₦airaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / Login / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 1,406,400 members, 2,239,130 topics. Date: Wednesday, 05 August 2015 at 07:28 AM

PastorAIO's Posts

Nairaland Forum / PastorAIO's Profile / PastorAIO's Posts

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (of 173 pages)

Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 3:28pm On Jul 30
joseph1013:
PastorAIO, have you seen Darren Brown's THE EXPERIMENTS? If you've not, please take a look. They are on YouTube.

If yes, what are your thoughts?

No I haven't, but I will do soon. I also haven't forgotten that I still have to get back to you on the other thing.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 12:13pm On Jul 29
joseph1013:


An ABSOLUTE true self independent from circumstances and indoctrination is something I believe cannot be had.



How about a true Self that is coterminous with one's circumstances, even to the extent of encompassing the entire universe?


What I believe can be close to that is the ability to exercise self awareness. Like I have said before, Genes and Circumstances affect us in more ways than we cannot totally explain, and for some of these things we do not have control over them. What we have control over is how we handle what we can handle. Something like, why do I hate whites? Is it because of what happened during the slave trade? Again, should I let that affect whites who had no hand in the slave trade?

Why do I not like the Hausas? Is it because my parents told me that they have raped our resources and impoverished our lands? Should I then see every Hausa man as exploitative and the man who has caused massive unemployment in my land? Or am I able to see that even my own South South leaders are at the forefront of exploiting their kinsmen?

But with all these cases, our thinking is influenced by the information available to us. That is different for everybody. Different people with different information will come to different conclusions. I don't see how you can arrive at a superior Truth via this means. The only way to think critically would be to have access to all the information in the universe. This is impossible for us. It was seem then that Rationality or Pure Reason is beyond are capabilities.



I believe this is a lifelong process. There will be occasional relapse but agin quickly acknowledging these relapse and keeping emotions in check is key.

This is applicable in politics, economics, religion, personal finance, sexual matters and all spheres of life. Learning to take the piece of the pie that you have control over and thinking about what you are thinking ultimately makes one a better human.

There might seem to be moments or relapse and moments of progress but ultimately how can you progress or relapse when you don't have a standard or a goal you are progressing towards or relapsing away from. How can you make any judgment or evaluation without a standard?
Religion / Re: "Does God Exist?" Resounding No by PastorAIO: 11:58am On Jul 29
Demigods:
Stephendamsoho, According to the Law of logic, it is not reasonable to believe that there is God. However, if you say that He does not exist, if you then die and you finally discover that He exists, know that He will subject you to terrible judgment.

Take note and keep that in mind.

What about if after death he meets God and God says, 'correct guy, I see you like to use the faculties I gave you. In fact that was the true test of life, and you, my son, have passed. So come on in to the garden of glory that has been prepared for you from the beginning of days.' While to the religious he orders his angels to cast them into the burning lake of fire.

It is one thing arguing the existence of God. Then it is quite another thing arguing as to what his character is and what he will approve or disapprove of.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 9:07pm On Jul 28
joseph1013:


I'm lost. cheesy Your point is?To be honest, I have lost track of our discussion. Couple of things have come between it.

A lot has happened since we started, and I haven't been so consistent on this site. But the Long and short of our discussion so far starts from

1: You said certain things about indoctrination and mind control in religion and it's tendency to make people violent. Which led to us talking about critical thinking and teaching people to think critically.

2: I tried to make the point that all thinking, critical or otherwise, is based on certain criteria that are quite arbitrary. When trying to think about what is Right or True, such a process would require a criteria that was not arbitrary but Adamant.

3. Can such an Adamant basis of our thinking and behaviour exist? Is there a true self? i.e.. a true self that is independent from the accidental self that has been shaped by circumstances and indoctrination.

This is at least what I think we have been discussing.
Religion / Re: "Does God Exist?" Resounding No by PastorAIO: 6:48pm On Jul 28
FOLYKAZE:


grin grin grin

I dont know o o o

Maybe a donkey (Ass) or an Ox. At least there is still hope for those ones.

And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
Religion / Re: "Does God Exist?" Resounding No by PastorAIO: 6:36pm On Jul 28
FOLYKAZE:


Bros no dey fall my hand haba.

Jesus said loudly that he was sent only to the lost sheep in the house of Israel. In the parable of the lost sheep, he didnt tell us he couldnt find another animals in the wilderness other than the sheep but he went away only when he found the lost sheep. The bible mentioned some nations as Lion, Fox and Tiger. We have today nations represented as Antelope, Buffalo and Eagle. . . . Jesus did not said anywhere that he will save these other animals. He stated clearly that he is for the sheep only. And those sheep are ten lost tribe of Israel. I dont know how you want to gather lion and sheep together

So what kind of animal are you?
Religion / Re: What Have You Learned From The Religion Section ? by PastorAIO: 5:38pm On Jul 28
UyiIredia:
Please guys and girls, keep the testimonies coming. Our women no wan talk, make una contribute. PastorAIO, I see you, thanks for the contribution. You are an enigma to me actually, I don't know what to classify you.


That is high praise, sir. Very high praise indeed. I would be worried if you could classify me or stick me in a box.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 5:35pm On Jul 28
joseph1013:


Let me twist your logic a lil:

A man with a certain genetic for shortness eats lots of food with high protein and is still short.

A man with the opposite genetic trait is malnourished and still grows taller than the privileged short kid.

Genes are the core of the individual. It is like a bucket. The society and situations determine how filled or otherwise it will be. They work hand in hand and one is not essentially more important than the other.


The potential is the core. How much of the potential you fulfill depend on alot of factor both within and outside of your control as you go along in life.

I see no reason why genes should be the core of a personality above one's circumstances. Are not your genes themselves circumstantial? They are not fixed but constantly undergo mutations and graftings. Genetic material is constantly being added to our gene pool from outside. For instance from viruses everytime we get an infection.

My point is that there is no Right way for a person to be unless there is a True Adamant Core. I'm not prepared to say that this Adamant Core is his genetic material (something that we know is constantly shifting and can be manipulated), however for the purpose of argument I accepted it hypothetically. Once we can accept that there is a True Adamant Core to a person and that circumstances can cause him to veer away from this Core then we can talk about a person ethically being on the Right path or on the wrong path.


If we are driven by various urges to do the things that we do and there is a Deep seated Urge that is hardwired into us then no matter how much we gratify out various other urges, if we leave that core urge ungratified we will have a deep sense of dissatisfaction no matter how much gratifications we are getting elsewhere.
Religion / Re: Where The Church Got It Wrong by PastorAIO: 5:24pm On Jul 28
elantraceey:
The problem I see with the church is that there so many people pointing out problems but with or no one making steps to correct these problems.

Are you suggesting new denominations.
Religion / Re: "Does God Exist?" Resounding No by PastorAIO: 5:00pm On Jul 28
johnydon22:
By asserting you Jesus was not referring to everybody you already cherry picked and have given that verse your own meaning because we all know there was no Christianity then just the jewish society.

By asserting he was addressing you, you already cherry picked and added your own meaning to a clear text.....lolzzz...funny


Jesus has already defined what he means by 'brother' or even 'neighbour'. His usage of such terms are explained in the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

1 Like

Religion / Re: "Does God Exist?" Resounding No by PastorAIO: 4:55pm On Jul 28
stephendamsoho:


were discussing God here NOT sleight of hand

So you believe there's a difference.

1 Like

Religion / Re: What Have You Learned From The Religion Section ? by PastorAIO: 6:15pm On Jul 08
Is the above what you've learnt, or what you think of various protagonists. ^^^^

4 Likes

Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 4:54pm On Jul 08
joseph1013:


What can be more of an innate core of a person than his GENETIC makeup? And this is where the nature (genes) vs nurture (society) question arises again?

Isn't it possible for a man to raise above the this-is-just-the-way-I-am syndrome and still be remarkably better off? Or are we always at the mercy of our 'essential character' such that it alone determines our ultimate happiness?

A man with a certain genetic make up eats lots of food with high protein and grows very tall.

A man with the exact same genetic trait for height eats food with less protein and doesn't grow as tall.

What is the essential true height for that genetic trait?

In other words, Do genes determine your core self or does it just provide you with a range of possibilities?

NB. Genes are not primal urges.

NB. I'm being hypothetical when I say of genetics, 'Let us take that as the adamant core'.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 2:17pm On Jul 08
joseph1013:


Then I refer you to the Maslow Hierarchy of Needs. If his in-born aggressiveness is his idea of self-actualization, then he'd let go if it will hinder Love/Belonging and Esteem.

You seem to think nature trumps nurture when it has to do with behaviour. Why is that?

Maslow's hierarachy is derailing from my point. I'm suggesting that if there is an essential character to a person, an innate core, then Society's values can detract him from that and while he becomes a model citizen of that society he will have an deep sense of discontent.

I think a Nature/Nurture dichotomy is too simplistic to be applied to my point.
Religion / Re: What Have You Learned From The Religion Section ? by PastorAIO: 12:19pm On Jul 08
Very interesting thread.

I must say, I've learnt more about myself from participating here than anything else. I've learnt that even if I may know some things theoretically I will still not practice my knowledge in my conduct.

I have learnt that one should not challenge another persons core belief systems and expect to be left unscathed by the most venomous vitriol and name calling. Luckily it is only name calling cos we are online. I'm sure if this were a face to face forum some of us would be murdered by now.
I kinda knew a lot of this before but its different when you see it manifest before your eyes.

I have learnt that the human mind is an amazing wonderful creative instrument. I used to think I was creative, but when I see the way some people make up doctrines and keep reinventing them I am totally awed.

I learnt that I have such an extreme lovehate feelings for Nigeria and nigerians. I think we are the smartest and the dumbest people on the entire planet.

11 Likes 4 Shares

Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 7:22pm On Jun 03
joseph1013:
What sayeth thou about genes and our individual genetic makeups?

Hmmm... Okay. Let us take that as the adamant core. If a man is therefore genetically predisposed to be aggressive towards his neighbours, but due to socialization and indoctrination he actually exhibits quite mild attributes, would he be left with a deep seated feeling of unfulfilment? Even though he me be respected for his mildness by society, even lauded, would it all leave him dissatified within? Furthermore would it be morally right for him to shake off such indoctrination and revert to his original aggressive nature?
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 5:14pm On Jun 03
joseph1013:


Example?

Presuming that a man is not just a blank slate that is then 'programmed' with all the characteristics that become his personality, but rather that the man has an essential nature, a true being, an adamant core .... Then such behaviour that accords with this, and such thinking that serves this would be based on a criteria that is all his own, not one imposed from without.

But that would presume that there was such an essential nature, and that we are not just accidents of our environment.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 2:49pm On Jun 03
joseph1013:


I think upbringing is quite synonymous with indoctrination. The truth is that one way or the other, we are all indoctrinated. The question is to what degree.

A parent could do all he can to help raise a critical thinking, independent child, but if the society the child lives does not support that, the success rate won't be that much. And I don't think there is a society that does not indoctrinate.

But hey, could we say a society that teaches people to be critical thinkers has indoctrinated them with critical thinking?

Even critical thinking has criteria that are arbitrarily determined. It seems to boil down to values. And a persons values are often conferred to him from his environment.

In a society that values survival above everything, a man well indoctrinated by that society will happily kill another man to get by and consider his actions a good thing.
In a society that values other ideals, a man well indoctrinated by that society will/may give us his life to defend that ideal and will consider his actions a good thing.

But those values that form the criteria for critical thinking are provided arbitrarily by his society/environment.

There is another way though. And that is one whereby the criteria that provides the foundation of a man's thoughts are found, not externally in the environment, but rather deep inside of him in the heart of his very being.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 1:54pm On Jun 03
I wonder if we can make a distinction between indoctrination and plain old upbringing.
In other words, can we make a difference between how someone is brought up and indoctrination? Is everyone that is brought up in a society not indoctrinated in one way or the other? Without indoctrination would we just be feral?

joseph1013:


I wouldn't say positive, but it would certainly be beneficial to indoctrinate a group of individuals may be to increase the productivity of a firm. A group of people who are indoctrinated so as to work in perfect cohesion would definitely be an asset to a firm, an army (as was illustrated by Adolf Hitler) and any other forum of teamwork.

However, considering the matter subjectively, the associated disadvantage is the partial (and in some cases, absolute) destruction of the people's existence. As the book "1984" by "George Orwell" clearly demonstrates, the after effects of a man living in repression are horrific.

Furthermore, I would add that on the whole, indoctrination would probably never be an all round positive thing because as long as the persons involved do not question their teacher and think for themselves, it is a basic violation of the principles along which a person lives.

A person who lives his life at the directions of another person is effectively dead, and is equivalent to a chair or a table. On the other hand, it gives a person complete power over another. A large number of people will blame this conditioning of the mind to account for "Terrorism", who are known for their dedication and single minded approach towards their beliefs.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 10:33am On May 30
joseph1013:


Any kind of indoctrination that brings about negative implications and physical harm can be 'removed', be it religious, political, cultural. Is that a guarantee that it WILL improve the person such that no other vice will be committed by the person involved? NO. But is it worth a try? You bet!

Great! But it would be going too far to try to abolish any ideological activity, be it 'religious, political, cultural.' Perhaps a more sophisticated investigation of how the violence is educed is called for. a scalpel rather than an hacksaw such as we have been using so far.

ps. Could there be possibly useful positive means to which indoctrinating violence could be applied too? For instance in the training for soldiers or a National guard in order to defend a population. Using Nationalism as an ideology to make soldiers hate other nations, and desire to kill them.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 9:50pm On May 29
joseph1013:


I simply need you to answer the question.

lol. okay.

joseph1013:

That's a reference from your last answer. So i repeat:
Could it be true that not everybody whose indoctrination has been removed or soft-pedalled would still be violent?

It is in fact true that when some people have their indoctrination 'removed' that they may become non violent. A great example of this is Patty Hearst. She was kidnapped at 19, indoctrinated and became a violent armed robber. After she was rescued she never committed violent crime again and was in fact pardoned by Bill Clinton.


Patricia Campbell Hearst (born February 20, 1954), now known as Patricia Hearst-Shaw, is the granddaughter of American publishing magnate Randolph Hearst, who became nationally known for events following her kidnapping. In 1974 while she was a 19 year old student living in Berkeley, California, Hearst was abducted by a left-wing terrorist group known as the Symbionese Liberation Army. Isolated and threatened with death, she was brainwashed into supporting their cause, making propaganda announcements for them and taking part in illegal activities. Hearst was found 19 months after her kidnapping, by which time she was a fugitive wanted for serious crimes. She was held in custody, despite speculation that her family's resources would prevent her spending time in jail. At trial the prosecution made Hearst's character and sexual morality an issue, suggesting that she had not been raped while being held prisoner by the SLA. She was found guilty of bank robbery. Her conviction and long prison sentence were widely seen as unjust, but the procedural correctness of her trial was upheld by the courts. Hearst's sentence was commuted by President Jimmy Carter, and she was pardoned by President Bill Clinton. Hearst may have suffered from Stockholm syndrome,[1] named for a hostage situation in Sweden that occurred the previous year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patty_Hearst

This is a great example of of what I think you mean.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 12:07pm On May 29
AllNaijaBlogger:
PastorAIO VS Joseph1013


Your discussion is like that of a boxing match between two defensive (counter-attacking) boxers. Defensive boxers like to go around in circles testing the strength of their opponents and waiting for an opening to pound sense into the opponent.


The argument has been funny all along- two guys in round 8 (over how many pages?) going round in circles looking to trap the other in verbal victory. grin grin grin grin

I'm not being defensive though. I stepped out and stated my case that Sam Harris was wrong in saying that religious moderation is a result of not taking scriptures seriously.

Wrong on many levels. Not taking scriptures literarily, for 1 example, does not equate to not taking it seriously.

What he is trying to pin on religion can by found in every ideology, religious or not, including his own of State Worship, and Americanism. That's another example.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 12:00pm On May 29
joseph1013:


That's a reference from your last answer. So i repeat:

Could it be true that not everybody whose indoctrination has been removed or soft-pedalled would still be violent?

I think you are trying to say that if indoctrination is removed and the person stops being violent then that proves that religion causes violence. Perhaps this is not what you're trying to say but if it is then it's an obvious fail.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 10:28am On May 29
joseph1013:
But not everybody whose indoctrination has been removed or soft-pedalled will still be violent?

And how does this help your case?
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 7:32pm On May 28
joseph1013:
And when the indoctrination is removed, the person will still become violent?

Someone can still be violent without any intentional indoctrination, yes. Are you denying this, or you think all violence is due to indoctrination?
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 5:01pm On May 28
joseph1013:


Then you believe religious indoctrination plays no role in making people behave violently to others of a different belief?

I didn't say that it plays no role. You're putting words in my mouth. I said that it wasn't the cause. Indoctrination of all sorts, religious and otherwise, can play a role in how violent someone will behave towards others.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 2:30pm On May 25
joseph1013:


I didnt think I was going to say this but you're as dogmatic as a religious zealot. Have I been talking (or writing) to a brick wall all this while?

You and I, both. You're as dogmatic as a religious zealot too. We suppose to dey recognise each other when we see.


Did you read this:

Everyone knows about religious violence and how people give literal meanings to writings done in the stone age to inflict pains. And people like me say, look, let people not take these books seriously. The more you take these books less seriously, the more accepting and accommodating you become to other beliefs that are not in tandem to yours. That without broadening your horizon in secular knowledge, you have no way of looking beyond your immediate environment.



Now that I have pointed it out again, what do you understand by it?
[/color]

This conversation started for me from when you quoted Sam Harris and that is the issues which I've been addressing since. If you'd shifted the goalposts, I wasn't aware of that.

I believe you are confusing the meanings of seriousness, and literariness. I can take a book seriously without taking it literarily. I can also take it literarily without taking it seriously.
I agree that there are problems with believing the bible and Koran literarily. That doesn't mean that those that do so are serious students of the bible.
They are no more likely to be 'more accepting and accomodating' to those of different beliefs than you are to others of different beliefs, for example theists.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 11:51am On May 25
joseph1013:


Again, you've started going around in circles. I would think the answer to your question had been addressed in my last comment.

I will repeat it: Yes, technology was used in the first world war and it resulted into a lot of casualties. Even in the Second World War.And then what happened? People spoke against it and are still speaking against technology being used to wipe people off instead of bettering the lives of humans. That has led to better lives for the majority of the citizens of the world.

I don't believe I'm going round in circles. I'm am focussed on one point which I've stated explicitly and buttressed in every subsequent post.

I quote: I agree with you that religion is a 'channel and a big outlet' for violence, but I disagree that it is a cause, whether an only cause or not.
Furthermore the only way you're gonna remove religion and create this your better world might be to lobotomise every human being when they are born. Then we'll walk around peacefully, if like zombies.


Religion is not a cause of violence the same way that technology is NOT a cause of violence. It might facilitate violence, but it is not the Cause. If you seriously want to investigate the causes of violence then we can do so.
Nobody tries to abolish technology because of how it has been used for violence. Societies still pursue technological progress. Why then do you try to abolish religion because of how it has facilitated violence? Why call it the cause when it is obviously not the cause? Violence will stop when you remove the cause.
Then I also make the point that religion is integrally linked to human nature and that the only way to remove it is to lobotomise every baby when they are born. I have no idea how you plan to eradicate religion without understanding the root source of it in our psyche.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 11:44am On May 24
My brother, all I required of you is to say yes or no. Is that statement above valid? Yes or no?

I'll repeat the statement:

You agree with me that technology is a channel and a big outlet for people to perpetuate violence, but that without technology there would still be violence. Therefore it is unnecessary to speak out against the big outlet of violence called technology.


Compare the number of fatalities in the First World War to the number of fatalities in the Napoleonic wars. Millions compared to tens and hundreds of thousands. That is all due to technology. If you removed technology from warfare people would still go to war but the number of fatalities and the violence of the Wars will be very much reduced. Technology did not cause the war, but it served as a channel for facilitating violence on a scale we previously couldn't even imagine.

Since the First World War there has been an arms race to create ever more destructive technological power. Obviously technology has it's positive uses to and these are developed too.

I've not heard you say that Violence will not end when religion is abolished. I have not seen you address those places or times when religion has been abolished and violence increased. Even internal violence, not war. Your excuse was that War was the norm in those days and everybody fought wars. Well what about The Terror in France. That was violence perpetuated on it's own citizens by an atheist state.


joseph1013:


Technology and religion? Are you comparing myths and legends with technology? You don't think that's a ridiculous analogy? For starters, why not look at the pros and the cons and let's compare notes.

But if that's the path you want to tow, by all means let me indulge you.

YES! People are always speaking out against the ills of technology and their voices are heard. That's why there is constant improvements all round in how technology is used. Nuclear energy, a product of technology, is being regulated. Transportation systems are being tested and observed from time to time. Tell me about an outlet of violence that you think technology is put to and I'll tell you how people have spoken against it and how that has led to a better world.

I still think you're so focused on your dislike for Harris that you are reading what you think I wrote and not what I actually wrote. I will ring it to your hearing again that I do not think violence in our world will stop when religious violence is brought to the barest minimum by people taking scriptures less and less seriously. I can quote several places in this discussion that I have said that already. I wonder why you choose to ignore them.

What I know is that we will have a better and a safer world when and if that giant outlet of violence is closed and its influence reduced. The same way we'll have a safer world when political violence is halted or when ethnic violence is stopped.

Your position of not speaking out against one source of violence, a big source at that, is tantamount to saying what is the need in equipping our secondary schools as a means of turning around our decaying educational system when inadequate educational materials is not the only cause of the poor performance of Nigerian students in public examinations.
Religion / Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 11:44am On May 23
joseph1013:
PastorAIO, Reading through this discussion again, I see that we have been going around in circles sort of. I would love to further engage you, therefore I'd like to know in plain terms what your position is.

Let me try and summarize what I think you're saying:

You agree with me that religion is a channel and a big outlet for people to perpetuate violence, but that without religion there would still be violence. Therefore it is unnecessary to speak out against the big outlet of violence called religion.

Is my summary correct?

Interesting you'd call calling out the harm in religion bashing though.

Substitute Technology for religion in the summary you wrote above and this is what you get:

You agree with me that technology is a channel and a big outlet for people to perpetuate violence, but that without technology there would still be violence. Therefore it is unnecessary to speak out against the big outlet of violence called technology.


What I am wary of is this ideology that promises an utopia of Non violence that will be achieved after religion has been abolished. It is a lie, and the historical facts tell us precisely that it is a lie. Of course this ideology seeks to support it's claims by cherry picking cases where non religious societies are not aggressive, and ignoring cases where they are. People like your Sam Harris are prime exponents of this crap and they are so transparent to me, though not to many others who follow them.
Religion / Re: Was Hitler A Christian? by PastorAIO: 6:52pm On May 22
[quote author=OLAADEGBU post=34000971][/quote]

Did he have to explain the kingdom to htem or did they already have an idea of what the kingdom was? What was the current idea of the Kingdom at that time for them?
Religion / Re: Was Hitler A Christian? by PastorAIO: 4:21pm On May 22
OLAADEGBU:


Let's quote from the Epistle of James:

"Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (James 5:16).

James admonition here is that Christians should confess their offences to those they have offended so that they can be healed. It does not refer to repentance and faith needed for salvation.


and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.
THEREFORE... Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another,

Hmm... the only sins referred to here that the Lord will raise the sick from are those sins we've committed against one another. Other sins must use another method.

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (of 173 pages)

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2015 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 239
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.