Logicboy03:


It happens......Logic Mind debunked me too on a scientific thread about cloning.....there was no anonyism that could help me cover up my error

I can sense you are still feeling the butthurt from almost two years ago. Sorry.

musKeeto:

yOU IIIDDDIIOOOTT...

Stop provoking me: Rule 2

lol

Alfa Seltzer:

I can sense you are still feeling the butthurt from almost two years ago. Sorry.

A year ago, actually

thehomer:
I did not say Wikipedia was the authority, I was simply pointing out that it had been done already from the Bible.
If I presented you with a short summary and a quote from the Bible, you'll complain that it wasn't enough. So, just read that article and tell me whether or not you agree with what is being said there because I agree with it. If you don't agree, then you're welcome to say what you think it means.

Interesting. I didn't know you are now into the prophetic ministry to know exactly what I will say especially since I'm the one insisting that it is more appropriate to discuss biblical things using the bible.
You claim you agree with wikipedia and wikipedia agrees with the bible. You also claim that it is possible for born again people to be murderers in heaven. Would you care to show from scripture how you came to that conclusion?

Okay, just ignore what I said about the murderers. Assume I didn't say anything about that. Note that you were the one claiming that there was no sickness in Heaven. I was simply wondering how you knew this. That was the first question I asked you but as usual, you start trying to avoid answering right from the get-go.

Abeg keep quiet. If it was the question you wanted to ask, why add the red herring since you knew it was irrelevant to the question you wanted to ask in the first place? If you really wanted an answer you should have simply asked the question instead of attaching an irrelevant addon.

I'll answer your question thus: I know there is no sickness in Heaven because that's the how Heaven is by definition. In the same way I know that there is no civilian in the army because that is how the army is by definition. If you think there is sickness in Heaven, you are welcome to show this from scripture

thehomer:

Yes a lot of them do this but Mr anony has become the paragon of such poor tactics.

Nah you are only frustrated that Mr Anony isn't pursuing after your red herrings

musKeeto: I sense butthurt.. Anony, surely you're above such...


What happened to your powers of comprehension? All Gods have a will.. it's simple.. I'm not going to argue with you about some abstract God. What God did you think we were talking about in the first place?

What God were you referring to here:

https://www.nairaland.com/1310138/dear-atheist-feel-need-thankful#16018312

You must have me confused for your asslicker Ihedinobi. He's well known for writing long essays, like the intelligence of a post is determined by the number of characters it has..

....and yet here you are with your long essay

This is what happens when you go into battle and pick a side, without realizing what the battle's over.



My reply


Later on that same thread, I made it clear that what's offensive to one might not be offensive to another. JeSoul's post agreed with this. I didn't find Logicboy's thread offensive is VERY DIFFERENT from saying Logicboy's thread's not offensive. That's my opinion.

And with the line in bold you have successfully dismantled whatever argument it was you were trying to build. try this for comparison:

Saying that I think you are an idiot is very different from me saying that you are an idiot. It is just my opinion that you are an idiot but I have not said so because saying that I think you are an idiot is not the same as saying that you are an idiot.

And I wasn't disputing if the thread was offensive or not. I was only making a case for fairness, that's why I brought up other threads.

Yeah of course you were not disputing that the thread was inoffensive you only gave your opinion that it was inoffensive then promptly denied having such an opinion. In fact you denied having any opinion at all because in muskeetoverse, stating what you think is not the same as stating your opinion.

There's nothing wrong with being neutral. People who are neutral have no hesitations speaking the truth no matter whose axe is gored. You and Ihedinobi feel there's a need to bend everyone into your narrow and myopic viewpoint. Anyone who doesn't speak the same language (Christians inclusive) has 'Chrisitian i.d card' revoked instantly. I hail una spiritual mopol.

There is a difference between being neutral because you really don't have an opinion and insisting that you are being neutral while at the same time shouting your opinion from the rooftops.

Ihedinobi made a mockery of himself on that thread. Of course, I don't expect you to see that. The cross blinds you from his flaws... To the rest of us, the hypocrisy and dishonesty he exhibits in his otiose posts is as visible as the sun.

In my opinion it was you who made a mockery of yourself. . . .But of course I am not saying that you made a mockery of yourself, I'm only saying that it is my opinion you made a mockery of yourself.

mazaje:
It will look good. . .Humans are trying to create a world without diseases by eradicting some, example there is no malaria here in Europe because it has been eradicated. . .Polio is out. . .Drugs to cure diseases are all man attempt to have a world without one or find cures to diseases. . .

Uhm... you are wrong about malaria but let's let that pass. Also you forgot that new diseases show up as old disease disappear.

Wouldn't you agree that a world without diseases would be a world without chemistry because when you really come down to it, diseases are just chemicals reacting with other chemicals and all we do when we make drugs is provide chemicals that will give us the reactions we want? Essentially, what you are really asking for is a supernatural world that transcends natural phenomena such as chemistry.

Secondly, in order to call one chemical reaction bad and another good, you are really saying that some chemical reactions are supposed to happen while others aren't supposed to happen. This pressuposes that there is a purpose and a purpose presupposes a designer. Wouldn't you agree?

So?. . .Even if he cheated it still has nothing to do with your god. . .

So it is your god's doing?. . .How?. . Is it your god that kept his lungs functioning or his lung cells?. . .Is it your god that made people like him or his gestures and the way he treated them?. . .Just show me how your god has anything to do with his life. . .You just keep jumping around asking and posing irrelevant questions. . .

The simple answer is yes God made him, allowed him to live and allowed him to attain whatever position he may be at today.

Mr anony:
Uhm... you are wrong about malaria but let's let that pass. Also you forgot that new diseases show up as old disease disappear.

Wouldn't you agree that a world without diseases would be a world without chemistry because when you really come down to it, diseases are just chemicals reacting with other chemicals and all we do when we make drugs is provide chemicals that will give us the reactions we want? Essentially, what you are really asking for is a supernatural world that transcends natural phenomena such as chemistry.

A world without disease doesn't mean a supernatural world, it is only means a world in which agents that cause diseases have been eradicated. . .Small pox and polio and examples of diseases that we have eradicated or trying to eradicate, malaria and other diseases can be eradicated as well. . .We can still have all the chemisty we want but take away those that are harmful to us and affect our lives negatively. . .according to the religious hypothesis your subscribed to, your god initially created the natural world without and diseases before adam and eve failed the test. . .It wasn't a supernatural world, it was this same world without dieases according to the story. . .So i really do not know what you are on about. . .

Secondly, in order to call one chemical reaction bad and another good, you are really saying that some chemical reactions are supposed to happen while others aren't supposed to happen. This pressuposes that there is a purpose and a purpose presupposes a designer. Wouldn't you agree?

I disagree, you are just begging the question. . .I don't see how saying that some thing is bad while another is good presupposes a designer in anyway. . .

The simple answer is yes God made him, allowed him to live and allowed him to attain whatever position he may be at today.

I should believe this only because you said so?. . .if this is true then it is your god that also created and infected those babies that were born with various diseases at birth and are suffering at the moment. . .Your god infected them with so much pains and sufferings even before they were born and made sure that the early stages of they lives are lived in excruciating pains and suffering, and most of them only get to live for some few months other for a year or two and died. . .So your god did that as well. . . .Nice. . .

Mr anony:
Interesting. I didn't know you are now into the prophetic ministry to know exactly what I will say especially since I'm the one insisting that it is more appropriate to discuss biblical things using the bible.

I expected you to start whining if I simply presented you with a short summary and a quote. You did such complaining here.

Mr anony:
You claim you agree with wikipedia and wikipedia agrees with the bible. You also claim that it is possible for born again people to be murderers in heaven. Would you care to show from scripture how you came to that conclusion?

I'm not claiming I agree with Wikipedia, I'm telling you that I agree with it. Err I didn't make that conclusion. Carefully read what I actually wrote and note that I asked you to just ignore it since it looks like that will distract you as usual.

Once again, you try to dodge a direct question I'll ask again. Do you agree with that Wikipedia article or not? If not, why?

Mr anony:
Abeg keep quiet. If it was the question you wanted to ask, why add the red herring since you knew it was irrelevant to the question you wanted to ask in the first place? If you really wanted an answer you should have simply asked the question instead of attaching an irrelevant addon.

I'll answer your question thus: I know there is no sickness in Heaven because that's the how Heaven is by definition. In the same way I know that there is no civilian in the army because that is how the army is by definition. If you think there is sickness in Heaven, you are welcome to show this from scripture

I said that because that is what Christianity actually teaches. After all, if the idea of being born again is true, it would mean that someone like Jeffrey Dahmer is in Heaven while his victims who weren't born again would be in Hell.

Then let's actually examine the Christian idea of Heaven shall we?

If God could create a world with human free-will and without human sickness, why didn't he do that on earth? Given that he cares about humans and wants the best for them?

Mr anony:
Nah you are only frustrated that Mr Anony isn't pursuing after your red herrings

Pursuing my red herrings? You're the one running after them after I told you that you were welcome to skip it at least for now.

mazaje: A world without disease doesn't mean a supernatural world, it is only means a world in which agents that cause diseases have been eradicated. . .Small pox and polio and examples of diseases that we have eradicated or trying to eradicate, malaria and other diseases can be eradicated as well. . .We can still have all the chemisty we want but take away those that are harmful to us and affect our lives negatively. . .according to the religious hypothesis your subscribed to, your god initially created the natural world without and diseases before adam and eve failed the test. . .It wasn't a supernatural world, it was this same world without dieases according to the story. . .So i really do not know what you are on about. . .

The above shows you have not thought of diseases deeply enough. As per the bold, please provide scriptural reference

I disagree, you are just begging the question. . .I don't see how saying that some thing is bad while another is good presupposes a designer in anyway. . .

Strawman! Here's what I said:

in order to call one chemical reaction bad and another good, you are really saying that some chemical reactions are supposed to happen while others aren't supposed to happen. This pressuposes that there is a purpose and a purpose presupposes a designer.

The parts in red are the parts you conveniently cut out

I should believe this only because you said so?. . .if this is true then it is your god that also created and infected those babies that were born with various diseases at birth and are suffering at the moment. . .Your god infected them with so much pains and sufferings even before they were born and made sure that the early stages of they lives are lived in excruciating pains and suffering, and most of them only get to live for some few months other for a year or two and died. . .So your god did that as well. . . .Nice. . .

Another strawman. I'm sure there's a difference between "allowed" and "infected"

thehomer:

I expected you to start whining if I simply presented you with a short summary and a quote. You did such complaining here.

Asking for further clarification is now classed as whining to you? Wow.

I'm not claiming I agree with Wikipedia, I'm telling you that I agree with it.
Once again, you try to dodge a direct question I'll ask again. Do you agree with that Wikipedia article or not? If not, why?

Lol, you didn't claim that you agree with wikipedia, you only said you agree with wikipedia. Of course they are very different so much so that I won't claim that you are dishonest, I'll only say that you are dishonest to your face.
Do I agree with the wikipedia article? I don't disagree but then I don't think that the wikipedia article demonstrates any depth of understanding of what it means to be born again which is what I require of you to show.

I said that because that is what Christianity actually teaches. After all, if the idea of being born again is true, it would mean that someone like Jeffrey Dahmer is in Heaven while his victims who weren't born again would be in Hell.

Since you claim to know since you told me you know what it means to be born-again; Why do born again people go to heaven while those who reject Christ go to hell?
Please back up your answers with scripture. I need you to demonstrate that you actually know what you are talking about before I engage with you on it.

Then let's actually examine the Christian idea of Heaven shall we?

If God could create a world with human free-will and without human sickness, why didn't he do that on earth? Given that he cares about humans and wants the best for them?

What has human free-will got to do with human sickness?

Mr anony:
What God were you referring to here:

https://www.nairaland.com/1310138/dear-atheist-feel-need-thankful#16018312

All the gods.

Mr anony:
....and yet here you are with your long essay

quotes?

Mr anony:
And with the line in bold you have successfully dismantled whatever argument it was you were trying to build. try this for comparison:

Saying that I think you are an idiot is very different from me saying that you are an idiot. It is just my opinion that you are an idiot but I have not said so because saying that I think you are an idiot is not the same as saying that you are an idiot.

Anonynization at its best..

Was your thread offensive to atheists? Is homosexuality offensive to you? If someone makes a caricature of Mohammed, is it offensive to you?

Arrant nonsense.

Mr anony:
Yeah of course you were not disputing that the thread was inoffensive you only gave your opinion that it was inoffensive then promptly denied having such an opinion.

Funny thing is I never did. And like I rightly predicted, neither you nor Ihed is yet to point out where I gave an opinion. You're a liar too, like Ihedinobi, until you provide evidence from that thread.

Mr anony:
In fact you denied having any opinion at all because in muskeetoverse, stating what you think is not the same as stating your opinion.

LIAR!!!

Mr anony:
There is a difference between being neutral because you really don't have an opinion and insisting that you are being neutral while at the same time shouting your opinion from the rooftops.

If I had any opinion on that thread, it was that if Lb's thread was deemed offensive AND closed because it went against RULE 2, the same treatment should have been meted to your thread and a host of others on this section.

Of course to the discerning, this should be quite clear by now. But you just love to press that keyboard of yours...

Mr anony:
In my opinion it was you who made a mockery of yourself. . . .But of course I am not saying that you made a mockery of yourself, I'm only saying that it is my opinion you made a mockery of yourself.

Ah, now we're making progress....

Mr anony:
If what you say here is true, then I don't see any reason why you should be concerned about sick and dying children neither do I see any reason why you should help them. That's just life, things just happen right?

Strange but true: those who have loved God most have loved men least. - Robert I.

Mr anony:
Asking for further clarification is now classed as whining to you? Wow.

Let's see. You said I wasn't a mind reader but what do you do below? You go on to show that I was correct.

Mr anony:
Lol, you didn't claim that you agree with wikipedia, you only said you agree with wikipedia. Of course they are very different so much so that I won't claim that you are dishonest, I'll only say that you are dishonest to your face.

Is English too difficult for you? They are in fact quite different. Since I know what my own beliefs are, I'm the one in the position to tell you what I agree with. You claiming about me being dishonest means you actually have to present some evidence in support of that claim.

Mr anony:
Do I agree with the wikipedia article? I don't disagree but then I don't think that the wikipedia article demonstrates any depth of understanding of what it means to be born again which is what I require of you to show.

I didn't ask whether or not you didn't disagree with it, I asked whether you agreed with it. Obviously you seem to but because you want to try to be evasive, you again try to avoid answering a direct question and you go on to claim the article shows no depth of understanding. If you think it doesn't show any depth, then please tell me what is lacking.

Mr anony:
Since you claim to know since you told me you know what it means to be born-again; Why do born again people go to heaven while those who reject Christ go to hell?

Being born-again is supposed to be the pre-requisite for going to heaven according to your God. In fact, it is right there in the article I directed you to.

Wikipedia:
In Christianity, to be born again is to undergo a "spiritual rebirth" (regeneration) of the human soul or spirit, contrasted with the physical birth everyone experiences. The origin of the term "born again" is the New Testament: "Jesus replied, 'Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again.'"[Jn 3:3 NIV][1] It is a term associated with salvation in Christianity. Individuals who profess to be born again often state that they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ

Then there's this part about what it means in Protestant denominations.

Wikipedia:
They understand Romans 10:9 to indicate a requirement of salvation: "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." So, "to be born again" means "to be saved" because to be saved, one must confess Jesus is Lord with one's mouth and believe it in one's heart. Also, to be born again means to follow Romans 10:10 that "with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved".

You really should have read that article. You can follow the Bible verses quoted in the response.

Mr anony:
Please back up your answers with scripture. I need you to demonstrate that you actually know what you are talking about before I engage with you on it.

Now can you tell me what it means to be born-again, tell me why born-again people go to heaven while others go to hell. Please back up your answers with scripture, reason and evidence. I need you to demonstrate that you know what Christians believe and whether or not it makes any sense.

Mr anony:
What has human free-will got to do with human sickness?

According to your Bible, everything. Don't forget to address the clear questions raised above and please tell me whether or not Jeffrey Dahmer would be in heaven if he was born-again.

Mr anony:
The above shows you have not thought of diseases deeply enough. As per the bold, please provide scriptural reference

Did the bible not say that god created and saw that everything was good?. . .According to christian theology sin, disease and death only came into the world after the fall of man. . .Do you deny that?. . .

Strawman! Here's what I said:

in order to call one chemical reaction bad and another good, you are really saying that some chemical reactions are supposed to happen while others aren't supposed to happen. This pressuposes that there is a purpose and a purpose presupposes a designer.

The parts in red are the parts you conveniently cut out

I still don't see how your assumptions presupposes a designer in any way. . .It just shows that there are bad chemical reactions that humans want to get rid of because they affect them negatively. . .

Another strawman. I'm sure there's a difference between "allowed" and "infected"

Going by what you are trying to claim, i can also say that your god allowed babies to be infected and be born wih diseases, suffer excruciating pains, live for a year or few months in pains and die without helpin them in any way to ease their suffering?. . .Interesting. . .

thehomer:
Let's see. You said I wasn't a mind reader but what do you do below? You go on to show that I was correct.

If asking you to explain yourself is classed as whining in thehomerverse then ofcourse you are correct.

Is English too difficult for you? They are in fact quite different. Since I know what my own beliefs are, I'm the one in the position to tell you what I agree with. You claiming about me being dishonest means you actually have to present some evidence in support of that claim.

Is English too difficult for you? They are in fact quite different. I didn't claim you were dishonest I only told you that you were. Why are you lying against me by saying that I claimed that you are dishonest?

I didn't ask whether or not you didn't disagree with it, I asked whether you agreed with it. Obviously you seem to but because you want to try to be evasive, you again try to avoid answering a direct question and you go on to claim the article shows no depth of understanding. If you think it doesn't show any depth, then please tell me what is lacking.

I think I asked you a question that was meant to show if you know what you have any depth of understanding of the topic. let's see how you did....

Being born-again is supposed to be the pre-requisite for going to heaven according to your God. In fact, it is right there in the article I directed you to.



Then there's this part about what it means in Protestant denominations.



You really should have read that article. You can follow the Bible verses quoted in the response.



Now can you tell me what it means to be born-again, tell me why born-again people go to heaven while others go to hell. Please back up your answers with scripture, reason and evidence. I need you to demonstrate that you know what Christians believe and whether or not it makes any sense.

The article did not answer the question I asked you, it seems you run out of steam pretty fast when you are asked anything that goes beyond the depth of wikipedia. As usual you evaded the question and tried to shift it to me. Until you answer that question we cannot move forward. You were the one claiming that you know what you are talking about. Let us test your knowledge. Citing scriptural references, complete the following sentences.

1.People who are born again go to heaven because........
2. People who reject Christ go to hell because........

According to your Bible, everything. Don't forget to address the clear questions raised above and please tell me whether or not Jeffrey Dahmer would be in heaven if he was born-again.

You'll need to show me where in the bible you got that idea from. You question remains invalid until you can make that link between freewill and sickness. . .and yes if Jeffrey Dahmer was born again, he'll be in heaven, but then you also have not shown that you know what it means to be born again you've only claimed it. Please don't forget to answer questions 1 and 2 above.

Does being born again stop people from violating god's laws and commandements?. . .the answer is no. . .Does anony sometimes violates his god's laws despite him being born again?. . .the answer is YES. . .So how does being born again and having free will stop any body from violating god's laws in heaven?. . .if satan can do it, why not humans?. . .

Mr anony:
If asking you to explain yourself is classed as whining in thehomerverse then ofcourse you are correct.

Aww. Still whining I see.

Mr anony:
Is English too difficult for you? They are in fact quite different. I didn't claim you were dishonest I only told you that you were. Why are you lying against me by saying that I claimed that you are dishonest?

I see that your problem with the language runs quite deep. You are making an assertion that is demonstrable with external information so you're supposed to support your assertion. Stating a belief which is internal to you isn't construed as a claim, otherwise, you're simply claiming to be a Christian but maybe you don't actually believe that you're a Christian.

Mr anony:
I think I asked you a question that was meant to show if you know what you have any depth of understanding of the topic. let's see how you did....

Wow. And the usual sidestep continues. I'll just keep asking you the same question. Do you agree with the Wikipedia article or not? If not, why? If it isn't detailed enough, please say what is missing.

Mr anony:
The article did not answer the question I asked you, it seems you run out of steam pretty fast when you are asked anything that goes beyond the depth of wikipedia. As usual you evaded the question and tried to shift it to me. Until you answer that question we cannot move forward. You were the one claiming that you know what you are talking about. Let us test your knowledge. Citing scriptural references, complete the following sentences.

1.People who are born again go to heaven because........

Wikipedia:
"Jesus replied, 'Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again.' [Jn 3:3 NIV] . . .

They understand Romans 10:9 to indicate a requirement of salvation: "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

To state it even more plainly, they are supposed to go because they're saved.

Mr anony:
2. People who reject Christ go to hell because........

They're not saved.


Your turn now. Please answer those same questions so we know that your answer is actually different from what I've said.

Mr anony:
You'll need to show me where in the bible you got that idea from. You question remains invalid until you can make that link between freewill and sickness. . .and yes if Jeffrey Dahmer was born again, he'll be in heaven, but then you also have not shown that you know what it means to be born again you've only claimed it. Please don't forget to answer questions 1 and 2 above.

For me to answer, you need to first answer this question. The very first question which I posed. You never answered it. In fact so far, you've only answered one pertinent question while I've answered all of yours except this. You should rectify that.

Or are you scared of being hoisted once again with your answers as I've done several times already? Don't be afraid, lets have a discussion based on answering direct questions when they're asked.

mazaje: Does being born again stop people from violating god's laws and commandements?. . .the answer is no. . .Does anony sometimes violates his go's laws despite him being born again?. . .the answer is YES. . .So how does being born again and having free will stop any body from violating god's laws in heaven?. . .if satan can do it why not humans?. . .

I'm 99.95% sure that Mr anony will not answer these direct questions despite the fact that you've helped him by giving the answers. He will try to give you a run-around.

thehomer:

I'm 99.95% sure that Mr anony will not answer these direct questions despite the fact that you've helped him by giving the answers. He will try to give you a run-around.

Trust my man, he will come and start asking me questions. Instead of commenting on what I have written, he will ask me if I want to go to heaven and the measures I have taken to see to it that i go to heaven. . .LOL!

mazaje: Did the bible not say that god created and saw that everything was good?. . .According to christian theology sin, disease and death only came into the world after the fall of man. . .Do you deny that?. . .

I do not deny that, what I disagree with is the notion that it was this same world because the world obviously changed when Man fell. In Genesis chapter 3, God cursed the land for man's sin, in Revelations chapter 21, God promises us a new earth. The disease-free earth you are asking for is not this one. It is the new one which God will provide.

I still don't see how your assumptions presupposes a designer in any way. . .It just shows that there are bad chemical reactions that humans want to get rid of because they affect them negatively. . .

Since you have stubbornly refused to see it. I can't help you.

Going by what you are trying to claim, i can also say that your god allowed babies to be infected and be born wih diseases, suffer excruciating pains, live for a year or few months in pains and die without helpin them in any way to ease their suffering?. . .Interesting. . .

I agree that God has allowed babies to feel pain and suffer diseases but I disagree with the notion that He didn't help them in any way.

Interestingly you have set up your shop in such a way that you would blame God for everything.
1. if you are expecting, you don't think God had anything to do with it but if the baby are miscarried, you blame God
2. if the children are still-born you still blame God
3. If they are born with a sickness, you blame God
4. if they are born healthy, you don't think God had anything to do with it
5. if the children die at any point, you blame God
6. If you are rich and successful, God had nothing to do with it. Once you fall on bad times you blame God for allowing you fall on bad times etc etc.

The problem with your worldview is that you believe that everybody ought to be rich, healthy and happy and my question is why? especially if there is no design plan. How do you know anything is supposed to be a certain way if you don't presuppose a purpose?
If you don't believe everyone ought to be rich healthy and happy, then a world of poverty, disease and suffering shouldn't bother you at all.

Mr anony:
. . . .

The problem with your worldview is that you believe that everybody ought to be rich, healthy and happy and my question is why? especially if there is no design plan. How do you know anything is supposed to be a certain way if you don't presuppose a purpose?
If you don't believe everyone ought to be rich healthy and happy, then a world of poverty, disease and suffering shouldn't bother you at all.

I don't think that is his worldview. It is what we should see based on the Christian worldview. In fact, it is what is promised to Christians as a "New World".

mazaje:

Trust my man, he will come and start asking me questions. Instead of commenting on what I have written, he will ask me if I want to go to heaven and the measures I have taken to see to it that i go to heaven. . .LOL!

That will be a lucky break. He might even begin by asking what God's commandments are, how you know he (Mr anony) violates them then he'll complete the questions by wondering if you know what it means to be born-again. Despite the fact that its meaning is of little relevance to answering the simple questions.

Mr anony:
I do not deny that, what I disagree with is the notion that it was this same world because the world obviously changed when Man fell. In Genesis chapter 3, God cursed the land for man's sin, in Revelations chapter 21, God promises us a new earth. The disease-free earth you are asking for is not this one. It is the new one which God will provide.

It is still the same world with the same things if we are to agree with the story. . .same land, ame water, oceans etc. . .As you said, god cursed the land. . .The land before wasn't a supernatural land was it?. . .Remember you said that i was talking about a supernatural world that transcends natural phenomena such as chemistry. Was there no natural chemistry in the garden of eden?. . .How did the plants grow for example if not through natural chemistry?. . .A world without diseases doe not mean any suprnatural world. . .

Since you have stubbornly refused to see it. I can't help you.

Stubbornly, eh?. . .LOL!!

I agree that God has allowed babies to feel pain and suffer diseases but I disagree with the notion that He didn't help them in any way.

How did he help them?. . .Don't tell me that he helped them by providing doctors and their parents etc. . .What about those babies in rural african societies that don't have acess to doctors and came into this world already sick and in pains?. . .How did your god help those ones and in what ways, since basic drugs and doctors are not even there. . .As for the ones that have acess to doctors and drugs, how did your god help them as well?. . .

Interestingly you have set up your shop in such a way that you would blame God for everything.
1. if you are expecting, you don't think God had anything to do with it but if the baby are miscarried, you blame God
2. if the children are still-born you still blame God
3. If they are born with a sickness, you blame God
4. if they are born healthy, you don't think God had anything to do with it
5. if the children die at any point, you blame God
6. If you are rich and successful, God had nothing to do with it. Once you fall on bad times you blame God for allowing you fall on bad times etc etc.

i don't believe in any god as such i don't blame and can never blame any god for anything. . .I just wanted to counter your claim of god being responsible for people's lives and having a role in it. . .If god is credited for all the god things, then why do people run away and credit the devil or other things for the bad things?. . .

The problem with your worldview is that you believe that everybody ought to be rich, healthy and happy and my question is why? especially if there is no design plan. How do you know anything is supposed to be a certain way if you don't presuppose a purpose? If you don't believe everyone ought to be rich healthy and happy, then a world of poverty, disease and suffering shouldn't bother you at all.

How does design plan presuppose anything?. . .I fail to see that. . .I believe that every body is supposed to be rich, happy and healthy because every body deserves to be happy and lead a stable life as opposed to being sad, poor and sick. . .

thehomer:

That will be a lucky break. He might even begin by asking what God's commandments are, how you know he (Mr anony) violates them then he'll complete the questions by wondering if you know what it means to be born-again. Despite the fact that its meaning is of little relevance to answering the simple questions.

Anony loves asking questions he himself does not like to answer.

Ask him what it means to be born again. The guy forgets that "born again" is quite a meaningless term nowadays as different denominations have different interpretations of that word.

thehomer:

That will be a lucky break. He might even begin by asking what God's commandments are, how you know he (Mr anony) violates them then he'll complete the questions by wondering if you know what it means to be born-again. Despite the fact that its meaning is of little relevance to answering the simple questions.

You know my man very well. . . .LOL!

thehomer: Aww. Still whining I see.

Ofcourse in thehomerverse

I see that your problem with the language runs quite deep. You are making an assertion that is demonstrable with external information so you're supposed to support your assertion. Stating a belief which is internal to you isn't construed as a claim, otherwise, you're simply claiming to be a Christian but maybe you don't actually believe that you're a Christian.

Whatever this word salad is supposed to be, I know not. The only thing important to a claim is whether it is true or not.
Besides, Chrstianity is not merely an internal assertion, it can be evidenced by outward works. This further shows your ignorance of what it means to be born again. If you are interested in educating yourself, study James chapter 2

Wow. And the usual sidestep continues. I'll just keep asking you the same question. Do you agree with the Wikipedia article or not? If not, why? If it isn't detailed enough, please say what is missing.

asked and answered here
https://www.nairaland.com/1310138/dear-atheist-feel-need-thankful/3#16050543

Now what is missing? Let's see.
It tells us nothing about what you were born from and what you are born into,
It tells us nothing of salvation and why it is necessary,
It tells us nothing about the characteristics of one who is born again
It tells us nothing about why those who are born again will make heaven.
It tells us nothing about why those who reject Christ will go to hell
It tells us nothing about whether a person who is born again can lose his/her status
it tells us nothing about what a relationship with Christ entails.

If you cannot demonstrate that you have a good bible-based understanding of these things, then your claim to know what it means to be born-again is false

To state it even more plainly, they are supposed to go because they're saved.



They're not saved.

Saved from what?

Your turn now. Please answer those same questions so we know that your answer is actually different from what I've said.

I'm afraid you haven't answered anything.

For me to answer, you need to first answer this question. The very first question which I posed. You never answered it. In fact so far, you've only answered one pertinent question while I've answered all of yours except this. You should rectify that.

Or are you scared of being hoisted once again with your answers as I've done several times already? Don't be afraid, lets have a discussion based on answering direct questions when they're asked.

your original question was about sickness in heaven. I answered here
https://www.nairaland.com/1310138/dear-atheist-feel-need-thankful/3#16044442

Logicboy03:



Anony loves asking questions he himself does not like to answer.

Ask him what it means to be born again. The guy forgets that "born again" is quite a meaningless term nowadays as different denominations have different interpretations of that word.

Oh. I've asked him more than once already and he's yet to answer. He cannot even say whether or not he agrees with my own answer. Not to talk about presenting his own answer. This is one of the reasons why I say he is just a terrible apologist.

mazaje:

You know my man very well. . . .LOL!

Only too well my friend. Only too well.

mazaje: Does being born again stop people from violating god's laws and commandements?. . .the answer is no.

Show from scripture

. .Does anony sometimes violates his god's laws despite him being born again?. . .the answer is YES

ad hominem. Proof please

. . .So how does being born again and having free will stop any body from violating god's laws in heaven?. . .if satan can do it, why not humans?. . .

was Satan born-again?

thehomer:

That will be a lucky break. He might even begin by asking what God's commandments are, how you know he (Mr anony) violates them then he'll complete the questions by wondering if you know what it means to be born-again. Despite the fact that its meaning is of little relevance to answering the simple questions.

Isn't it interesting that you lot like to ask questions but hate to justify them.