₦airaland Forum

@darkmanzero,

I've already seen that and several others before - one even purports to support a 'church of the Bunny' - used to be on the net but I've searched in vain in recent times and couldn't find it. However, kinkymarymagdalinechurch seems to me to be more involved than all these other lollygag fellows. As for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the first thing you'll realize is that they keep changing their web address (if you've noticed - I knew about them a couple of years back). . . now they are currently using venganza.org. You ask these folks the criteria or reasons for becoming a member, and you'll get the following:

- Flimsy moral standards.
- Every friday is a relgious holiday. If your work/school objects to that, demand your religious
beliefs are respected and threaten to call the ACLU.
- Our heaven is WAY better. We've got a Stripper Factory AND a Beer Volcano.

Funny, isn't it? If you've been follwoing the trend of these fellows, you'll not be perturbed - anything silly sells in the USA! So I don't waste my time with such.

However, in the case of mr Reverend and his Church of the Kinky Mary Magdaline, I've asked a friend of mine to run the details of their existence and check the contact address to see if such a ministry exists in fact in the UK. Well, I must have been a bit lax myself, because although my friend did not visit the place or check it out for certain, I just took it for granted that it does because of the contact address and phone number they left - (they would not answer your calls nowadays!):
69 Strapon Street, Coxville,
Aldershot FU2 7BJ
United Kingdom.
besides several other pointers. I may be dead wrong, but I'll tell you why I decided to join the debate and make my own inputs to counter his ideas.

(1) whether or not the kinky church of mary magdaline is a legitimately recognized and registered ministry in the UK (for whatever purpose), I think we owe it to ourselves and to our religious community to counter ideas that grossly misrepresent the Christian faith.

(2) we can't sit back and watch such fellows vigorously try to defend their twisted interpretations of the Bible in language that might persuade the minds of people that their own questions and defenses are anything to go by.

(3) whether or not the NAKED BAPTISM photos in their gallery are authentic (as the photos of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti), I find it seriously offensive that Reverend and his crew would post nude photos of people and connect it to the name of Christ; and secondly, I find it an insult on my race (I'm a proud black man) that he uses photos of only Africans for such insult!

(4) you'd notice that serious atheists don't play such tricks as pretending to be Christian in order to attack the Christian faith. Reverend may attack Christianity from a warped and perverted mind, but it's an attack all the same - and I don't read my Bible saying we should ignore such experiences, but rather reprove them.

(5) atheists again are not ashamed to be offensive to Christianity - they go to whatever length and state what they have to; and change nothing, nor retract, nor try to re-arrange anything. In this case, when bari_kade countered him, I was surprised to notice that some of the links were intermittently disabled, and then certain changes were made on the website, such as recasting the introductory write-up on the homepage where 'Jesus' was apparently called a sinner! Now an atheist would not try to make such changes.

Anyhow, there are more than a dozen reasons I could proffer for why this is a serious issue and why I joined in to counter the views of the kinky Reverend, in the course of which my faith and commitment to Christ have been strengthened. The gentleman may sit back wherever he is typing from and laugh at our counter points, but then he would be the loser if he considers our reaction "worked up".

Many thanks, though. I acknowledge the sagacity of your inputs.

Sorry O, my dear. If you cannot open your eyes and see how people have been healed by the power of God, the solid evidence of his existence you're waiting for will continue to elude you.

Reverend:
From this point of view Africans are living in the dark ages. They are very easily led and manipulated. That is the real tragedy.

That is why you used them for your NAKED BAPTISM rites instead of any other set of people, abi?

Reverend:
Quote as much of the bible as you like. It does not stop the fact that many of you follow like lambs and are too frightened to question the reasonong and reality of our World or what we are told is right or wrong.

I suppose that if people in your club of the mary magdaline have been asking the right questions, and they were informed about your own version of right and wrong, they would not have been following you like lambs too frightened to question the reality of what you're into.

@darkmanzero, what makes you think Reverend is a TROLL or that he doesn't really own a kinky church of mary magdaline?

@jagunlabi, ku-lu ku-lu temper!

It does not read to me as though endure was trying to "push [his] own faith down other people's throats." It is true that he spoke about his convictions and appealed to readers by way of persuasion to consider surrendering their lives to Christ. That might've sounded like 'conversion at gun point' to some people, but not necessarily.

There are others who have done the same thing in one way or the other in speaking about their convictions and appealing to readers to consider joining their own persuasions. I remember my friend Idrisa went as far as saying: "Who is ready to become a Muslim and he is my brother or she is my sister; these are my only loved ones on earth." The bobo bold, no be small; and I'm also guilty of having lambasted him - and I hereby tender my unreserved apologies to him, even though I don't entirely agree with his article. 

Again, others have implored Nairalanders to consider the offer of Ifa divination, with naijaguru trying to assure us that "its the best thing to request for Ifa divination, its traditional and its safe", ___and "Ifa is real efficient and potent. . . Ifa came before all." No one has dared to holla a discontentment at Ifa or naijaguru as at the time of typing this line.

There are others as well, but folks interprete life experiences and outlook, ideologies and worldviews differently. The freedom of choice and tolerance, even in religion, should be guaranteed to all; and this guarantee should not be expressed in militancy or belligerence against people who want to share their own convictions as others have done on the Forum.

Ema bi nu. 


*Just want to add this bit as well: endure, you're hereby guaranteed the freedom to tell us what you feel persuaded to share. Only, I'd remind you to adhere to the rules for posting on Nairaland, one of which is: thou shalt not use all capitals. God bless.

My best verse? - Matt. 27:5. . . Judas "went and hanged himself"!

Relax - just kidding

Can't say at this point which is my favourite book in the Bible or which chapter or verse. It all depends on what subject I'm studying at that moment. If I'm looking for witty, spiritual gems or anecdotes - Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are it! When the mood is the spiritual lyrics of Jehovah's praise - bet on the Psalms! Tell me about the chapter of agape love - I Cor. 13 is classic! Hall of fame? Trust Hebrews 11

I'm currently looking at the power of the New Covenant ratified by Jesus' Blood - and Hebrews is my fav book on that!

Many thanks for your rejoinders, Prof_Chaos.

First, let me quickly clear up a propagandist misconception. Most Muslims who pretend that they share the same prophets as in Christianity have not demonstrated it - and that is what you have failed to understand, my dear Zahymaka. It does not matter that 'they say so' and do nothing when the same prophets are being vilified even by some Muslims themselves.

A few examples would make this plain: In a world where we speak of peace and tolerance, have Muslims demonstrated that tolerance towards their own country men and women of other faiths? Hardly so, and you can check out an example of what happened in Pakistan during the heat of the prophet Mohammed cartoon demonstrations: if the protests were directed against the West/western interests, why vilify the faith of your own countrymen who are not westerners but Pakistanis?

Then in Egypt also, you can't imagine the level of incitements against Christians and Jews that Muslims evoke in the Muslim community there. Could you imagine a "conscientious" Muslim make publications referring to Christians as "O ye filthy gypsies"? And that was supposed to have been coming from an "Islamic Enlightment Center" in Egypt! What does that say about Islamic tolerance towards people of other faiths?

Pardon me, dear Prof_Chaos, but I think there's a smirk of unprofessional erudition in your assertion that just because there are tensions now "Mohammed comes first" and so it does not matter how people treat the other prophets! Could you imagine that? When in history has there not been tension between faiths? What have Muslims done about the vilifying of the other "Islamic Prophets" (Abraham, Moses, Isaiah. . .and Jesus) down through the ages? As far as I know, nothing more than a convenient shrug off - so long as it is not specifically "Islam"! This is the pretence mentioned earlier that the idea that "Christians and Muslims share the same prophets" goes no further than a smoke screen - at best, it is in the holy books; at worst, it is not a practical thing.

It would be tedious after a hard day at work to go through each one of your "Fact(s)". Suffice to say that you're giving a biased interpretation of the facts on ground. Atrocities like "The West committed the Holocaust" certainly is suspect of the same undertone you have levelled against me. Why? Go through your fact file again - do they not show that you've suddenly metamorphosed into an anti-western apologist? And thus perhaps, an anti-Christian and anti-semitic professor as well? Who has been calling for the annihilation of Israel with unqualified vituperations recently? Who 'committed' the greatest atrocities of murdering innocent people in this decade in the 9/11 World Trade Center? Fill in the blanks, dear sir.

But enough! We are not kids but reasoning grown ups.

The fact still remains that in a world seeking to foster peace and understanding across international boundaries, Muslims can and ought to learn a lesson from their Christian brethren about tolerance towards everybody, even though sometimes we face the harsh realities of mischievous people who have not the slightest respect for the sacred.

Regards.

diyobdw:

Nwoke link=topic=10840.msg300305#msg300305 date=1145456388:
My name is Nwoke.

has nairaland been sold? where is seun then or why the change in name.
because your profile and post is seun's
so the

I hope no one thinks I'm holding a political or advertizer's romance with the administrator, but if he wishes to be called Nwoke, that shouldn't be strange enough to generate another thread on its own ké.

He's made it clear - he's not selling anything: he wants to be called Nwoke which is a very patriotic one for that matter - so shall it be.

As 4 mi, i remain yours truly,
4get_me.

But was bari_kade wrong as to his assessment of the "creator" whom you called a planet?    

If the "Jesus" whom you're mentioning is a 'projection' of this planet, would he still be wrong in his pointing out the difference? Just because you mentioned 'Jesus' does not mean that you're speaking of the Biblical Jesus.

The Son of God in the Bible is not a human projection of a planet or a first universe.

@kimba, allow me to print, cut and laminate your piece for a good desktop plaque in my office! Bless God for that eye-opener!

_________________________
PS.
If I'm infringing on copyright, advise me. In America you can be sued for just about anything, even a small thing like even my request. . . hehehe

Hmmm, my dear, I'll do so as soon as I get back home and settle down - I had a free day at work today and have spent it on Nairaland. Give me a few hours (if thou canst) and I'll be back to share what I understand with regards to your enquiry.

Bless up dearie.

Yes sir!! I support your manifesto at this proper time. When there is a call for something else, another poll will dictate whither we go.

jagunlabi:
Yes,my own personal image of God is that of an androgenous being.I see the creator as a dyad,a being that exist as both male and female,and they coexist equally,complementing each other in perfect harmony.It makes perfect sense because everything in the universe exist in duality,and they say "As above,so below".And if you additionally consider that passage quoted from the book of genesis,well there you have it.

Ah, my dear jagunlabi, don't disgrace me on this thread ké, shébi U've captured my respect as a great thinker on Nairaland?

Everyone is looking at Genesis as if that is where alone you find God speaking of Himself. It is like looking at only one small corner of a picture frame and exclaiming: "Look, the whole country is a grass!"

What you explained is interesting, but if you look closely you'll see that you did not represent God as revealed in Genesis, or even in the Bible for that matter. At best, what you've explicated is the ying-yang principle of Taoism: two opposing elements trying to achieve a balance and complementing each other - good and evil, light and darkness, strong and weak, male and female, etc. Another uncouth name of this idea is 'hermaphroditic being' - and clearly, God is not anything like that.

In the revelatory experiences of the Jews, to whom were committed the oracles of the Biblical God (Acts 7:53 and Rom. 9:4), He was seen predominantly in the Male figure. That is not to say that He was in very fact Male. In Isaiah, God specifically warned us that we cannot compare Him to anything or anyone:

"To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me,
that we may be like?" (Isa. 46:5).

This means that, inspite of the Gen. 1:26 declarative ("Let us make man in our image, after our likeness", there was no likeness of sex or gender emphasized in that text. These qualities were to distinguish man from other creatures so that mankind could have intelligent spiritual fellowship with God.

Now let's come to the NT. Jesus was born a male (Matt. 1:25 - "her firstborn son" and Luke 2:21-23), never mind the new 'Bible' versions which try to pejoratively represent Him as female with the name Judith Christ. Anyway, Jesus in His ministry later made the remarkable statements:

"I and my* Father are one" and "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 10:30 & 14:9).

Are we to understand therefore that God was Male because Jesus was male? Not necessarily. . . infact, NO! Jesus in the texts above was not speaking in terms of gender or sex, but rather in terms of expression. The Bible says in Heb. 1:3 that Jesus is "the brightness of his [God's] glory, and the express image of his [God's] person" - not image in sense of gender, but image in the sense of the expression of what God is in essence.

There are just two scriptures that might be helpful to see this point:

(1) Gal 3:28 - "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Notice that in Christ, there is neither of the sexes - male nor female - emphasized: one is not more important than the other, nor is one inferior to the other.

(2) 1 John 3:2 - "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not
yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him;
for we shall see him as he is."

Now this is clear enough; but notice yet again - males and females in God's family are all together addressed as "sons of God" (not 'sons and daughters' - as the paraphrased versions render the verse). This is not emphasizing sex or gender, but the idea that is more powerfully brought to our view is that in the family of God we would not be seeing ourselves in terms of sex. How do I know that?

Look yet again at another set of scripture verses:

And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead,
neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal
unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
-- (Luke 20:34-36).

Has it occured to any reader of the Bible that no angel is depicted as female, even if those we read of are figuratively represented in the masculine? Angels' sexes cannot be decoded; and in the same way, neither can the sexes of the children of the resurrection be decoded.

Closing remarks:

God is [size=13pt]NOT[/size] both Male and Female - the best I can say is that God is not a gender - and the Isa.64:5 text strenthens that view. On earth today we can speak of people in terms of sexes and gender, but spiritual matters do not take their precedence from the natural.

Many blessings



_____________________

*Depending on the translation or version, John 10:30 reads - "I and the Father are one" or "I and my Father are one."

Sorry O, oga biggjoe. We have long awaited your return from exile. How was the sabbatical trip?

Okay, don't pay any attention to that salutation - I like to unwind and kid with some of my friends instead of making them fiends.

biggjoe:
These people will always find a way of proving you right withouth knowing it. The only point they picked in my post is where they said i called them hypocrites but still (sadly though) they are proving me right.

True talk, ma broder - they proved you right on this one, because you simply ignored welborn's rejoinder. He certainly went through everything you posted, no comma or exclamation mark missing. And he certainly did not pick only on where "they said" you called them hypocrites - go back again and read it for yourself. Infact, unless you go back to edit or modify your original post, you'll find that it was not a matter of "they said" - you actually called them hypocrites.

biggjoe:
They cannot even prove that those points on which I based my calling them that is false.

So you agree you called them that? Good - another fact that they proved you right!

biggjoe:
All the same, my thread is not supposed to result in the massive arguments it created but in a forum of intelligent people like nairaland one can never rule out such things here.

Intelligent people do not call others hypocrites and zoom off on sabbatical.

biggjoe:
I will also advise those that point to abuse in the US catholic diocese to stop being childish. Is it the church in America that did those things or individuals or did the church support what they did. More gruesome acts is going on in other churches elsewhere but these churches are too insignificant for such publicities.

My dear, what is the Catholic Church in America if not the individuals who constitute it? The Church did not support it. . . and Bishops and other leaders were singled out as the culprits? What can you salvage from a system like that when some of the leadership are indicted like that? If the Catholic Church in America was not supporting them in one way or the other, they would not have been 'covered' for the many years that the victims suffered the scars of the abuses. True, every church has their problem, and this snivelling that it is only 'individuals' who commit/committed such acts is plastic surgery.

No vex sir, your high pontificate. We already know and have read the list of Popes in the Roman Catholic tradition and elsewhere. What is interesting to note is that several of them were antipopes - that is, against the popish/Papal system (St. Hyppolytus, 217-35 AD; Novatian, 251 AD; Felix, 355-65 AD; Sylvester III, 1045 AD; and others). Do you care to explain why Catholic leaders elected as Popes would turn round and become antipopes?

As for your suggestion that Peter was the first Pope, the Bible that Catholics gave us Protestants shows he did not qualify as a Pope. You disagree? In humility, I ask you to give me your own understanding of the qualifications of a Pope from the Bible: your own understanding, I said - not the Catholic Tradition that you probably might recycle back and forth on Nairaland.

Bless you all the same. Hope you don't have another sabbatical scheduled so soon?

SIBLI_06:
Simple Seun have a poll and listen to your members.
I think they should be kept sepperate! They are seperate religions right?
I agree with charlisco 150%
Unmerge them simple!

Uhm. . . er. . . Just leave Seun alone. If I've misunderstood him in the past on this issue, I retract.

The thing is that he did take a poll - he said so! I believe him. Then he reversed it for our own good! Ni tori wa, he reversed it yet again. The gearbox jammed; so voila! - we are back here once again.

Now this molue chase will not solve our problem because before the present impassé, I didn't notice Muslims being active on the Religion Forum. The last I read in the Muslim childboard was between Christians - charlisco and mlks_baby! Now we are back here as one, but it seems to me that our friends have not been really participating, except for Idrisa - and I encourage him the more

Maybe they feel offended - people offend their religious sensibilities, etc. But ki lo de? Have Christians not been offended doubly and triply as well? Even some lines I read seems to me that some of us Christians have not been charitable enough with atheists, agnostics and even fellow Christians. One of my erudite debaters says 'Tolerance is the key word.' I could not agree more. I'm guilty of having driven my mouth rough with some of my brethren - I repent: please forgive me! I know in the past my yarnings also got the brunt side of my non-religious friends: sorry - pls 4give me!

Seun, U be correct man on this one. Sorry too, where I have misapplied my gear on U. The thing is that we can't really satisfy the world. I vote for Seun's manifesto - let's learn to be "Tolerant". If my Muslim brethren just want to read others' contributions without coughing, we shall try to understand with them. Maybe something will crop up in the future and then a popular concensus will inform the next decision - we wait till then.

As for me - I support everi-bodi 209%: we can remain in one Nairaland and seek the relevant threads to contribute to. We can remain in one concensus to learn tolerance with one another. And we can remain in one drive to be supportive of our understanding of humanity.

Enigma:
You forgot that Christ actually specifically taught His followers that some of the things in Deuteronomy were not correct. "You have heard it said , but I (i.e. Christ) tell you , "; or Moses allowed some things because of 'your hardness of heart' "but I (Christ) tell you , "

No, no, no and no. Christ was not saying that some of the things in Deuteronomy were not correct. If you read His earlier assertion, you'll understand that He did not in any way belittle any teaching of the OT - "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. . . Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:17 & 19). In effect, He came to give the real meaning and essence of what the OT teaches.

And I do not agree that you were a clown or an enigma dude - no one is, we all make mistakes.

Papa:
Ok, for example: To preach the gospel of Jesus to about one million people would cost millions. Where do you expect the money to come from if Christians don't exercise their faith to get the money coming?

I'm sorry to note that this type of thinking has robbed the church of her focus on God alone. Exercising faith - to get the money coming? I'm a bit confused. The one thing I could make of this whole business is that our focus should not be on things but on God and on Him alone. I Tim. 6:10 & 17 often come to mind when thinking about issues like this. It's really sad that many people I know who speak this way seem to be persuaded that money is the ultimate or paramount resource for reaching people with the Gospel of Christ. Papa, please don't feel that I'm necessarily sounding accusative towards you, because I'm not. This is how I see it:

Perhaps, a lot of us have confused between Biblical prosperity and the contemporary prosperity Gospel. The undeniable fact of Scripture is that God prospers His children in every aspect of life - in their finances, relationships and family, careers and educational pursuits, ministry, and other undertakings. Trouble comes when people rest everything about prosperity on money. Prosperity in the Bible (as far as I see it) is not basically a matter of money - and that is what contemporary prosperity Gospel ministries have failed to realise. Take the time to go through the Bible on the teaching of this subject, and you'd be amazed to find that what is now being emphasized in many churches has no place in God's word.

In Gen. 39, Joseph was spoken of as prospering in prison! Prisoners don't command great finances, but the prosperity that might be presented here is one that speaks more about having the presence of God in someone's life and understanding God's purposes and will in any situation (see verse 3).

It is true that we need money to be able to reach out to the nations of the world today. Televangelism and Internet Evangelism cost fortunes. There are ministries I support with my financial contributions and would really encourage people to do the same, as long as those ministries uphold a commitment to financial integrity. It is no secret that most people who are on air preaching the Gospel and working miracles focus more on money than on the ministry committed to them by God. Let Him be the Judge of such, and our part is to be discerning and not encourage their worldly appetites.

One thing that shames me is that we have numerous churches screaming out prosperity from their pulpits in Nigeria (and several other countries I've visited), and the general spiritual climate is so low! I believe that the lavish lifestyle and excesses of most ministers is simply a shame to the cause of the Gospel. Is it any wonder that the Laodicean church in Rev. 3 boasted so much in her material wealth, only to be told that they were beggarly in Christ's assessment! What am I saying? Wealth has a place in our spiritual lives, I believe; but the emphasis on extravagance tends to corrode our spiritual vitality.

We don't need a million dollars to reach a million Africans or Asians as much as we need dependence on the unlimited power of the Holy Spirit. The early Christians were reported to have turned the whole world upside down within a short time of the emergence of the Church (Acts 17:6). How did they do it? I offer that it was less about money, but more about the power of the Holy Spirit.

If this quip will serve any purpose, hear it: a friend of mine not long ago moaned on the phone about how a planned crusade was put on hold or cancelled - because, the board of ministers present in the organising committee meeting disagreed on how much was expected to be raised in their planned crusade! I'm not being sarcastic here nor insinuating that this is the trend in every and any church holding crusades; but this sort of thing saddens me as much as it staggers my senses.

Okay, enough of my rambling. Closing remarks:

The difference I can make out between 'Biblical prosperity' and the 'contemporary prosperity Gospel' is that the latter does not preach the essentials of the real saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. God sent His Son to save the world through the sacrifice He endured on the Cross so that believers might be a perculiar people serving God in truth, righteousness, intergrity and holiness. However, the prosperity Gospel of today will stop at nothing to deviate from the simple message of Christ in order to promote another 'god' - Mammon.

Beloved, don't focus on money; rather, focus on God and on Him alone. Blessings.

@nferyn, I'm sorry for having been forward; and yes, you're correct about having only added some context to exu's reply.

However, I don't follow your meaning that children are brought up "within a religious framework while closing them off from rational beliefs". I don't think your assessment of religious training given to children is broad enough to be so generalized. Distinguishing between truth and falsehood is not merely a religious matter: even in the formative years of education at school, do they have the means to distinguish between historical truth and falsehood as taught to them in the classroom? In America, it has come to light that history books about America are being re-written so as to blur the real events in western history - and children don't possess the intellectual maturity to decipher the difference, do they? So, should we stop teaching American history altogether in schools? And you can apply this to just about any other subject.

"Tolerance and acceptance of different opinions is key here" - I could not agree more with you on that. On both sides of the fence, however, not many people (whether religious or non-religious) are tolerant: I've personally encountered atheistic young people who are as unbelievably bigoted as there are many religious young people. If we would all strive for this very needed ingredient of tolerance, things would indeed be improved drastically.

@ Nwoke,

Thank you for your recommendation. One thing is that, while not trying to disparage the scientific research of the article on the website, I offer that it does not bear any substance in explaining this phenomenon. Sleep paralysis or not, this phenomenon is very real and no scientific research of neurosis that I know of has sufficiently explicated the experience we are dealing with in this topic.

In the second paragraph of the article it says:

A Sleep Paralysis is possibly a hereditary disorder in which one experiences very frightening seconds or minutes of total body paralysis with little respiration and eye movements

True, a sleep paralysis may possibly be a hereditary disorder; but the experience I had is not hereditary - no one in my family has suffered any semblance of it until I did.

I find it interesting, though, that the article comes to the conclusion that:

Although the explanation is not complete yet, for there are many unclear processes about Sleep Paralysis, the current hypothesis appears to reject the possibility of ghosts on this matter. Of course, it is impossible to completely disprove the existence of "spirits", "minds", or "God" affecting one's behavior. Nevertheless, like Sleep Paralysis and SUNDS, many or the mysterious conditions and behaviors which are only explained in supernatural terms probably result from brain.

What I find interesting in that last paragraph on the website is that Sleep Paralysis is an insufficient analytical method of measuring the phenomenon we're here concerned with ("there are many unclear processes about Sleep Paralysis". Indeed, from an objective point of reference, it is not coincidental that my experience was clearly supernatural at best, even though I confess that certain aspects remain unfathomable to me until this day. I know that whatever happened is not just brain work. I felt the real presence of an evil figure, and it wasn't hallucinations, but rather I both felt a presence leave me and saw it with my own eyes. Not only so, could it be at all coincidental that my deliverance was effected by praying? If so by any chance, could it also be coincidental to have witnessed instantaneous healing after praying for my nephew? I certainly don't think so. Thankfully, the author sensibly did not try to 'disprove the existence of "spirits", "minds", or "God" affecting one's behavior'.

An interesting article though; but my experience was clearly different from Sleep Paralysis.

Well, here's a charitable kiss for your reply .

Sorry if I sounded so heated there; some of us hardly know how to temper grace with good sense in the midst of a critical situation. God help me - I need that so much more. . .lol.

That said, I agree with you to a degree; but let me add this bit:

The only place I have read of the title "Reverend" in the Bible is in Psa. 111:9 - where it is in reference to God alone: "He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name." I don't know how the term/title came to be used in ecclesiastical circles today for men and women. Incidentally, the local church where I worship had a minister who was formerly addressed as 'Rev. xyz' (names withheld) until he radically turned the church around and called for an overhaul of our practices - from titles to practices to beliefs to whatever! Now he goes by the simple name 'Mr.' or is content to be addressed as 'Pastor' and nothing more. Initially, we were confused, even angry ( ), and many left; some came back though. . . but today the church is growing and has become stronger in the faith than we ever would have been in the previous tradition for more than two decades.

On the other hand, you're right that this chap is free to call himself by any title. . . albeit, he's certainly a disgrace to the Lord's name and Word! There I rest the case for now by saying, yes, I totally agree with you on point # 2.

Much blessings.

You both have not answered the question gentlemen - you've only vented your perennial pent up misgivings about religion, with the weathered appeal to "indoctrination of children". Diatribes like that fail to look at issues objectively.

I applaud jagunlabi's topic here; of late the gentleman seems to be quite astute in posing well reasoned topics for discussions, and another thumbs up in the hope that he didn't mean to be cynical (and I don't think he was).

As far as I understand it, the topic is not calling for an end to religion - rather, what recommendations would help ensure that religion serves mankind better? A few come to mind:

(1) Freedom of Religious Expression
One of the things that people have failed to understand is that calumny against people's religious sensitivity will always breed disaffection in society. Usually persecution is minimally expressed towards those without any religious affiliations than are expressed towards those who are religious. Religion of any label is a passionate cultural phenomenon. Whether or not you are a theist, deist, atheist, or agnostic, choosing to respect other people's religious sensitivity will go a long way to cultivating peaceful co-existence among the various peoples of any society.

(2) Accountability of Religious Practices
People should have a right to believe what they want to - even if they want to believe in "no god" at all, or in the devil himself. I know this will make some of my Christian brethren pelt me with heavy rocks, but slow down. What I'm calling for is that people should be held acountable for their religious expressions in a world where the general consensus is towards peace, security, economic stability, and general welfare among the citizenry of the countries of the world. Religious ideas may differ; but one thing should be agreed upon - the sanctity of life should be first priority. This is why I would not concede to a religious affinity that that calls for the murder of innocent lives and disrespect for human dignity. Not only the murders, but this accountability of religious practices should include the notion of conmen in religious garb (this is not limited to just one religion - for those who are quick to point at pastors in the Christian faith). People should be held to some form of accountability for their actions without infringing on peoples' religious tenets and dictates.

(3) Social Developments Should Be Encouraged
I personally know of many religious organizations working together or individually to bring aid to war-torn zones, give medical expertise to the afflicted, and establish educational projects and programmes to better the lives of the less privileged. This kind of initiatives should be encouraged; and perhaps the time has come for religious institutions to be involved in sponsoring some of these projects as a way of giving back to the economies where they reap from.

These are just a few I could think of at the moment. Some of you reading this may have something beneficial to fill in the blanks below:

              _____________________________________________

              _____________________________________________

              _____________________________________________

              _____________________________________________

And as many as have and will recommend something in one way or the other, TY 

Religion is not a bane to society; the wrong use of religion is. God bless.

I don't think we should just explain this phenomenon away like that. This is certainly more than scary dreams and nightmares - if you've not experienced it you won't know how to talk about it.

In my final year in the university, I was both "pressed" and "re-arranged". This is not funny. After lectures one afternoon, my roommate had just stepped out to fetch some water. He had asked me to bolt the doors incase I'd be drowsy before he was back - which I did (he had some money in his bag, and students could zap into your room and steal things). Within a few minutes of trying to lay back on the single spring bed, I was fast asleep. I woke up some minutes later to his banging at the door, calling for me to come open up. But wonder of wonders, I was wide awake, but could not move!! Second thing I noticed was that I had been "re-arranged" so that my head was now where my feet were when I initial relaxed on the bed. Worse of all, I was unable to move a limb, respond in some way, or even squeak!

Then it hit me - I remembered what my mum used to say: "I know you're just a young fella now and want to flex up, especially now that you're in university. But if you ever need help that no man can give you, call out loud to Jesus: I guarantee you He will deliver you!" Yada-yada, I used to think about her 'motherly advice'. . . until that day. Not able to squeak, I started yelling in my mind "Jesus! Jesus! Save me!" - you know, that kind of thing more aptly describing a matter of life and death. Needless to say, I didn't even think of my sweet girlfriend at the time (which incidentally was more precious to me than my whole four year degree programme in the university! Stupid? Yeah, I was that stupid!).

Anyway, the moment I started calling on Jesus and confessing, a sinister, low-gruff laughter that chills the spine floated from one corner of the room. In desperation, I cried the more, only my vocal cords were seized. Meanwhile, my pally intermittently banged on the door, unaware of the drama in the room, and just supposing I was fast alseep.

I called yet again in my mind "Jesus!" and this time, remembering one more thing my mum told me, I screamed "The Blood of Jesus!" Believe it or not, my vocal cords were loosened, the sinister laughter ceased and a dark vague figure flew off/was thrown off of me! Set free, I was at the door in a flash, and told my pal all about the drama that had occured. Trust us students in those days: he just looked at me and shrugged it off with an understanding smile. He said he didn't hear any laughter or anything else. A few days later, I was rushed to the university teaching hospital almost at the point of death. But thank God today that I'm alive and well.

How did I get out of it? I confess that up until now, I don't understand a jot of what happened. But when I told my mum about it, she was the only one that took me seriously - and gave me good advice: "Give your life to Christ totally, because if you don't, they will come back with a fight to the finish!" I did - received Jesus Christ and got baptized. Indeed, my troubles were not over. Several times I narrowly escaped death - by road accident, by armed robbery attack with gun pointed at my forehead. The robber actually pulled the triger, but I can't explain up until now why it did not go off!

In 2002, I had a similar incidence, but it was not a difficult one to deal with, because I had learned to pray - best of all, my roommate who was a skeptic had been coverted a year before! During that experience, I was up enjoying my Bible reading late at night (2:43am to be precise) when I began to feel faint. I passed out and woke up a few hours later in the hospital. The doctors sent me home after a few days to . . . well, . . die!! But I didn't give up hope. I kept praying and singing at night that friends said I was making good preparations for heaven - but I knew I was praying for healing. Long and short of the story, I was healed at the same hour of the night as when the illness struck!!

Next morning, I rushed to my sister's and prayed for my nephew who had a terminal disease affecting his blood. Instantly he got up from bed! Since then, I have not had a single attack. I come from a very poor family; but something dramatic happened in 2003: I applied for visas to Canada, Sweden, and Ireland - you know, just for the fun of it because some of my friends were "fooling around" (as we called it then). Of the four of use that applied, just two of us were given visas - I got all three visas (Canada, Sweden and Ireland) and the other got just Ireland. I could go on and on and on, but this is something that I want people to know about:

- the world of supernatural is real. . . and the power of Jesus to heal and bless is very real!!

- my situation cannot be explained as a mere coincidence - the healings, the visas, and the deliverance from armed robbers, etc.

- Jesus can and is willing to heal anyone who calls on Him no matter how low they may have sunk in life

- if you have ever been "pressed" or "re-arranged" or anything else, Jesus can break the power of such from your life.

- @charlisco, your pains will be healed in Jesus' Name - I am definitely putting you on my prayer list!


God bless.

babwilms:
@everyone. Christianity is not a religion but its partly a way of life. Christianity is basically having a relationship with christ and to immitate his ways.

If Christianity is partly a way of life, what is the other part called? No harm meant, but would like to make this contribution.

Everyone's posts are classic, and I agree with owo's assessment of the first two (welborn's and kimba's) - they tell the whole story, both from scholarly and experiential perspectives. Some may disagree with the idea of Christianity being called a religion; some may not - at the end of the day, it all depends on who is defining what and for what purpose.

For some of us who define it more as "a way of life" than a religion, what is/are the criteria used? If Christianity is a "way", then there are other "ways" out there that are legitimately called whatever we want to call Christianity. Even the Bible says that there is "a way" that seems right to a man but the end thereof is destruction. Jesus presents us with two "ways" - the broad way and narrow way (see Matt. 7:13-14) - you choose which way you define for yourself. Let's put all the semantics aside and be objective as to the topic.

It is not easy to define the term religion, and I just love the concise one given by welborn, and elucidated by exu's reference to Willian Alston. Biases apart, does Christianity not have a religious side to it? Or, does Wm. Alston's characteristics of religion exclude Christianity? Again, when James 1:27 speaks of religion in the positive sense ('pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father)', was he excluding Christianity? I don't think so, unless we want to say that Christianity does not qualify as 'pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father.'

The point is that, from the Biblical point of reference, Christianity is both a religion and a lifestyle (or, 'way of life'). As a religion, it is a response to a set of core beliefs found in the Bible. As a lifestyle, it is a relationship believers have with God as Father through faith in His Son Jesus Christ expressed by the power of the Holy Spirit.

As jagunlabi has eruditely pointed out, following Wm. Alston's outline, there are a set of questions to be answered by us Christians -

 - does Christianity not believe in the supernatural God whom we call Father?
 - does Christianity not distinguish between sacredness and profanity?
 - does Christianity not have acts (not 'ritualistic') focused on sacredness?
 - does Christianity not have a moral code given to us by God?
 - does Christianity not have experiences of spiritual and supernatural 'feelings'?
 - does Christianity not have prayer as one of its central activities?
 - does Christianity not have a worldview as a whole and the place of the individual therein?
 - does Christianity not have disciplined lifestyle based on the worldview of what the Bible teaches?
 - does Christianity not have 'group gatherings' we call church bound together by all the above?

However anyone cuts the cookie, there's no denying the fact that Christianity has a religious aspect to it, and the protests against this is simply a matter of semantics. You cannot deny the fact that in social and cultural contexts, Christianity is discussed as a religious worldview. This is not to gainsay or ignore its spiritual implications.

When Paul used the term 'religion' in speaking of Judaism (Acts 26:5), he did not use it in a disparaging or pejorative sense; otherwise when we label Christianity exclusively as a relationship with God (as if it was the only relationship there is with God), I think we should be fair enough to accept that Judaism was/is a relationship with God as well, albeit on different terms. Moses had declared to the Israelites, "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" (Deut. 14:1); and along the line the prophet Isaiah declared that God was their Father - "Thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting. . . But now, O LORD, thou art our father" (Isa. 63:16 & 64:8 ). The divine Fatherhood of God is not just a NT doctrine about people having a relationship with God - it was there all along in the OT. The difference is in how we approach God as our Father through Jesus Christ today; it is not a ritualistic code of ethics anymore as in the OT, but it is a new and living way by faith in God's Son (Heb. 10:20).

Whether we like it or not, there is a legitimate religious aspect to Christianity as well as a relational aspect. It all depends on who is defining what and for what purpose. If religion is a set of [b]r[/b]igid [b]r[/b]itualistic [b]r[/b]ules (R³) to follow, then Christianity is certainly not a religion in that sense; neither is Christianity 'a way of life' without obedience to God's Word. Much as we hate the word 'tradition', Paul used it in both a negative (Col.2:8 ) and a positive sense (II Thes. 2:15). Yes, there is such a thing as 'Christian tradition' and people commonly use the term in speaking of a set of ethics that Christians follow. Denying this would mean that we are ignoring the Bible.

I believe the question of the topic is a very valid one to enable us reconsider how we've always viewed our faith. The contributions so far have been interesting and inspiring; and we should be candid enough to acknowledge that Christianity has both aspects to it.

TV01:
Kimba, 4get Me, 4 real, Hi,

I can see that you guys are having fun on this thread, but two things

1. I don't think this chap is the type the Bible warns us about (Kimba @ 9:35:53 PM yesterday).
   Would anyone with half a brain cell and even the slightest desire for truth really be fooled by this
   guy? No, I don't think so. The false prophets the Bible warns us about will appear as angels of
   light, ministers of righteousness even. They'll look and sound like the real thing. There'll be signs
   wonders and mighty works, they'll even do things in "His name". I see a Joker at best and a  
   weirdly perverse mind at worse.

@TV01 & mrlawng,

I guess either

 -  you have not read about the ministry of the kinky[/b]marymagdalinechurch, or

 -  you were not well informed about the beginnings of the confusion that Reverend caused a lot of
    people to the extent he vigorously tried to defend the kinkymarymagdalinechurch webite, or

 -  you really don't understand your own Bible as to the subject of deceivers and false prophets.

When you have read and understood the whole story and the spiritual battles that were fought to unveil the deceit of the so-called Reverend and his games, then you'll understand the reality of how serious this is all about. The likes of [b]bari_kade and choice.A among several others withstood this guy so much so that he was forced to change certain things on his website, and people visiting it now think all is well. However, let me spill out a few sinister beans for your consideration:

   - you don't think 'this chap is the type the Bible warns us about' if he comes preaching another
     'Jesus' with another 'mary magdaline' rubbing his privates, right? Even if Reverend tried on this
      Forum to quote the Bible in defense of that teaching?

   - you don't think 'this chap is the type the Bible warns us about' if he called 'Jesus' a sinner on
     his website ("kmab.34.1 She took his staff and tossed off his sins"? That line in kmab.34:1
     has been removed and you won't detect the difference now with what is on the website.

   - you don't think 'this chap is the type the Bible warns us about' if his is a registered ministry in the
     UK and deceiving people to pose nude for a so-called NUDE BAPTISM who oil themselves and then
     commit their souls to the Reverend instead of to God? A person's soul is precious to God and those
     who have been deceived have committed their souls to a mortal than to the Almighty, and that is
     the type of deceit we do well to counter to open people's eyes so they might be warned. Sample
     the NUDE BAPTISM's rite - this is what people are supposed to have bound themselves with -

                                                I AM OILED AND KINKY
                                                I AM GAME FOR IT
                                                ACCEPT ME DEAR REVEREND
                                      >>>   MY BODY AND SOUL ARE YOURS
                                                AMEN.

      (click to read it here)
     When people sell their souls (see line indicated >>> to the Reverend in this way, you consider that a
     joke, abi?

    - you don't think ' this chap is the type the Bible warns us about' when he twists God's holy word and
      the unsuspecting who go there would actually think this man is giving a right interpretation. Sample
      his interpretation of John 4:10-16. . .

                     “Living water” in this context refers to semen, which literally is the liquid of life.
                      As Christ indicates, drinking of the “living water” provides a spiritual replenishment
                     for the soul. When the woman asks Jesus where she can get this “water”, he tells
                     her to fetch her husband, clearly with the intention of instructing her on how to fellate*
                     him and swallow his semen.

                    (scroll to bottom of page and read it on 2nd to last paragraph)
                    (most of the links at the kinkychurch website are sometimes disabled so that you don't know
                     the truth behind the whole story).

    - you don't think 'this chap is the type the Bible warns us about' when a lot of people with more than
      half a brain cell have been deceived into buying his lies already! Tell me, if Christ should come tonight,
      where do you 'think' these people will go - into heaven or hell? I seriously pray their eyes would be
      opened so they could flee from this sinister soul-damning cruelty called the kinkymarymagdalinechurch.

My dears, you clearly misread me, kimba, 4real and any other by supposing we were having fun - this is [size=13pt]NOT[/size] funny!! If you want to treat a serious matter involving the destiny of the souls of men and women with a few weak grammar, ride on. I'm not afraid of being called anything controversial because as long as I find these jokers on the prowl, I'll continue to do my bit in exposing them as Eph. 5:11 warns:

                             "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."

You're not looking at a joker at best - you're encountering a false prophet one-on-one in the person of Reverend, and he doesn't need signs and wonders or a magic wand to whoosh down fire from heaven in order to make his deceit effective enough for people to fall prey thereto. There are more than a thousand subtle ways the minds of the simple can be deceived with a few fair speeches (Rom. 16:18). Many already have, and the pity of the disgrace that it has to be black men and women that are posted in the NUDE on his website.    

@kimba,

     I haven't stopped laughing from your last post. Na wah!

But I suppose you're very correct that the more people make a contrary noise, the more God will use the opportunity to touch hearts with the truth of the Gospel. bari_kade has ably attended to him - and thank God for guys like that. I enjoyed the way he handled the latest joke of Reverend suggesting that Jesus was an alien. Haa!! I was a bit dazed when I saw that (confessing now. . .lol), and secretly wished (no, prayed) that bari_kade would show up - and he did! But the whole scenario made me think within myself - why did I have to wait until bari_kade showed up anyway??  

Well, we learn everyday, and I'm so grateful for this Forum; it has helped me to gain more insight into some of the little issues that have been buzzing in my head for a while back now. Thank God for all things and the praise be His alone.

PS.
I just enjoyed reading welborn's entry on Christianity: Religion or Way of Life. You may want to see it later.

@kimba,
Ol' boy, no mind me jaré! I just surprise for the guy. But God is opening our eyes in this last days to see the difference. You're really bold o! - like bari_kade who withstood Reverend relentlessly until the latter was forced to change certain things on his website. God help us.

Please 4give my ignorance here - but just so that I don't misconstrue your abbrevaition, what 'buk' are you referring to?

Zahymaka:
One thing you have to face is that the people of the Middle East live religion as their life, as a result they're very fanatical.

@Zahymaka, living religion as a lifestyle should not necessarily make people fanatical. I live my lifestyle as a Christian - that makes me a fanatic? You're hinting at something that does not make a good case for your discussions.

Zahymaka:
One thing people fail to realise is that the Jewish law on which Christianity is founded has a lot in common with Islam -- ablutions, stoning to death etc [except there's no whipping ].

Your problem can be solved if you can get a good grasp of the faiths you're trying to discuss. You're lumping up Judaism and Christianity as if they were the same. Judaism is based on the OT with its codes and spiritual ethics for only one nation - Israel. They were not asked to 'spread' Judaism to the world, and in that constrained community you could understand the stoning and whipping, besides several other punitive measures against spiritual misdemeanour.

Christianity was not founded on the Jewish law as you supposed; if you read the following -

Luke 5:37-38 - "And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved."

Christians are not under the Jewish Law, and the strongest argument or reason I know of why Christianity was not founded on the Law is that it (the law) could not give life - "Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law"(Gal. 3:21). Try to see the difference and then you'll not confuse between Judaism and Christianity.

Moderation is a welcome keyword for everyone. However, there is something you should understand.

Defining and Practising a Religion by the Book

Just about anyone today can claim to be Christian without actually being one. Hitler is often said to be a Christian just because he quoted from the Bible in support of his heinous murder of millions of Jews - but does that make him "a follower of Christ" (basic meaning of 'Christian') according to the Bible? No, and those who have used this in the past in support of an argument against Christianity only demonstrate their bias and lack of common sense in discussions. If the followers of Christ were asked to spread Christianity to other regions by violence and seek to pass a death sentence on any apostate, recalcitrant or converts to other religions, that would have defined Christianity. But is that what the Bible says? No. In the same way, where did the Afghanis get the idea that a convert from Islam to another religion (especially Christianity) should be killed? This is not something of the past, but happening in your own era. Where do Muslims today get the idea of the Islamic code of Sharia? Moderation or not, the Qur'an clearly states these things for practising Muslims, and that is what most people are disavowing.

Reminder: Muslims ought to learn a lesson from Christians about tolerance today. The topic about Da Vinci Code is just an example.

@Zahymaka, please try to balance your views. "The fact that people do certain things in the name of religion doesn't make them evil"?? Excuse me, it makes them evil - infact, thoroughly evil, and it does not matter to me whether it is communism, atheism, Christendom, Islam, or any other philosophy! Even if you leave aside the dark past of all these various worldviews and ideologies, if people get up at the slightest instance to go on rampage and murder non-Muslims in our day, that makes the perpetrators thoroughly evil, whether or not you disagree.

Just because you've met and admire the ethics of one Muslim friend does not give you a bird's eyeview of what Islam is in reality. The differentiation you're appealing to is only on the surface as you're not looking at what really underlies the mindset of 'some people'. If the Afghan authorities had ended up killing the recent Christian convert, what would the world have said about your idea of Islam? I don't live in London, but during a short visit I saw the sort of unbelievable and hideous nonsense that ice-bitch hints at in regards to the placards paraded by Muslims there. I do not consider all Muslims as evil or potentially dangerous; most of them I know would admit that the Qur'an openly declares certain trends that they find diffcult to reconcile with.

However, as far as the topic goes, the reaction of Christians to such issues as the Da Vinci Code should be a lesson to Muslims indeed. In matters like this, who do you think is more tolerant in society - Christians or Muslims? Jesus Christ has been acridly caricatured in every land, but Christians have not gone on rampage about that. Only one cartoon of Mohammed and what did the world see? The surprising thing to me is that Muslims sit tight and laugh when Jesus is being ridiculed, but they forget that He is one of Islam's 'holy prophets'. Abraham, whom they consider as another prophet in Islam, has been variously caricatured by the secular world, and yet Muslims do nothing about it, as if he does not matter as well. I'm not calling for another Islamic uproar, but my point is that when Muslims are happy to see Jesus ridiculed, their reaction to the cartooning of Mohammed is unjustified as far as both are prophets in Islam.

So, please balance your views and stop snivelling about a few bad situations that we all know are evil. Muslims can learn the lesson of calm and repose from their Christian brethren in publicly affecting issues, in as much as those who make the provocations are as evil as the reactions that ensued.

jagunlabi:
My guy,induced act of betrayal is no betrayal,not in the actual sense of the word,and neither in the same sense as depicted in the NT,kapish?Jesus himself asked Judas to betray him for a cause,which Judas did because he fervently believed in that cause.That is what makes the difference.

So,the question now is,what sort of "betrayal" would you term that

@jagunlabi, how many times do you have to contradict yourself in a day? "Judas did not betray Jesus afterall", and then "he did"? What are you saying? Okay, let us even give you your joke - what do you make of this in your statement: "Jesus himself asked Judas to betray him for a cause,which Judas did because he fervently believed in that cause"? So, afterall, he did - or afterall, he did NOT?

Even when you called it "induced act of betrayal", afterall you conceded it was a 'betrayal' of sorts, nevermind the dribbling between two opinions which you later called 'no betrayal.' I've taken the time to go through the thread and no one's called it an induced act of betrayal except you. Christians who defend the NT naratives are not dribbling between opinions - they clearly state it as 'betrayal' without your ambiguous adjectives. Bottom line: no harm meant, but you're confusing yourself all the more.

jagunlabi:
NB
If Judas had refused to betray Jesus,that would've been the real BETRAYAL!Ironic,isn't it.

See who's talking about intelligence and analytical thinking. Your story says Judas did NOT betray Jesus afterall - whereas the NT apologists whose diction you could not analyse have variously defended the Biblical narative. At the end of the day, you're now slyly accepting that your own position was dead wrong! Otherwise, how else would you want to concede this in your postscript: "NB If Judas had refused to betray Jesus. . ." so you concede that Judas did not "refuse" to betray Jesus (as if there was any arrangements between them) and indeed the betrayal took place afterall. Your username says a lot about your scope of intelligence.

Be informed that the Qur'an is just a book as well, and any Muslim who hears the Gospel of Jesus Christ and rejects it will end up in hell - so says the BIBLE which you call "just a book" -

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already,
because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18).

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not
see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36).