₦airaland Forum

Wow, really lucky

What a terrible turnout of events...da'..

Alright, commented

[quote author=Okija_juju]Do you also believe in Star wars and the Terminator?! [/quote]Am sure he does.....lol

GoodSamaritan: He died on the cross to save mankind from hell.

Those who believe in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. Unfortunately, those who do NOT believe in His death and resurrection shall end in hell fire.

Where you spend the rest of your life is determined by the choice you make while here on earth.

This is one of the biggest concept of deception.

Look at that picture, it came straight out of the human imagination to threaten, deceive, and control the minds of gullible people. That is the whole concept of religion.

Shollypopz: Lol, the dude's teeth though

Hahahahaha Sholly......

Mintayo: bros,i won't like to go into arguments with you...i won't even try and convince you because it is not my Job to do that...
But i want you know that God has given us the abilty to choose(either life or death).
Even at that we human will still complain if He choose for us(and i believ that what He tried to avoid).
God is omni-potent,Omni-present and Omni-science(dn't ask me to proof,cus i wnt).
He gave Adam a choice- and He ensure that He didnt interfare in His decision bcus He knew that Adam will blame Him jus as He did to eve if He interfares. (He even blamed God for given him eve)And Adam choice actually brought him consequences.
God knew the consequences and He told him...so it was left for adam to choose.
God knows what you will do in 20mins time and He knows the consequences or results too but He will not interfare...He will leave you to do it and the results will also come with it,imagine if he tries to choose for you and d results is bad,then you will continue to complain again that it was Him.(He had done that before and we made Him regrets it).

Also,God has offer us a gift; salvation through Jesus Christ.
Sin came to the world through Adam and salvation came through Jesus...and when we are born,we are born with a sin-ful nature,Jesus came to give us another nature-God's nature.
And God has given us the will to decide(choose) to accept His offer of salvation(Jesus Christ),but reject this also have consequence and He will not force us to accept it.

Make a decision today and accept Jesus as your Lord and personal saviour,tomorrow maybe too late.

Jesus loves You,I love you,
God bless us all.

He gave Adam a choice- and He
ensure that He didnt interfare in His
decision bcus He knew that Adam
will blame Him jus as He did to eve if
He interfares. (He even blamed God for given him eve)And Adam choice
actually brought him
consequences.

What?

He gave Adam "free-will", yet he knew Adam would betray him?

Bro, what do you understand to be "free-will" ??

Mind you, the bible clearly stipulated that even before God created the world, he already knew that Adam would fail him, and that he shall punish mankind for the sins of Adam. Infact he even knew that in 2013 you will be posting on Nairaland, as well as how you would live your entire live.

So tell me bro, how does all that go with "free-will"??

kilimanjaro: Omo, na hair dey make most women fine o. See as her head be like mango, and she come be like masquerade.

Lol

Wow, would luv to watch that

Nice, seen

Mintayo: God is a wonderful God,He gives us free-will(the ability to choose),He will not force us to do anything,it is only Satan that uses force-God does not tamper with our will, so we can decide to give our will to Him or to follwo satan- but we should all know that whatever we do,will always bring consequences-most things that we see happening is as a result of our action-God will not interfare in our affairs unless we invite Him,if we don't invite Him,He won't interfare(a gentle God)-He will only be waiting for us to come back to Him,but we don't He won't force us-i think that one difference between Him and satan,who will want to interfare by force,whether you invite Him or not.
But as for me,i have made that decision many years ago,to submit my will to God, to follow Him and believ and accept His offer of salvation(Jesus Christ) and nothing and nobody can change that...not even anybody in this NL.
As for me and my household...WE WILL SERVE THE LORD!

God bless us all.

Bro, if God did give us "free-will", then it simply means that we have choices, and that no one can "tell" what we would be doing in the next 20 min including "God himself".

So if God does not know what I would be doing in the next 20 min, then he is not "Omniscient".

And if he is not omniscient then the "bible lied"

No??

Nice!

WOW! CONGRATS TO BAYERN MUNCHIN

[quote author=the_seeker]"No heathen tribe has conceived so grotesque an idea, involving as it does the assumption, that man was born with a hereditary stain upon him; and that this stain (for which he is not personably responsible) was to be atoned for; and that the Creator of all things had to sacrifice his only begotten son to neutralize this mysterious curse." Major Yeats Brown Life of a Bengal Lancer[/quote]WORD!!

Daresh: The blood of Jesus is the perfect sacrifice. Because he loves his son he will forgive your sins cos the blood of Jesus is interceding for our sins. Don't you see it's the perfect sacrifice?
.

Very ridiculous...

He loves his son, yet sent him down to his "creatures" to be mauled like a beast so that he would be "pleased"

So there was no other way he could forgive the world he created and "loved"

And you still call him "merciful"

Now tell me, if jesus had refused to come, and God eventually ended the world and began a new one, how would that have affected us today in 2013??

Daresh: His knowing what you will say or do even when they are contrary to his word, has not stopped him from letting you do it. He knows what will happen, even if it is against his word or does not give glory to him, let he let's it happen. He gives u the free will to choose to so what you want

That is not a free-will, before I was born I did not know what I would do nor how I would live my life, but ironically he knew.

What it means is, he inplanted the script in me, only for me to come and act it out.

I cannot change what he "knows", therefore, I can't change how my live would play-out, hence, (the script) which equals = NO FREE-WILL

Daresh: God has promised the Jews a redeemer for a long time. Before the days of Isiah he had already them a redeemer, a king to make things new. He is perfect. Very perfect. He is unchangeable, his words do not change.

"He is unchangeable"

Yet he changed the animal sacrifices which he used to accept, and which pleased him

Daresh: God doesn't need to protect himself from anyone. He loves everyone even the atheist and he wants that atheist to repent and come on to him. I wish not to see the wrath of God, please pray not to. God has given everyone free will. Even hitler had free will. We commit such sin against him and each other every day but stop and think, if he gets involved in our petty squabbles we will look @ him with small eyes. He is above all that now. He is the Oga at the top. He has all the power. I can just imagine him in heaven accepting the souls of those hitler killed to rest with him in heaven.

Right, now let me explain something to you.

"Omniscience" and "Free-will" can never go together.

1. If God already knows the "beginning and the end", then he clearly has not given anybody any "free-will" because nomatter what you do, he already knew about it, and even what you would do in the next 20 year. And to top it all, he knew how you would live your life from "start" to "ffinish" even before you were born.
2. If indeed he gave man "Free-will", then it means he does not know what I would do in the next 10 min. Which also means he is not "Omniscient", hence, the bible "lied"

Right??

Daresh: God doesn't need to protect himself from anyone. He loves everyone even the atheist and he wants that atheist to repent and come on to him. I wish not to see the wrath of God, please pray not to. God has given everyone free will. Even hitler had free will. We commit such sin against him and each other every day but stop and think, if he gets involved in our petty squabbles we will look @ him with small eyes. He is above all that now. He is the Oga at the top. He has all the power. I can just imagine him in heaven accepting the souls of those hitler killed to rest with him in heaven.

Right, now let me explain something to you.

"Omniscience" and "Free-will" can never go together.

1. If God already knows the "beginning and the end", then he clearly has not given anybody any "free-will" because nomatter what you do, he already knew about it, and even what you would do in the next 20 year. And to top it all, he knew how you would live your life from "start" to "ffinish" even before you were born.
2. If indeed he gave man "Free-will", then it means he does not know what I would do in the next 10 min. Which also means he is not "Omniscient", hence, the bible "lied"

Right??

Daresh: Because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. See the blood of Jesus is all the sacrifice you need. No more slaughtering ram, Jesus has died for you.

The bible stated that God is "unchangeable" i.e his wisdom and ideas remain the same forever.

So why did he not realize that the animal sacrifies was not necessary in the first place?? And when he realized it, he then sent jesus to be the last and "ultimate" blood sacrifice.

Now tell me, is there any atom of "perfect" in that figure (God)

DASKACE: There are certain things that the human mind can not comprehend, you certainly need the help of the Holy Spirit to decipher them.

What is the holy spirit and where does he live? Can you prove he exists?

Bro, just open your eyes and see, this is ridiculous. Think about it. The bible is way too childish.

Funny enough, God(omniscient) already knew you would be on nairaland today, and he also knows weather or not you would goto heaven, and weather you like it or not you simply can't change that nomatter how much sin you commit. If you change that, then he is not omniscient.

So my point is, why bother yourself with the burden of trying to make heaven while your destiny is already known to him and cannot be changed?

Daresh: Protect himself? From what?

From the atheist's who stands against everything he represents...
It's only the deluded humans that tends to do so and even go on to threaten with the old words "the wrath of God" which never happens. And he (God) would just sit there doing nothing because he is absolutely powerless and can't do nada

Daresh: The word of God never condemned rituals. Since the days of Abraham there have bn sacrifices to God. His issue is with rituals and sacrifices to other gods. He is a jealous God and you must worship him alone.

So why are Christians not offering those animal sacrifices to him anymore?? after all it was used to please him in the past

DASKACE: God made man rational being and not a mere robot that obeys command, His reason not far fetched so that man will prove his loyalty to Him before he can live as an immortal being. Apply this simple logic: test is set for student in a particular subject after some time of coaching by the teacher, so also was the first man placed in the splendour of a beautiful garden with simply test of not eating from the tree of knowledge. They failed that test by heeding to the first sinner advise of lucifer to eat from the tree. Lucifer already facing eternal condemnation and looking for people to go down with him deceived the first man to eat from the forbidden fruit. If there is one thing God can not stand, it is disobedience ie one being a rebellious to His laid down statues. Believe me bro, anything He does is so justifiable and for every action, there is a reaction. So also, there is consequences for everything we do here on earth whether good or bad. Deut 30:19 I have set life and prosperity, death and adversity, now choose life that you might live.

Look bro, the bible made it clear that God is "Omniscience" which simply means "All knowing", now that said, he already knew that Lucifer would deceive them and that they would surely give-in to that. So what then is he testing??

If he was truely testing them, then he is clearly not omniscient, which means the bible "lied"

Why can't God defend himself?

Check some of the so called M.O.G, they all have personal body guards (with arms) and some even on bullet proof cars, yet they tell you that can protect you. Lol.....

Why can't God defend himself?

Check some of the so called M.O.G, they all have personal body guards (with arms) and some even on bullet proof cars, yet they tell you that can protect you.

Daresh: You can if u want to. After all I eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus as he directed me to, to wash me clean of sin

Is that not ritual? Which the so called "Word of God" also condamn

[quote author=Okija_juju]Obviously his ways are very unreasonable..

A God!! That knew that his creations would eat from a fruit that was bad for them, yet he placed it within their reach.. then when they ate the fruit (as he already knew they would), he got angry and punishes them..

If that isnt a set-up, then I wonder.. [/quote]My point exactly...... I really don't know how some people can be s o ignorant to see the faults and lies written all over that fictional book called bible

According to the bible God is "Omniscience" and so he knows everything.

My question is, if God (Omniscience) already knows everything, including who goes to heaven and whow goes to hell, then "are we not on replay"??

God (also Omnipotent) already knew that Osama Bin Ladin would be born in the 20th century, and that he would mastermind and attack that would kill 3,000 people in 2001 (God did nothing to stop him) and that 10 years later he would be killed by U.S navy seal 6 and then go to hell for his sins. "And yet he created him"

WHY??

Maybe he wanted those 3,000 dead anyway, no??

THEN WHY??

https://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/assets_c/2013/04/si-supreme_court-thumb-800xauto-16872.jpg

The question has been debated for
years but not addressed directly by
the U.S. Supreme Court—until this
week. It came up for consideration on
15 April thanks to a coalition of
clinicians, researchers, and legal activists who have waged a 4-year
legal campaign to invalidate one
company's patents on the genes
BRCA1 and BRCA2, used in diagnostic
tests to estimate cancer risk. The
challengers argue that human genes are "products of nature"—not
inventions—and so cannot be
patented. The defendant, Myriad
Genetics of Salt Lake City, argues that
its patents are valid because they
describe genes not as they occur in nature but as they exist after they
have been "isolated" from tissue. The oral argument in the case— Association for Molecular Pathology v.
Myriad Genetics Inc.—took the court deep into the territory of molecular
biologists. For more than an hour, the
justices quizzed the competing sides
about exons, introns, and cDNAs,
proposing several different metaphors
in an effort to squeeze the complex biology into a manageable legal mold.
At the end, it was clear that many of
the justices did not seem to like the
idea of patenting human genes. But
they struggled to find a way to
distinguish between what might be called artificial genes (patentable) and
"natural" genes (not patentable). The
decision, expected later this year and
from which there is no appeal, could
have an impact on hundreds of
companies and thousands of researchers. The first justices to attack the question
with a metaphor were Samuel Alito
and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They
compared Myriad's patented genes to
a molecule taken from an imaginary
tree deep in the Amazon. Alito proposed that the leaves of this tree
contained a molecule with
"tremendous medicinal purposes. …
Let's say it treats breast cancer."
Questioning the lead attorney for the
challengers, Christopher Hansen of the American Civil Liberties Union, Alito
wanted to know whether a drug
made from these leaves would be
considered a product of nature and
for that reason unpatentable. Hansen
replied: "If we simply pick the leaf off the tree and swallow it, … I think it is
not patentable." Hansen suggested,
however, that an inventor might
instead get patents on a process for
extracting a molecule from the leaves
and giving it a new function as medicine.

Alito said that he considered Hansen's
response to be an important
concession, because, "Isolated DNA
has a very different function from the
DNA as it exists in nature. And
although the chemical composition may not be different, … it certainly is in
a different form." Hansen said that he
disagreed with this interpretation. Justice Elena Kagan challenged
Hansen to explain what economic
incentive would be left, if human gene
patents were ruled out, for any
company to do "what Myriad did" --
develop a genetic test for cancer risk. This "takes a lot of work and takes a
lot of investment," Kagan said. "Why
shouldn't we worry that Myriad or
companies like it will just say, well, you
know, we're not going to do this work
anymore?" Hansen responded: "We know that would not have happened
in this case. … There were other labs
doing BRCA testing and Myriad shut all
that testing down." He added that the
"whole point" of the argument is that
"when you lock up a product of nature, it prevents industry from
innovating and making new
discoveries." Justice Antonin Scalia then pounced,
charging that Hansen had not answer
the question about incentives: "Why
would a company incur massive
investment if it cannot patent?"
Hansen said: "I think scientists look for things for a whole variety of reasons,
sometimes because they're curious
about the world." Kagan said that she
had "hoped" for a different answer—
such as that there were other patents
that could make the investment worthwhile. Justice Anthony Kennedy
noted that he, too, had expected to
hear that other kinds of patents—on
an industrial process, for example—
would provide the incentive. Kennedy
said: "I just don't think we can decide the case on the ground, oh, don't
worry about investment, it'll come." Hansen agreed with several justices
who suggested that it's not the
isolation of the gene, but the use of
the gene that's inventive and suitable
for patenting. "That's the whole point,
isn't it?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Hansen replied: "That's
exactly correct." The justices then focused on the
question of whether isolated DNA—
from which sequences that don't code
for proteins (introns) are removed—is
a human invention or a product of
nature. Myriad claims that the isolated DNA of BRCA1 and BRCA2 are its own
inventions. (An isolated DNA may also
be contained in a "complementary
DNA," or cDNA, with an identical
sequence, a useful format for
laboratory work.) Kennedy said that when he first looked at the case, "I
thought that maybe the cDNA was
kind of an economy-class gene" but
then realized that it wasn't; he seemed
confused. Sotomayor suggested that
the whole gene without the introns "is just not found in nature." Hansen
argued that while cDNAs are a
modified form of DNA, the process
used by Myriad to create them involves
"letting nature manipulate" the
sequence, "not the scientist manipulating" it. Scalia confessed,
"You've really lost me when you say
that it's nature that does the alteration
rather than the scientist." Midway through the proceedings, the
spokesperson for the Obama
administration, Solicitor General
Donald Verrilli, rose to present the
government's view. He said that
isolated DNA should not be patentable "because it is simply native DNA
extracted from the body." In contrast,
he added, cDNA should be patentable:
"cDNA is an artificial creation in the
laboratory that doesn't correspond to
anything in your body," Verrilli argued. The problem in his view
appears to be in the wording of
Myriad's patent claim. Soon, the court sought aid in another
metaphor—baking cookies. When
Myriad's attorney, Gregory Castanias,
rose to speak, Sotomayor said, "I can
bake a chocolate chip cookie using
natural ingredients … and if I combust those in some new way I can get a
patent on that. But I can't imagine
getting a patent simply on the basic
items of salt, flour, and eggs simply
because I've created a new use or
product from those ingredients." Castanias argued that the combination
of materials in the Myriad invention
was original. But he ran into a series of
objections from Sotomayor based on
the cookie recipe. Stymied, he said:
"That's the problem with using the really simplistic analogies, with all due
respect." Castanias, seemingly in retreat, then
decided to resort to a simple metaphor
himself. "A baseball bat doesn't exist
until it's isolated from a tree," he said.
"But that's still a product of human
invention, to decide where to begin the bat and where to end the bat."
Justice Stephen Breyer challenged him,
noting that briefs filed by scientists
described how BRCA genes are
isolated by a natural process in the
body that clips away introns, unlike the making of a baseball bat. He
demanded to know whether this view
of the science was correct. Castanias
disagreed. Chief Justice John Roberts also
weighed in on the baseball bat, saying
that it is "quite different" from an
isolated gene. As Roberts read the
scientific briefs, he said, "you don't
have to invent the particular segment" of DNA that Myriad patented. "You just
have to cut it off." Castanias disagreed,
describing some of the research that
went into creating a cDNA version of
the BRCA genes in the lab. Roberts
remained skeptical: "I still don't understand … in what sense it's
different than just snipping along the
line." Before adjourning, the justices
explored the possibility of a
compromise decision. Sotomayor, for
example, asked Hansen: "Is there
some value to us striking down
isolated DNA and upholding the cDNA?" Hansen said that although this
was not exactly what his side was
seeking, it would help. He argued that
it would prevent companies like
Myriad from getting patents that can
be used to block research by others "on a part of the human body." The court will deliberate on all this and
is expected to render a decision by 30
June.