Pastor AIO:

The educated thing to do here is to show some documentation demonstrating what you said, or at least produce an argument to support your assertion.  But alas, you lack education, don't you?

what are u talking about? . . . .  u claimed that Yahweh differs from El . . . .your innuendos were rubbished for lack of substance and u dare demand proof from me?. . .proof of what?
1. Yahweh described Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob  . . . .is that not reconcilable to El.
2. Like El did, Yahweh builds a relationship with the Jews and chooses to be their King. . . . .just like El chose to be the friend of Abraham.
3. The israelietes would later believe Moses because Yahweh was able to provide (through miraculous works) . . . . . an exclusive preserve of Eli.

. . . .  ,  what part of this ontology do u not understand?

Awww . . . pele.  Don't let it pain you too much.

honestly, It does pain me but not too much.  I am sure whoever your congregation is . . . . I pray that your satanic yoke be broken from their neck. Your congregation would hence-forth be in my prayers.

I thought that relationship that Jesus came to re-establish was the one broken by Adam in the garden of Eden.  Perhaps you can teach me more about this part of your 'christianity'.  

This is what u get when u "debate" with empty-heads    . . . , did God have a rel with Abraham, Enoch and Moses?

Pastor AIO:


I cannot explain what I cannot see. Please show me the reconcilable ontologies. (Why the need to reconcile if they are the same, even). The Elohim are in fact plural. Were you aware of that?

I laugh in tongues.

1. I dont have to show u anything. u claimed that they are separate persons on the basis of ontology. . . . .several holes have been picked in ur ridiculous assertions. . . . .its left to u to throw up jejune points. . , . . .I am tempted to give up on u, but I wont, cos I know how deep ur folly runs.

2. I specifically avoided the name "Elohim" simply because of ur idolatry assertions. what would u make of Elohim? . . . .a bunch of cannanite idols or what?

Bastage:

I agree with PastorAIO. Your assertion does not take into account evolutionary factors within religion. The God of Abraham in the OT is of a different personality to that of Moses'. Take it further down the line and he's totally different from the god in the NT. The god evolved and morphed into another as his followers developed and expounded on their religion. There are many, many instances where religion has evolved and the nature of god has changed with them. Judeo/Vhristianity is no different and there is no logical reason why that should not be so.

You have NOT said anything new or factual.
A. how did this God/Gods evolve?
B. whats the over-whelming difference in their ontologies?
C. why should ur assertions be regarded as factual?

I'd have to also disagree that the god of the early OT and that of later pages is of the same personality and ontology. Although there are some similarites, this would only be natural. But take a look further down the line to the NT and you can see that there is a clear difference - we go from warrior desert god to universal loving god - the two couldn't be further apart in character.

1. The above is just a mere opinion influenced by anti-Bible sentiments

2. Why would u define a god/God by the people who worship Him? why call Yahweh a desert God? was He not served in the promised land? is He not the same God being served today?

3. Perhaps u dont understand the concept of a universal loving God. The same Yahweh who called a desert God, is the same universal loving God, with the same ontological will . . . . .His inability to withstand sin.

Similarites do not point to El/Jehovah being the same god. it's like saying that a banana is the same as an apple because they are both fruits when clearly they are two separate organisms with different attributes. As for using the name as evidence of an identical god? Let's not forget that the Christian god also had many others. And we can't read anything into the names El or Elohim as they predate Judaism [/b]and were just general terms for the name "god".

Of course they pre-date Judaism . . . . Abraham, enoch, Isaac, Jacob, Noah NEVER practised judaism but knew El/ Elohim.

I too have read the Karen Armstrong book. Once cannot place ridicule at her doorstep as she is only repeating what many theologians have stated for years -[b] there are many gods in the bible.

where is your ontological proof?

God is a belief. A theory. Non-believers often point that out yet totally ignore the facts that theories always evolve - even in such dogmatic practices as religion.

another unfortunate display of ignorance.

noetic16:

You have NOT said anything new or factual.
A. how did this God/Gods evolve?
B. whats the over-whelming difference in their ontologies?
C. why should your assertions be regarded as factual?

Are you being serious? It seems to me that you must be joking by asking those questions.
Otherwise how do you explain the 3 different Abrahamic religions?
If there were no difference, there would be one universal religion.
Please man, try to take things seriously. The answer is so huge and yet you can't see it!!!

1. The above is just a mere opinion influenced by anti-Bible sentiments

No. Through a thorough study of history and theology and not by taking the Bible literally. The latter would be totally illogical.

2. Why would u define a god/God by the people who worship Him? 

Again, a crazy question. Organised religion sets the standards and tells you what you must believe. People tell you what God is about. For a literalist to dispute this fact is utterly ridiculous - their god is more defined by other people than any other sector.

why call Yahweh a desert God?

Because quite simply, that's what he was. Study your books and educate yourself. There is no disputing the matter.

is He not the same God being served today?

If he was, you would be making sacrifices, murdering, enslaving and pillaging.

3. Perhaps u dont understand the concept of a universal loving God. The same Yahweh who called a desert God, is the same universal loving God, with the same ontological will . . . . .His inability to withstand sin.

That's just religious claptrap.

Abraham, enoch, Isaac, Jacob, Noah NEVER practised judaism but knew El/ Elohim.

They sure did. But El wasn't Yaweh. He was the Canaanite god El. The Bible even tells you that Abraham was a Canaanite.

where is your ontological proof?

Archeology, history, general common sense.

another unfortunate display of ignorance.

I'd have to agree. But it's on your behalf.

Bastage:

Are you being serious? It seems to me that you must be joking by asking those questions.
Otherwise how do you explain the 3 different Abrahamic religions?
If there were no difference, there would be one universal religion.
Please man, try to take things seriously. The answer is so huge and yet you can't see it!!!

No. Through a thorough study of history and theology and not by taking the Bible literally. The latter would be totally illogical.

Again, a crazy question. Organised religion sets the standards and tells you what you must believe. People tell you what God is about. For a literalist to dispute this fact is utterly ridiculous - their god is more defined by other people than any other sector.

Because quite simply, that's what he was. Study your books and educate yourself. There is no disputing the matter.

If he was, you would be making sacrifices, murdering, enslaving and pillaging.


That's just religious claptrap.

They sure did. But El wasn't Yaweh. He was the Canaanite god El. The Bible even tells you that Abraham was a Canaanite.

Archeology, history, general common sense.

I'd have to agree. But it's on your behalf.

Lol! Sharp responses, bastage. We all need patience for them to wake up and catch up, and that is not arrogantly meant.

@ Bastage. . .

I forgot to welcome you back to the forum after such a long time. . . Welcome back!. . . .

Bastage:

Are you being serious? It seems to me that you must be joking by asking those questions.
Otherwise how do you explain the 3 different Abrahamic religions?
If there were no difference, there would be one universal religion.
Please man, try to take things seriously. The answer is so huge and yet you can't see it!!!

is this not dumb? The abrahamic religions are divided on the basis of beliefs. The jews (judaism) are still expecting a messaih, the xtians believe He has already come. . . , how EXACTLY does that show 3 different deities?. . . .  .quite evasive and silly.

No. Through a thorough study of history and theology and not by taking the Bible literally. The latter would be totally illogical.

What historical and theological analysis did u profer?   where is your logical rationale presented from history?  

Again, a crazy question. Organised religion sets the standards and tells you what you must believe. People tell you what God is about. For a literalist to dispute this fact is utterly ridiculous - their god is more defined by other people than any other sector.

This is plain stupid.

You called Yahweh a desert God . . . .why should a God's ontology be defined by the place of worship? was Yahweh not worshipped in the promised land? is HE not being worshipped in cities all over the world today? are u this dumb?  

They sure did. But El wasn't Yaweh. He was the Canaanite god El. The Bible even tells you that Abraham was a Canaanite.

Idiot.

Why then did Yahweh call Himself the God of Abraham? and why did Abraham's descendants accept Him to be so?

noetic16:

is this not dumb? The abrahamic religions are divided on the basis of beliefs. The jews (judaism) are still expecting a messaih, the xtians believe He has already come. . . , how EXACTLY does that show 3 different deities?. . . .  .quite evasive and silly.

How blind.
So you worship the same god as the Muslims? If so, you're about the first literalist that I've heard admit it.
At least you admit that there are different beliefs so 'll put it in simple terms for you - gods are defined by their believers - wether that be Allah, Jehovah, Yaweh or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. The believers define the god's attributes so that others can follow. Muslims don't have a problem with putting to death apostates because their god "has stated" that it's required. Yet the Christian god does not ask for the same punishment does he? What do you think? That there's a god who's got one rule for one lot of followers and then another rule for the next lot? There are thousands of other differences that are attributed to the god and force the different followers to follow different rules. With so many contrary attributes it is impossible for it to be the same god as it originally was. Don't be so ignorant. If there is no difference you may as well be a Muslim or a Jew.

What historical and theological analysis did u profer?   where is your logical rationale presented from history?  

Do you honestly think I've got the time to present the millions of pieces of evidence that depict religious and theistic evolution? Ridiculous. Go hit Google and look for yourself. I'm literally speechless that you would ask for evidence when it is everywhere.

This is plain silly.
You called Yahweh a desert God . . . .why should a God's ontology be defined by the place of worship? was Yahweh not worshipped in the promised land? is HE not being worshipped in cities all over the world today? are u this dumb?  

Again, you show absolutely and utterly no understanding of the subject whatsoever. A god's ontology isn't affected by where he sprang up? That statement totally disregards the contents of the very book that you profess to follow. Have you even bother reading Exodus or Deutoronomy? A nomadic people wandering through the desert with their god directing them and specifying actions that are specific to their environment. How can ontology do anything but be defined by the geographical and cultural origins of the god?

Why then did Yahweh call Himself the God of Abraham? and why did Abraham's descendants accept Him to be so?

Quite simply, he didn't. Men said that. And because men reinforced that statement through warfare, corruption and brain-washing, idiots like you continue propogating the lie.

idiot

Bastage:

How blind.
So you worship the same god as the Muslims? If so, you're about the first literalist that I've heard admit it.

Are u so daft?  did I mention islam in any of my posts? . . . I limited my assertions to judaism and Christianity. how did u miss that?

At least you admit that there are different beliefs so 'll put it in simple terms for you - gods are defined by their believers - wether that be Allah, Jehovah, Yaweh or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. The believers define the god's attributes so that others can follow.

Says who? what happened to their (God) ontologies?. . .  , Two theists whose difference in opinion is the need for the worship of God. One believes that God ought to be worshipped and the other says No . . . .how EXACTLY does that define two different deities?
Dude, get real, u are confused.

Muslims don't have a problem with putting to death apostates because their god has stated that it's required. Yet the Christian god does not ask for the same punishment does he? What do you think? That there's a god who's got one rule for one lot of followers and then another rule for the next lot? There are thousands of other differences that are attributed to the god and force the different followers to follow different rules. Don't be so ignorant.

is the apostate killing not an ontological attribute/injunction of the muslim god? ,  . . why would u define the muslim god by its ontology, but the Xtian God by His followers? . .  . .do u think at all? 

Do you honestly think I've got the time to present the millions of pieces of evidence that depict religious and theistic evolution? Ridiculous. Go hit Google and look for yourself. I'm literally speechless that you would ask for evidence when it is everywhere.

what a joker 
U dont have the time to prove ur RIDICULOUSLY UN-FOUND assertions, but u do have the time to post repeatedly. . . . .does this dude think he is addressing a bunch of skool kids? 
The onus is on you to PROVE ANY of ur assertions using historical and theological evidences like u boasted.

Again, you show absolutely and utterly no understanding of the subject whatsoever. A god's ontology isn't affected by where he sprang up? That statement totally disregards the contents of the very book that you profess to follow. Have you even bother reading Exodus or Deutoronomy? A nomadic people wandering through the desert with their god directing them and specifying actions that are specific to their environment. How can ontology do anything but be defined by the geographical and cultural origins of the god?

You just confirmed my worst fears . .  .u are plainly ignorant of the subject matter.
IF the geographic location defined Yahweh in the desert as a desert God . . . .what does it define Yahweh as the moment they got to the promised land?
The point is u made a baseless assertion to state that Yahweh was a desert God. .  .simply because that does not put into cognizance His other ontological attributes. If u choose to define Him by location. . .was HE served only in the desert?

Quite simply, he didn't. Men said that. And because men reinforced that statement through warfare, corruption and brain-washing, idiots like you continue propogating the lie.

At ur convenience u claim "Men said . ,  ." and at ur inconvenience u claim "Yahweh said . . , " Dude, get real and stop running around in circles.

noetic16:

Are u so daft?  did I mention islam in any of my posts? . . . I limited my assertions to judaism and Christianity. how did u miss that?

I'm not daft. You are. Or do you now think that Islam is not an Abrahamic religion?
Let me remind you of what you said:

is this not dumb? The abrahamic religions are divided on the basis of beliefs.

Really? Islam not an Abrahamic religion then? What's the point in even arguing with you when you don't know the basics?

Says who? what happened to their (God) ontologies?. . .  , Two theists whose difference in opinion is the need for the worship of God. One believes that God ought to be worshipped and the other says No . . . .how EXACTLY does that define two different deities?
Dude, get real, u are confused.

No. You are confused. I've already explained how gods are given attributes by their followers. I've already explained how when you pile a different attribute on top of something time and time again, it comes to be something else. Something unrecognisable from the original. Maybe you're just too dumb to understand? Want me to repeat myself?

is the apostate killing not an ontological attribute/injunction of the muslim god? ,  . . why would u define the muslim god by its ontology, but the Xtian God by His followers? . .  . .do u think at all? 

This is basically the same drivel as your last quote. Yet here you actually use the words "muslim god". Would this be the same Abrahamic god as Yaweh or a different one? If it's the same one, why not just call it God? But you can't can you?
You've just totally contradicted your whole argument with those two words. If there is a Muslim god and a Christian god it cannot be the same god. You would not need to use the words Muslim, Christian or Jew. It would just be God!!!

U dont have the time to prove your RIDICULOUSLY UN-FOUND assertions, but u do have the time to post repeatedly. . . . .does this dude think he is addressing a bunch of skool kids? 
The onus is on you to PROVE ANY of your assertions using historical and theological evidences like u boasted.

So now you're too inept to type "History of religions" into Google? How many of the 2 million three hundred and ten thousand pages that are returned would you like me to quote?

IF the geographic location defined Yahweh in the desert as a desert God . . . .what does it define Yahweh as the moment they got to the promised land?

My god!! Am I really going to have to explain it to you again? Once the Hebrews became urbanised, the nature of their god changed. So much so that some continued changing it, eventually leading to the creation of Christianity.

The point is u made a baseless assertion to state that Yahweh was a desert God. .  .simply because that does not put into cognizance His other ontological attributes. If u choose to define Him by location. . .was HE served only in the desert?

Baseless?

"The earliest Yahwistic traditions reveal that Yahweh was a bedouin war god from the deserts of Edom and of the surrounding regions. His essentially warlike characteristics are demonstated by his name, by cultic celebrations of his mighty deeds, and by his ark."

http://www.biblicalheritage.org/God/el-goi.htm

At your convenience u claim "Men said . ,  ." and at your inconvenience u claim "Yahweh said . . , " Dude, get real and stop running around in circles.

No. That's just pathetic - resorting to semantics because you have no other argument. But read my post again. Even there you are wrong.
Let me quote what I wrote:

Muslims don't have a problem with putting to death apostates because their god "has stated" that it's required.

Now go back to school and learn some grammar. Maybe it will tell you what the apostophes around "has stated" mean.

@Pastor AIO: Thanks for obliging.

Unfortunately, I dont believe in using some else's speculative views (esp when the person does not consider the Bible infallible) to define what is understood in my own spirit. Its my personal revelation so you dont need to accept it.

In my current view, there was no "evolution" on God's part. Rather, man's experience with God is like the incidence of pure light on a glass prism, diffracting into several hues. We see each component hue when we are on various spectral levels but it will be ignorant to observe RED then ORANGE then GREEN in that order and claim that the colors are evolving down the spectral lines, red becoming orange, etc. If God was REALLY evolving then there would be no trace of the ancient form when the new ones emerge (we all know colors are independent of each other, green does not negate the existence of red). It is the handling of man by God that keeps changing, IMHO and not God in Himself.

Best Regards.

InesQor:

It is the handling of man by God that keeps changing, IMHO and not God in Himself.

It's the other way around - man's handling of God. The Bible itself is the handling of man.
God didn't create Christianity. He is not Christianity - those are the "handlings of man". He is not the Christian god or the Muslim god - those are "handlings of man".
He is just God.

Bastage:

I'm not daft. You are. Or do you now think that Islam is not an Abrahamic religion?
Let me remind you of what you said:

Really? Islam not an Abrahamic religion then? What's the point in even arguing with you when you don't know the basics?

can u read to comprehend at all?

while differentiating the Abrahamic religions on the basis of BELIEFS . . . .I specifically avoided mentioning or referring to Islam. Simply because the islamic concept of "God" contains many fraudulent claims that are not intended to be discussed on this thread.
Why is that so hard for u to understand?  

No. You are confused. I've already explained how gods are given attributes by their followers. I've already explained how when you pile a different attribute on top of something time and time again, it comes to be something else. Something unrecognisable from the original. Maybe you're just too dumb to understand? Want me to repeat myself?

No, the primary cos of disagreement remains your ignorantly driven fraudulent assertion that Yahweh is a desert God.
. . . . IF the beliefs of two theists on an ontological attribute of a creator differ . . . .does that mean they are talking of different deities? . .
Dude, admit your ignorance.

This is basically the same drivel as your last quote. Yet here you actually use the words "muslim god". Would this be the same Abrahamic god as Yaweh or a different one? If it's the same one, why not just call it God? But you can't can you?

Do I have to educate u on every simple sub-subject?  The muslims have a different deity simply because its(koran allah) ontological attributes differ on a large scale to that of Yahweh/Jehovah/El. If u were ignorant of this assertion, how then would u understand the ontological similarities between the Biblical names of God u attribute to imaginary different deities?

You've just totally contradicted your whole argument with those two words. If there is a Muslim god and a Christian god it cannot be the same god. You would not need to use the words Muslim, Christian or Jew. It would just be God!!!

will u SHUT UP?  

1. This thread discusses the presumed different ontological attributes of Yahweh, El and Elohim. how EXACTLY did the muslim god come in? . . .  .it came in, due to your fraudulent attempt to discredit the universal ontological attributes of God as proclaimed in the bible . . . .thus u claimed the existence of a universal God via Abrahamic religions.

2. I refused to be drawn into such "debate" since it was clearly obvious that the ontological attributes of the muslim god (allah) and Yahweh/El are completely DIFFERENT based on scriptural accounts.

3. Since this thread does not attempt to discuss the existence of a "universal God" that reconciles islam with Christianity. . . . .how then am I supposed to have contradicted my argument by mentioning a muslim god?  

So now you're too inept to type "History of religions" into Google? How many of the 2 million three hundred and ten thousand pages that are returned would you like me to quote?

This is lazy, dumb, ridiculous, unintelligent, . . . . . of u. Your inability to construct a meaningful argument and provide substantial proofs to back up your ridiculous assertion about Yahweh (but instead refer me to google) makes my tummy ache.

My god!! Am I really going to have to explain it to you again? Once the Hebrews became urbanised, the nature of their god changed. So much so that some continued changing it, eventually leading to the creation of Christianity.

You can do better. how EXACTLY did a desert God transform ontologically, the moment the israelites reached the promised land?
The least expected of u is to construct a meaningful analyses like an educated person would.

Baseless?

"The earliest Yahwistic traditions reveal that Yahweh was a bedouin war god from the deserts of Edom and of the surrounding regions. His essentially warlike characteristics are demonstated by his name, by cultic celebrations of his mighty deeds, and by his ark."

http://www.biblicalheritage.org/God/el-goi.htm

I am too disappointed.

who were the edomites? they are the sons/descendants of Esau. Esau was the brother of Jacob, the sons of Isaac. Isaac was the promised child of Abraham. Abraham was the friend of El. Yahweh introduced Himself as the God of Abraham.

Since Esau served Yahweh like His father did, why is it not obvious to you that the Edomites were serving the LIVING God like the Israelites were? Also remember (I am assuming u knew) that Yahweh asked the Children of Israel NOT to ever war against the Edomites.

And there


No. That's just pathetic - resorting to semantics because you have no other argument. But read my post again. Even there you are wrong.
Let me quote what I wrote:Now go back to school and learn some grammar. Maybe it will tell you what the apostophes around "has stated" mean.

Do u have selective amnesia or what? ,  . . this was what u said

Quite simply, he didn't. Men said that. And because men reinforced that statement through warfare, corruption and brain-washing, idiots like you continue propogating the lie.

You display your intellectual emptiness (when your ignorance is exposed)by attributing the words of God to men . .  . , and later twist to ridicule God (when allowed to display your folly) by claiming that those same words are God's.

@Bastage: You appear rather hasty to disagree with me. You say the handling of God by man is what changes and not the other way round. You say the Bible in itself is the handling of man by God. Now let me ask you: this "Bible", is it not a collection of experiences of various peoples over various ages? Does this not confirm my point that its the handling of man by God that changes through time? You disagree with me only to confirm my point.

For the record, in my explanation on progressive revelation, I speak only of the God of the Jews and the Christians. I wont speak of the God as worshipped by the muslims or any other worldview because I am not informed enough in those regards. Thanks.

Quotes from Noetic16 to Bastage -

noetic16:

is this not dumb?

will u SHUT UP? ?

This is lazy, dumb, ridiculous, unintelligent

Are u so daft?

You display your intellectual emptiness

. . do you think at all?

quite evasive and silly.

This is plain silly.

can u read to comprehend at all?

are u this dumb?  

Idiot.

Well, well, well! ! Somebody's getting reeeeeaaaaaalllyyyyy upset about Yahweh's history.

Frankly the level of insults above are entirely unnecessary.

Let's try to build upwards and not downwards.

None of us are kids I am sure.

Deep Sight:

Quotes from Noetic16 to Bastage -

Well, well, well! ! Somebody's getting reeeeeaaaaaalllyyyyy upset about Yahweh's history.

Frankly the level of insults above are entirely unnecessary.

Let's try to build upwards and not downwards.

None of us are kids I am sure.

would it not have been balanced if u had highlighted "Pastor" AIO and Bastage offensive words too. But ofcourse u wont, since u both share the same world view. Dude, get real.

Captain Noetic,

I see you have been banned again. Na wa.

[Post edited. Im sure you have seen it]

noetic17:

would it not have been balanced if u had highlighted "Pastor" AIO and Bastage offensive words too. But ofcourse u wont, since u both share the same world view. Dude, get real.

Actually i set out to quote all the offensive words from both of you.

When i started with Bastage I found that there were only two offensive words, and those were in direct response to your own offensive words.

Tone it down na?

Common now fellas. Please play nice. It's been a good debate btw you all.

Noetic, I think it was the spambot that automatically banned you because you tried to repost that last one. In the future if the spambot tags a post, don't try to repost it cos you'll get banned automatically.

I really love this thread.

InesQor:

Captain Noetic,

I see you have been banned again. Na wa.

[Post edited. Im sure you have seen it]

I do regret insulting or using offensive words on "Pastor" AIO, Bastage or anyone. Especially my use of the word "Idiot".
I just get emotional when dudes attempt to pass uninformed OPINIONS as facts.

Deep Sight:

Actually i set out to quote all the offensive words from both of you.

When i started with Bastage I found that there were only two offensive words, and those were in direct response to your own offensive words.

Tone it down na?

1. It pays to be honest . . . I could highlight the same number of insults/offensive posts from Bastage's post. but why should I expect DS to be honest?

2. Click on Bastages profile, Check his last post to this thread which the spam both siezed and see more for urself.

JeSoul:

Common now fellas. Please play nice. It's been a good debate btw you all.

Noetic, I think it was the spambot that automatically banned you because you tried to repost that last one. In the future if the spambot tags a post, don't try to repost it cos you'll get banned automatically.

Yea it was the spambot. . . .thanks. but for how long does it hold the ban? is it indefinite?

noetic banned again?

As regards responding to a lot of the idiocy here . . . i gave up long ago. I notice some took it as a sign that they "won". So be it. Really their blood wont be on my head whenever it is they choose to "rest in peace".

^^^ Nor will our blood be on the high places or the battlefields where Yahweh commanded that even infants must be slaughtered.

We didn't write it - its right there in your own hallowed Bible.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Nor will our blood be on the high places or the battlefields where Yahweh commanded that even infants must be slaughtered.

We didn't write it - its right there in your own hallowed Bible.

No problem. Put your blood wherever you wish. Dont just assume heaven shld be open to you too.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Nor will our blood be on the high places or the battlefields where Yahweh commanded that even infants must be slaughtered.

We didn't write it - its right there in your own hallowed Bible.

Its unfair what u did to cause the ban of noetic

@mazaje
sori dear 4 bin off line all dis while,i got a problem wit my network service.
So goin back 2 our topic.i want u 2 understand dat d devil work is just 2 destroy&is full of deceive.
do u knw a poster can do wat so eva he likes wit d pot either broken or intact.
So let me answer dose questions.sure y d children of light ar present so also ar d children of darkness dere.bt did u knw d prophet of ahab serves as a barrier 4 d msg of mi-caiah.

@mazaje
since it's one of the mission of devil to destroy.so he find the work of ahab as a great work by deceiving him through is prophet.since GOD created both spirit he can do any thing he likes wit them i mean both devil and the good spirit preachin dat GOD is using his angel 2 deceive pple GOD forbid.since he already have him d warnin and he yield nt d lyin spirit av 2 tak ova just lik similar tin hapen 2 pharaoh.dear broda see u cant underst

@mazaje
dear brother see u cant understand the things of the spirit or else you are in spirit.see dear if you read a book wit d aim of findin a fault you wi surely find one but that if you dont understand.can you do me dis favor sa,pls i beg of you try to read that same 2nd chr18vs 1 to end.am xpectin ur reply.tanks 4 d audience i so much appreciate it.tanks.

I must admit, i find this section of NL as exhilarating as it is exhausting, as annoying as it is addictive, as frustrating as it is compelling, and the arguments as coherent as they are disjointed.

It definitely consists of the most intense, emotional, passionate, enduring, articulate, erudite and philosophical individuals I’ve ever come across anywhere. Even the insults are worth reading! Some say there is no God; some say there is a God, but not the Christian God we know.  Some say it is Allah, whilst others, like myself believe there is only one true God; Yahweh, Jehovah, Elohim, The I Am that I Am.

Eventually, someday, i believe all the sceptics will have their "Road to Damascus" experience, their Eureka moment, and an epiphany of such compelling magnitude, that it will provide irrefutable evidence - the kind that only resides within you; the kind that only comes from a personal experience, and an intimate relationship. Yes, there may be many Gods, but there is only one TRUE God - and his name is Jehovah.

Until such a time, we shall continue to conjecture, to postulate and pontificate, to philosophise and elucidate. We will continue our intellectual jousting and our cerebral gymnastics. If nothing else it gives our brains a workout and builds a begrudging camaraderie. Well, i salute all posters here!

P.S: Don't know is Viaro is. I am positively not masquerading as someone else!

Romeo4real:

Eventually, someday, i believe all the sceptics will have their "Road to Damascus" experience, their Eureka moment, and an epiphany of such compelling magnitude, that it will provide irrefutable evidence - the kind that only resides within you; the kind that only comes from a personal experience, and an intimate relationship. Yes, there may be many Gods, but there is only one TRUE God - and his name is Jehovah.

What exactly do you mean by God because God is a loaded term. . . .If you by God you mean the creator of the universe then your evidence to show that Jehovah alone created the universe and NOT oneness of infinity is WHAT?. . . .There is no one "true" God(what ever that means). . . .That is your belief. . .It has nothing to do with reality. . . .The reality is that there are so many Gods that people worship, whose independent existence outside the beliefs of those that worship them remains and will continue to remain elusive. . .