Dear Mr. Anony.

I, as others, have been following your posts on this forum and have been hugely impressed by the quality of your mind, your philosophical depth, and particularly your excellent temperament.

In the past, I took up some basic issues with some prominent Christians on this forum, notably Noetic, Davidylan, Inesqor, Nuclearboy and his excellency, President for life, Field Marshall Alhaji Dr Viaro, C-IN-C, VINCLEAR, Lord of the Beasts of the Earth and Fish of the Sea, Imperial Creator of physical beings in spiritual heavens, and all round conqueror of the Deep Sight Republic in Nairaland in particular and Life in General, Pilgrim number one of the most high, and First Wordtalker of the Universe.

As you appear to have a profound understanding of not just scripture, but philosophy and life in general, I would dearly like to have your take on some of the nagging issues raised in some of those old threads.

A succinct answer on your view on the central issue raised would suffice. We can discuss each, but not tarry too long on each, so that we can address several in teh next few days.

Let us start with this.

Please see here -

https://www.nairaland.com/336988/noetic-interview-questions-humanity-quality

What do you regard as the fate of sincere and conscientuous non-Christians who live lives of love and charity?

Good heavens,what a post...i didn't want to comment initially but i just have to comment now.

And now i have commented

I would be honored to be part of this thread, but, after this comment, will refrain from input until I have something to say and see that saying it will not mess with the flow. Good one, op

Deep Sight:
Dear Mr. Anony.

I, as others, have been following your posts on this forum and have been hugely impressed by the quality of your mind, your philosophical depth, and particularly your excellent temperament.

In the past, I took up some basic issues with some prominent Christians on this forum, notably Noetic, Davidylan, Inesqor, Nuclearboy and his excellency, President for life, Field Marshall Alhaji Dr Viaro, C-IN-C, VINCLEAR, Lord of the Beasts of the Earth and Fish of the Sea, Imperial Creator of physical beings in spiritual heavens, and all round conqueror of the Deep Sight Republic in Nairaland in particular and Life in General, Pilgrim number one of the most high, and First Wordtalker of the Universe.

As you appear to have a profound understanding of not just scripture, but philosophy and life in general, I would dearly like to have your take on some of the nagging issues raised in some of those old threads.

A succinct answer on your view on the central issue raised would suffice. We can discuss each, but not tarry too long on each, so that we can address several in teh next few days.

Let us start with this.

Please see here -

https://www.nairaland.com/336988/noetic-interview-questions-humanity-quality

What do you regard as the fate of sincere and conscientuous non-Christians who live lives of love and charity?

Lol, you are fueling my ego. I am not as smart as you probably think.....

As for the link you posted, the Op is filled with stereotypes and does not represent Christianity as I know it but nonetheless, let me answer your question:

What do you regard as the fate of sincere and conscientuous non-Christians who live lives of love and charity?

The truth is that I don't know what their (those who never heard the gospel) fate will be but I trust God to judge righteously. I don't know any better way to answer without excessive speculation.
Now this is the second part, If anyone hears the gospel preached but rejects it then the person is condemned. Why is this so? because the core of Christianity is love and charity. I don't see how a person living a life of love (which by the way is impossible to truly live without the aid of the Holy Spirit) can possibly reject the gospel.

This much I know by God's grace, I hope I have answered your question.

Ihedinobi: I would be honored to be part of this thread, but, after this comment, will refrain from input until I have something to say and see that saying it will not mess with the flow. Good one, op

Ah brother! Thank God say you dey the thread. Abeg dey my corner to correct me make I no misyarn.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, you are fueling my ego. I am not as smart as you probably think.....

As for the link you posted, the Op is filled with stereotypes and does not represent Christianity as I know it but nonetheless, let me answer your question:


The truth is that I don't know what their (those who never heard the gospel) fate will be but I trust God to judge righteously. I don't know any better way to answer without excessive speculation.
Now this is the second part, If anyone hears the gospel preached but rejects it then the person is condemned. Why is this so? because the core of Christianity is love and charity. I don't see how a person living a life of love (which by the way is impossible to truly live without the aid of the Holy Spirit) can possibly reject the gospel.

This much I know by God's grace, I hope I have answered your question.

Condemned by whom? what is the gospel? how authentic is the so-called gospel? Who wrote the gospels, who chose what books to include in the gospels and who is the custodian of the origina gospel manuscipts?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, you are fueling my ego. I am not as smart as you probably think.....

As for the link you posted, the Op is filled with stereotypes and does not represent Christianity

O, it was of course meant as an entertaining intro: but please note that I have posed that exact scenario to many christians, and their direct answer was that the monk is going straight to hell.

The truth is that I don't know what their (those who never heard the gospel) fate will be but I trust God to judge righteously. I don't know any better way to answer without excessive speculation.

This is fair enough.

Now this is the second part, If anyone hears the gospel preached but rejects it then the person is condemned. Why is this so? because the core of Christianity is love and charity. I don't see how a person living a life of love (which by the way is impossible to truly live without the aid of the Holy Spirit) can possibly reject the gospel.

What do you refer to as the gospel please?

plaetton:

Condemned by whom? what is the gospel? how authentic is the so-called gospel? Who wrote the gospels, who chose what books to include in the gospels and who is the custodian of the origina gospel manuscipts?

My friend, I refuse to get dragged around by your red herrings as they will lead us on unnecessary tangents. Besides for any of the answers to make any sense to you, you must first accept that God exists not as a faith belief but as a realistic must.

Deep Sight:
What do you refer to as the gospel please?

The gospel is basically about who God is and what He has done for us because of His love. I believe you know the details of it and I think your question is not really about "what is the the gospel?" but it is more about "How does the gospel make sense?"

Am I right in my assumption?

Mr_Anony:
The gospel is basically about who God is and what He has done for us because of His love. I believe you know the details of it and I think your question is not really about "what is the the gospel?" but it is more about "How does the gospel make sense?"

Am I right in my assumption?

O no: I was wondering if you meant the gospel in the sense of the GOSPEL books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, or in the sense of the specific teaching that Jesus died for our sins and must be accepted as personal lord and Savior, or in the SIMPLE sense that one must love God and love one's neighbor. Or are all collectively and strictly necessary, the abandonment of any one of which results in - - - > Condemnation.

Deep Sight:

O no: I was wondering if you meant the gospel in the sense of the GOSPEL books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, or in the sense of the specific teaching that Jesus died for our sins and must be accepted as personal lord and Savior, or in the SIMPLE sense that one must love God and love one's neighbor. Or are all collectively and strictly necessary, the abandonment of any one of which results in - - - > Condemnation.

Oh ok, they are all one and the same truth to me and you can't have anyone without the other....the core of it being the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and what it entails.

God is not gonna judge non-christians according to christian doctrine, and it baffles me that a lot of mainstream christians do not preach this. The book of romans explains this perfectly:

Romans 5:9-15:
9[/b]There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; [b]10[/b]but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. [b]11[/b]For God does not show favoritism.

[b]12[/b]All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. [b]13[/b]For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. [b]14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, [b]15[/b]since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

^^^
So, By man's nature, you do not need any preacher to tell you when you have stolen another man's property, or that you have killed without cause and ra.ped without consent. It is in your nature to know these things. This is default righteousness given to all men to be aware of and respect. Now this is different from the righteousness through christ which gives you the "god nature".

okeyxyz: ^^^
So, By man's nature, you do not need any preacher to tell you when you have stolen another man's property, or that you have killed without cause and ra.ped without consent. It is in your nature to know these things. This is default righteousness given to all men to be aware of and respect. Now this is different from the righteousness through christ which gives you the "god nature".

Honestly, your surmise is excellent: and I may add that there are other scriptures that support this. I will raise them with Mr. Annoy.

Mr. Annoy, what is your comment on the scripture cited by Okeyxyz?

Mr_Anony:
Oh ok, they are all one and the same truth to me and you can't have anyone without the other....the core of it being the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and what it entails.

Are you saying that one cannot love God and love one's neighbout without believing in Jesus and accepting him as lord and personal savior?

Acts 10:34 35: For God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

Mr Annoy, please consider this verse in addition to Romans in your response.

Deep Sight:

Mr Annoy, please consider this verse in addition to Romans in your response.

Deep Sight:

Honestly, your surmise is excellent: and I may add that there are other scriptures that support this. I will raise them with Mr. Annoy.

Mr. Annoy, what is your comment on the scripture cited by Okeyxyz?

Ok first of all you must stop calling me annoy because frankly it's annoying

To be honest, I agree with the scripture Okeyxyz cited because it agrees with God being a God of justice.

Deep Sight:

Are you saying that one cannot love God and love one's neighbout without believing in Jesus and accepting him as lord and personal savior?

Yes that is exactly hat I am saying. How can a person love God and yet reject Jesus Christ who is the manifestation of God in the flesh?
Note: It is a different thing entirely if one has never heard about Jesus Christ at all.

Mr_Anony:
Ok first of all you must stop calling me annoy because frankly it's annoying

Please Mr Annoy, its just a joke, you know where it started. . . don't become MR ANNOYED

To be honest, I agree with the scripture Okeyxyz cited because it agrees with God being a God of justice.

Then how could you say the below - -

Yes that is exactly hat I am saying. How can a person love God and yet reject Jesus Christ who is the manifestation of God in the flesh?
Note: It is a different thing entirely if one has never heard about Jesus Christ at all.

What does it entail to reject christ? I already posted alot about this question in other threads but I presume you have read them? I believe that rejecting christ means rejecting the teaching of love: and not rejecting notions about his deity (which no one can be expected to know for sure, much less commanded to know for sure in order to be saved) or notions about his death and resurrection.

Surely, christ himself taught as much in the parable of the good samaritan, and elsewhere, no?

Need I elaborate?

^^^ O, and you [b]annoy[/b]ingly did not say anything about Acts 10: 34 - 35 which i cited?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, you are fueling my ego. I am not as smart as you probably think.....

As for the link you posted, the Op is filled with stereotypes and does not represent Christianity as I know it but nonetheless, let me answer your question:


The truth is that I don't know what their (those who never heard the gospel) fate will be but I trust God to judge righteously. I don't know any better way to answer without excessive speculation.
Now this is the second part, If anyone hears the gospel preached but rejects it then the person is condemned. Why is this so? because the core of Christianity is love and charity. I don't see how a person living a life of love (which by the way is impossible to truly live without the aid of the Holy Spirit) can possibly reject the gospel.

This much I know by God's grace, I hope I have answered your question.

when you say a person cannot live a life of love without the holy spirit,is that supposed to be speculation of you say it matter-of-factly?i wanna know which before i decide how to respond appropiately.
while responding,think of these people-
mahatma gandhi
dalai lama
supreme master ching hai
pat robertson
bishop oyedepo

Deep Sight:

Please Mr Annoy, its just a joke, you know where it started. . . don't become MR ANNOYED



Then how could you say the below - -



What does it entail to reject christ? I already posted alot about this question in other threads but I presume you have read them? I believe that rejecting christ means rejecting the teaching of love: and not rejecting notions about his deity (which no one can be expected to know for sure, much less commanded to know for sure in order to be saved) or notions about his death and resurrection.

Surely, christ himself taught as much in the parable of the good samaritan, and elsewhere, no?

Need I elaborate?

Deep Sight:
^^^ O, and you [b]annoy[/b]ingly did not say anything about Acts 10: 34 - 35 which i cited?

Lol, While I appreciate the joke in "annoy" you must realize that with time the joke wears off and becomes an insult. For instance if I called you Deep Sh*t the first time as a joke, It can be overlooked but if I keep using it every time I address you, then it is no longer a joke but an insult. Please let's be civil to each other.

As for Acts 10, I agree and the story behind the verse is really interesting, it explains perfectly what I've been saying i.e. you cannot reject Christ while accepting His message, and I'll come to it with time.

Now If you agree I can explain to you what I believe as best as I can with God's grace. This is so that you get where I stand as a Christian without assuming things I don't necessarily hold.
Also If you agree, I'll ask that as we discuss, we follow reason to where it leads and not resort to playing with words or purposely trying to misunderstand each other or other such dishonest practices.

..........I have to go to church now, I'll continue when I come back.

Lol........looks like you have to change that name, bro.

See you guys later. Have to go to church too.

Mr_Anony:
Yes that is exactly hat I am saying. How can a person love God and yet reject Jesus Christ who is the manifestation of God in the flesh?
Note: It is a different thing entirely if one has never heard about Jesus Christ at all.

Another mistake christians make is to project christian doctrine on non-christians. When paul wrote his letters, He wrote to the churches he had help found in the different cities, that is: he wrote to christians, not unbelievers. So you should not subject non-christians to the same mandate that christians have been subjected, unless they are converted. So, Rejecting christ in this context refers to a christian who rejects christ. A man cannot reject something he never understood in the first place.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, While I appreciate the joke in "annoy" you must realize that with time the joke wears off and becomes an insult. For instance if I called you Deep Sh*t the first time as a joke, It can be overlooked but if I keep using it every time I address you, then it is no longer a joke but an insult. Please let's be civil to each other.

O, come on, you know this started as a typo made by Plaetton! Easy up man! But if you're sensitive about it, no worries, you won't hear it from me again.

As for Acts 10, I agree and the story behind the verse is really interesting, it explains perfectly what I've been saying i.e. you cannot reject Christ while accepting His message, and I'll come to it with time.

Please come to it presently.

Now If you agree I can explain to you what I believe as best as I can with God's grace. This is so that you get where I stand as a Christian without assuming things I don't necessarily hold.
Also If you agree, I'll ask that as we discuss, we follow reason to where it leads and not resort to playing with words or purposely trying to misunderstand each other or other such dishonest practices.

Yes I agree: and I say to you that there are many verses from Christ himself clearly saying that mere belief in his name is nothing: but even those who knew him not he will call brothers in his kingdom for their acts of love.

..........I have to go to church now, I'll continue when I come back.

Alright. I really was wondering why you hadn't left sooner. Cheers bro.

Pray for us sinners.

I might be heading off to church now too. . . albeit for altogether different reasons than worship. The church has proved an excellent hunting ground for many endeavors in this life. Truly.

Mr_Anony:
My friend, I refuse to get dragged around by your red herrings as they will lead us on unnecessary tangents. Besides for any of the answers to make any sense to you, you must first accept that God exists not as a faith belief but as a realistic must.

A realistic must? you are sounding like a fanatic.
Absolute nonsense. Ofcourse I must drink the wine first in order to get drunk, right?
If I have to first believe in your god before I engage you, then what would be the point in the first place? I might as well be your sunday school sheep.

Mr Anony, I respect you , but I must say you have a bad habit of not answering questions. I called you an artful dodger, not in a disrespectful way, but because you , like most of other theists, you simply cant say " I dont know".

On the other thread , I wanted to know from thiestic perspective, from whence comes disease, you ignored the question and delved into perfection and non-perfection this and that and then you finally asked me to prove that god does not exists. WHAT?
Then I asked you explain what you meant by the earth being damaged, you once again ignored the question and delved into all sorts of absurdities.

I am just amazed.

Mr_Anony:
Oh ok, they are all one and the same truth to me and you can't have anyone without the other....the core of it being the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and what it entails.

What if, and I repeat, what if there is a 20% probability that jesus neither died on the cross or resurrected and the whole story is just a made up fable similar those of the numerous god-men of earlier religions, which, I am sure you regard as myths?

The most important question is how did this truth come to you since it supposedly occured 2000 years ago?

Mr_Anony:
Oh ok, they are all one and the same truth to me and you can't have anyone without the other....the core of it being the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and what it entails.

But the resurrection of Jesus remains a myth. . .After all Mohammed ascended into paradise on the back of a white winged horse too. . .

What I expect an honest christian to say is " I do not know everything, most things are mysteries and I may never know, but I have faith, my faith is my strenght and guiding rod". Simple

It is all about faith, not about truth. Faith and truth are not the same. Faith, by its own nature, can and always tend to ignore truth.
The bible is not truth,it is the truth for the faithful. If you study the early beginnings of christianity, you will see that there were great schisms within the early church about what, among the competing and sometimes conflicting truths(?), should be taught to the faithful.

Along the 2 millenia, some factions won and some factions lost.

What we have today are the enforced dogmas of the triumphant party. Surely, can we expect them to be consistently objective given their historically consistent bias towards political,economic, social and religious domination?
History does not have dogmas, only the church does.

It is grand folly for any intelligent person to try to supplant enforced dogma in the place of historically verifiable truthsa.

The virgin birth of Jesus,his crucifiction, his resurrection and ascension, earthly life and his family, his divinity, and even the perpetual virginity of mary and jesus's teachings concerning re-incarnation were all vigorously debated and factionalised by the various church councils and synods as well as by the early Nazarene christians in the first century.

The fact that we cannonized and non-cannonized gospels is enough proof that the bible is a handbook of enforced dogmas and is nowhere close to being historical truths.

Father Eusebius, yes Eusebius, the grand daddy of pius fraud, in one of his writings, once rebuked Jesus for not following the teachings of Paul.

Funny, eh? can you just imagine that?

plaetton: What I expect an honest christian to say is " I do not know everything, most things are mysteries and I may never know, but I have faith, my faith is my strenght and guiding rod". Simple

If wishes (expectations) were horses (unicorns)..........

It is all about faith, not about truth. Faith and truth are not the same. Faith, by its own nature, can and always tend to ignore truth.
The bible is not truth,it is the truth for the faithful. If you study the early beginnings of christianity, you will see that there were great schisms within the early church about what, among the competing and sometimes conflicting truths(?), should be taught to the faithful.

Rant

Along the 2 millenia, some factions won and some factions lost.

What we have today are the enforced dogmas of the triumphant party. Surely, can we expect them to be consistently objective given their historically consistent bias towards political,economic, social and religious domination?
History does not have dogmas, only the church does.

It is grand folly for any intelligent person to try to supplant enforced dogma in the place of historically verifiable truthsa.

More rant and a powerful display of very deep-seated ignorance and of bigotry of the worst order.

plaetton: The virgin birth of Jesus,his crucifiction, his resurrection and ascension, earthly life and his family, his divinity, and even the perpetual virginity of mary and jesus's teachings concerning re-incarnation were all vigorously debated and factionalised by the various church councils and synods as well as by the early Nazarene christians in the first century.

The fact that we cannonized and non-cannonized gospels is enough proof that the bible is a handbook of enforced dogmas and is nowhere close to being historical truths.

Father Eusebius, yes Eusebius, the grand daddy of pius fraud, in one of his writings, once rebuked Jesus for not following the teachings of Paul.

Funny, eh? can you just imagine that?

And all of us idiots thought we were Christians! How could we be so misled? O Thou knower of all Christianity, save us from our delusions, we pray.

Dude, you got you a huge problem. And I ain't just saying so.

Mr Anony, my brother, please permit me to advise you to focus your attention on Deep Sight's queries. If it becomes necessary, I will address myself to the others who seem quite intent on muddling things up.