS" but from an "IMPERFECT BEING" which you know what will be the outcome

God's word has been proven and found true even by all (that included atheists, philisophers, humanist, animalist, and so on)

" there is a way that seems right to man [outside God's way] but in the end therein is destruction" - Proverbs.16:25, 14:12

Tudór:

. . .what is wrong with you?

Tudór:

Typical of a brainwashed dogmatic christian. . .too bloody scared to consider issues that potends as serious examination to the basics of his faith.

How have you answered the question? The issue is how would you/the world cope if we abide strictly by biblical injunctions on issues such as fertility treatment, blood/organ donations and the likes, all you could do is rant ridiculously about "the word of god has been proven true by science, bla bla". . .what is wrong with you?

even if i walk up and spoon feed you, it will still mean an exercise in futility, the answer has already been given but those scale from ya eyes wont let you see the truth. or maybe you expecting me to tell MR.NAPKIN ATHEIST that i already said masturbation and the likes could come up as great innovations but the root is what will determine its ending. ok sorry i wont write in parables again, lest they get confused who claim they know too much  

Tudór:

I see you just registered today so don't know much about your views but its general knowlege christianity holds the bible as the "solution" to EVERY problem. . . Noetic has said that severally.

Tonye-t:

Vairo you are right, but i wont stress again,else he cries foul of posing double id as its his testimony. and claims i am you and you are me . . .mr intelligent atheist indeed!

viaro:

I felt like asking that same question directly at you: what really is wrong with people like you?

You tried to slice the previous poster carelessly while at the very same time not having addressed the basic issue or question. There are issues, and numerous questions. Some have given their own opnions without thinking anyone to be either 'brainwashed' or 'dogmatic'.

For my own part, I wonder if anyone has posited that any SINGULAR basis is adequate for the outworkings of the modern world (not to mention that nobody has addressed what modernity actually is!). Such issues as 'fertility treatment, blood/organ donations and the likes' do not address the basic question of whether they are adequate as the SOLE basis for the outworking of the modern world. On the other hand, there are qualities in modernity that such fertility, blah blah do not even address at all, and one can choose their poison on such abstraction.

Even going further, how does mastubation provide the basis of the outworkings of the modern world? Or even disputes between nations over natural resources, or deal with aggressive individuals or nations? Which one SOLE basis could you postulate for the outworkings of the modern world? And how far reaching has that SOLE basis worked out modernity?

I remember in another thread by pastorAIO that forced me to register - the personal insults are rife on Nairaland. How have you tried to work out modernity by your overheated reactions? When could we find people keeping a good head when discussing issues?

Tudór:

Firstly, this question was directed at christians since they would have better knowlege and understanding of biblical laws and injunctions from their so-called "God". . . . The guy (a known christian) answered no question rather vaguely stating the way of the lord is bla bla

I'm tempted but I'll refrain and allow the OP (huxley) address your concerns as to the topic.

But i'll have you know christians severally on this forum have prescribed the bible as applicable in all spheres of life and relevant in this modern world. . Infact they've flat out declared it  the solution to EVERY problem.

So yes, there's a backdrop to this thread,  if out of ignorance you're " wondering if anyone has posited that any SINGULAR basis is adequate for the outworkings of the modern world", the fault is yours and not ours,

If you're truly all "self-righteous" like you're desperately trying to seem you'd know derailing a thread is against the rules.

viaro:

I don't think you're correct to say that he (ie, Tonye-t) answered no questions. He offered some answers, even though you may not have been satisfied with them. That said, your reaction was unjustified, for his answers (or answers from anyone else) were not sufficient for you to directly slice him personally as 'brainwashed', 'dogmatic' or 'ridiculous'. Someone else may also sling mud and call you worse than those for the same reasons as that you DID NOT answer any questions yourself!

I'll be patient - and grateful when he does.

I recognize that from the replies of others - and I already explained that in context I may agree. If the key words are "applicable" and "relevant", the answer is a resounding yes - and I gave some examples for you to see my context. Where I'm not so sure I opined that my answer (note, 'my answer', not everyone's answer) may be a No - and I also gave some examples in context. It all depends on what you view to be EVERY problem associated with 'modernity'. And yet, how is it that atheists would direct questions at others and not provide answers for their own musings?[b] What use is it to you personally that the question should be directed at Christians while at the same time not saying anything of substance to the concerns that those Christians bear out? [/b]I'm just wondering.

I already acknowledged my ignorance thereto, which is no bad thing. Asking questions for clarification does not lead to one's grave - it helps put things in context and promote a good discourse. How does that trouble you?

First, I'm not self-righteous. Second, that is a very unintelligent remark. Third, whose rules have I gone against in asking questions for clarification and then acknowledging that I did not know who and who were making some statements? Your desperation is truly miserable, for false assumptions and misreading people say nothing to your credit.

Now, when you're done mislabelling people with your vacuous reactions, can we see some sensible posts from you? If not, my respects.

Tudór:

Firstly I repeat, he answered NO questions! To you he's given the best answers and why not, you're christian for petes sake. But to the rest of us absolute hogwash it is.

Secondly what is wrong with my view if I consider christians to be "dogmatic" or "brainwashed"? Aint it my personal opinion of which am legally allowed to express?

Your bible (core of your faith) calls atheists FOOLS, so did jesus to the pharisees, yet we don't see you harping on about how immoral the bible is.

Your religion considers me a fool what stops me from equally regarding christians as deluded based on what I think or do I have to write it in some book and back date it 2000 years in order to make it permissible?. . . . This people and their hypocrisy sef!

Yea, you do that.

By all means state your concerns or has huxley expressly denied you that right?

Good for you!

You are indeed self-righteous.

Err, asking disconcerting questions like "how have you tried to help out modernity by your overheated reaction" is purely against the rules of derailment.

If you're hell bent on maintaining this self-righteous charade I suggest you get aquainted with the rules.

viaro:

I'm not here to trade gutters with you - if that were the case, you're simply a smallfry.

My observations have nothing to do with whether or not I'm a Christian - pete's sake or not, what you ought to have focused on is discussing issues, not hyperventilating. The answers he gave were not quoted by me as the "best answers"; rather, I only opined that his answers may not have satisfied you. Consequently, I noted that the same things could be said about you or worse since you either chose to zip up and say nothing or else discovered in hindsight that you were just too challenged to score your zeros.I didn't say anything was wrong with your personal opinion - and that was why I helped you to see that it was rather uninitelligent since someone could use the same rule of thumb and slice you seven ways as they choose.

My dear, it is not only the Bible that notes atheists as fools; in the course of my visiting Nairaland I remember another self-acclaimed atheist (buda atum) has taken a well-deserved swipe on folks like you. However, this thread is not about who's a fool or not - it was rather about what was the SOLE basis of the outworkings of the modern world. Did you miss that? That would be sad indeed.

However, it is not only atheists that are directly addressed as fools in the Bible - others have been described with similar qualifiers. For example,

** slanderers and liars are also fools - Proverbs 10:18

** mischievous fellows are also fools - Proverbs 10:23

** those who despise their fathers are also fools - Proverbs 15:5

** those who have no inclination to understanding are also fools - Proverbs 18:2

** contentious people are also fools - Proverbs 18:6
      (you would have to wonder that people who are too quickly contentious
      begin to wonder why their arguments are foolish)

** he that is perverse in his lips is also a fool - Proverbs 19:1

** those who must meddle and never cease from strife are fools - Proverbs 20:3

** He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool - Proverbs 28:26

The cap on all these is that fools are not painted by the religion they claim but by their outlooks and attitudes in relating with other people. Yes, whether one "claims" to be an atheist or a theist makes no difference if they qualify their lifestyles by any of the qualifiers above - and more that have not been mentioned.

Everytime people quip that 'your book calls atheists fools', I wait until they qualify themselves by all the other qualifiers to prove the point - because a fool is not simply a non-religious person but includes religious folks who cannot be reasonable in their attitudes. This is why I noted that my premise here on Nairaland is not to trade gutters with you or anyone else; and if the cap fits, you're welcome to be my entertaining guest.

My religion does not consider you a fool. . unless you actually try to convince me so, regardless my religion or anyone else's. That atheism should justify why you see Christians as deluded says a lot about how rational a person you have tried to demonstrate. But there again, not all atheists act the way you do.

Did I opine that huxley denied me anything? Or have you missed where I have carefully stated my concerns? Are you actually reasoning things through?

And what credit has that done for you?

Thank you. Go find yours.

And who has stated that "rule" - or was that a knee jerk you quickly fantacised in hindsight?
What rules? You're simply boring.

Tudór:

Err and what gives you the divine right to opine as to whether am satisfied or not? I clearly stated to me he gave no answers but then you clearly feel you can force your opinions down my throat and make decisions for everyone. . .shows the kind of personality you are. What next?. . . .opine that I accept jesus?

Anyone who sees fit to tear into me for not providing answers is wholelly free to do so. You don't see me complaining do you?. . . .whats it to you anyway?

Emm, sorry, the thread has gone past the "what" basis it rather asks ."If the Bible were to be the SOLE basis of the outworkings of the modern world". Did you miss that or this is just another instance of thee forcing your OWN topic on the thread. . . Either way, its quite depressing.

Who cares if the bible calls elephants fools, my main concern is what it labels "those who deny the existence of god"

Anyway all that grammer you typed above shows the bible can call anyone it sees fit fool but common men like me aren't afforded that privilege. . .what a laugh!

Yes it does any attempt to deny this pure dishonesty.

Yes you did.

And what business of yours is that?

You're welcome.

This is embarrassing. You in all self-righteousness registered ostensibly to champion law and order have got no knowledge of forum rules?

Correct me if am wrong but on the registration page there's a little box you tick indicating your willingness to abide by forum rules with a link below to the said rules, it not?

Dude, christians on this forum are known for their hallmark hypocrisy and double standards. . . I must say after knowing you for a few posts, you're off to a flying start!

viaro:

You're too busy chasing your tails. He gave answers, but you had to admit in your own terms that: "to me he gave no answers" - and you have the nerve of a schmuck to ask vacantly about his answers not satisfying [b]you?!?[/b] No, I didn't force anything down your throat, sorry you're feeling so out of wind to dream that up.

I'm sorry that viaro put you into such misery - my apologies. I asked a question, not try to force my own topic upon an existing one. Unless you missed it, I've discussed my answers as early as post #9 in consonance with the topic - and then asked if anyone could proffer any SINGULAR basis as the SOLE outworkings of the modern world. If that was truly depressing for you, I apologise.

The Bible does not call anyone it sees fit fools - that's why the outline to show you that such an idea misses the point. If you qualify as one among those, that may be your own problem in just the same way as viaro might so qualify. However, it's truly hilarious that you arrogated yourself the privilege of calling Christians 'deluded' and yet whinge that as a common man you aren't afforded "that privilege". [/b]That was truly a winning act - kudos (I just forgot to laugh though).

Repeat: "[b]My religion does not consider you a fool. . unless you actually try to convince me so". Err, I can't deny the part you failed to highlight - it's called a 'conditional'.

Repeat: "Did I opine that huxley denied me anything?"
Now if you argue that I did opine, could you do me the fav of quoting me where I made any such pointers to his having DENIED me what-and-what? Thank you in advance.

Not my biz, just that you're trying too hard to make an impression - vacantly.

Feel better now? 

Could I take it that you had serious difficulties grasping comprehension of simple statements during your tutelage? I'm very aware of Forum Rules. Since you're whinging endlessly about viaro's having asked "disconcerting questions" as against the Forum Rules, I requested (not demanded) that you please show me where in the Rules your knee jerk fantasy could be highlighted. There's no need blaring and flashing those wiggy emoti-eyes in amazement  - since my question and remarks were still on the topic of modernity and ONLY YOU found it in your own  sententiousness to call it "disconcerted questions", please kindly point out for me where in the Rules your fantasy could have found anchor.

You're dead right! Absolutely correct - it exists in all the other fora where I've been and not only on Nairaland. The thing is that many people will blindly tick/check the box just to have access past that point - but once on the Forum, fistful dramas begin to play out in their zeal. Tudór, you may set me straight about having gone "purely against the rules" - but need anyone remind you in bold that your insulting other discussants is a gross violation of this Forum Rules especially on "NO PERSONAL ATTACKS OR PUBLIC FIGHTS"?
I'm not making excuses on my own part, which is why I request you to show me the "disconcerting questions" part of the rules regardless of the fact that I stayed on topic about the out workings of the modern world, discussed my answers about the part the Bible plays(post #9). .  before I fell foul of having troubled[b]you alone[/b]with those "disconcerted questions".The one thing is that I may have failed that aspect of your super-sized rules, but you're amazingly larger than size when it comes to your own admitting that you have VIOLATED the Forum Rules yourself.

M-a-n,thanks - and no thanks.If we (you and I) stood side-by-side,I'm sorry that I may not even come close to your sanctimonious tartuffery in less than 24 hrs of our interraction.No contest, I submit the grand trophy to you.

viaro:

You're too busy chasing your tails. He gave answers, but you had to admit in your own terms that: "to me he gave no answers" - and you have the nerve of a schmuck to ask vacantly about his answers not satisfying [b]you?!?[/b] No, I didn't force anything down your throat, sorry you're feeling so out of wind to dream that up.

I'm sorry that viaro put you into such misery - my apologies. I asked a question, not try to force my own topic upon an existing one. Unless you missed it, I've discussed my answers as early as post #9 in consonance with the topic - and then asked if anyone could proffer any SINGULAR basis as the SOLE outworkings of the modern world. If that was truly depressing for you, I apologise.

The Bible does not call anyone it sees fit fools - that's why the outline to show you that such an idea misses the point. If you qualify as one among those, that may be your own problem in just the same way as viaro might so qualify. However, it's truly hilarious that you arrogated yourself the privilege of calling Christians 'deluded' and yet whinge that as a common man you aren't afforded "that privilege". [/b]That was truly a winning act - kudos (I just forgot to laugh though).

Repeat: "[b]My religion does not consider you a fool. . unless you actually try to convince me so". Err, I can't deny the part you failed to highlight - it's called a 'conditional'.

Repeat: "Did I opine that huxley denied me anything?"
Now if you argue that I did opine, could you do me the fav of quoting me where I made any such pointers to his having DENIED me what-and-what? Thank you in advance.

Not my biz, just that you're trying too hard to make an impression - vacantly.

Feel better now? 

Could I take it that you had serious difficulties grasping comprehension of simple statements during your tutelage? I'm very aware of Forum Rules. Since you're whinging endlessly about viaro's having asked "disconcerting questions" as against the Forum Rules, I requested (not demanded) that you please show me where in the Rules your knee jerk fantasy could be highlighted. There's no need blaring and flashing those wiggy emoti-eyes in amazement  - since my question and remarks were still on the topic of modernity and ONLY YOU found it in your own  sententiousness to call it "disconcerted questions", please kindly point out for me where in the Rules your fantasy could have found anchor.

You're dead right! Absolutely correct - it exists in all the other fora where I've been and not only on Nairaland. The thing is that many people will blindly tick/check the box just to have access past that point - but once on the Forum, fistful dramas begin to play out in their zeal. Tudór, you may set me straight about having gone "purely against the rules" - but need anyone remind you in bold that your insulting other discussants is a gross violation of this Forum Rules especially on "NO PERSONAL ATTACKS OR PUBLIC FIGHTS"?
I'm not making excuses on my own part, which is why I request you to show me the "disconcerting questions" part of the rules regardless of the fact that I stayed on topic about the out workings of the modern world, discussed my answers about the part the Bible plays(post #9). .  before I fell foul of having troubled[b]you alone[/b]with those "disconcerted questions".The one thing is that I may have failed that aspect of your super-sized rules, but you're amazingly larger than size when it comes to your own admitting that you have VIOLATED the Forum Rules yourself.

M-a-n,thanks - and no thanks.If we (you and I) stood side-by-side,I'm sorry that I may not even come close to your sanctimonious tartuffery in less than 24 hrs of our interraction.No contest, I submit the grand trophy to you.

Tudór:

Err are you forgetting sumtn' . . . You my dear viaro opined his answers were not "satisfactory to me". . .dishonesty is a sin, right?

Yeah I guess it was. . .
Yea, and I was thoroughly basking in the euphoria of my wonderful priviledge when you barged in and tried to take that away while presenting the priviledge as the sole purview of the bible.

Be warned, what is good for the goose, is perferct for the gander.

Is Psalm 14:1 missing from your bible?

I highlighted it in post #13.

Could this be why you're here?

Excellent.
*sigh*
The thread borders on the bible and outworkings of modernity. Questions like "how have you tried to help modernity by your overheated reactions" are distracting. . . . The point head of this discussion as regards modernity is THE BIBLE and not "my reaction".

If you wanted details on how I help modernity with my actions, the ideal thing to have done is start a new thread to address such.

Cmon, admit it and we're cool. You asked a distracting question. . . . It won't kill ya. Nobody holy pass.

I have never denied being a rule breaker or did I?

Just that you who's standing the moral high ground are equally guilty yourself. You aren't supposed to ask derailing questions and you did. Infact what we're doing now is derailing the thread.