The Bible didn't say what you have ascribed to it. The church is not the pillar more ground of truth. It is God, through Jesus Christ that is both. If I demand the support from the scripture you won't be able to provide it. God didn't want anyone been confused about anything about him. His word says in the mouth of two or three is a thing confirmed.... Can you provide any part of the scripture that supports the first?
1 John 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
Matthew 18:16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
Deuteronomy 19:15 "A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.
2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you EVERY FACT IS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OR THREE WITNESS
Timothy says the household of God which is the church of the living God, the living God himself been the pillar of anyone truth.., every truth must find a support from gods word and it must be the ground upon which is it harvested. .... Jesus supported this when he declared that he is the only way, ....the ground, the path, the road, ....... The truth... The entire word he is....and. Life... The spirit
They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.?.... Acts 2:42
You are just going round in circle contradicting yourself. First, it was your church that wrote that Bible and now it is no longer so. You have now turned around to agree that what your church claimed to have written were actually letters written personally by the apostles involved. You now understand that when your church says, reading from the letter of saint Paul to.... It is actually a letter letter personally written by Paul and not your church. Thank God. We are making progress albeit slowly.
Jesus put the first nail to your church claim when he expounded from ALL scripture all that was written concerning him my ALL the prophets. Now you have now seen the original source if the new testament...the Apostles. To God alone be all the glory.
Albert Einstein spent years on his invention but everything important to knowing how he did it is in less than a fifty-page text. The Bible is a concise word of God covering everything about God. Preaching is ordained by God in order to expound that scripture like Jesus Christ and the Apostles did. Preaching and Teaching is nothing but an elaboration of the text of the word of God.
If you have been privileged to her the Holy Spirit speak, you won't fail to notice that he speaks mainly clauses. He never embark on detailed explanations..when I asked for the mind of God concerning your claim on 1 Tim 3:15... He simply said...line on line..one explains the other.... If I was to debate you in my own I would have stated that the clause are independent and if the apostle meant what you claimed he would have used the conjunction...AND... AND IT WOULD read, the church of the living God and the ground and pillar of truth.
You don't seem to have any originality about you. After you go round you come to repeat me. I have already ad iced someone here to bear with you because you trapped in religion and that it is not fun for me to return always to the same issue. God back and you will find it and now you have copied it and made it your own.
Be that as it may be. In addition to the above, I reply you faster because God has given me the means to do so without any cost to me. I use IPad for business and pleasure and I am therefore able to reply you at a moment notice.
I ask again, is it the truth that your pope is infallible? Answer, so we can go back in history and see just how infallible they have been. Do you realise that not a single of your church practice is attributed to the apostles but to popes... From Mary adoration, worship and pray for us. Image worship to purgatory ...
Dispute this by pasting the days or years and originating persons for some of your church doctrines here
Funaki: Chai, haven't I explained or you don't just care about people's response? Ok, let me help you remove the verses so you can read together as a whole and understand.
Matthew 10:34-38 KJV Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
I expect you to understand now, Read everything together.
If you still don't understand, read this commentary
Our Lord warned his disciples to prepare for persecution. They were to avoid all things which gave advantage to their enemies, all meddling with worldly or political concerns, all appearance of evil or selfishness, and all underhand measures. Christ foretold troubles, not only that the troubles might not be a surprise, but that they might confirm their faith. He tells them what they should suffer, and from whom. Thus Christ has dealt fairly and faithfully with us, in telling us the worst we can meet with in his service; and he would have us deal so with ourselves, in sitting down and counting the cost. Persecutors are worse than beasts, in that they prey upon those of their own kind. The strongest bonds of love and duty, have often been broken through from enmity against Christ. Sufferings from friends and relations are very grievous; nothing cuts more. It appears plainly, that all who will live godly in Christ Jesus must suffer persecution; and we must expect to enter into the kingdom of God through many tribulations. With these predictions of trouble, are counsels and comforts for a time of trial. The disciples of Christ are hated and persecuted as serpents, and their ruin is sought, and they need the serpent's wisdom. Be ye harmless as doves. Not only, do nobody any hurt, but bear nobody any ill-will. Prudent care there must be, but not an anxious, perplexing thought; let this care be cast upon God. The disciples of Christ must think more how to do well, than how to speak well. In case of great peril, the disciples of Christ may go out of the way of danger, though they must not go out of the way of duty. No sinful, unlawful means may be used to escape; for then it is not a door of God's opening. The fear of man brings a snare, a perplexing snare, that disturbs our peace; an entangling snare, by which we are drawn into sin; and, therefore, it must be striven and prayed against. Tribulation, distress, and persecution cannot take away God's love to them, or theirs to him. Fear Him, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. They must deliver their message publicly, for all are deeply concerned in the doctrine of the gospel. The whole counsel of God must be made known, Ac 20:27. Christ shows them why they should be of good cheer. Their sufferings witnessed against those who oppose his gospel. When God calls us to speak for him, we may depend on him to teach us what to say. A believing prospect of the end of our troubles, will be of great use to support us under them. They may be borne to the end, because the sufferers shall be borne up under them. The strength shall be according to the day. And it is great encouragement to those who are doing Christ's work, that it is a work which shall certainly be done. See how the care of Providence extends to all creatures, even to the sparrows. This should silence all the fears of God's people; Ye are of more value than many sparrows. And the very hairs of your head are all numbered. This denotes the account God takes and keeps of his people. It is our duty, not only to believe in Christ, but to profess that faith, in suffering for him, when we are called to it, as well as in serving him. That denial of Christ only is here meant which is persisted in, and that confession only can have the blessed recompence here promised, which is the real and constant language of faith and love. Religion is worth every thing; all who believe the truth of it, will come up to the price, and make every thing else yield to it. Christ will lead us through sufferings, to glory with him. Those are best prepared for the life to come, that sit most loose to this present life. Though the kindness done to Christ's disciples be ever so small, yet if there be occasion for it, and ability to do no more, it shall be accepted. Christ does not say that they deserve a reward; for we cannot merit any thing from the hand of God; but they shall receive a reward from the free gift of God. Let us boldly confess Christ, and show love to him in all things.
Here's your earlier statement.
Funaki: While your God is the example of evil personified.
Jesus and Paul seems to portray God as a good guy whow doesn't do evil.
The new testament guys had more sense. They knew the God character in the old testament was a fvcktard. They knew no God would be that savage and insane. That's why they toned down on the God aggression in their own stories.
God of the Old Testament was a bad idea, a psycho. The mad king in Game of thrones is learning from him.
Funaki: the Jesus character is the same as God of Moses and Elijah, he just happened to forget how to slaughter children in their sleep or how to destroy a whole generation for the sin of their fathers.
Nodogragra4me: Sure saints, living here on earth are to pray for another. It is scriptural. It is intercessory prayer but no so called Saints in heaven orays for you. It is the demons in the heavenliss that you pray to.
Jesus Christ is the only being in heaven that has the capacity and right to mediate between man and God, the father. Angels are ministering spirits not intercessors.
Does your bible say there's difference between saints in heaven and saints on earth? Why are you committing heresy, Mr man?
Nodogragra4me: You are not sure of any of your previously held opinions, right? Even the scripture you thought said something has turned not to have thought of the ideas you and your church ascribed to them....all the scriptures you have cited as defence here ended up not actually saying that you proclaimed it said.
You brought the matter of tradition and and gave scriptures but you have now discovered that the tradition was actually not what you have always thought it to be. You brought up the superiority of the church against the very end of God that existed even before the fort man was created. (May God forgive you.) and you equally discovered it wasn't what you thought.
Brother, God though the holy spirit stands forever ready to back his word but never your personal opinion of it.
How could I be wrong when you don't even understand the bible you claim to believe in? You are yet to understand that Christ established a church and gave it special authority, and the guarantee that it will NEVER fail. Arguing with is really a waste of time. I'm only doing this so that any person, especially younger people who come across this will read my replies.
Nodogragra4me: When I was a catholic , I am very sure I was a better one than yourself. My wife is a cadet by reason of her dad been a super knight in your church. Whether you expressly write it down or not is of no consequence. What matters is the practice.
If you leave the chief of staff to the president and use another means to try to access the president, it is either because you don't know the chief of staff, you don't trust him to grant you access or you have heard stories that is puffy himself.
There must be a fundamental reason why you believe that a matter as serious as talking to God requires a a merry-go-round approach. God is forever eager to converse as a father with each and everyone of us. The one reason Jesus came was so we all could have access not through priest but individually to him hence the shredding of the veil of the temple signalling the admission of everyone that would care to approach
God doesn't love any of those so called saints much more than he loves you. The love is equal.
Your pastor has torn out the parts of your bible that encourages saints to pray for one another... right?
Funaki: See the person that talked about cherry picking. Why did you pick out Matthew 10:34? Was the whole passage not together? when you read verse 34, you don't stop there, Jesus explained what he meant in the post-text of the verse. The books were not originally written in chapters and verses, men put chapters and verses. Jesus explained what he meant in verses 35 downwards. If it's too hard for you to understand, read Luke 12:51.
Luke 12:51 KJV Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
I am waiting for your explanation as it relates to this verse.
Hahaha, yeah the Jesus character is the same as God of Moses and Elijah, he just happened to forget how to slaughter children in their sleep or how to destroy a whole generation for the sin of their fathers.
What are you saying now that you know that he is that same God?
Nodogragra4me: And when your prayers got to heaven the actual mediator, Jesus Christ, was either too busy or hard of hearing that a new intercessor was granted without the knowledge of the scriptures to your church, right?
God hears all prayers, both the ones we pray and the ones our fellow saints pray on our behalf... He hears them all.
Nodogragra4me: That is what your church is actually promoting. That Jesus Christ the one who paid the price to become our mediator in heaven, the only one that is the way to the father and the one who gave us his name as the passcode to heaven is too busy or too full of himself or untrustworthy to be relied on hence the multiplicity of Jesus’s within your church that plays the role he told us was exclusively his.
Those are entirely your own views, the Catholic church does not hold such view. Bring me any evidence that supports your claim from Catholic teaching. Check Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Catholic Encyclopedia if you want to know exactly what the Church believes and teaches, and not what you think the church believes and teaches.
Funaki: I just explained it to you. When you follow Jesus, men will "hate" you. This was immediately after Jesus sent his disciples into the world to preach. That's one of the "disadvantages" of being a Christian. Paul at a time was narrating his ordeals to Timothy and he mentioned how everyone had deserted him.
My former pastor started his ministry when he was a teen. He used to go for crusade and vigil. His parents didn't like the idea that he was using his youth to serve Jesus, they thought he was going to waste his life while others were serious with their life. It got to a time his mother wanted to disown him.
Another example, I had a friend in the university, he was the vice president of his fellowship. His parents didn't like the idea because they felt the fellowship was taking away their son. Because the guy stopped going home during the weekend and he had to put more Time into fellowship work. It caused a disagreement between the family and the fellowship. The guy had to resign and leave the fellowship at the end. That's what that passage is talking about.
You haven't explained Matthew 10:34
Why did you bring up this passage? I don't understand. You genuinely didn't know what it meant or you want to hear what I'll say?
You and your absolute morality bullsh!t. By the way, You seems to think only your God exist in the "God universe" and nobody can do right without your God standard. While your God is the example of evil personified.
why is it that Jesus and Paul didn't follow your argument. Jesus and Paul seems to portray God as a good guy whow doesn't do evil. Jesus started his ministry by teaching his guys in Matthew 5 to be like their heavenly God who doesn't pay evil for evil, who doesn't take revenge, who blesses both good and bad people ( I begin to wonder if Jesus read any of the books of Moses). Or when Paul preached to gentiles in Acts 14 and 17 and started talking of God that allowed men to do whatever they liked in the past (really, which God? the one that destroyed Sodom? ).
The new testament guys had more sense. They knew the God character in the old testament was a fvcktard. They knew no God would be that savage and insane. That's why they toned down on the God aggression in their own stories.
God of the Old Testament was a bad idea, a psycho. The mad king in Game of thrones is learning from him.
Would it shock you to know that Jesus Christ is God?
Just read up on sociopaths, you have no idea what you are talking about.
I know what a sociopath means and I used it correctly. Check the meaning yourself if you don't know it.
And about the subjective morality, you can't act out on your opinions if everyone else disagrees with them and will react violently to it.
But that would be them putting their opinions above yours. If morality is subjective, it means every held opinion/belief is equally valid. You seem to be saying right and wrong is a numbers game. Or would you like to clarify?
Oh my.... Education and advancement in the sense of seeing how slavery was not good for those involved. Not how much they've learned.
"....how much they learned." What's there to learn? Other people's subjective opinions? How do you start to educate people who are happy and contented in life having slaves and seeing slavery a good business?
What's your point? And your god is included among those who supported slavery.
My point is your assertion quoted below is fallacious.
RuthlessLeader: I know this, that's why I said that people who proscribed slavery were incapable of doing anything about it for most of history.
And yeah, I noticed you included God among those who supported slavery.
This same God that killed Israelites by their thousands any time they disobeyed his instructions(a.k.a used free will) did not want to challenge their views on slavery. This is very stupid. God can make a law that says that gays and fornicators should be stoned to death(even though they used their free will) but he cannot condemn and make the Israelites stop slavery.
Yes, absolutely! Where there is free will, there is responsibility. Where there is responsibility, there is accountability and consequence. If God is truly just, then he should leave no sin unpunished. Physical death, by the way, is not punishment, suffering is. Dead people are not physically aware.
And Definition of chattel slavery: Chattel slavery. Chattel slavery, also called traditional slavery, is so named because people are treated as the chattel (personal property) of the owner and are bought and sold as commodities. Typically, under the chattel slave system, slave status was imposed on children of the enslaved at birth.
Bible slavery: Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers and enslaved for life (Exodus 21:7-11)
Male Hebrews could sell themselves into slavery for a six-year period to eliminate their debts, after which they might go free. However, if the male slave had been given a wife and had children with her, they would remain his master's property. They could only stay with their family by becoming permanent slaves (Exodus 21:2-5). Non-Hebrews, on the other hand, could (according to Leviticus 25:44) be subjected to slavery in exactly the way that it is usually understood. The slaves could be bought, sold and inherited when their owner died. This, by any standard, is race- or ethnicity-based, and Leviticus 25:44-46 explicitly allows slaves to be bought from foreign nations or foreigners living in Israel. It does say that simply kidnapping Hebrews to enslave them is a crime punishable by death (Deuteronomy 24:7), but no such prohibition exists regarding foreigners. War captives could be made slaves, assuming they had refused to make peace (this applied to women and children — men were simply killed), along with the seizure of all their property (Deuteronomy 20:10-15).
Hereditary slaves were born into slavery and there is no apparent way by which they could obtain their freedom.
So the Bible endorses chattel slavery.
You ended up making my point - the slavery in the bible is not chattel slavery. You are judging the slavery in the bible through the lens of modern (chattel) slavery.
The fact is, the Bible promotes an ethic of equality and mercy to the downtrodden, including those who were enslaved in the ancient world. In his letters to Christian communities, St. Paul described himself as a slave who belonged to Christ (see Romans 1:1, Philippians 1:1), exhorted his listeners not to be slaves to sin (see Romans 6:15-23), and encouraged them to be slaves to one another (see Galatians 5:13). Paul even said that Christ took on the nature of a slave and became poor for our sake (see 2 Corinthians 8:9, Philippians 2:7).
His audience knew what it meant to be a slave—not surprising, since Christianity’s compassion for the lowly earned it a reputation as a “slave religion.” The second-century pagan critic Celsus once described converts to the Church as “foolish and low individuals” like “slaves, and women, and children” (Origen, Against Celsus, 3.59). This in no way mean Paul endorsed slavery or that he thought it should be a part of God’s kingdom. Paul says, "Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ; not in the way of eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free (Ephesians 6:5-. Paul’s advice to Christian slaves was to endure their unjust condition by persevering in holiness. For example, Paul told Titus, “Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior” (Titus 2:9-10).
A slave may not have had control over whether he would be enslaved in this life, but he could control whether he would be enslaved to Satan in the next. St. Peter also taught this when he told slaves, “Be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing. For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly” (1 Pet. 2:18-19).
Peter and the other apostles knew that slavery was wrong, but they also knew that it was better to conquer evil with good (see Romans 12:21) than to commit evil in order to achieve good. That’s why Peter asks what good it does for a slave to commit evil against his master and then be beaten in return. At least, when a slave is beaten for no good reason and does not respond with evil (in imitation of Christ, who endured similar abuses without retaliation), he will stand blameless before God (see 1 Peter 2:20).
Every one should remain in the state in which he was called. Were you a slave when called? Never mind. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God (1 Cor. 7:20-24).
This passage shows that Paul didn’t think slavery was a good thing. In fact, he implicitly argued that men could not own other men because God owns all humans by virtue of having redeemed them on the cross (see 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 7:23). Being enslaved to men was an unjust part of this life that had no place in the kingdom of God.
In that kingdom, everyone, regardless of socioeconomic background, is a slave of Christ, our true Lord and Master. That’s why Paul says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).
In the same post, this idiot said: "Physical death is merely a change of location" in response to me questioning why god kills children. Now he acts incredulous at my reasons why people abort. Hypocrite.
Like I said previously, IF there really is life after death, then physical death is merely a change of location. We say, in praying for the dead, "May the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God rest in peace. In secular terms, we say dead people have passed on.
I'll also have you know that The Old Testament says abortion or killing of a child under 5 is less serious than murder. The father of the child or fetus should be compensated (not the mother). The compensation is higher if a boy is killed than if a girl is killed. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html
Also, in case you are too lazy to read your bible, it says that in Exodus 21:22, if a man hits a woman, causing a miscarriage or premature birth, but no serious injury, he should be subject to a court-mediated fine from the woman's husband. If this was the case, then the act of causing a miscarriage could not be construed as 'murder' since compensation was not biblically allowed for murder (Numbers 35:31)
So, what's your new excuse?
Exodus 21:22 says, "If men who are fighting strike a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband demands and as the court allows. 23But if a serious injury results, then you must require a life for a life. Only an ignoramus would assert that the bible does not consider a fetus a human life and goes ahead to quote a verse that refutes his assertion completely. A fetus is a life according to the bible. Only the creator of life has the right to take life.
You were too lazy and biased to fact-check what you were copying. It's like a blind leading another blind.
Oh lord. People tend to have the same ideologies and they form groups with those who share them.
Right, and other people tend to have their own different ideologies and form groups with those who share them. You and I have different opposing ideologies and only one of us is right, if truth about reality is objective. But if truth is subjective (relative to each human being), then both of us are neither right nor wrong. When someone engages in a dialogue and/or changes a held view or opinion, such a person is subconsciously affirming the existence of objective truth that is beyond himself; a truth that is unchangeable. If objective truth doesn't exist, then there's no changing of the mind.
A load of rubbish.
Not an argument.
Bullshit. I don't want to continue debating with you because you lack sense.
Not an argument. Don't disgrace yourself and bring shame to your comrades, come on man.
valinno: God took me to Dominion city when I went to Awka after the experience that day I started listening to his messages within a month everything about me changed, boldness entered me,those who knew me before started asking me what happened to me especially some of my catholic brethren and it happened the time I was a CYON president and the one I was his vice before I took over as a president by His grace later joined me since then our life's has been from glory to glory,his messages is a school to me,I don't know where my life would have been by now if I didn't meet pastor David ogbueli,He is an icon of transformational leadership excellence, a life coach,a father,a mentor,a role model,a reformer, a government and business consultant,his is the finest Christian I ve ever seen,if there is anybody I want be like in this life is him and I m satisfied, Happy birthday sir May the Almighty God continue to lift you higher in Jesus name.
I thought only your philosophy is wack, your text comprehension is worse. Are you feigning ignorance or you naturally reason like this?
are those bible passages supposed to equate sweet loving Jesus with the blood loving despot described by Moses or Elijah?
I can totally see where Jesus ordered his disciples to kill and burn down the people that opposed him or where Paul ordered his followers to retaliate and punish those that opposed him, imprison him and stoned him. I forgot to mention how Stephen called bears on the people that were stoning him. I said you should use your head. Religion is blocking your reasoning. How many people died in the hands of Moses compared to the people that died in the hands of Paul?
Aren't you supposed to love your Lord more than anyone else? or can you love someone else more than your Lord and savior? What do you expect when your family and circle of friends are ogun, sango or Allah worshippers but you're the only Christian? You'll be on good terms and on the same page? What do you think happened to Paul when the Jews learnt he's converted to Christianity? They hated him and some even wanted to kill him. That's what those verses in the first passage were talking about. I don't know what the second passage has to do with this discussion. If you still don't understand, you can just repeat your usual platitudes.
Please explain this: "Matthew 10:34-39 "Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ 37Anyone who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me; 38and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
Your philosophy is wack. You could've avoided all these balderdash by saying The old prophets were either lying or they didn't know what they were saying. When you started asking if killing children was evil or not, it makes you sound like a criminally insane individual. If Jesus or Paul had heard you say that, I'm sure they'll have rebuked you and called you the devil. Jesus said be perfect as your heavenly father in heaven, Paul said imitate God as dear children. Could these guys be talking about the same God Moses or Samuel described? Jesus literally used little children as an example of people going to heaven.
Matthew 18:10 KJV Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. Does it make sense to you that the same God Jesus talked about was the same guy that ordered the killings of children in the old testament? Can't you see the conflict? If you are to follow the instructions of Jesus and Paul concerning imitating God, you should be going around killing people of other religion and stoning homosexual to death. It'll never make sense for you to defend the God of the old testament. When John and James wanted Jesus to call down fire on people as Elijah did in Luke 9, Jesus literally rebuked them and called the act evil. He didn't try to defend the act of Elijah with any bullsh!t philosophy.
I repeat, your best bet is to say the prophets were lying, forget your philosophy.
Matthew 10:34-39 "Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ 37Anyone who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me; 38and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
Matthew 5:17-20, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
Uh oh.. seems like even Jesus too wasn't all nice and cuddly as you're trying to portray. Now, this will make you reevaluate Jesus and Paul
TVSA: It's like you pull this your crap 'its your opinion and not fact' when you don't know what to say again in an argument. I bet you'll tell me it's my opinion if I say cos0 = 1. Guy, it's not my opinion that your God didn't see anything bad with slavery, so your argument that God is the standard of morality is a lie. Your God's first law was for the people to have only one religion and god. How does that not violate the fundamental human right? o that's my opinion too. GOD discriminated against people of other tribes and see them as inferiors but its still my opinion, lol. Go and read your bible and stop throwing cliche at people.
Cos 0 = 1 is an objective truth. It doesn't rely on what you or I believe for it to be true. It's not subjective.
It is for sure your opinion that God didn't see anything bad with slavery.
The first commandment says you shall have no other God, not "one religion and god." Deuteronomy 5:6-7, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me." Is your right being violated right now? Are you forcibly abiding by these commandments right now?
Again, yes, your moral indignation is misplaced as you admitted you aren't making an objective moral argument. When you start making an objective moral argument, we could then delve into the specifics of those acts you think are evil/wrong and see if you are making the right judgement. Until then, I'll keep taking you at your belief - that your idea of morality is subjective (made up by individuals).
Funaki: You and your absolute morality bullsh!t. By the way, You seems to think only your God exist in the "God universe" and nobody can do right without your God standard. While your God is the example of evil personified.
Those are your mere opinions, they don't have any truth claims attached to them but you're totally free to hold them.
why is it that Jesus and Paul didn't follow your argument. Jesus and Paul seems to portray God as a good guy whow doesn't do evil. Jesus started his ministry by teaching his guys in Matthew 5 to be like their heavenly God who doesn't pay evil for evil, who doesn't take revenge, who blesses both good and bad people (I begin to wonder if Jesus read any of the books of Moses ). Or when Paul preached to gentiles in Acts 14 and 17 and started talking of God that allowed men to do whatever they liked in the past (really, which God? the one that destroyed Sodom? ).
The new testament guys had more sense. They knew the God character in the old testament was a fvcktard. They knew no God would be that savage and insane. That's why they toned down on the God aggression in their own stories.
God of the Old Testament was a bad idea, a psycho. The mad king in Game of thrones is learning from him.
Nodogragra4me: If you church doesn’t believe that there is no other omnipresent but Jehovah then how and why does she believe that multiples prayers from different areas of Nigeria and Africa can be heard and answered by a so called saint in heaven?
Nodogragra4me: The only teacher of the truth , out of the scripture, is the Holy Spirit.
Is it the truth to spend your longest hour of prayer communing with your Mary and her legions? Is it the truth to confer infallibility on a man when history records that some of the past holders of that same infallibility office of your church actually fathered children whose great grand children today runs the city of the Vatican?
Is it the truth when the Bible goes in one direction and your church heads you in another on a single issue like sainthood? Is it the truth when your church tells you that there is a purgatory and Jesus and his apostles never knew of it?
Is it the truth when Jesus was known to defend himself with, it is written and the apostles followed that tradition of, it is written, have you not read but your church cant show you where to read about Mary worship or prayers to and through their decorated saints?
The right and the most basic question you should be asking is "did Jesus start a Church?"
Nodogragra4me: Clearly, you have exhausted your knowledge on what is before you. Your Saints are able to transform into omnipresent beings upon the earth because there is no time and space in heaven?
RuthlessLeader: Yes. The world where anything goes exists, it's today's world. But most people want a world where they and their families are safe so we can't just go around killing random people.
That's right. But the core of the whole morality question is why should a sociopath not have his own oponions and reserve the right to act out on them IF morality is subjective?
Yes. But it is practiced by those who are uneducated or not really advanced.
What sort of education or advancement do you mean? How educated and/or advanced were the people who proscribed slavery and how how uneducated and/or unadvanced were those who had slaves?
I know this, that's why I said that people who proscribed slavery were incapable of doing anything about it for most of history.
The people who proscribed slavery did not exist for most of history.
So if it's always been evil, why does god allow it, and make laws about how to get slaves?
Because God allows us to exercise our freewill. By the way, the slavery in the bible is not chattel slavery.
On the woman and child. Rape, genetic diseases and defects, age of the mother etc determine whether the woman can abort or not.
These are your justification for killing another human? Wow
No, it's in the bible. Read it.
I've read the bible multiple times; not there.
Reality does bear that out, that's why we have ideologies, values, etc.
Not true. Our ideologies differ, our values differ also.
This same god claims he is an all loving god, claims he won't let harm come to us and so on. Him killing people is a violation of those statements.
Not only that God loves, he is love itself. I don't know about you but I want a God who is love and just to be able to use his wisdom to judge, kill or save. Isn't it funny you hate that God plays God and take life in his infinite wisdom but you want human beings to be able to take life in the womb? What you are doing is using your own subjective standard to make objective moral argument.
The global flood that god cause killed children. The ten plagues of Egypt killed children. The destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the Canaanite kingdoms killed children. These are but a few of the times where god has caused more harm to children than good.
God taking people out of this world is not harm. IF there really is life after death, then physical death is merely a change of location. IF heaven really exists, then taking people off the universe he created to heaven would rather be a glorious thing, not harm.
Nodogragra4me: If you church doesn’t believe that there is no other omnipresent but Jehovah then how and why does she believe that multiples prayers from different areas of Nigeria and Africa can be heard and answered by a so called saint in heaven?
Nodogragra4me: Jesus promised to send the Holy Ghost who will teach you all truth. The truth is not in any man. It is in the Spirit of God. Christ and his original apostles never referred to the church of God ...assembly of Gods people as the pillar or ground of the truth. You can't find any such word or statement in the bible. ... The church is only a privilege recipient of the truth
God is not the author of confusion. What you and the Catholic Church led by the pope sees is only a reflection of their consciousness. It is not the mind or the intention of God.
The Bible is absolutely complete for every practical purpose of Christianity.
Christ promised to remain with the church, an assembly of his people, .... Any where two or three are gathered in his name is a church...an assemblage of his people that he will remain with
The truth is in the church and only the Church has the seal of authority to teach the truth. If you get your truth elsewhere, you are at risk of getting a mixture of some truth and some falsehood. The church that Christ himself is the head supersedes any human being because human are fallible... and therefore CANNOT until the end of time teach any single falsehood. The church is Christ's bride, that's why could see us use the pronoun "she".
Nodogragra4me: There is not a single verse or nook of the Bible that renders another invalid unless you are trying to understand the Bible with your human intellect.
Every spoken word is only an expansion of the concise world of The Truth.
Every good and intellect teacher uses illustration to bring home his point.
When Jesus expounded from ALL scripture all that written concerning him he was only explaining all the summary in the scripture. He didn't add something the scriptures didn't envisaged or supported. He only explained in details all that was said by ALL the prophets concerning him
When Paul says it shouldn't be beyond the intent of the written word he was only stating the e obvious learnt from Jesus Christ himself... The, it is written grand master.
Every Scripture based prayer always have the, it is written, component but not all the words used in that prayer is expressly written in the scripture but if the stated word is not drawn from the written it won't have Gods power flowing through it because his power only flows through his word. It is word that he promised not to allow fall to the ground not yours
You're making a lame argument. Jesus was already gone before the first ever book of the NT was written. If Paul meant "don't add to ALL the scripture" as you claimed, it would invalidate the latter additions to the scripture. But to us who understand better he wasn't referring to the whole scripture before or after him. He was talking specifically about the instructions he was giving them at that point the time.
Nodogragra4me: You have used that intellect to interpret 1 Timo 3:15 for ages to mean that your church is the ground and pillar of truth but just a simple, Holy Spirit what is the mind on God on this scripture revealed a meaning never known to all the great thinkers your church ever assembled in this same matter because God uses the foolish things if this world to confound the wise
Household of God = Church of the Living God Church of the Living God = Ground and Pillar of The Truth.
Believe it or not, the bible says that. If you want to deflect because it makes you uncomfortable, go on. Your issue is with the bible and Christ himself.
Your second Scripture: You are to imitate me just as I have imitated Christ. What is the custom and tradition of Christ? Simple! It is written ...have ye not read? ... what saith the scripture? See: And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he…. Jesus?.... expounded(means to explain the written word) unto them in all the SCRIPTURES the things concerning himself. (AV, Luke 24:27)
So what is the tradition of the early christians? What did they do in their churches? How did they baptize? What did they think of Mary? What did they think of the holy communion?
It doesn't contain more than the letter. It is an expanded version of the letter. You have agreed that the letee and the speech didn't contradict themselves so where then is your argument?
If a man is to read a letter to an illiterate, for the purpose of understanding the content of the letter he is bound to explain which is to expound. He is at liberty to use local scenario to try to bring clarity but not to introduce something the letter never envisaged as a practice... Example is the worship and prayers to your none omnipresent saints and Mary. It is not an expansion of any verse of the Bible or your church believe that the pope is infallible. Your church writing prayers with all the stops and twist is unscriptural. The Holy is the one to impress it in your heart when it kneel or stand
Your third scripture : keep away from men like the pope who live an undisciplined life and same that is without scripture backings … What is biblical discipline? According to my pastors definition, it is simply the disciple's lifestyle. Paul said more than once "what saith the scripture?" when proving his doctrinal points. That is the tradition he was talking about.. The tradition of validating every word from the scripture like they learnt from Jesus, himself.
Again, you're still showing utter ignorance. You probably didn't know that those churches Paul and the apostles were writing to had already heard the gospel. So, most of the letters were like reminders, settling disputes and words of encouragement. The churches hold more truth than contained in the few pages of the bible. Paul spent 3 years in Arabia, and you think the pages of the bible contains everything he preached. God created you with a brain, please try to use it. And hey, maybe you should invite your pastor here, I have a question for him. Or could you ask him to give the name any first christian he knows from Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Philippians, etc. I'd love to hear his answer.
If you can explain from the scriptures when and where the church prayed to dead people and Mary or embarked on a process of canonization of a dead man into a saint then I will believe your statement.
The tradition of the apostles was to ALWAYS show by the scripture that Christ was the LORD. God's tradition as practiced by Jesus and the apostles had support from the scripture. It never existed as an extraordinary additions to it. Acts 17:1-2 —In Thessalonica, Paul, “as his CUSTOM was,” went to the synagogue “and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures.”
There is no other way of checking the propagation of error but by the written word. The scripture is the only available tool backed by heaven for guiding against error within the body of Christians. You would readily agree with me that the only way for detecting error is by comparison against a known tried and perfect standard which is the Bible for one tradition can not be a standard for another. Example is your referring me to some ancient members of your church in trying to prove your point. The Scripture says the bereans search daily In the books of Acts 17:11 to see whether the word they receive had scriptural backing.
When paul warned us about the consequences of being wise in our own eyes because he already saw this consequence from the written word: 1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is WRITTEN, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness
Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.Where did you get the tradition of the apostles in the bible? You simply don't know what they are.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Angels in heaven comes tommen and only repeat the written word but a flesh and blood somewhere in his wisdom crafts something outside the scripture and you call it the tradition. Here: Daniel 10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth.
Revelation 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book. 8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: (Angel telling John not to bow before him but your church says you should kneel before your Mary statue in prayer and still claim not to worship her) for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book…. The BOOK…. THE WRITTEN WORD: worship God
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Therefore when you harp on TRADITION AND THE APOSTLES, I assure you that whatever was the custom or tradition amongst them was and is still in the scriptureIt's really simple, either the Church teaches the truth, as Christ guaranteed, or it doesn't, which would make Christ a liar.
Actually, I'm not wasting all these effort to convince you. You don't seem to me like a very rational individual. I'm making a case for any sensible reader who comes across our dialogue to see and consider. I'm too occupied with my time to try to convince you. My part is to lay bare my argument and my conviction. That's all. You need to ask the Spirit of Truth in prayer to reveal the truth to you with regards to the new (shocking) information you are getting. An honest heart will always find truth when it seeks it.
You and your absolute morality bullsh!t. By the way, You seems to think only your God exist in the "God universe" and nobody can do right without your God standard. While your God is the example of evil personified.
why is it that Jesus and Paul didn't follow your argument. Jesus and Paul seems to portray God as a good guy whow doesn't do evil. Jesus started his ministry by teaching his guys in Matthew 5 to be like their heavenly God who doesn't pay evil for evil, who doesn't take revenge, who blesses both good and bad people (I begin to wonder if Jesus read any of the books of Moses ). Or when Paul preached to gentiles in Acts 14 and 17 and started talking of God that allowed men to do whatever they liked in the past (really, which God? the one that destroyed Sodom? ).
The new testament guys had more sense. They knew the God character in the old testament was a fvcktard. They knew no God would be that savage and insane. That's why they toned down on the God aggression in their own stories.
God of the Old Testament was a bad idea, a psycho. The mad king in Game of thrones is learning from him.
You could rephrase your questions if you are serious for dialogue or serious argument. The reason I stick to the philosophy of God's existence is to exclude people like you who lack the wherewithal to tackle philosophical questions. I won't waste my time with you if you are not serious in your argument.
Wow! This is incredible! You revel in worshipping a tyrant that completely ignores the pain and suffering of conscious living beings in favour of its so called plan and you applaud and call it moral, just and right. Wow, just wow. I am equally repulsed and amazed at your ability to hold such a position but be sure it is one I will never come back to.
Thank you for crystallising my resolve.
I totally understand why you see him as a tyrant. You aren't the first atheist to have such problems with understanding. For those of us that understand, it feels reassuring that someone like him is out there, else we have no hope, no judgment, no eternal life, no purpose in life and no meaning. We love that he is the most extreme definition of love, he is what you seek when you desire justice because he is justice itself and the same time, his mercy is boundless. All these good things we desire and seek - although we get as little of them as the world could offer - we get it full in God because he is goodness himself, the source of every one of these good things we desire and seek. So again, God is exactly what you seek whenever you seek anything good.
It is very simple. As long as an exception exists to this so-called absolute morality framework then it is logically not absolute. Not only that, your god extends exceptions at will and seemly subject to various interpretations, that is we are to take it on the word of the various types of god believers that the exceptions are for them or deserved in some form.
Morality is absolute because it applies to every aspect of human existence. Again, a computer programmer is not bound by his programs (his laws applies to his creations), not him. He might have a rule he follows himself, but that's another thing. Our only concern is our relationship between us and our creator. He doesn't play by rules, unless he didn't create you.
which biblical standard proscribed slavery? even the nice new testament didn't say people should stop slavery. Jesus and Paul with all their sweet words did not for once admonished their followers to abolish slavery. Which book of the bible is that part in red? or you're just inferring .
And you use fundamental human rights and God in the same sentence? that's disgusting . Your God is one of the major reasons people came up with fundamental human rights. Read your bible, many of God's commandments are against fundamental human rights.
You have a right to your opinions but not your facts. Do you believe there is no God or that there is God but he is wicked?
And since you've seen both my posts, you would realise I said MOST people. There are exceptions, and in case you want to say something else, I am talking of the majority of people in TODAY'S world.
And I used Germany and America as examples of where majority could be wrong. Your argument falls flat.
That's true. But it also goes both ways, that person has no moral right to prevent me from imprisoning him/her for thinking killing babies to get ahead in life.
Exactly, we agree on that! That's my point - the world where anything goes. Each individual has the right to his or her opinions and actions regardless how "good' or "bad." Now you see the result of your worldview?
It wasn't morally justified at all, BY TODAY'S STANDARDS. Why? Because we of today know better and are better than those of yesterday, so therefore slavery is something that we don't need and as such is evil.
Also, those who knew better couldn't do anything because they were just too weak to oppose the established institution of slavery.
Not true.. Slavery is still around. Segregation is still around. You seem to not listen to the news. And it wasn't people of today that proscribed slavery. So, slavery has always been OBJECTIVELY WRONG even when it was legal and most people found it to be a good thing. It was evil then as much as it is evil now.
And now you think you've caught me.
Let the readers judge.
A society of sociopaths would be a disaster. It's not because they go about killing children, but because they are prone to failure. Also, most sociopaths aren't killiers, some are though. They don't hate children anymore than they hate black people.
Yes.
That's right. At least you get the point now.
It depends.
Yes, I have family there.
On what?
Yet that same god does what is wrong. He himself disobeys his own laws.
In your own view.
That are the same for the most part because we humans like to think alike.
A lot of things. He also orders their slaughter which is what we're concerned about.
You're concerned about the giver of life taking life. Hmmm... Your logic is alien to me. It's not evil/wrong for God to play God by removing any of his creatures from the world. Only him sees what we don't see.
This just means god contradicts himself and he has done more harm to children than good.
No evidence of any of that in the bible. You have a right to your opinion but not your facts.
are you alright? how is it that everything I said is my own opinion and everything you said are binding? are we throwing opinions at each other?
For the love of God, explain how 1 Samuel 15:3 is a punishment. Tell me by the "superordinate principle" how killing innocent women and children served as a punishment for what their ancestors did in the past. Why did God have so much beef with the Amalekites that he couldn't let go after Joshua defeated the assailants in Exodus.
And what's this "worldview" you keep throwing around?
You don't sound alright at all. How many times will I have to explain that unless you believe in absolute morality, your moral judgments are subjective and not binding on any separate free individual... It's essentially your opinion. And that if you agree it's an opinion, then every individual has the right to his/her opinion. If that's beyond your comprehension, then I don't know how else I could explain it to you.
Refer back to my response on your previous Amalekites question. I gave you at least 2 verses. You could also read the verse preceding the one you quoted.
Religion / Re: Oblate Eusebius Oguizu Is Dead: Founder Of Block Rosary Crusade In Nigeria Dies by 9inches(m): 4:42am On May 04, 2019 
.
). Or when Paul preached to gentiles in Acts 14 and 17 and started talking of God that allowed men to do whatever they liked in the past (really, which God? the one that destroyed Sodom? ).