Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,165,608 members, 7,861,879 topics. Date: Saturday, 15 June 2024 at 09:59 PM

Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * - Religion (13) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * (3639 Views)

Atheists Debate Religionists * / Can you prove that your God is the real God? - A challenge to all religionists / Albert Einstein Letter Doubting God Auctioned For $2.89m (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) ... (10) (11) (12) (13) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by Dtruthspeaker: 1:22pm On Feb 17
DeepSight:


I am not cursed to live in darkness. You are simply blind to both world history and current affairs.
Also you are ignorant of the brutal workings of nature and the wild.

A person who only sees darkness is one who is blind or is in the dark prison of the curse called desolation and despair.

Whereas the free live in the light in fullness of joy and happiness which is obviously not your world, So you are in hell already.
Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by DeepSight(m): 1:57pm On Feb 17
Dtruthspeaker:


A person who only sees darkness one who is blind or is in the dark prison of the curse called desolation and despair.

Whereas the free live in the light in fullness of joy and happiness which is obviously not your world, So you are in hell already.

Enjoy.
Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by Dtruthspeaker: 2:04pm On Feb 17
DeepSight:


Enjoy.

I am in Jioy, thank you. Hope oneday you'll cone out of your prison.
Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by DeepSight(m): 2:11pm On Feb 17
Dtruthspeaker:


I am in Jioy, thank you. Hope oneday you'll cone out of your prison.

Amen.
You may never know why I say Amen.
But a big Amen to this.
Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by Dtruthspeaker: 2:14pm On Feb 17
DeepSight:


Amen.
You may never know why I say Amen.
But a big Amen to this.

I dont know oo. But i do verily know that joy is better than sorrow and light better than darkness and i'll always choose them.
Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by PoliteActivist: 3:55pm On Feb 17
FxMasterz:


Well, some of the questions are actually misplaced because they are the wrong questions asked in ignorance. I correct the questions by providing more clarify as I proceed.

Question 1
Well, they'll ask you, so God doesn't destroy those who insult him because he is good, soo why doesn't Satan destroy those who insult him?

Answer
For clarity, God is long-suffering and would wait really long for the individual to repent before he or she is judged. He doesn't judge the individual out of hatred but for Justice. God loves man but hates the sins man commits. The insulter of God would still be destroyed when his cup is full. But God would wait very long for him.

Satan destroys those who insult him but he doesn't have the ultimate power to do so. He is a created being. He has no absolute power over man who is another created being like himself. If Satan would destroy someone, he'll first look for legal loopholes in the person's life, and then carry out the destruction by proxy.

...Especially as he is god of this word and heavenly God has to be invited and can't intrude.

For more clarity, Satan is the god of this world. He controls the affairs of the world, particularly its administration. Satan still has his limits in the life of man. He owns the world but he doesn't own man. I can own a house without owning the properties inside the house. You get the logic?A man must give himself out to Satan before Satan can claim ownership of the man and enter his life as he pleases. Men often hand over their lives to Satan through occultism. Satan can't destroy a man at will. Such an operation follows some rules.

Question 2
They'll also say you paint God as being rather weak compared to God of OT.

Answer
I think they ignorantly consider God in the Old Testament as wicked. They need some clarifications about that beyond the scope of this discourse. However, let me state here that God is extremely just, and what you see of God in the Bible are the results of His perfect justice. His methods of bringing justice in the Old Testament is different from that of the New because God divided time into 2 dispensations. Each dispensation has its purpose. We can't go into these in details but very briefly,

1. God in the Old Testament was showing man that He loves man especially those who do righteousness. God never destroys or bring evil on righteous people.

2. God in the Old Testament showed us that sin has SEVERE consequences. Even a nation or man that God so much loves is not spared the consequences of sin. God will severely judge sin, no matter who committed it. The judgement can be gruesome but it's part of Justice. God is a Judge. You don't call a judge a wicked man for sentencing a murderer to death, do you?

3. In the Old testament, God wanted man to see that the ability for him to do righteousness is zero. Man will still commit sin even in the midst of stringent laws that have grievous consequences. Consequences don't deter man. Man is helpless before sin because he has a sin nature from the Adamic fall. Man needs help. This is clearly demonstrated in the Old Testament.

4. In the new testament, after God has demonstrated the weakness of man and his need for a helper to overcome sin, God brought in Grace. Jesus the sinless man has to stand in the gap between God and man, and bear responsibility for man's sins since man cannot do without sinning. Man was not created that way. The inherent ability of Man to sin was given to him through the spirit of disobedience that Adam received when he ate the forbidden fruit. Man cannot do without sinning, hence, Jesus to the rescue. By Jesus, man can no longer face the consequences of his own sin because Christ paid for him. He then empowers man to live righteously through the help of the Holy Ghost.

The bottomline of it all is that, in the final judgement, man wouldn't have an excuse. There's no one judged to spend eternity in hell who'll be accusing God in his mind of being unjust or of not being given all opportunities to live righteously.

i. The Old testament man may say, "God knows we're weak when it comes to sin, yet he inputs our sins upon us whereas He knows that we do not have the ability to do righteousness." God would show old testament man the new testament people upon whom sin was not imputed but still rejected the offer and refused to embrace God's provision for righteousness. God needs righteousness in man for Him to relate with man. Man was created purposely for relationship and fellowship with God. God cannot ignore sin.

Ii. The new testament men might say, "Oh, we would have been more serious about righteousness if God has given us stringent laws with grievous consequences to deter us from sin." God would show them the new testament men who kept sinning and kept facing consequences without any restraint.

God is so just that even after judging you, He wants you to know that you're truly guilty of your sin, and your judgement is well deserved. Man wouldn't be able to blame God for the final state of his own soul. He'll know for certain that he got there by the choices he made. God cannot be blamed.

Question 3
Also God sees babies who'd be armed robbers and destroys them while saving those who'd help the world. Well they'd ask you who made them to be armed robbers and also why would God want to save those who'd help Satan's world.

Answer
God doesn't make anyone armed robbers or pastors. Everyone becomes who he or she becomes by the choices he or she makes from time to time. God can direct a man's life to become an Engineer, a Doctor or a Pastor but the person may choose instead to become an armed robber or a kidnapper. It's the person's choice. God never created man as zombies who do things by being programmed to do it. Man does things by making the choices to do them. That's why man would be fully responsible for his own actions. God can see the future choices a baby would make.

By sparing a baby who'll bless the world in future, God is not preserving those who'll help Satan's world but rather, He's preserving those who'll DISRUPT Satan's activities in the world. Satan wants full scale evil and wickedness all over the world. God raises people who restraints him. People who'll do some disruptive good in the midst of a wicked world. Otherwise, the world would have been so unbearable to dwell in.

Also, it is wrong to say God destroyed the babies who'll be future Evils. Destruction comes from 4 sources: God, Man, Satan and Nature.

When there's a natural disaster, a man or a baby could be caught up if he or she has no defence. It's wrong to think God destroyed somebody because he fell victim of a mishap. Let me explain with a real life example.

When I was in Ilorin in 2016. A member of our church testified of how his daughter was miraculously saved from death. He said during the weak, their first born daughter, about 9yrs at the time was busy in the kitchen while the rest of the family were in the sitting room. The girl just left the kitchen suddenly and walked aimlessly into the parlor. The kitchen was somehow detached from the main building. You know those types of old houses. As soon as the girl stepped into the sitting room, they heard a loud noise coming from outside. When they went to check it out, the kitchen roof had given way and had collapsed into the kitchen. If the girl had remained there at the time, no doubt, she won't make it alive. This is a clear demonstration of the defense we all have. A Godless person is actually defenceless. His defences are removed. He is bare and spiritually vulnerable. However, Satan does not usually attack those because they're like pets in a cage that could could be taken out at anytime. They don't bear any threat to Satan, so they might even live peaceful lives until Satan is ready to take them out or a natural disaster befalls them. Anything can happen to them at any time. A Godly person is often seen as a threat to Satan , so attacks against him never stops. However,che has a defence. He can fall a victim of mishap if he chooses to be ignorant of his rights in God or fails to cultivate his ability to listen to his inner witness and hear God's instructions. Sometimes, the instruction might be to get off a bus 'A' ready to travel and enter into another empty bus 'B' awaiting passengers to travel. Such an instruction can save a man's life as the bus 'A' may never reach its destination. This explains one of the many reasons why on some occasions, godly people may be involved in calamities. Disobedience to instructions or inability to hear the voice of God. The very lack of spiritual sensitivity is the major reason why some righteous people suffer. This also couples with the lack of knowledge for many.

So mishaps can happen to people from either of 4 sources but a defended person is hardly caught up in them.

Question 4

About death. in the OT God punished people by shortening their lives and rewarded them by adding years, after which they were "gathered to their fathers." No inkling of death being a good thing. Even Lord Jesus never rejoiced at anybody dying and even wept when Lazarus died.

Answer
I never said death is a good thing from any man's perspective. That's only from God's perspective. God wants us to come home and be with Him which means death, but He also recognizes that we desire long life here on earth. He gives that desire as a reward to good people or even as an expanded opportunity for a sinner or a wicked man to repent. He can however shorten the life of a righteous man in love, if He finds that the righteous man would soon make wrong choices in life that would erode his righteousness. King Hezekiah of Judah is a case study in this regard. Also, the Bible makes us to know that God does take away righteous men before the evil days come.

The Lord Jesus did weep for Lazarus because He was clothed with man's flesh and had the feelings of a man. He saw the emotions of Mary and Martha, and how sorely embittered they were in their souls. He was moved to compassion, not because He couldn't raise Lazarus or because He thought Lazarus was in some evil state. The dejected states of Lazarus' sisters was what moved Jesus. He knew before getting there that Lazarus was dead but He didn't weep until He saw Mary. God doesn't see death as an evil. A homecoming is not evil in anyway. He can use it as a punishment for wickedness by depriving the wicked man his most intense longing - long life. Death itself is not the punishment in this case but the cutting off of the man's desire. Like in the example I gave in my previous post. In reverse, the friends and relations around your loved one who travelled abroad might weep and start missing him or her when returning back home to you. Meanwhile, you are here rejoicing and eagerly waiting to receive the person. That's how the issue of death is between God and man. But to punish wickedness, God can cut take away the wicked man's desire for life. To reward righteousness, God can prolong a man's days by fulfilling his desire to live long. "DESIRE" is the major word here. "The expectations of the wicked shall be cut off."

Question 5
About suffering of the Jews, they'd ask you why the disciples who killed nobody suffered worse.

Answer
This is supposed to be a very lengthy answer but I'll try as much as possible to be brief.

The disciples actually had a special case which God never explained. In 1 Corinthians 4, Paul said God had deliberately set it so for the apostles. However,it should interest you to know that the disciples themselves were fully aware that they would suffer martyrdom from the very beginning of their walks with God. Jesus Christ clearly told them without mincing words, and they fully embraced it with joy. Infact they eagerly awaited such a time when they'll offer their own lives. Not only that, they always had a pre-knowledge of the death they were about to die.

For example, when the two sons of Zebedee came asking Jesus to grant them special seats and positions in His eternal kingdom, Jesus asked them if they can partake of the cup He was about to drink. That cup was the crucifixion on the cross. The two guys responded in the affirmative. Jesus told them that they'll certainly drink. That's to say, they'll suffer martyrdom, but the right to sit in special places in His kingdom is already pre-ordained. All the disciples who suffered martyrdom knew they would. As the day approached, they had the pre-knowledge. They joyfully embraced it. Let's hear from Peter and Paul:

2 Peter 1:13
I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things"

Peter wrote this shortly before his martyrdom. He said the Lord Jesus made it clear to him. And he was very willing to give his life.

Let's hear Paul too.

2 Timothy 4:6-8

"6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time for my departure is near. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing."

Paul knew very clearly that he was about to be martyred. He also embraced it with joy. All martyrs actually had a pre knowledge, both the direct disciples of Christ and all matyrs through church history. You can even read about the matyredom of Polycarp and several other matyre.

They were always given two choices by their executors, either to recant and live or to continue professing Jesus and die. They all chose death. Why? Maybe we can get some clues from the response of Polycarp when he was asked to recant and deny Jesus:

"Eighty and six years I have served Him, and He has done me no wrong."

Meanwhile, he was pre-informed by Jesus that he would be burnt alive.

Very well said. But I have to constantly remind, I am playing devil's advocate for both sides.

I give thanks with that family whose daughter almost died, though I have to point out such narrow escapes and near misses of death also happen to non-believers and some even hear warning voices or intuition (like woman below). What would we attribute those to?

So if a righteous person dies young it is because God wants to reward him by bringing him home early to enjoy, never mind his desire for long life. And if he dies old it is because God wants to reward his desire for long life, never mind bringing him home early to enjoy. How about if a godless person lives a long fulfilled life and dies, as we often see, how did he escape both God's wrath as unbeliever, and Satan's wrath as a defenseless person?

So God can see a baby will be an armed robber and destroys it, soo why allow it to be born in the first place? Isn't it easier to destroy it pre-conception? Also if God can intrude uninvited to destroy a future robber baby and save a future world enhancer baby, why can't he intrude and prevent a natural disaster or some torturous atrocities being committed by evil people?

As for free will, that's actually in the heading of the thread. As you can see, Einstein believed it was an illusion, but let's analyze. So a person is given a certain type of brain, born to a certain type of parents, into a certain type of environment, goes through certain types of experiences. He chose non of those. Please explain how he can have free will outside those constraints. Example, a person is born into an environment that embedded in him from early childhood that Islam is good and Christianity is bad, and given the type of brain/mind that aligns with that and that is not amenable to change, where does he get the "free will" to later choose Christianity over Islam?

The jews were also forewarned and died defending their faith and refusing to abandon their God. They also believed they were pleasing God and defending him when they were insisting Lord Jesus be crucified, whom they believed blasphemed and disrespected him - much like what Moslems do today!

DeepSight, LordReed, KnownUnknown, HellVictorinho6, francistown, FxMasterz, jaephoenix, maynman, hopefullandlord

Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by HellVictorinho6(m): 5:51pm On Feb 17
Image123:


Ahhh, Victor you have not come out of this chronic begging still? May God have mercy on you oh.

MAY U BURY UR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN
Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by Image123(m): 6:48pm On Feb 17
HellVictorinho6:


MAY U BURY UR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN

If wishes were horses, beggars like you will ride. Sorry that you feel the way that they probably told your parents about you. Your mouth and words could help you out of your unfortunate, frustrated state. As for me and my household, we're not subject to idle mouths and destinies like yours, but we are hid farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr from your folly in the name above all names. We live, declaring the glory of God.
Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by HellVictorinho6(m): 11:43pm On Feb 17
Image123:


If wishes were horses, beggars like you will ride. Sorry that you feel the way that they probably told your parents about you. Your mouth and words could help you out of your unfortunate, frustrated state. As for me and my household, we're not subject to idle mouths and destinies like yours, but we are hid farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr from your folly in the name above all names. We live, declaring the glory of God.

Boring

1 Like

Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by jaephoenix(m): 2:18am On Feb 20
PoliteActivist:
WHO CARES TO READ THIS MAY LEARN SOMETHING

Case For Spirit Release Therapy
By Dr. Alan Sanderson
Spirit possession, according to contemporary science, is impossible, an outworn concept, of interest only to historians and anthropologists. Yet, here in 21st century, two psychiatrists are this evening* suggesting that spirit attachment, as it is now called, may actually be a common and an eminently treatable phenomenon. So what is going on?
I can best respond by telling how I came to involve myself in the subject.
Since I qualified as a doctor nearly fifty years ago, there have been tremendous advances in the practice of medicine. Every branch of medicine has been transformed - every branch, that is, except psychiatry. While there have been advances from improvements in drugs and the development of cognitive psychotherapy, the chief benefits have come from changes in the organisation and delivery of the service. Our understanding of the nature and causes of emotional disorder has advanced scarcely at all. The problems posed by people cutting themselves, abusing drugs and alcohol, suffering periods of depression or experiencing bizarre thoughts and behaviour, seem as great as ever, and we remain in almost total ignorance of the underlying causes. The biological approach, which a century ago appeared to hold out such hope for psychiatry, has run out of steam. Yet, because this remains the only scientifically ‘respectable’ approach, nothing new is being tried. Where should one look? I suggest that to look productively, we make a 180-degree turn, stand on our heads and scan a new vista!
In 1992 I met a hypnotherapist who spoke persuasively about spirit possession and its treatment by hypnosis. He gave me a little book, ‘The Unquiet Dead’, by an American psychologist, Edith Fiore , which describes her pioneering hypnotherapeutic work:
With the patient in trance, what appeared to be attached spirits were able to use the patient’s voice. Through honest negotiation, Fiore helped them to leave. My hypnotherapist acquaintance gave a convincing demonstration with one of my seriously ill patients. I was impressed. I decided to train in hypnosis and to learn spirit
release therapy from Dr. William Baldwin . My training and practice soon convinced me that, whether or not one accepts the theoretical basis, spirit release is a quick and effective therapy.

For some years I used spirit release therapy in the (Public) Health Service, but, as you can imagine, there were problems in using such an approach in the public service. Since leaving the Health Service in 1997 I have been working privately. I have treated hundreds of cases and I can say that spirit attachment, as it is now called, is a common condition for which, in many cases, there is an effective and safe treatment.
Cases speak louder than any argument, but first, here are some clarifying points, seven in all, for your consideration:

1. I believe that consciousness is a phenomenon in its own right and is not simply the result of brain activity. While it is true that during bodily life, consciousness is closely linked with brain activity and largely dependent upon brain function, there are many observations which
support the belief that consciousness survives bodily death and that during life it may, on occasion, operate independently. Examples are: near-death experiences, remote viewing, verifiable recollections of previous lives, mediumistic phenomena, the occurrence of unlearned language, and, of course, spirit attachment. The established scientific view that consciousness is a by-product of brain activity has had the effect of imposing a selective blindness on our thinking. Scientists don’t see the phenomena that everywhere challenge their paradigm, because the paradigm cannot contain them. Theory dictates focus, and focus dictates experience. Scientists have become as opinionated as the churchmen who refused to use Galileo’s telescope. The limitation on our worldview that this blindness imposes is depriving many areas, especially in complementary medicine, of the recognition and the funding that they deserve. Let us stay with this point; it is so important. Demonstrated. No one would suggest that he did wrong to pre-empt the proof. Spirits, we shall be told, are in a different category; accept them as a possibility and we would undermine the credibility of the accepted scientific paradigm. So what? Every scientific theory eventually outlives its usefulness. The many challenging observations mentioned above cry out for its revision. Must we for ever bow down before the questionable belief that the brain causes consciousness?

2. Reincarnation is another vital concept and a tenet of many world religions, particularly Buddhism and Hinduism. Excluded by the Christian Church at the Conference of Nicea in the 4th century, reincarnation is the dynamic structure that gives meaning to human life and experience.

3. What happens after the death of the physical body is crucial. Normally the soul goes to the Light and enters the spirit world proper. Not always, for it can stay on the earth plane, a misfortune for which there are many reasons. It may then attach to other human beings or to locations.

4. Such attached spirits may cause difficulties and ill health to those affected.

5. Spirit release can be achieved in many ways. Exorcism, practised as a religious rite, is the traditional method. Secular treatments are replacing exorcism and are ever more widely practised. Spirits are viewed not as evil, but as misguided and are offered compassionate help. There are two basic approaches, the Intuitive, which requires psychic awareness in the therapist, and the Interactive, in which the therapist helps the patient into an altered state of consciousness and then dialogues with the attached spirit, which uses the patient’s vocal apparatus to respond.

6. Spirit release has two aims: firstly, that the spirit must go safely to the Light; it is not enough simply to get rid of it. Secondly, the patient requires comprehensive healing.

7. That these aims can only be successfully achieved through the assistance of unseen spiritual help is acknowledged by all who do this work.



Psychiatry is a scientific domain, it doesn't rely on voodoo or any supernatural inputs. If you must rely on them, bring proof and not anecdotal evidence or hearsays
Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by jaephoenix(m): 2:26am On Feb 20
PoliteActivist:




*Terribly sorry, I'll reply the rest later. Business calls



*continuing

About hypnosis, one video shows a man hypnotized whereby he couldn't remember his name. The other shows a man hypnotized where he couldn't recognize his friend and the fact he was under hypnosis was wiped from his mind whereby he didn't know he was ever hypnotized.
The point is that a fellow human being can take control of a person's mind without the person knowing they are under control of anything. If a mere human can do that...

About other stuff, you say you remain unimpressed until anyone can provide irrefutable proof. Well, there iis no irrefutable proof about anything in our reality
including it's very existence. Everything is based on preponderance of circumstantial evidence.
Do you have evidence of hypnosis actually working?
Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by PoliteActivist: 5:04am On Feb 20
jaephoenix:

Do you have evidence of hypnosis actually working?

See below.
Bottom line, we could all be under some sort of cosmic hypnosis right now and and not know it.
Only the best geniuses amongst us can somehow figure it out - which they did! Einstein says freewill is an illusion, the rest say we are very likely in some sort of simulation

Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by PoliteActivist: 5:11am On Feb 20
jaephoenix:

Psychiatry is a scientific domain, it doesn't rely on voodoo or any supernatural inputs. If you must rely on them, bring proof and not anecdotal evidence or hearsays

These are scientists, including a doctor who had been in practice for 50 years!
What evidence do scientists have that the universe exists as we perceive it? None! Well, if you can't even establish that, then everything else is based on preponderance of circumstantial evidence!
Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by PoliteActivist: 6:43am On Feb 21
.
Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by LordReed(m): 4:26pm On Feb 21
DeepSight:


Time or no time, I think you still fail to grasp the simplicity of the point that an infinity of steps cannot have a conclusion or result in anything. It never ends, and thus goes nowhere and results in nothing.

Now with your second paragraph you are conflating issues. I will tell you why I say so. Yes, obviously one can have an infinity of fractions in any number and thus even an infinity of moments in any second or minute. But you see, that only exists within a construct of the mind - such as numbers are. No infinity is actually proven to exist in material things. And yet again, no infinite amount of of causes can cause anything because they never end and thus go nowhere. Thats what the quote I got for you from Quora was saying. When you have a real world, an actual here and now, it could not have arisen from an infinity of causes. Such a chain will remain suspended in perpetual succession and lead to nothing.

Let me just add a little something to this. Have you really reflected on the idea of an infinite regression and considered if it is possible, conceivable or has any real meaning whatsoever?

Because it is nothing but fantasy. Worse fantasy than time travel.

I drew up a long response but internet connectivity stuff made lose it and I have been too busy to rewrite another one. When I am less busy I will try again.
Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by DeepSight(m): 6:02pm On Feb 21
LordReed:


I drew up a long response but internet connectivity stuff made lose it and I have been too busy to rewrite another one. When I am less busy I will try again.

Oh that can really really suck. So so sorry.
Its stuff like that which has caused me to have a habit - when I draft any post, I first click copy before I try to submit it. Its now second nature because of many painful losses of long drafts back in the day. Once you select your draft and copy it, whatever happens you can paste it elsewhere.
Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by FxMasterz: 12:39am On Feb 22
Francistown, what is your idea of a God if I may ask? And why do you think you cannot consider Yahweh a God?
Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by FRANCISTOWN: 5:47pm On Feb 22
FxMasterz:
Francistown, what is your idea of a God if I may ask? And why do you think you cannot consider Yahweh a God?
Firstly lemme tell you what a god cannot. Then we'll talk about what a god should be.

1. God cannot be a he or a she (That's gender biasness). Which takes me to number 2.

2. God cannot be anthropomorphic. That makes his on the same level with humans and with human attributes therefore.

i. God cannot get angry.
ii. God cannot be sad.
III. God cannot be jealous.
iv. God cannot forget things( he doesn't need remembering)
v. God cannot be a racist (he would never choose a race over the other)
vi. God cannot be immature and insecure thereby constantly seeking my worship and praise to asure of himself of how great he is.
vii. God does not need my services, he does not need my help, he doesn't need my money, he does not need a house. He is self sufficient.
viii. God should be fair.
ix. God should be proactive (God cannot be as silent as a graveyard at midnight)
x. God cannot be foolish and stupid. He cannot know what to do and not do it.
xi. God cannot have a child and sacrifice that child to himself for the sake of people he cursed with his own mouth.
xii. A god cannot be weak, thereby reacting to emotions. Cursing Adam and Eve.
xiii. A god cannot a religion. I mean a particular way he can be reached.

The list is endless.

But to answer your question.
A god is that supernatural divine being that is responsible.

1 Like

Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by Dtruthspeaker: 6:19pm On Feb 22
FRANCISTOWN:

Firstly lemme tell you what a god cannot. Then we'll talk about what a god should be.

1. God cannot be a he or a she (That's gender biasness). Which takes me to number 2.

2. God cannot be anthropomorphic. That makes his on the same level with humans and with human attributes therefore..

And this is the begining of foolish talk for it is The Law, that you can only give what you.have.

So male, female are just the limit of our description, and God is and must always be beyond our limits. So He is more and greater.than male/female exactly how Davido gives you N3m you already know that he has unseen Nx amount of money with him.

So, you are already speaking childishly and foolishly.
Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by FxMasterz: 7:59pm On Feb 22
FRANCISTOWN:

Firstly lemme tell you what a god cannot. Then we'll talk about what a god should be.

Okay, thanks for telling me your idea of what a God should be, and that's exactly who Yahweh is. You failed in your responsibility as a man to know what God has said about Himself.

Instead, your ideas are based on what you heard others say about Him. I think most of you atheists never grow your understanding of God more than what you knew of him as children. Most of what you attributed to Yahweh is false, and I'll show you your weaknesses by and by. They're childhood thoughts of God.

According to You:
1. God cannot be a he or a she (That's gender biasness). Which takes me to number 2.

The truth
God is neither man nor woman. Humans refer to Him as a man because there's no other word to describe His person. If man and woman were created in God's image, then God is neither man nor woman since both genders are the images of God. There are many things about God we don't have the human language for. We just express Him to the best of our ability. You cannot know this about God until you get closer to Him. God is actually neither He or She. Even in the Bible, God is only expressed to the best of man's comprehension. God is still not limited to what you read of Him in the Bible. You cannot really know God until you relate with Him.

According to You:
2. God cannot be anthropomorphic. That makes his on the same level with humans and with human attributes therefore.

The Truth
God created man in His image and planted His attributes in man which were later corrupted by the sin nature. For example, angels don't have feelings. They don't have emotions. They don't have anger or sympathy. They don't know what's called forgiveness or the lack of it. They were not created in God's image, so they don't have God's attributes. God deliberately put His attributes in man. Man was a glorious being created as a deputy God to rule the earth. Man was a created being higher than angels. Angels are only superior to man today because man fell. But once you regain your position in Christ, angels are at your service. Angels are beings created to serve God and man. Man has God's attributes and not God having man's attributes. In the hierarchy of things, after God, man is the next in command in the universe. He was created to behave like God Himself. A deputy God so to speak.

According to You:
i. God cannot get angry.
ii. God cannot be sad.
III. God cannot be jealous.

The Truth
Why can't God? Yes God can be angry, sad and jealous because He created indestructible beings like Himself with His own Spirit who has their own freewill. When such creations misbehave over a long period of time, God can react. Why shouldn't He?

According to You:
iv. God cannot forget things( he doesn't need remembering)

The Truth
God does not ever forget things. When you read of God talking about remembrance of things in the Bible, it doesn't imply that God has forgotten or would forget. It only implies that God is committed to His promises. Would you give me any scripture reference where God forgot something and someone had to remind Him?

According to You:
v. God cannot be a racist (he would never choose a race over the other)

The Truth
God is not a racist, He never chose any race above another. Otherwise, God wouldn't have ever been good to such people as Rehab, Naaman, Job, Ruth, Balaam, the Gibeonites, etc. God even punished the Israelites severely for attacking the Gibeonites in the days of Saul. You don't seem to understand what God did with Israel in the old testament and you didn't care to know. And you don't also understand God's position about Israel today. This can only be discussed separately.

According to You:
vi. God cannot be immature and insecure thereby constantly seeking my worship and praise to asure of himself of how great he is.

The Truth
God does not need your worship to assure Himself that He's great. God wants your worship because that's the only way you can spiritually connect with Him in your fallen state. God craves fellowship with man because man was created to be God's only friend in the universe. While God can't relate with other things He created, God can relate with man. He created man for relationship and fellowship. In man's fallen state, man cannot connect with God except through worship. Worship establishes the spiritual connection that brings about fellowship. That's the only reason why worship is important to God. Not because it makes God feel great. That's absurd. Without it man is disconnected. If you want to start experiencing God today, start worshipping.

According to You:
vii. God does not need my services, he does not need my help, he doesn't need my money, he does not need a house. He is self sufficient.

The Truth
God does not need any of those things you listed. He never said He needs them. However, when you provide these things in God's name whether for the service of man or for the help of God's ministers, you automatically create a conduit for blessings to flow towards you. God is Self-sufficient. He needs nothing but He want man to help his fellow man, and for that reason, God will bless the one who helps another. Even tithe.is clearly declared by God as means for the priests. And for taking care of the priests, God would bless the congregation.

According to You:
viii. God should be fair.

The Truth
And yes, God is extremely fair. For example, before giving the Israelites the land of Canaan, He told them that He was giving them the land because of the abomination of the inhabitants. After waiting for over 500yrs for the the abominable people to repent, He replaced them with the Israelites when they were growing more and more in their wickedness . He then warned the Israelites that even they themselves would suffer harsher punishments if they commit the same sins as the people they displaced. When Israel started to sin, God didn't even wait 500yrs for them to repent. They were already forewarned. He judged them with more severe punishments than the former inhabitants of the land. God is just and extremely fair. No partiality.

According to You:
ix. God should be proactive (God cannot be as silent as a graveyard at midnight)

The Truth
God is proactive. God is never silent. Men are the ones who have dull ears. They can't hear God.

According to You:
x. God cannot be foolish and stupid. He cannot know what to do and not do it.

The Truth
God is none of what you think He is. He knows what to do and is doing it. God doesn't work according to your frail logic or prediction. He has a plan and He's executing it stage by stage.

According to You:
xi. God cannot have a child and sacrifice that child to himself for the sake of people he cursed with his own mouth.

The Truth
You don't know or have the faintest understanding of what sin is, do you? Death is the only repercussion for Sin. A SINNER MUST DIE. Sin is man, and man is sin. Inseparable. The solution for sin is the annihilation of sinful men. A sinful man is spiritually dead. He can only be annihilated. God does not want to annihilate man, so He brought a Sinless man in the person of His Son to to take the position of sinful men so that dead men can be made alive to God. I'll stop here because if your inner eyes are not open, you can't understand how serious a matter sin is.

You cannot understand the mystery of righteousness until you understand the mystery of sin.

According to You:
xii. A god cannot be weak, thereby reacting to emotions. Cursing Adam and Eve.

The Truth
God was not being emotional in that scenario. He acted as judge for disobedience. When a judge sentences a thief to prison, do you accuse him of being emotional? God is a God of justice, no matter how much He loves you, you'll be judged for your disobedience. Actions have consequences.

According to You:
xiii. A god cannot a religion. I mean a particular way he can be reached.

The Truth
Yahweh does not have a religion. And He's the only One who doesn't. All other gods worshiped by men have religions. Yahweh doesn't. He is the Only One who is Creator. He has no religion. Religion is a man and Satan made thing. It doesn't emanate from God. God can be reached any way and any how and anywhere.

The list is endless.

The Truth
The endless list is based on your endless ignorance. Listening to men without seeking to listen to God directly is the reason for your defective atheistic position.

According to You:
But to answer your question.
A god is that supernatural divine being that is responsible.

The Truth:
That is exactly who Yahweh Is
Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by FRANCISTOWN: 10:32am On Feb 24
FxMasterz:


Okay, thanks for telling me your idea of what a God should be, and that's exactly who Yahweh is. You failed in your responsibility as a man to know what God has said about Himself.
I know what Yahweh said about himself, that he is a jealous childish god that visits the sins of the father on his children, he is a killer, an insecure megalomanic entity and so on.

FxMasterz:

Instead, your ideas are based on what you heard others say about Him. I think most of you atheists never grow your understanding of God more than what you knew of him as children.
You and MaxInDHouse are just so much alike. Y'all believe everybody knew Yahweh through what was taught to them. You may actually not know the bible fairy character called Yahweh as much as I do.
I graduated from the Eucharist class when I was 5. My mom bought me the bible, New Testament when I was 7.
I was an altar server and I did my first confirmation by 11. By that time I had already read the new testament from Matthew to Revelation about 22times, The old testament, Genesis to Malachi 1½ time and several relevant materials on the christian faith. At 18 I had already left Catholicism and I was an assistant cell leader , a prayer warrior and in an Evangelism Unit.

At 25 I had already read the New Testament more than 40 times, and more than 120books pertaining to the christian faith with lengthy days of serious fasting and meditation.
I wanted to be a Priest in the Holy Roman Catholic Church before I read what took me out of catholicism. Then I wanted to be a pastor before I became an agnostic first.

So brother, I can tell you authoritatively that there is nobody on this earth that can tell me anything new or different about Yahweh.
I know about that character in toto.

You saying I knew of Yahweh based on what I was taught as a kid is the highest level of ignorance anyone can display. That statement is too big for your mouth. I repeat too big.


FxMasterz:

The truth
God is neither man nor woman.
Go back and read your bible. Jesus the son of your God said

“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" -Matt 11:27
Every pronoun that was used in the bible was the masculine pronoun. And Jesus who knew Yahweh called him father. Oh! Are you saying Jesus didn't know the gender of his father?
This argument is even irritating, everyone knows that the biblical god is a "He". Same as Allah his adulterated version.
So please don't argue about this. It makes you sound very stupid.
I guess the son has not revealed him to you. That's the reason you do not know his gender.
Moses that saw him never used any other pronoun except the masculine.
Abraham that showed him hospitality never used a different pronoun.
Yahweh introduced himself using the masculine pronoun.
Jesus said "Our father, who art in heaven..."
Now think about how "Our mother, who art in heaven" sounds.
Go and study your bible first. Then come back and talk to me


Everything you said down there, I've already addressed them in my previous threads. And the answers can't contain this block, so please
go thru this thread:
I naked Yahweh finish for that thread.

https://www.nairaland.com/7593172/eternal-synagogue-civilized-atheist-movement#121401944

1 Like

Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by FxMasterz: 10:46am On Feb 24
FRANCISTOWN:

I know what Yahweh said about himself, that he is a jealous childish god that visits the sins of the father on his children, he is a killer, an insecure megalomanic entity and so on.


You and MaxInDHouse are just so much alike. Y'all believe everybody knew Yahweh through what was taught to them. You may actually not know the bible fairy character called Yahweh as much as I do.
I graduated from the Eucharist class when I was 5. My mom bought me the bible, New Testament when I was 7.
I was an altar server and I did my first confirmation by 11. By that time I had already read the new testament from Matthew to Revelation about 22times, The old testament, Genesis to Malachi 1½ time and several relevant materials on the christian faith. At 18 I had already left Catholicism and I was an assistant cell leader , a prayer warrior and in an Evangelism Unit.

At 25 I had already read the New Testament more than 40 times, and more than 120books pertaining to the christian faith with lengthy days of serious fasting and meditation.
I wanted to be a Priest in the Holy Roman Catholic Church before I read what took me out of catholicism. Then I wanted to be a pastor before I became an agnostic first.

So brother, I can tell you authoritatively that there is nobody on this earth that can tell me anything new or different about Yahweh.
I know about that character in toto.

You saying I knew of Yahweh based on what I was taught as a kid is the highest level of ignorance anyone can display. That statement is too big for your mouth. I repeat too big.



Go back and read your bible. Jesus the son of your God said

“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" -Matt 11:27
Every pronoun that was used in the bible was the masculine pronoun. And Jesus who knew Yahweh called him father. Oh! Are you saying Jesus didn't know the gender of his father?
This argument is even irritating, everyone knows that the biblical god is a "He". Same as Allah his adulterated version.
So please don't argue about this. It makes you sound very stupid.

Everything you said down there, I've already addressed them in my previous threads. And the answers can't contain this block, so please
go thru this thread:
I naked Yahweh finish for that thread.

https://www.nairaland.com/7593172/eternal-synagogue-civilized-atheist-movement#121401944

It's one thing to know the Bible, it's a other thing to for the Bible to be revealed to you.

Your boasting is out of self pride. I read the completely at the age of 7, and I've read the Bible from cover to cover uncountable times.

Your ideologies about God are nothing but childish motions of God. Your so called reading of the Bible didn't change such notions. They were maintained all through because you read without Revelation.

2 3:17

"..always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth."

The difference between us both is Revelation. That's what you lacked. And I'm not surprised because you were learning about God in a repackaged Babylonian cult called Roman Catholicism. You were never a Christian!

Yes, Jesus can call God Father. Is the term 'Father' reflected of any gender? How does that term relate to God being a male? Now, tell me how Jesus to call His Father in an expression towards men if God was neither male nor female. Please tell me the pronoun or noun Jesus should have used.

God created Adam in His image and took Eve out of Adam. Therefore Adam was previously He + She before the She was separated from the He. Hence God in whose image Adam was originally created is neither He nor She. If this sounds stupid to you, then you lack understanding. God is Man + Woman. There's no human gender denotation for such. So, God is neither He nor She. We refer to Him as a He because the 'He' is the more predominant character in both pronouns. That's why Jesus clearly stated in that scripture you quoted that No one knows the father except Himself. Yet, you're here bragging that you know Yahweh. Lol. We all know Him only to the limit of our knowledge and language expression.

If you have oppossing views to the other things I wrote, then enumerate them here. I wouldn't go over to the other thread to comment on the things I responded to you here for.
Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by PastorAIO: 5:48pm On Mar 18
DeepSight:


I hear you. And I get.

However when I say intangible I am expressing the idea of a formless being. It's not just invisible or non material. It's beyond that. That is why I said "absolute intangible."

Someone on this board, PastorAIO, once brilliantly described it as "the tipping point to nothingness."

It's ineffable.

Deepsight I hail you, my brother. But abeg nor dey chook words why I nor talk inside my mouth. I don't know anything about 'the tipping point to nothingness'. Ineffability yes. I wonder at the ineffable, such wonder that words fail me to express it.

1 Like

Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by DeepSight(m): 5:54pm On Mar 18
PastorAIO:


Deepsight I hail you, my brother. But abeg nor dey chook words why I nor talk inside my mouth. I don't know anything about 'the tipping point to nothingness'. Ineffability yes. I wonder at the ineffable, such wonder that words fail me to express it.

Ha, you still dey alive. Why you no greet me since. Long time bro.

You may have forgotten. You described God as the tipping point to nothingness a long time ago.

Abeg reach out.
sightdeep@gmail.com
Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by kkins25(m): 8:59pm On Mar 18
PastorAIO:


Deepsight I hail you, my brother. But abeg nor dey chook words why I nor talk inside my mouth. I don't know anything about 'the tipping point to nothingness'. Ineffability yes. I wonder at the ineffable, such wonder that words fail me to express it.

Long Long time Pastor.. How have you been?

1 Like

Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by PastorAIO: 3:19pm On Apr 04
DeepSight:


Ha, you still dey alive. Why you no greet me since. Long time bro.

You may have forgotten. You described God as the tipping point to nothingness a long time ago.

Abeg reach out.
sightdeep@gmail.com

I dey o, my guy. Yeah, I fled the scene ages ago. But like every true criminal I like to return to the scene of the crime. cheesy

2 Likes

Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by PastorAIO: 3:20pm On Apr 04
kkins25:


Long Long time Pastor.. How have you been?

I dey o. Living everyday with a deeper and deeper gratitude.
How tingz?

2 Likes

Re: Einstein On Freewill; Atheists & Religionists Respond * by kkins25(m): 3:46pm On Apr 04
PastorAIO:


I dey o. Living everyday with a deeper and deeper gratitude.
How tingz?
I almost wan talk we thank God😂😂..

(1) (2) (3) ... (10) (11) (12) (13) (Reply)

I'll Convert Back To Christiandoom If Christians Can Explain This Two Facts(pic) / How Enki Created The Homo Sapiens / Power Against The Spirit Of The Snail "Mountain Of Fire Ministries "

(Go Up)

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

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 147
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.