shadeyinka: You probably misunderstood this: God breathe into Man and Man became a Living Soul. An explanatory interpretation would have been:
Living Sou/Beingl= Eternal Soul/Being
The difference: When Animals die, their existence terminates Forever When Man dies, he goes on living (outside his body)
Why? A man has a spirit and spirits live eternally ( they have a beginning but no end).
In summary, the soul gives you consciousness and the spirit make you eternal.
I assume Gods breath into Man gave man his spirit.
Now, another word for soul is mind. What is mind? Mind is what the brain does. It does mean that the human mind can be objectively related with (eg when a man can remember past events accurately, it's said that the man has normal/good memory).
Again, the source of life is oxygen. From the stage of fertilization, human utilizes oxygen. If for any reason that oxygen doesn't get to human or human can't utilize oxygen, death will occur within few minutes.
The word spirit is never existential component of human, personally i will say, it's a synonym for the word knowledge. Medical knowledge makes you a doctor, so also religious knowledge (knowledge based on assumptions) makes you spiritual (immaterial existence).
Therefore, the trichotomy theory of human beings is a religious fabrication that can't be rationally established.
shadeyinka: I understand your point. The problem actually emanate from the frequency of word usage in defining evil; as in Personality induced Evil AND Nature induced Evil.
It is difficult finding specific sentences where nature is treated as evil in its actions. Like we never say the Evil Hurricane Katharina! Or Evil Tsunami!
One may find instead sentences like "an evil wind which blows no one any good" as a figure of speech.
In personality induced Evil one can find a culprit BUT In Nature induced Evil can nature be blamed?
Also, my personal opinion is that if Evil can be classified based on the causing agent (personality or nature), their should be a third agent which I will call "Artificially induced Evil".
By this term, I mean Accidents, Pain and discomfort caused by non-natural devices such as vehicles, machineries, Nuclear Reactors etc.
Atheists are are quick to Blame God on Natural Evil which as explained in the illustration of the Computer and Trojan earlier presented which is NOT fair. Is it possible to blame a computer manufacturer for viral infections caused by violations of the manufacturers manual? Certainly NOT!
On the allegation of atheists blaming God for the natural phenomenon that brings pain to human experience.
You see, God is blamed on the basis that you folks claimed that it's God that created this universe, and that what he created is perfect.
In disproving the creationist theory, let assume that God in deed created the universe and it was a perfect work. How come that what is perfect brings pain into human experience?
It's on this ground we say that God is to be blamed for a defective creation and for lying that he created a perfect work.
shadeyinka: A spirit is not confined to any dimension so also the soul, so its difficult to say the soul is encased in the spirit...although it can be inferred because both can exist within the body.
I am trying to be careful answering your question as you are putting BIG words into my mouth.
However, I will try to attempt your question. Is this the basis for the "God created man in his image and likeness"?
No one is sure if it is the basis or not! What we are sure of is what He said about Himself.
1. God is a Spirit. John 4:24 God is a Spirit: 2. God has Manifested Himself as The Father, The Word and The Holy Spirit
God is not easy to describe: way too much for our comprehension. We can only speculate to the limit of human understanding.
Now in 1 & 2 above, we are scripturally covered. Now any other things I am going to say henceforth is MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION AND UNDERSTANDING. They do not reflect Gods position, I could be wrong because I am going beyond what is expressly revealed.
With that in view, my understanding/speculation:
The Father: (Self/Internal Identity) The Word: (Expression Identity) The Holy Spirit: (Spiritual Identity)
-The Father seems to function as the Soul is to Man. -The Word expresses & communicates the Will of the Father as the Human body Expresses the Will of the soul (in the physical rhelm) -The Holy Spirit expresses the Power/Authority of the Father.
This is the nearest I can describe God in humans terms (I am sure that my view is a terribly inadequate description).
A man is far much easier to describe: Body: Physical Identity(How he is identified in the physical rhelm/expressesnthe will of the soul) Soul: (How he Identifies himself/seat of his intellect,emotion and will) Spirit: (How he is identified in the spirit rhelm)
Now, is this the basis for the "God created man in his image and likeness?
I DONT KNOW! I can only speculate as God did NOT explain this concept of " in His Image"!
[size=5pt] I will want to apologize to my christian brothers who might feel different. I am just trying to humanly do that which is impossible to do in the hope of answering a question. [/size]
Dear akintom, The above is presented at the risk of being very wrong! It is really impossible to describe God with respect to His Image.
Your second question?
It's ok my brother. I rest the first question now since you have said you don't know.
This is the second question.
"Animals were made a Duality (Body and Soul)
Man was Made a Trinity (Body, Soul and Spirit)
God is a Trinity (The Father, The Word, The Holy Spirit)
Man would have been no better than animals except for the fact that God breath into Adam (His Spirit) and Adam became a Living Soul (Eternal Soul)"
2. Question: according to you, God breath gave Adam life, what then gave animals life?
shadeyinka: I guess the proper word you should use is BAD, TERRIBLE, UNPLEASANT etc and not EVIL.
Dictionary definition does not support your view.
Evil is strictly defined by a seen or unseen Personality with the intention of Harming or Causing Pain.
The method used is not important, it is the Personality behind the tool that is the focus.
-A hammer falling on my thumb is not evil -The event of the hammer falling on my hand is not evil
However if a Person uses the hammer on my thumb, such a person is evil.
The Origin of Evil is always a Personality!
Evil
adjective
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
adjective
characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
noun
that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils. the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
My contribution addressed the adjectival part of the word evil, therefore am not wrong as far as dictionary meaning is concerned. I wouldn't know the dictionary of your reference.
Now as a noun, a agree with you that it's personality. Which support my conclusion that;
it's the innate moral capacity of man that defines what offence is and what it's not.
Therefore, the claim that Satan is the origin of offence/sin is mere religious assumption.
Antiparticle: Let me just interject here briefly, we don't need to know what happened before the Big Bang in order to analyze what we know happened almost immediately after it started. (Knowing what happened before would be extraordinary helpful to science though). The path you are on is a "God of the gaps" argument.
Your assertion is like saying that "because I don't know what happened before I was born, therefore I have no authority to discuss or evaluate anything that happened after I was born". This is an indefensible logical fallacy.
In any case, I think @AgentOfAllah has done a detailed job on describing the physics of the aftermath of the Big Bang, beyond what I could, and I deeply thank him for that.
@DoctorAlien, shall we move on to the ice cores?
PS: Before we continue, I would once again ask you reconsider the basis of your questions. Are you asking questions because you are curious to find out the truth about the nature of reality? Or are you asking questions to arbitrarily railroad any findings that contradict your 6000-year-old universe hypothesis? If it is the latter, then this conversation is not helpful for any of us.
I must give this credit to you. You have greatly influenced and endeared me in multi dimensional ways on how to productively engage in public debate. Thanks
You will agree with me that you can only discuss and evaluate such things as happened after you were born as far as your memory can recollect. You cannot discuss or evaluate what happened at least within the first year after your birth. You only believe what you were told happened then. And if a child happens to lose his parents who brought him up, and indeed all the people who could relate to him the things that happened when he was still a baby, before they could do so, then you can agree with me that such a child has no means of knowing with certainty what happened(at least with regards to his origin) then. He only knows with certainty as far as his memory can recollect. I hope you catch my logic here.
Yea. What do you think about the fact that the dating of the ice cores in Antarctica are based on the assumptions that the accumulation rate has not varied greatly over the past?
shadeyinka: Critical analysis of the bolded will lead to a conclusion of "Not True!".
I feel sad : a lady turned me down! I am sad: I failed my medical exam! I feel pain: my 98 year old Grandma died!
Evil is NOT defined by Feeling.
You agreed with his submission because you have the same conclusion that God doesn't Exist.
You obviously didn't understand my submission.
First, the question is Strictly on what is the ORIGIN of EVIL?
My answer is this:
The origin of evil is the expression or manifestation of unpleasant experience in response/reaction to natural phenomenon.
The implicative veracity of this my definition is that, if you don't respond to natural phenomenon by show of unpleasantness, evil can't exist; evil or good exist/originate from human response to natural phenomenon.
For example, death is a natural phenomenon: it can create the followings:
*unpleasant experience (evil) - death of MKO
*pleasant experience (good) - death of Gen Abacha
* mixed experience (evil and good) - death of bed ridden old man
From the above, death is a constant, but the responses are varied.
Therefore, death is not the origin of evil, it's the response to death that creates evil.
shadeyinka: In summary: Angels were made a Duality (Soul and Spirit) Animals were made a Duality (Body and Soul) Man was Made a Trinity (Body, Soul and Spirit)
God is a Trinity (The Father, The Word, The Holy Spirit)
Man would have been no better than animals except for the fact that God breath into Adam (His Spirit) and Adam became a Living Soul (Eternal Soul)
Man was created to be the Overseer of Everything God made on the Earth as God is the Overseer of the whole universe!
OK, based on your summary, i have two questions for you: I will ask one now, and the second after.
1. God is both Spirit and soul, just like the angels. Also man is both spirit and soul encased in material body.
If the soul is the source of personal attributes (learning, memory, anger, joy, jealousy, sympathy, empathy etc). Since both man and God share these attributes, this is my question:
Is this the basis for the "God created man in his image and likeness"?
As guide for you, know this, and in case you already know, pls remember that:
God is a soul that is encased in spirit and man is a soul encased in material body.
shadeyinka: I think your premise is very wrong. The fact that man was made in the image of God does not imply that man was a copy of God.
Just imagine a scientist building a humanoid robot. He would make him not of flesh and blood but of plastics, metals, microprocessors etc. And this robot even if he looks on the outside like man is NOT man but a robot.
In the image of God simply means as a Trinity ( Body, Soul and Spirit). If man was made omniscient, he could NEVER sin!
Thank you for your response,
Can you please explain the meaning of the "God created man in his image and likeness" according to the book of genesis.
donnffd: I understand you perfectly and i know that Mans inhumanity to man is a product of our free-will, there is no doubt, but what is Good and what is Evil?
You seem to be looking at Evil from only one perspective, Evil with intention, what about Evil without intention?
We can agree good is anything that brings happiness and longevity
We can also agree that Evil is anything that brings suffering, strife, pain ,hardship and ultimately death.
In my post, i said "God created the universe"...which means everything along with it.
We can agree Natural Disasters brings strife, pain and death therefore can be termed Evil.
Even if humans were all christians and obeyed God, Natural Disasters would to cause harm and suffering, so why is that and where did it originate from?
I really hope you understand my point!
NB: I do not blame God for anything, just wondering if people say he is so benevolent then why does Evil exist in the universe?
I speak as humanist
It's all about nomenclature, human beings gave the name "good" to every natural phenomena that elicit pleasant experience and "bad/evil" to unpleasant experience.
Natural phenomena are in themselves neither good nor evil, it's the feeling they elicit in human experience that creates the labeling of good or evil.
For example, for an old man that is terminally ill of painful cancer, death will elicit feeling of good. But death will elicit the feeling of evil in a non terminally ill young man.
My conclusion therefore is, the origin or source of evil (a labeling) is unpleasant response to natural phenomena.
Religious/Gods beliefs are mere concepts of human imagination built on assumptions (no empirical facts or evidences). The Gods that came from nothing can only explain nothing.
Even if one assume that Gods exist, the very God that's claimed to be good, is the very source of evil. Since he's the source/creator of everything.
shadeyinka: You have placed your premise down in such a way as to conclude that if there is no iota of Evil in God and God "created evil" then its either God is Evil or He doesn't exist!
But, not so fast my friend!
First, EVIL is NOT a thing.
If Evil is not a thing, then is is not a direct creation. Evil must have been a bi-product of creation!
One could argue that the creator is also responsible for the bi-product His creation caused: like man is responsible for the carbon polutulion vehicles cause.
So before explaining the above, we need to define the term evil!
Dictionary Defn: adjective Intending to harm; malevolent. Morally corrupt., Unpleasant. synonyms nefarious, malicious, malevolent antonyms good noun (plural evils)
However, Gods definition of Evil is more Generic: Evil is going against the WILL of God.
The above definition covers both the dictionary definition and more.
For example "consensual fornication" is evil eben though the dictionary definition does not imply so.
Now that we have set the proper ground of understanding, we answer the question "isn't God responsible howbeit indirectly for evil"?
1. Evil is an inevitable consequence of Free will. 2. Creatures of free will commit evil NOT God 3. For Evil not to Exist, creatures of Free will must not exist. 4. It was Gods desire to have both creatures with I. No free will e.g. Planets, Atoms, Gravity etc AND ii. Creatures with Free will e.g. Angels, Man
Objective: Ultimately to select among the Free Willed Creatures those who will Love and Obey Him by their Free Will.
Only such are useful to God!
Conclusion: Evil is a biproduct of the creation of free will. Agents of Free will cause Evil and NOT God
I rest my case!
If the creatures were made in the image and likeness of God according to Bible.
If the source of all knowledge (omniscient) and ability (omnipotent) is God, then, whatever the creature knows and can do, is from the body knowledge and ability of God.
The conclusion therefore is that the very source of disobedience to God (evil) is God himself.
The reason therefore for my summary description of bible as a badly written fictional book.
AgentOfAllah: Hi Antiparticle, I've been following this thread with keen interest, and I think you've provided robust answers to many of your fellow discussant's objections to scientific methods. In particular, your defense of radiometric dating methods has been most compelling, in spite of this individual's inexplicable obstinacy in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
Allow me though, to render my unsolicited contributions to some of the issues raised, because it is difficult to be universally robust in all your attempts, when you're inundated with so many topics deserving of their own special attention. I will quote some of your co-discussant's remarks that I feel can be conclusively addressed with a little more detail. I do this especially in the interest of other followers who may not fully understand the implications of some of the answers you've given. But I'll try to be as brief as possible:
A. On Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)
The wavelength vs intensity profile of the CMB is consistent with that of a black body, and this is how the temperature is derived (Wien's displacement law). Everywhere you point your microwave antenna to, the CMB temperature is astoundingly uniform; and this uniformity is congruent with the big bang theory. To illustrate this, if you were to put a metallic ball in an oven set to 600OC, you'd expect the ball's temperature to be isotropically 600OC after some time. Now, supposing you immediately put the ball in vacuum and then by some mechanism, you are able to cause it to expand to be say 100 times bigger than it was. When you measure the temperature of any part of the ball's surface, it will be thermally isotropic no matter how big it gets. This is what explains the astounding uniformity of the CMB phenomenon. However, no physical entity is a perfect black body, so there will in fact be tiny quantum effects (like scattering) that will upset the full black body expectation. These fluctuations should lead to tiny localised anisotropies in the temperature of the CMB. In fact, if you have seen images of baby universe produced by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), you'll readily observe that these local anisotropies are accounted for in the CMB, in spite of its stunning uniformity. Hurrah for science! [img]http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/96115main_Full_m.jpg[/img] Baby universe
B. On Blueshift vs Big bang Antiparticle explained blueshifts in terms of localised cosmological effects vs universal cosmological redshift, and further asserted that this does not contradict the big band theory. This is very true, however, it is possible people don't understand what is meant by "localised effects". To be clear, galaxies aren't independent entities. Most of them are gravitationally bound to other galaxies in formations we now know as clusters. since gravity is one of those 'inverse square law' phenomena, there will come a distance close enough, where its effect will counteract the universal redshift, this, along with the peculiar orbit paths of galaxies can cancel out the redshift effect. Obviously, the closer the object, the more pronounced its peculiar velocity is. Furthermore, even without gravitational attraction and peculiar motion, the effects of redshift is more pronounced for far away galaxies than it is for nearby ones. This fact is easily demonstrated when you draw dots on a balloon and inflate it. You will find that the greater the distance between any two dots, the greater the change in distance between them becomes during inflation. There are many elegant demonstrations of this on YouTube, if it interests you. Now, we know that:
1) Near galaxies don't appear to move as fast as distant ones. 2) Near galaxies are gravitationally bound in galactic clusters. 3) Local (peculiar) motions of galaxies are more apparent when they are closer together than when they are far away. Combine all these three effects and you'll see that blueshift is not a dent on the big bang theory.
Georges Lamaitre and Edwin Hubble discovered that not only are all distant galaxies moving away from us, they are moving away at exactly the same rate. This is known as the Hubble law, there is a constant value for the rate of expansion of the universe based on calculations derived from observing Cepheid variables in many different galaxy systems. This value can never be exact due to the difficulties involved in calculating the age of very distant bodies. Nevertheless, this value is estimated to be between 67 to 70 KM S-1 MPersec-1. This brings me to the next point:
C. On the age of the Universe . Hubble's constant (Ho) gives us a constant value for rate of expansion of the universe. It is derived by measuring the redshift of distant galaxies, which gives us information about the rate of expansion. The most refined value of Hubble's constant is acquired from Planck space mission, and it puts this value at ~67.8 KM S-1 Mpc-1. What this tells us is that for every 1Mpc ('pc' is simply a unit for astronomical distances. 1 pc = 3.1 X 1013 KM), the universe expands at a rate of 67 KM/s. So for a distance of 2 Mpc, the universe should be expanding at at rate of 135.6 KM/s and so on. But have another look at the unit of Hubble's constant. It's essentially in /sec (KM and Mpc cancel out with the right conversions). What else do we know has this unit? Inverse time!!! This means if we are to linearly extrapolate the Hubble's constant to its intersection on the time axis by inverting it (i.e. 1/Ho), we should have an approximation for the age of the universe. Lets do this together:
Ho = 67.8 KM S-1 Mpc-1. But 1 Mpc = 1,000,000 X 3.9 X 1013 KM = 3.1 X 1019 KM
Therefore, Ho = 2.19 X 10-18 S-1.
1/Ho = 4.57 X 1017 S [Convert to years: 4.57 X 1017 / (60 X 60 X 24 X 365)] = 14.4 billion years. This crudely estimates the age of the universe to 14.45 billion years. This estimate can be made more accurate by factoring in density parameters of the universe. By so doing, this age will be revised to ~13.8 billion years. This is how the age of the universe is estimated. (Not guess work!)
D. On Big band negating the 2nd law of thermodynamics This statement stems from a flawed interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics. For clarity, the second law states that: In a closed system, entropy can only increase or remain constant, but can never be negative. Entropy is defined as the degree of disorder in a system.
This law does not in anyway, preclude localised negative entropy in any system, it just asserts that the net entropy must always be zero or positive. So pockets of order like stars and galaxies can come about, but the universal entropy is ever so diligently committed to its non-negative vow. That said, there are many localised phenomena that can bring about negative local entropy. I touched upon one before. Gravity: If all particles in the universe are not evenly spaced out, there will be a potential gradient where some particles will tend to attract each other due to the inverse square law of gravity. Another phenomenon that exhibits the inverse square law is electromagnetism. Again, ionic particles within proximity of each other can exert an attractive or repulsive force on one another and thus create negative local entropy. In fact, it is believed that electromagnetism and gravity acted in a complementary way to form planets. Many rocks are patently salts with not-exactly-zero electric fields. This means that even in vacuum, they will tend to attract/repel each other. This simple electromagnetic rule may lead to spontaneous accretion of rocky particles. When this accretion becomes massive enough, gravity will do the remaining work; thus a planet is born. NASA scientists have demonstrated this phenomenon in space before, using common salt. You will find the video illuminating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0YuivnCXhM
In summary, I have addressed four issues
1) Uniformity of the cosmic microwave background 2) Blueshift vs Big bang 3) How the age of the universe was arrived at. 4) Big bang vs 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I hope my little contribution has cleared some ambiguities in the conversation. Over to you
As a member of audience of this debate, i found your contribution of immense genius.
To other members of the audience that are not oriented in physical science, your contribution makes comprehension easy.
However, i have observed dismissal of scientific facts on the part of doctoralien on the basis of unpublished science works rather than on genuine rebuttal.
Yesterday was International Day of the Girl Child, which is an international observance day declared by the United Nations, with the aim: to Raise awareness of issues facing girls internationally surrounding education, nutrition, child marriage, legal and medical rights.
This awareness must be drummed to ears of God and his children. Because they fundamentally created the discrimination against females.
This is how....
Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
The above portion of the Bible proved that the Bible was written by primitive male chauvinists. In today's world, men of meager resources, lazy men, and men who have lost their job now serve the role of HELP MEET to women. But men who are religiously driven live sadly in this kind of situation. They go into all kinds of delusionary reactions, just to frustrate the woman.
Leviticus 15:19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
Leviticus 19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
Leviticus 20:18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her unclothedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
Leviticus 21:14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.
Widows and divorcees are barred from remarriage!
Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Deuteronomy 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Male chauvinist through God, compelled raped woman to marry her rapist. This disgusting even to Satan.
The summary of religious/God/gods beliefs is an idea that's completely subjective, and any idea that can't be objectively related with, is absolutely of no good use for humanity.
The earlier humanity realizes this, the soonest they will find freedom from all kinds of mental bondage.
lordnicklaus: You have not highlighted why Christians are the worst sinners @ akintom. You just opened a thread, defamed Christians and then quoted the Bible you consider fictitious. If you see the bible as a work of fiction then why quote it as basis for premise?
1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Your story book says you "can't sin", yet you folks continue to commit sin till tomorrow (hypocrisy).
Again you go around calling others sinners, that must repent through your Jesus. When the very you doing the preaching is a confirmed sinner.......
"1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us".
The above is the reason why Christians are worst sinners (they commit sin, yet they claim they are not sinners).
felixomor: Be asking for free knowledge with style. I can see u Even after I have answered ur first request of explaining the type of sin John meant. U want me to explain further so that u can get free ezposē to open future threads like this one. *Yinmu*
By the way, its the bible that said letters can kill u if u dont allow the Spirit yo guide u on the Bible.
See it:
2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
There's a common character trait to all armed robbers - they always believe that they will never be caught.
Every religious folks i have debated (pastors inclusive) have never failed in ASSUMING they know me or understand my thoughts, even when they have no idea of the definition of humanist or my writings. Am not surprised, they are all product of beliefs that is built on assumptions.
You didn't answer anything relevant to my first question, i had expected you to answer my second question before showing you the contradictions of whatever you will come up with.
Just like every other religious folks, you guys are too lazy to study even your very religion, talk less of others' convictions. If you had read my other writings with rational mind, you would have observed that you don't have half of my understanding of that story book.
You see, you guys are worst sinners like i said, i had accused you and your God of very delightful at humans painful challenges, instead of admitting your sinister character, you try in excusing it - did your story book also say "letter strangles"? Remember you quoted it.
Like i told you, you can't dare explain that 1jh 5:16.
felixomor: U see why Peter said people like u choose to wrestle what they dont understand instead of humbling urself to ask for explanations
1 John 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
U didnt bother to read up to 1 John 5 where John carefully classified the type of sin he was talking about. U quickly copied and pasted like lightning, out of context.
So get it into ur head that there is a sin unto death, and that is the type of sin John meant.
Next time, dont hurry through the bible. And pray that God give u light, lest the letters kill and strangle u.
You see now how you religious folks are evil minded and full of desire to see fellow humans suffer because they don't share your beliefs. "it's obvious that you and your God will be happy if I drop dead tomorrow because you would assume that it's your "letter killed and strangle me".
Sorry to disappoint you, if i die tomorrow, it's not your evil desire that would have caused it.
Human beings die, not even your God can stop death from happening to a baby or old man,when it's bound to happen. All those your prayers against death simply streams from grand ignorance.
Now to your 1jh 5:16... Can you tell me the sin to death and the one not unto death? But i bet you will not dare!
felixomor: Even Jesus said when teaching disciples how to pray said;
Luke 11:4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
Even Jesus never said they(christians) will be "unble to sin".(as u claim christians claim)
If Christians were going to be "unable to sin" (as u claim christians claim), Jesus wont have taught them that prayerline.
Thank you for this submission.
May i ask you then, what has the claimed and unnecessary death and resurrection of your Jesus done for his followers? Since they still continue to commit sinful acts.
1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Your story book says you CAN'T SIN but the reality is that you continue to sin, even till tomorrow.
Can you now see how delusionary the story book and it's followers are?
felixomor: Please where did u read the bolded statement or meaning in my own comment?
They are mine. The meaning is this - if as Christian you still admit you're worst sinner, then of what use then is claim that Jesus has died to make you "unable to sin again".
With this delusionary claims, Christians still continue to commit sin. The only change after being "born again", is that they hide away their sinful acts from the view (not knowledge) of their fellow hypocrites.
felixomor: 1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief..........
As u can see, Christians have never denied being the worst sinners of which u are also part of the group. The only thing they will not deny is the blood that sets them free from it. Thats all.
Part of the problem with religious folks, always in haste to defend the indefensible.
Read the thread to understand.
I said CHRISTIANS are worst sinners, and not UNBELIEVERS are worst sinners.
1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
St. John 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Another feature that established the delusional effect of religious beliefs are the above quotation from the fictitious story book.
With the claimed power given by Jesus to Christians to sin (offensive/injurious acts) no more, the reality is that Christians still commit sin everyday of their lives. They simply go on to hiding their sinful acts (hypocrisy) at least from view of their fellow hypocrites.
Most of them even graduate to worst and grand disgusting sin, because they now take the illusionary liberty offered them (forgiveness) by their bible.
This confirms their very own description of belonging to the devil (since they still continue to commit sin).
If literary meaning of devil is worst offense/injury, then Christians are the worst sinners.
Aaronsrod: God punish the Haitia because is the devil worship dey pray o. Dey must suffer.
If there's any one major reason i had and will continue to enlighten the religious folks on the inimical implications of religious beliefs, it's this your religious mentality (which is also shared by all adherent of Christian faith), that has numbed your empathic capabilities towards fellow humans.
Christians are capable of the worst extremism stance.
Amberon: The only one that needs help here is you. You're totally obsessed and losing sleep over an "inexistent" being. That's a whole new level of delusional.
The only folks who are obsessed and loose sleep over imaginary enemies are religious folks.
For me, i use my past time to write threads about folks taking tales by moonlight book serious.
zzzzy: I just finished reading this when i saw your mention. come to christ while you still have the time to do so, and you can only do that without your own wisdom, as the verse stated, by the so called "foolish" message we preach.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
What exegesis do you have for the above monstrous persona described above.
Christianity Etc › Re: A Sincere Question For Theists: Where Did Evil Originate From? by akintom(m): 9:37pm On Oct 15, 2016
