Why I am Not A Christian - Bertrand Russell

[Nyani Ngabu]

Wacha hizo....!

Sema "wacha hizo" kwa Kiingereza...

 

[Augustine Moshi]

Naomba msamaha kwa kutoweza kurudi hapa mapema. Ni kibarua kilichukua mno muda wangu.

Nawashukuru Bluray, Julius na waliojaribu kuwajibuni hoja zenu. Hoja zenu ni za msingi, na nadhani mnataka kweli kufahamu. Mnanikumbusha Somo wangu, Mt.Augustine, ambaye naye aliaanza kwa kutomtambua Mungu. Baadaye, kutokana na uwezo wake mkubwa wa kufikiria, na kutokana na sala za mama yake Monika, akapata uelewa wa hali ya juu. Mafundisho aliyoacha tangu karne yake ya nne yanatuongoza hadi leo.

HOJA YA KWANZA: Kwa nini tusiweze kumfahamu (comprehend) Mungu? Jibu ni kama tulivyotoa mwanzoni: nature ya Mungu ni tofauti mno na yetu. Mende hawezi kukufahamu kikamilifu, hata ajaribuje! Julius anauliza kama Mungu yuko mbona hajitambulishi? Amejitambulisha lakini hatuamini.

HOJA YA PILI: Kwa nini Mungu hazuii kabisa maovu duniani? Some of the evil, like September 11, comes from man's exercise of his free will. Would you like God to deny us our free will? That would take away our ability to choose to love Him. Without free will, we could not love. There are natural disasters as well. God put into place the laws of nature. But we often mistreat creation to the extent that natural things harm us. God will intervene to save us from such difficulties when we ask Him.

I reiterate my earlier claim that God permits evil so as to bring a greater good out of it. God did not cause 9/11 to happen, but He permitted it. He could have stopped it. The greater good that came out of it was that there was a major turning back to God in the USA and beyond.

HOJA YA TATU: Mungu anaweza kuumba jiwe kubwa kiasi ambacho hawezi kulichukua? Hii hoja niliisikia tangu nikiwa mtoto mdogo. Si hoja ya msingi hata kidogo. It is a paradox that is based on language only. I have no doubt that both Bluray and Julius will have heard about Russell's Paradox. (This is readily available through google.com for anyone who is not familiar with it).

HOJA YA NNE: Christ is a mythical figure, he never lived at all. This claim by Bluray is counter historical. The birth and life of Jesus of Nazareth are recorded historical facts. What may not be historical is His divinity. The events described in The New Testament are from recorded History.

Itabidi niendelee kujadili yaliyobaki wakati mwingine.

 

[Bluray]

Naomba msamaha kwa kutoweza kurudi hapa mapema. Ni kibarua kilichukua mno muda wangu.

Bila samahani mkuu

Nawashukuru Bluray, Julius na waliojaribu kuwajibuni hoja zenu. Hoja zenu ni za msingi, na nadhani mnataka kweli kufahamu. Mnanikumbusha Somo wangu, Mt.Augustine, ambaye naye aliaanza kwa kutomtambua Mungu. Baadaye, kutokana na uwezo wake mkubwa wa kufikiria, na kutokana na sala za mama yake Monika, akapata uelewa wa hali ya juu. Mafundisho aliyoacha tangu karne yake ya nne yanatuongoza hadi leo.

Lakini hakuwa mkweli alipo employ fear tactics alipoulizwa "What was god doing before creating the heaven and earth?" and replying ""He was preparing hell, for those prying into such deep subjects." It is this disdain on reason and inquiry that I cannot stand. It is almost like St. Augustine was afraid such deep questions were bound to expose the likes of St. Augustine as mere confidence men. This comment basically reduces St. Augustine to a fear-monger. What's wrong with a simple "I don't know" or even "To tell you the truth, I am not even sure this god exist"

HOJA YA KWANZA: Kwa nini tusiweze kumfahamu (comprehend) Mungu? Jibu ni kama tulivyotoa mwanzoni: nature ya Mungu ni tofauti mno na yetu. Mende hawezi kukufahamu kikamilifu, hata ajaribuje! Julius anauliza kama Mungu yuko mbona hajitambulishi? Amejitambulisha lakini hatuamini.

I can easily say that there exists a nonexistence of god that is incomprehensible, at least to some.

You simply cannot put a conclusion for the argument in dispute as the very premise for the argument used. The argument becomes circular.

Mimi sikubali kwamba mungu yupo, badala ya kuanza nami kutoka point nilipo na kuanza kunionyesha kwa nini mungu yupo (kama sisi tulivyouliza "kama mungu yupo, kwa nini hajionyeshi?), wewe unakuja kuanza na conclusion kwamba mungu yupo na ni incomprehensible.Kimsingi tunakuwa hatuafikiani.

Ni kama vile muendesha mashtaka anamwambia jaji kwamba tufanye mshtakiwa ana hatia, kutokana na msingi huu huna budi kumkuta mshitakiwa na hatia, hata kama ukiletewa ushahidi mwingine.

Namna hii mtu hawezi kushindwa mdahalo wowote, na unaweza kusema chochote.

HOJA YA PILI: Kwa nini Mungu hazuii kabisa maovu duniani? Some of the evil, like September 11, comes from man's exercise of his free will. Would you like God to deny us our free will? That would take away our ability to choose to love Him. Without free will, we could not love. There are natural disasters as well. God put into place the laws of nature. But we often mistreat creation to the extent that natural things harm us. God will intervene to save us from such difficulties when we ask Him.

Nilishawahi kumuuliza Professor mmoja wa falsafa (conservative) kwamba hivi kwa nini mungu hakuumba ulimwengu ambao watu wana free will halafu mabaya hayawezekani (mungu kama anaweza yote hili haliwezi kumshinda) nikauliza mtu anapo exercise freewill kuendesha pikipiki, ana risk kuumia kwa ajali, kwa nini mungu hakutengeneza ulimwengu ambao watu wana freewill ya kuendesha pikipiki au kutoendesha, lakini hakuna ajali? Professor alimumble some conservative boilerplate.

Ukishasema mungu anaweza yote, na ulimwengu una maovu, basically umesema mungu karuhusu maovu.Either that or mungu hana uwezo wa kuzuia maovu.Haiwezekani mungu muweza yote mwenye upendo mkuu akaruhusu watoto wazaliwe na kansa.

I reiterate my earlier claim that God permits evil so as to bring a greater good out of it. God did not cause 9/11 to happen, but He permitted it. He could have stopped it. The greater good that came out of it was that there was a major turning back to God in the USA and beyond.

This god must be really starving for attention, he is all knowing and all powerful, why is he so obsessed with us worshiping him? You have not addressed my question, why empty a bucket only to refill it? Why introduce evil only to show that there is good? This is an obvious Ptolemaic circle.

HOJA YA TATU: Mungu anaweza kuumba jiwe kubwa kiasi ambacho hawezi kulichukua? Hii hoja niliisikia tangu nikiwa mtoto mdogo. Si hoja ya msingi hata kidogo. It is a paradox that is based on language only. I have no doubt that both Bluray and Julius will have heard about Russell's Paradox. (This is readily available through google.com for anyone who is not familiar with it).

This was just a lightweight for Max and crew, it serve best to illustrate that even if there was a god (I don't believe this, for argument's sake) any attempt to personify "him" as done in the bible fails horribly.Once you start to personalize him in some scenarios, other tests on this personal and personified god will produce such hilarious results.Unless you want to introduce arbitrary meaningless interjections of "god is incomprehensible" and "god works in mysterious ways" which will make you get away with anything.

HOJA YA NNE: Christ is a mythical figure, he never lived at all. This claim by Bluray is counter historical. The birth and life of Jesus of Nazareth are recorded historical facts. What may not be historical is His divinity. The events described in The New Testament are from recorded History.

To pick from so many arguments,

Then how come there is so much inconsistency in the gospels? You did not answer my question regarding the lack of records on the slaughter of children that was supposed to happen at the birth of Jesus?

Itabidi niendelee kujadili yaliyobaki wakati mwingine.

Tuko pamoja tunaendelea, angalau wewe unajua what is Russell's paradox tunaweza kuongea.Ukiongea vitu kama hivyo tuna communicate katika concepts, najua unajua vitu fulani wala hatusumbuani sana (kwa mfano kwa kusema hilo umeshasummarize the inherent fallibility of language and logic in capturing phenomena) the difference betwen me and you is that you probably see this as evidence of god being incomprehensible while I would not necessarily see it so.

 

[Augustine Moshi]

"What was god doing before creating the heaven and earth?"

Why should He have been doing anything? And, what is He doing now? Time began at creation. There is no "before" because there was no time. Time will end at the end of the world. If we must speak of a before and after, then suffice it for me to say that there was eternity before the beginning and at the end, time will give way to eternity.

St. Augustine was no fear monger. He gave deep answers to the fundamental questions of the day. Do not mistake the joke at the begining of his answer for the whole answer. Have you read his book: "Confessions of St. Augustine"? An electronic copy may be found here: http://www.stoa.org/hippo/

Mimi sikubali kwamba mungu yupo, badala ya kuanza nami kutoka point nilipo na kuanza kunionyesha kwa nini mungu yupo (kama sisi tulivyouliza "kama mungu yupo, kwa nini hajionyeshi?), wewe unakuja kuanza na conclusion kwamba mungu yupo na ni incomprehensible.Kimsingi tunakuwa hatuafikiani.

I suppose that you want me to assume that God does not exist and then prove, from that, that He does! That would imply that you are looking for a proof by contradiction. That would infact be far more reasonable that trying to do what you are doing, which is to prove that God does not exist. If you take, as your premise, that He does not exist, then you have nothing to prove. So, it is not at all clear what your premise is.

Swali lenu "Kama Mungu yupo kwanini hajionyeshi?" lina dosari. Kuna lukuki ya vitu havijionyeshi lakini vipo. Au unadhani vitu vilivyopo ni vile vinavyojionyesha tu? Be that as it may, but God sio "kitu". Do not put Him in that category.

Nilishawahi kumuuliza Professor mmoja wa falsafa (conservative) kwamba hivi kwa nini mungu hakuumba ulimwengu ambao watu wana free will halafu mabaya hayawezekani

Kama binadamu hangekuwa na uwezo wa kufanya mabaya basi hangekua na free will. It is contradictory kutaka watu wawe na free will lakini wasiwe na uwezo wa kufanya mabaya.

kwa nini mungu hakutengeneza ulimwengu ambao watu wana freewill ya kuendesha pikipiki au kutoendesha, lakini hakuna ajali

?
He did just that. Kabla ya binadamu kukataa kumtii Mungu, hakukuweko na ajali na vifo. Hivi vilikuja out of our own choices. God is just. God is also love. He brings us much good out of these consequences of sin.

Ukishasema mungu anaweza yote, na ulimwengu una maovu, basically umesema mungu karuhusu maovu.

Bu I have been very emphatic on the point that God permits evil. He does not cause it, but He permits it. And he brings a greater good out of it.

This god must be really starving for attention, he is all knowing and all powerful, why is he so obsessed with us worshiping him?

God is perfectly happy without our worship. We cannot add anything to Him. We worship Him for our benefit, not His. As St. Augustine said, "God made us for Himself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in Him".

You have not addressed my question, why empty a bucket only to refill it? Why introduce evil only to show that there is good? This is an obvious

We chose evil. We are the ones that introduced evil into the world. We did so freely, even after being warned by God.

Then how come there is so much inconsistency in the gospels? You did not answer my question regarding the lack of records on the slaughter of children that was supposed to happen at the birth of Jesus?

Hakuna inconsistency kwenye Biblia. Kuna tofauti za kawaida katika narations tu. Kama waandishi wawili wanaelezea mpira wa Jumapili kati ya Simba na Yanga, wanaweza kutofautiana maelezo jinsi chenga zilivyokwenda, lakini fact kwamba mpira ulichezwa na Yanga wakashinda wote watakubaliana. Au wakitofautiana katika maelezo yao ya namna chenga zilivyopigwa wewe utasema basi mpira ulikuwa ni uongo?

Records za slaughter of the innocents ziko kwenye Gospels. The Gospels describe events that are historical. They also describe some events that are trancendental.

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

Julius anauliza kama Mungu yuko mbona hajitambulishi? Amejitambulisha lakini hatuamini.

First of all, let me applaud you for your intelligent, non-fanatical arguments. I must admit it is much easier to reason with you than it is with some of the folks in here.

Unasema mungu amejitambulisha. Kajitambulishaje? Mtu au kitu kinachojitambulisha au kutambulishwa matokeo yake ni kutambuliwa na kujulikana. Sasa huyo mungu angekuwa kweli kajitambulisha basi tungemtambua na kumjua na si kuamini. Nadhani kuna tofauti kati ya kujua na kuamini. Nasimama kusahihishwa kama nimekosea.

HOJA YA PILI

: Kwa nini Mungu hazuii kabisa maovu duniani? Some of the evil, like September 11, comes from man's exercise of his free will.

Ok, hakuna ubishi hapo!

Would you like God to deny us our free will?

If that free will will be used to cause harm to innocent people then yes, I want god to deny that free will to those who want to cause harm to others.

That would take away our ability to choose to love Him.

Not at all. It would only take away our ability to cause harm to others. He is god. There is nothing he can't do. If he wants to make it that way he probably can at the snap of a finger!

Without free will, we could not love.

Why not? I thought with god everything is possible. Refer to Philippians 4:13.

There are natural disasters as well. God put into place the laws of nature. But we often mistreat creation to the extent that natural things harm us. God will intervene to save us from such difficulties when we ask Him.

I thought that was the whole purpose of praying and going to church, mosque, synagogue, or wherever else every day/ week...How many times does he need to be asked to spare us?

I reiterate my earlier claim that God permits evil so as to bring a greater good out of it.

I'm having a hell of a hard time digesting this. Why would god permit evil where the innocent would suffer?

God did not cause 9/11 to happen, but He permitted it.

Again, this beats me!

He could have stopped it. The greater good that came out of it was that there was a major turning back to God in the

USA and beyond.

Do you have any data that backs up your claim that a lot of people turned back to god after 9/11?

Kama binadamu hangekuwa na uwezo wa kufanya mabaya basi hangekua na free will. It is contradictory kutaka watu wawe na free will lakini wasiwe na uwezo wa kufanya mabaya.

Lakini mungu mwenye nguvu na upendo si angewalinda wale wasioweza kujilinda? Sasa kwa nini anaachia watu wawafanyie mabaya hata watu wasio na hatia na wasio na uwezo wa kujilinda? Huoni kwamba anawaadhibu?

 

[Augustine Moshi]

Unasema mungu amejitambulisha. Kajitambulishaje? Mtu au kitu kinachojitambulisha au kutambulishwa matokeo yake ni kutambuliwa na kujulikana.

He revealed Himself through the prophets, and at the fullness of time, through His own Son. He constantly reveals Himself to us today through His creation.

Sasa huyo mungu angekuwa kweli kajitambulisha basi tungemtambua na kumjua na si kuamini

.
Anatambuliwa na kuaminiwa na mabilioni ya watu. You, I submit, are in the minority.

Nadhani kuna tofauti kati ya kujua na kuamini. Nasimama kusahihishwa kama nimekosea.

Naamini kwamba Julius yupo. Sijawahi kumuona, lakini naamini yupo kutokana na effects zake. Najua kwamba mtu anayepost hapa kwa jina la Julius yupo? Yes, I do.

Naamini na kujua Mungu yuko. Huwa naona effects zake.

If that free will will be used to cause harm to innocent people then yes, I want god to deny that free will to those who want to cause harm to others

It is not possible to be a little bit pregnant. Either mtu ana free will au hana. Partial free will is not free will at all! Huwezi ukakataa kufanya mabaya kama huna uwezo wa kufanya mabaya. Na Mungu anataka tuweze kuchagua kufanya mema. Ndio namna ya kumpenda. Kwa faida yetu.

How many times does he need to be asked to spare us?

As many times as we need to be spared.

I'm having a hell of a hard time digesting this. Why would god permit evil where the innocent would suffer?

Who is more innocent that His Son? Yet He permitted us to crucify Him (again, I must stress that He permitted it, He did not cause us to do it). The Innocent One suffered much, but out of that suffering came the salvation of the whole world. It was out of love that He died for us.

Do you have any data that backs up your claim that a lot of people turned back to god after 9/11?

Church attendance rose in the US. Confession lines were very long in NY and elsewhere. There has been an increase in the number of vocations in the US and elsewhere. There has been a tremendous surge in the number of adult baptisms in the USA. I got my data mostly from articles posted at www.ewtn.com

Lakini mungu mwenye nguvu na upendo si angewalinda wale wasioweza kujilinda?

Anawalinda, tena sana tu! Wakati mwingine anawalinda kiasi cha kuwaalika wakakae kwake!

 

[Bluray]

Moshi,

Kwa hiyo unataka kutuambia kitu kikiaminiwa na wengi ni lazima kiwe kweli?

pre-Copernicus medieval and ancient worlds largely believed in a Geocentric universe, did this belief make it so?

I feel like the fellow who wastrying to convince the world thatthe earth revolves around the sun, or that the world is not flat, facing the insurmountable opposition of tradition.

The best argument a theist can give is that god is incomprehensible, or god works in the mysterious way.

You know what? I can equally say the Loch Ness Monster, or Santa Claus is incomprehensible and works in mysterious ways. Why should I believe that the Judeo-Christian world has this monopoly and Santa Claus cannot be afforded the same benefit of the doubt?

The situation is dire, the only consolation is that slowly attitudes towards these chains of tradition and religion are changing.

 

[Lekanjobe Kubinika]

Habari inaweza kuwa nzuri, lakini inapokuwa unafungua ukurasa kwa ukurasa na meandaring about a point, inasumbua kwa kichwa kutafakari. That is philosopy any way, trying to convince people to see what can not be seen. Angeweza kufupisha kwa kuorodhesha sababu, badala ya kuhubiri as if anaihubiri miti isiyotumia akili kuelewa.

Leka

 

[Bluray]

Speaking of kufupisha, mungu was made and propagate by man.Primarily for three reasons.

1.Ignorance - Scenario: Some historic peeps saw some thunder and lightning and due to ignorance acribed that to a god trying to communicate with them.

2.Oppression - Some historic king saw it convenient to exploit this natural belief to his advantage, hence the advent of early priesthood orders.It is no coincidence that most of these orders were instituted in royal courts (e.g Babylonian and Egyptians).The Chinese dynasties even went so far as declaring the king as ruling with a mandate from heaven.Ever since then, countless rulers have exploited this.From Hammurabi and The Pharaohs to Constantine and George Bush.

3. Upliftment - Some people, whether consciously or sub-consciously wanted to give a higher meaning than they could possibly trutfully know outside of existence.So they invented a god, mostly a god that said they were a chosen people etc (how can an omnipotent, omniscient god be this parochially pedestrian!).So you have Moses and his Jews seeking upliftment out ofslavery in Egypt, you have the Rastafarians with their quest from upliftment from western dominance, you have Muhammad aspiring the Arabs to be like "the people of the book aka Jews and Christians etc.

But like a boat that has run its use by crossing the Gibraltar strait in an ever forward going war, religion / god is not that important now.

1. We have largely eliminated ignorance, at least the kind that needs a god to explain some phenomena, and the more science make progress the less we need a god to explain things.The more we know about electricity the more we know that thunder is just electricity in the atmosphere.The more we know about the solar system the more we know that god did not stop the sun so that the Israelites could win a battle by having extra sunlight as reported by Joshua in the bible. And still there is more to come, science will one day leave god jobless.

2. We now know oppression for what it is.Slavery, Colonialism, Nazism etc they all used religion and god to oppress. We have eliminated institutionalized apartheid. We dont need god.

3. Upliftment: Our colective knowledge and self awareness should be enough to uplift.We do not neeed an invented god to uplift us.Due to some inherent inconsistencies, an invented god will stick out as the fabrication that it is and confuse us even more. We need to break the chains of believing in a godhead in order to take more responsibilities for our own life, pray less and work more.No upliftment can be wholesome if it is based on a falsehood. We can do better with the truth.

Wheeew!

And to think that I wanted "kufupisha"!

 

[Eric Cartman]

kuna kipindi leo bbc 4 the history of christianity huwa mara nyingi wanapeleka bbci after they air the're programmes.

If your intrested in religious understandings, check that out

 

[Augustine Moshi]

Bluray,

Sikusema kitu kikiaminiwa na wengi basi kinakuwepo. Ni wapi nilisema hivyo? Do not put words into my mouth.

The main problem at the moment is that you do not make clear what your premise, or premises, are. At one time you gave the impression that you assume God does not exist. If so, then what are you trying to prove? Please state your premises and the conclusion you desire to arrive at clearly first.

 

[Tiger]

From the Wikipedia
Historical views
Main articles: Historical Jesus and Quest for the historical Jesus
A series of articles on
Jesus

Jesus Christ and Christianity
Chronology · Virgin Birth
Ministry · Miracles · Parables
Death · Resurrection
Second Coming · Christology
Names and titles · Relics · Active obedience

Cultural/historical background
Language spoken · Race
Genealogy

Perspectives on Jesus
Biblical · Religious
Christian · Lutheran
Jewish · Islamic
Ahmadi · Scientology

Jesus and history
Historicity · In myth
Historical Jesus · Research

Jesus in culture
Depiction · Music
This box: view • talk • edit

Scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life. Over the past two hundred years, the image of Jesus among historical scholars has come to be very different from the common image of Jesus that was based on the gospels.[86] Scholars of historical Jesus distinguish their subject from the "Jesus Christ" of Christianity.[8] Other scholars hold that Jesus as presented in the gospels is the real Jesus and that his life and influence only make sense if the gospel stories are accurate.[87][88][89] The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the Gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels: Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Including the Gospels, there are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus written during his life or within three decades of his death.[90] A great majority of biblical scholars and historians accept the historical existence of Jesus.[91][92][93][94][95]

The English title of Albert Schweitzer's 1906 book, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, is a label for the post-Enlightenment effort to describe Jesus using critical historical methods.[96] Since the end of the 18th century, scholars have examined the gospels and tried to formulate historical biographies of Jesus. Contemporary efforts benefit from a better understanding of 1st-century Judaism, renewed Roman Catholic biblical scholarship, broad acceptance of critical historical methods, sociological insights, and literary analysis of Jesus' sayings.[96]
Constructing a historical view
Main articles: Historical Jesus and Cultural and historical background of Jesus

Historians analyze the gospels to try to discern the historical man on whom these stories are based. They compare what the gospels say to historical events relevant to the times and places where the gospels were written. They try to answer historical questions about Jesus, such as why he was crucified.

Most scholars agree the Gospel of Mark was written about the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans under Titus in the year 70 AD/CE, and that the other gospels were written between 70 and 100 AD/CE.[97] The historical outlook on Jesus relies on critical analysis of the Bible, especially the gospels. Many scholars have sought to reconstruct Jesus' life in terms of the political, cultural, and religious crises and movements in late Second Temple Judaism and in Roman-occupied Palestine, including differences between Galilee and Judea, and between different sects such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots,[98][99] and in terms of conflicts among Jews in the context of Roman occupation.
Descriptions

Historians generally describe Jesus as a healer who preached the restoration of God's kingdom.[100] Most historians agree he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified by the Romans. Jewish and Roman authorities in Jerusalem were wary of Galilean patriots, many of whom advocated or launched violent resistance to Roman rule.[9] The gospels demonstrate that Jesus, a charismatic leader regarded as a potential troublemaker, was executed on political charges.[9]

John the Baptist led a large apocalyptic movement. He demanded repentance and baptism. Jesus was baptized and later began his ministry. After John was executed, some of his followers apparently took Jesus as their new leader.[101] Historians are nearly unanimous in accepting Jesus' baptism as a historical event.[101]

According to Robert Funk, Jesus taught in pithy parables and with striking images.[102] He likened the Kingdom of Heaven to small and lowly things, such as yeast or a mustard seed,[102] that have great effects. He used his sayings to elicit responses from the audience, engaging them in discussion.[10]

Jesus placed a special emphasis on God as one's heavenly father.[102]


Ina maan wote hawa waliamua ku-create story za YESU ili iweje?
hebu tujiulize bila kuwa biased.
Kwa lengo la kuelimishana sio kubishana.

 

[Bluray]

Bluray,

Sikusema kitu kikiaminiwa na wengi basi kinakuwepo. Ni wapi nilisema hivyo? Do not put words into my mouth.

Umesema

Anatambuliwa na kuaminiwa na mabilioni ya watu. You, I submit, are in the minority.

Which is validating his existence by the number of people who believe in his existence.If enough people believe that the earth is flat would that make the earth flat?

The main problem at the moment is that you do not make clear what your premise, or premises, are. At one time you gave the impression that you assume God does not exist. If so, then what are you trying to prove? Please state your premises and the conclusion you desire to arrive at clearly first.

I am saying that, unless you employ the "god works in mysterious ways" aka "we cannot comprehend god" premise (which is hogwash, and will only serve to strengthen the argument against god revealing himself to man) there is no way you can build a legitimate presence of an omnipotent, omniscient godhead.

If you try to understand god you hit the brickwall (god is incomprehensible) which does not prove anything.In fact it opens up a can of worm by introducing an infinite amount of incomprehensibles.What if we are wired, pretty much like left handed and right handed people, for one type of us to see a universe with an incomprehensible god, and another type to see a universe with no god and the only thing incomprehensible about it, in the "out of place" sense is a god?

I am indicting the god idea as a falsehood based on the evidence we have for god, the evidence we have for a godless universe, and human reasoning.Your only salvation "the god cannot be understood" hypothesis, does not help you, rather it open a can of worms.If you cannot understand god, how do you know that god is not a subset of a bigger set? We all know that one infinity can have an infinity number of infinities as it's subset as well as being a subset of an infinite number of bigger sets.

Saying that we know god is there, but we cannot fully understand him, and we know that he is the prime mover is like saying that we know prime numbers are there, we cannot fully understand them (we cannot even name the biggest prime number -Optimus Prime anyone?-) but we know that a prime number is the biggest number. Once you concede that you cannot comprehend an entity fully, how can you be so presumptuos on it's omnipotence and omniscience? I could understand if the comparison almost spanned to infinity when compared to us (again, an infinity need not be that scary) but this omnipotence and omniscience designation is purely preposterous.

The only thing I am going for here is showing that the foundation on which this god idea is sitting is rather faulty and need all sorts of Ptolemaic spheres to support it.Now we have seen this in the past when Ptolemy was trying to defend the heliocentric model, when something needs layers and layers of special laws (special Ptolemaic spheres) most probably chances are that model cannot support itself and is false.

All this talk about god being incomprehensible is exactly that, some special laws, a bunch of Ptolemaic sphere to support a god that cannot self-support. How can this incomprehensible god hold me accountable for not understanding him? If I am to believe you his very nature elude understanding!

At least science has the decency and modesty to say "we don't know, we are researching". the hubris of faith would have you believe that there is a life after death while nobody has been dead and back to tell the story. And no, that Lazarus story is very suspect, especially coming from such a period with such scientific limitations.

Here is what's up.This life we live is it, no more, no less, not even reincarnation.There is no god, no satan, man is responsible for everything.Just because there is no god and no satan, it does not mean man is licensed to live immorally, if anything, man should assume godlines himself being that there is no god, and live in harmony with fellow man and his environment.The god idea plants seeds of cynicism and enable dependency with all that talk of original sin (is there any better way to plant cynicism) and god paid for your debt, just follow jesus and pray, salvation is by grace (dependency, stress on praying than working).This setup, even if intended for the supposedly noble cause of upliftment and maintaining order (how can fraud be noble?) is actually undermining human consciousness and ability to do good for the sake of good.Now we are trapped in the psychology of stick (hell) and carrot (heaven) which depicts living moral not as a worthy end to be aspired, but as a means to get the ticket to heaven.This cheapens the entire concept of morality in a cheap quid pro quo with god.I will be good, you will get me to that heaven party.No wonder it does not impress me, sounds like a lazy manipulative parent dealing with a crazy kid.

 

[Bluray]

Ina maan wote hawa waliamua ku-create story za YESU ili iweje?
hebu tujiulize bila kuwa biased.
Kwa lengo la kuelimishana sio kubishana.

Refer to post 189 hapa

Yesu probably ni a fictional character iliyotokana na maisha ya mtu zaidi ya na kujaziwa chumvi nyingi.Mkuu Moshi mwenyewe kashakubali divinity yake ni fiction.

Taratibu tunaenda, mimi naongeza kimoja baada ya kingine, ile immaculate conception nayo ni fiction, kufa msalabani na kufufuka siku ya tatu nako fiction.

Moshi I am interested in your views on the above.

 

[Tiger]

Yesu probably ni a fictional character iliyotokana na maisha ya mtu zaidi ya na kujaziwa chumvi nyingi.Mkuu Moshi mwenyewe kashakubali divinity yake ni fiction.

Taratibu tunaenda, mimi naongeza kimoja baada ya kingine, ile immaculate conception nayo ni fiction, kufa msalabani na kufufuka siku ya tatu nako fiction.

Moshi I am interested in your views on the above.

1) unaweza kuziping hizo information zilizotoka kwenye wikipedia kwa hoja gani?
tafadhali tusaidie,maana hata hizo(hoja) ulizozitoa wewe pia hujazi-discover wewe.
2) kwani lazima ziwe sahihi?
ni mawazo tu usijisikie vibaya.

 

[ByaseL]

Too long an article.

It is not that long I must say. It is a nine page document and very interesting to read. I liked Russell’s arguments on religion in general but he comes short on his viewpoint on Jesus. I find his view on Jesus literally out of context. The paraphrases by Russell about what Jesus said and what he actually meant seem to be at variance with those of the Bible Scholars. In my view Russell went over the top in trying to contradict Jesus the man and that is where his essay does not impress. But all in all it is a nice piece to engage one's mind intellectually.

 

[Tiger]

Bluray , my brother, sijanywa maji tu maji ya bendera ya Kanisa la Kristo, but I am also striving to live it, however difficult.
I am trying , like every christian is.
The destruction on yerselsf I am talking of is that of your soul my dear!If you dont believe in the Lord then that might be a much more difficult field to cross.
The body?
Be assured that we are of the same boat. But it also embodies what you are trying to deny, your soul has a spirit within you, for good or for bad.
I am amazed by your courage to dismiss God, and in public.
What I can assure you is, God remembers and will stand to all challenges , and answer them Himself.
But behold my brother, repent before it is too late.
I am not saying that I am holier than thou, not all.
But I look up to the Redeemer that for all that we do not know , all that we sin , that He may forgive us.

Huyo alikuwa mwenzako.(Lole Gwakisa)


Huyu ni wewe

Soul? What is a soul? Where is it? How much does it weigh? Does it have charge? Length? How can you prove to me that the soul exist?

Na huyu pia ni wewe(Bluray)

When I became convinced that the universe is natural-that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light, and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world-not even in infinite space.

Hiyo soul mnayozungumzia ni tofauti? ki vipi?

 

[Bluray]

Yesu probably ni a fictional character iliyotokana na maisha ya mtu zaidi ya na kujaziwa chumvi nyingi.Mkuu Moshi mwenyewe kashakubali divinity yake ni fiction.

Taratibu tunaenda, mimi naongeza kimoja baada ya kingine, ile immaculate conception nayo ni fiction, kufa msalabani na kufufuka siku ya tatu nako fiction.

Moshi I am interested in your views on the above.

1) unaweza kuziping hizo information zilizotoka kwenye wikipedia kwa hoja gani?

Mbona hoja nimeshazitoa humu sana tu? Unasoma thread au unadakia post ya mwisho tu? Mimeongea kuhusu kutokuwepo kwa rekodi ya mauaji ya Herode wakati alipozaliwa (allegedly) Yesu.Nimeongea kuhusu inconsistency ya gospels, msomi yeyote wa biblia anayajua haya.Ni zamu yako kuyafanyia uchungui na kuja na maswali kama yapo.

tafadhali tusaidie,maana hata hizo(hoja) ulizozitoa wewe pia hujazi-discover wewe.

Nikusaidie nini? Unaweza kuwa specific?

2) kwani lazima ziwe sahihi?

Si lazima kitabu/ ideas yoyote iwe sahihi, lakini ni wajibu wa watafuta ukweli ku point out kwamba hizi ideas si sahihi.

ni mawazo tu usijisikie vibaya.

Kipi kinakufanya ufikiri nitajisikia vibaya?

 

[Bluray]

Bluray , my brother, sijanywa maji tu maji ya bendera ya Kanisa la Kristo, but I am also striving to live it, however difficult.
I am trying , like every christian is.
The destruction on yerselsf I am talking of is that of your soul my dear!If you dont believe in the Lord then that might be a much more difficult field to cross.
The body?
Be assured that we are of the same boat. But it also embodies what you are trying to deny, your soul has a spirit within you, for good or for bad.
I am amazed by your courage to dismiss God, and in public.
What I can assure you is, God remembers and will stand to all challenges , and answer them Himself.
But behold my brother, repent before it is too late.
I am not saying that I am holier than thou, not all.
But I look up to the Redeemer that for all that we do not know , all that we sin , that He may forgive us.

Huyo alikuwa mwenzako.(Lole Gwakisa)


Huyu ni wewe

Soul? What is a soul? Where is it? How much does it weigh? Does it have charge? Length? How can you prove to me that the soul exist?

Na huyu pia ni wewe(Bluray)

When I became convinced that the universe is natural-that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light, and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world-not even in infinite space.

Hiyo soul mnayozungumzia ni tofauti? ki vipi?

Kuna watu wanaamini kwamba, kuna kitu kinabeba uhai na ufahamu wa juu kinaitwa "soul" ukifa hii soul yako inachukuliwa na mungu. Wengine, katika jitihada za kujiridhisha kwamba binadamu ana tofauti ya kimsingi kabisa (kuacha ya uwezo wa kufikiria sana tu) wakasema kwamba kuwepo kwa hii soul katika binadamu, na kutokuwepo kwa hii soul katika wanyama ndiko kulikowapa binadamu uwezo wa kufikiri na maarifa.Imani hizi kimsingi zinatoka katika judeo-christian thinking, hususan kutoka kitabu cha biblia cha mwanzo ambapo tunaelezwa kwamba mungu alimuumba binadamu na kumpulizia pumzi, msingi wa hii "soul".Apparently wanyama (wengine, to a biologist) hawakupewa upendeleo huu (yes, mungu ana upendeleo, hata waisraeli kawapendelea!) na ndiyo maana hawana maarifa ya kujua mema na mabaya.

I say hogwash.

Kuna wengine sisi tunasema kwamba hakuna evidence ya hii soul, ni fikira tu.Kila kitu kinachopakaziwa kuwa ni kazi ya soul ambacho tuna ushahidi kwamba kipo kinaweza kuelezewa na baiolojia, kuanzia kazi za ubongo kuhusu ufahamu mpaka umauti wa moyo na umauti wa ubongo, hii "soul" ni mabaki ya fikra za enzi za giza, kwa nini tunakumbatia vitu vilivyopitwa na wakati?

Ukiniambia kuhusu pumzi, nitakubali mwanadamu ana pumzi.Ukiniambia kuhusu uhai, nitakubali mwanadamu ana uhai.Ukiniambia kuhusu fikra na uelewa, nitakubali mwanadamu ana fikra na uelewa, lakini hii soul iko wapi?

Kama kuna mtu amesoma kitabu kipya cha Dan Brown "The Lost Symbol" humu (pardon my guilty pleasure) mtakubaliana nami kwamba ile experiment ya kupata uthibitisho kwamba "soul" ipo haiwezi kutoa majibu ya kuonyesha hivyo.

 

[Bluray]

It is not that long I must say. It is a nine page document and very interesting to read. I liked Russell's arguments on religion in general but he comes short on his viewpoint on Jesus. I find his view on Jesus literally out of context. The paraphrases by Russell about what Jesus said and what he actually meant seem to be at variance with those of the Bible Scholars. In my view Russell went over the top in trying to contradict Jesus the man and that is where his essay does not impress. But all in all it is a nice piece to engage one's mind intellectually.

It would be nice and beneficial to this debate if you can point out the specifics.

For example, I like the criticizing point about the swines being swept into the sea. If Jesus had done that in this age all sorts of animal rights group would be against it. Was Jesus right in doing that? Where was his equanimity and respect for life? Isn't this example stressing the less than stellar personalityof Jesus and the chauvinistic dominance of man over other creatutres in the Judeo-Christian tradition?

Can you elevate this discussion higher by getting specific like that?

Halafu Yesu anaulaani mti mtini usiozaa matunda.Admittedly this is a parable, lakini drawing a parallel from the parable, yeye na baba yake si ndio wanaoamua kama mvua inye au isinye? Si ndio wanaoamua udongo wa sehemu ile utakuwaje? Si ndio wanaoamua jua litakuwaje? Sasa itakuwaje tena mtini ukikosa virutubisho na kukosa matunda ulaaniwe? Isn't that blaming the victim?

Likewise, mimi najitahidi sana kumuelewa mungu, najitahidi sana sio tu kuamini kwa kufuata groupthink, bali natumia akili ambazo (kama kweli mungu kanipa) zinatakiwa zzinisaidie kumuelewa mungu , hata kama haeleweki kama mnavyodai, basi nimuelewe kwa kiwango cha binadamu tu, lakini kadiri ninavyojaribu kumuelewa ndivyo ninavyozidi kuona hakuna ushahidi kwamba kuna mungu.

Nduguzanguni, naomba msinielewe vibaya kwamba mimi nataka kuwa godless tu, na nataka kuwa mbishi tu. In my heart of hearts nataka mungu awepo, nani asiyetaka some big daddy in the sky unayeweza kumuomba tu mambo yakwa fresh? Lakini naona hayupo, au kama yupo hizi akili alizonipa zinaniambia kwamba hayupo, sasa unaweza kunilaumu mimi hata kama mungu yupo? Kwa sababu kila ninachoangalia naona mungu hayupo.