₦airaland Forum

lastpage:
What happened?
is it that God just sniffed at "Skyone" like: Wetin be your own business sef, u wan "cry more than the bereaved"?

@lastpage:

Perhaps you spoke too soon.
I believe you yourself quoted Skyone thus:

if you do not repent sincerely from sin within the next 7 DAYS, this is what will happen to you. . .

(1) You will suffer helplessly and not be seen - The OP was shot on the doorsteps of his father's house and no one saw him as he lay dying there until his elder brother came home
(2) Your days on earth will be cut short - Sad to report that the OP died - cut short in the prime of life

(Eccl 12:13-14 [KJV])
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Joagbaje:
Ive been avoiding people like you who can't post without vile words.

^
Please highlight and underline the vile words in my post for the whole world to see. You are running when no one is chasing you. Is it your guilty conscience at your love of lucre that makes you see vile words where they are none. I repeat:

aletheia:
Where is the proof for this statement. If you can not provide the bible verses that support this timeline, then this is a lie.

1) If Satan was cast out of Heaven before the creation of Adam. . .then explain this:
(Job 1:6 [KJV])
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
So if according to you, Satan was already cast out of heaven, what was he doing there?

2) If Satan was cast out of Heaven before Adam was made, then that would mean Satan sinned before or early on the sixth day thus introducing imperfection into God's creation before or early on the sixth day. But in scripture we read:
(Gen 1:31 [KJV])
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

The verses in the book are clear. Stop introducing your imaginations and false Dake-induced heresies.

I am not interested in your Dakes' heresies. Show proof from bible verses. Simple. That's all you need to do. Apparently you do not understand what the phrase "cast out of heaven" means. Simple analogy: When Adam was cast out of Eden, cast out of the presence of God, did he find his way back and here you are suggesting that another sinful creature cast out of heaven found his way back into the presence of God.
Moreover you plainly ignore this:
(Rev 12:10-11 [KJV])
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

From Job, Zechariah and Jude, we see Satan acting as the accuser in the presence of God: And here Revelation clearly shows him being cast out of Heaven so that he can no longer do that. But you say this happened before Adam.
Thus your vain imaginings would have him being cast out of heaven before Adam then going back to heaven to be cast out again. Whereas the Bible describes one incident of him being cast out following the ascension of the Risen Christ as Revelation Chapter 12 makes plain.

When it comes to choosing between the Bible and and false pastor Joagbaje's words: it is indeed a great joy to choose what the Bible says over the words of one who says Christians are not commanded to obey God.

Joagbaje:
Satan had been cast out by angel Micheal and his host of heaven before Adam was formed.

^
Where is the proof for this statement. If you can not provide the bible verses that support this timeline, then this is a lie.

1) If Satan was cast out of Heaven before the creation of Adam. . .then explain this:
(Job 1:6 [KJV])
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
So if according to you, Satan was already cast out of heaven, what was he doing there?

2) If Satan was cast out of Heaven before Adam was made, then that would mean Satan sinned before or early on the sixth day thus introducing imperfection into God's creation before or early on the sixth day. But in scripture we read:
(Gen 1:31 [KJV])
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

The verses in the book are clear. Stop introducing your imaginations and false Dake-induced heresies.

[quote author=Tobi_dad link=topic=721924.msg8803722#msg8803722 date=1311803972]its not just paper as you may think.

Paper-money are actually promissory notes or agreements of credit.[/quote]^
Actually as they are used currently. . .they are nothing but worthless paper depending on me and you accepting them to be of any use. The phrase "actually promissory notes or agreements of credit" refers to the earlier days when one could actually take those notes to the bank and ask them to give one the equivalent value in gold, thus these promissory notes were backed by something of actual value. What backs the US dollar? The modern economic system is a fraud and an illusion designed to rob countries of their sovereignty. Paper money is what makes hyperinflation possible because it has no intrinsic worth.

As a case study consider the hyperinflation that occurred in Weimar Germany. The groundwork for that occurred because "in order to pay the large costs of World War I, Germany suspended the convertibility of its currency into gold when that war broke out."
John Maynard Keynes described the situation in The Economic Consequences of the Peace: "The inflationism of the currency systems of Europe has proceeded to extraordinary lengths. The various belligerent Governments, unable, or too timid or too short-sighted to secure from loans or taxes the resources they required, have printed notes for the balance."
It is instructive to note that Germany was able to tackle this hyperinflation by measures such as: "In August 1923, Karl Helfferich proposed a plan to issue a new currency (roggenmark) backed by mortgage bonds indexed to market prices (in paper Marks) of rye grain. His plan was rejected because of the greatly fluctuating price of rye in paper Marks. The Agriculture Minister Hans Luther proposed a different plan which substituted gold for rye and a new currency, the Rentenmark, backed by bonds indexed to market prices (in paper Marks) of gold"

Question for you? Why is it that in times of economic turmoil, the price of gold and other precious metals rises? Because investors know that these represent a safe haven for them. They know something that you seem to be overlooking.

@Mukina:
For some weird reason I keep getting banned after posting in the Business section. Can you do something about that as I want to contribute to the thread in question here and my posts are invisible.
Thanks.

[quote author=Tobi_dad link=topic=721924.msg8803722#msg8803722 date=1311803972]its not just paper as you may think.

Paper-money are actually promissory notes or agreements of credit.[/quote]^
Actually as they are used currently. . .they are nothing but worthless paper depending on me and you accepting them to be of any use. The phrase "actually promissory notes or agreements of credit" refers to the earlier days when one could actually take those notes to the bank and ask them to give one the equivalent value in gold, thus these promissory notes were backed by something of actual value. What backs the US dollar? The modern economic system is a fraud and an illusion designed to rob countries of their sovereignty. Paper money is what makes hyperinflation possible because it has no intrinsic worth.

As a case study consider the hyperinflation that occurred in Weimar Germany. The groundwork for that occurred because "in order to pay the large costs of World War I, Germany suspended the convertibility of its currency into gold when that war broke out."
John Maynard Keynes described the situation in The Economic Consequences of the Peace: "The inflationism of the currency systems of Europe has proceeded to extraordinary lengths. The various belligerent Governments, unable, or too timid or too short-sighted to secure from loans or taxes the resources they required, have printed notes for the balance."

It is instructive to note that Germany was able to tackle this hyperinflation by measures such as: "In August 1923, Karl Helfferich proposed a plan to issue a new currency (roggenmark) backed by mortgage bonds indexed to market prices (in paper Marks) of rye grain. His plan was rejected because of the greatly fluctuating price of rye in paper Marks. The Agriculture Minister Hans Luther proposed a different plan which substituted gold for rye and a new currency, the Rentenmark, backed by bonds indexed to market prices (in paper Marks) of gold"

Question for you? Why is it that in times of economic turmoil, the price of gold and other precious metals rises? Because investors know that these represent a safe haven for them. They know something that you seem to be overlooking. Paper money is intrinsically worthless

[quote author=Tobi_dad link=topic=721924.msg8803722#msg8803722 date=1311803972]its not just paper as you may think.

Paper-money are actually promissory notes or agreements of credit.[/quote]^
Actually as they are used currently. . .they are nothing but worthless paper depending on me and you accepting them to be of any use. The phrase "actually promissory notes or agreements of credit" refers to the earlier days when one could actually take those notes to the bank and ask them to give one the equivalent value in gold, thus these promissory notes were backed by something of actual value. What backs the US dollar? The modern economic system is a fraud and an illusion designed to rob countries of their sovereignty. Paper money is what makes hyperinflation possible because it has no intrinsic worth.

As a case study consider the hyperinflation that occurred in Weimar Germany. The groundwork for that occurred because "in order to pay the large costs of World War I, Germany suspended the convertibility of its currency into gold when that war broke out."
John Maynard Keynes described the situation in The Economic Consequences of the Peace: "The inflationism of the currency systems of Europe has proceeded to extraordinary lengths. The various belligerent Governments, unable, or too timid or too short-sighted to secure from loans or taxes the resources they required, have printed notes for the balance."
It is instructive to note that Germany was able to tackle this hyperinflation by measures such as: "In August 1923, Karl Helfferich proposed a plan to issue a new currency (roggenmark) backed by mortgage bonds indexed to market prices (in paper Marks) of rye grain. His plan was rejected because of the greatly fluctuating price of rye in paper Marks. The Agriculture Minister Hans Luther proposed a different plan which substituted gold for rye and a new currency, the Rentenmark, backed by bonds indexed to market prices (in paper Marks) of gold"

Question for you? Why is it that in times of economic turmoil, the price of gold and other precious metals rises? Because investors know that these represent a safe haven for them. They know something that you seem to be overlooking.

@Topic: Never thought I 'd agree with Buhari. I am pleasantly surprised by this.

vicoloni:
He should go and stop Boko Haram first then we'll listen to his advise

^
Stop being silly.

texazzpete:
Seriously, why do you guys never focus on the big picture?

^
Because they are a bunch of half-literate bigoted dolts with fantasies of being knowledgeable about their country. . .that's why.

. . .makes me recall Francis Thompson's In No Strange Land

In No Strange Land

The kingdom of God is within you

O world invisible, we view thee,
O world intangible, we touch thee,
O world unknowable, we know thee,
Inapprehensible, we clutch thee!

Does the fish soar to find the ocean,
The eagle plunge to find the air--
That we ask of the stars in motion
If they have rumor of thee there?

Not where the wheeling systems darken,
And our benumbed conceiving soars!--
The drift of pinions, would we hearken,
Beats at our own clay-shuttered doors.

The angels keep their ancient places--
Turn but a stone and start a wing!
'Tis ye, 'tis your estrangèd faces,
That miss the many-splendored thing.

But (when so sad thou canst not sadder)
Cry--and upon thy so sore loss
Shall shine the traffic of Jacob's ladder
Pitched betwixt Heaven and Charing Cross.

Yea, in the night, my Soul, my daughter,
Cry--clinging to Heaven by the hems;
And lo, Christ walking on the water,
Not of Genesareth, but Thames!

^
So now you redoubt to a single paper out of the "1000's" you claim? As the English saying goes: one swallow does not a summer make.

Again, I ask you to acquaint yourself with the method of meta-analysis. The STEP study was published in 2005. Try and read the study by Chida, Steptoe, & Powell, 2009 or Hodge 2007

In meta-analysis, several studies are pooled together and analyzed. Studies with 1) evidence for, 2) evidence against, and 3) not enough evidence for or against, are included in a meta-analysis in order to arrive at an unbiased estimate of the true effect size.

I 'm still waiting for a link to the 1000's of papers please.

claremont:
Actually, the studies support the FACT that not only do prayers not work, but they may lead to complications.

^
Actually they do not. Repeating this claim ad infinitum will not make it so. Have you read the Nicholson paper I uploaded for your benefit yet? You posted it as supporting your claims when it clearly does not do so.

claremont:
I agree that 1 or 2 of the studies may be inconclusive, but it is clear that the reason for the inconclusiveness is due to bias, chance, coincidence or a combination of all three.

^
If 2 out of the 4 studies you cite are inconclusive, why then did you claim they support your claim. Isn't that dishonest? Sure out of the 1000's of studies you claim exist; you should be able to bring forward 4 that incontrovertibly support your claim. In Medicine, there are 3 possible outcomes of any study viz: 1) Clear evidence supporting the hypothesis, 2) Clear evidence against the hypothesis, 3) Not enough evidence either in support for or against the hypothesis.
It is intellectually dishonest of you to bring forth papers that belong to the 3rd category and claim that they are clear evidence against prayer.

claremont:
Moreover, these 4 studies represent just a few of the 1000's of studies which buttress the fact that prayers do not work.

Again I ask you:

aletheia:
Thousands of studies. Aren't you exaggerating? And you are only able to produce 4 studies. And even this 4 do not conclusively show that prayer does not work. [size=16pt]Please provide me with a link to these 1000's of studies -  perhaps a PubMed search?[/size]

I am forced to arrive at the conclusion that like alot of atheists on this forum, you are only regurgitating second-hand hearsay without having even examined the evidence for yourself. How do I know that? You claim that the Nicholson paper supports your claim and yet it's very first sentence reads:
There are extensive data linking religious involvement with better health. Meta-analyses have shown small associations with reduced mortality in those with more religious involvement (McCullough, Hoyt, Larson, Koenig, & Thoresen, 2000; Chida, Steptoe, & Powell, 2009).

Great Joke!

@claremont: Why have you ignored post #73 which highlights that the 4 studies you cited do not in fact support your claims?

claremont:
Be that as it may, I have 1000's of studies done which conclusively show that prayer not only does not work, but in fact, it may lead to further complications.

^Thousands of studies. Aren't you exaggerating? And you are only able to produce 4 studies. And even this 4 do not conclusively show that prayer does not work. Please provide me with a link to these 1000's of studies - perhaps a PubMed search?

claremont:
1. Benson et.al (2005) Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. Conclusions: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

^
This is the main study that you 've hinged your argument on so far? Granted this single study shows no effect of prayer. . .the question is: why is there a higher incidence of complications with prayer in this study? To my mind as a biostatistician that's suggestive of several things.

claremont:
2. Francis and Evans (2005) The psychology of christian prayer: a review of empirical research. Conclusions: It is concluded that such studies currently provide contradictory evidence. It is recommended that further research in the field needs both to observe the strict criteria of objective empirical research and to be alert to theological nuances regarding the actual claims made for the efficacy of prayer within the community of believers. The author of this study is a Reverend Father, hence bias may be a possible reason for the inconclusiveness of the study.

^
This study is inconclusive and yet you say it proves your case that prayer is not effective. Isn't this a bit dishonest.

claremont:
3. Joyce and Welldone (1964) The objective efficacy of prayer : A double-blind clinical trial. [/b]Conclusions: The first six valid and definite results available all showed an advantage to the ‘treated’ group. Five of the next six showed an advantage to the ‘control’ group. [b]These results may be due solely to chance, but the possible involvement of other factors is discussed.

^
Another inconclusive study as the words highlighted in red indicate.

claremont:
4. Nicholson et.al (2010) Associations Between Different Dimensions of Religious Involvement and Self-Rated Health in Diverse European Populations. Conclusions: The frequency of attendance at religious services and private prayer had opposite associations with self-rated health, resulting in negative confounding.

^
This study is a cross-sectional one which relies on self-reporting; a type of study design that is associated with a lot of bias and therefore makes a poor case of proof as seen by the negative confounding that was reported. As I indicated earlier the randomized controlled trial is the gold standard for scientific evidence in Medicine. Moreover that you actually did not read the Nicholson paper is clear because the results do actually support the conjecture that religious activity (of which prayer is but a component) is effective. Here are the results reported in the abstract on PubMed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20230097

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:

Poor self-rated health (SRH).
RESULTS:

When analyzed separately, less frequent attendance was associated with poor health in men and women. Associations were weaker with less frequent prayer and lower religiousness. In models with all dimensions together, the association with attendance was strengthened and prayer became significantly inversely associated with health.

You seem to have been thrown by the word opposite occurring in the conclusion stated in the abstract: "The frequency of attendance at religious services and private prayer had opposite associations with self-rated health" What the authors simply mean is that higher frequency of religious activity (not prayer) is associated with lower rates of self-rated poor health. This is clearly elucidated by the portion of the results highlighted in red above.

Herein lies a cautionary tale: Don't post papers you have not taken time to read. You might end up with egg on your face. In fact the very first paragraph of the Nicholson paper says this:

There are extensive data linking religious involvement with better health. Meta-analyses have shown small associations with reduced mortality in those with more religious involvement (McCullough, Hoyt, Larson, Koenig, & Thoresen, 2000; Chida, Steptoe, & Powell, 2009).

I have attached the full text of the Nicholson paper below for your perusal.

claremont:
All the above cited studies show that there is a negative correlation between prayer and a patient's health outcome. They conclusively prove beyond reasonable doubt that prayer is not only a waste of time, but it may also lead to a further worsening of the condition which warrants the prayer in the first place.

^
Sorry but the 4 studies you cited above do not show what you claim. Two of them are inconclusive. The Nicholson study indubitably so. Please present more definitive studies.

claremont:
The isolated studies which may show contradictory positive correlation between prayer and health outcome can be explained on account of chance or coincidence or a mixture of both. Moreover, the mere fact that an isolated study shows prayer correlates positively with a healthcare outcome doesn't necessarily prove that the positive outcome is directly caused by prayer, this is because every scientist knows that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, it can only mean causation when all other extraneous factors have been taken into account.

^
Please acquaint yourself with the method of meta-analysis which pools results from all studies both those for and against the proposition. As I pointed out in my earlier post: meta-analysis shows that prayer is effective.

claremont:
Excellent paper! BUT let me draw your attention the the 2 sentences I highlighted boldly. Those 2 sentences show that this solitary study does "NOT CONCLUSIVELY" demonstrate that prayer works. In addition, this 1988 study is yet to be validated by other studies which makes the result of this study not binding as a statement of scientific fact.

^Please. Is there any theory "CONCLUSIVELY" proven in science? Isn't the "scientific method" to consider the weight of the evidence?

Firstly the study is not a solitary one. The study by Byrd in 1988 reported a statistically significant beneficial effect of prayer on the hospital course of patients in a coronary care unit (CCU). Why did you gloss over those words "statistically significant", if you are truly the objective observer that you claim to be?
Secondly, the study that I indicated is a randomized controlled trial which in Medicine is considered to be the highest level of scientific evidence. This study also replicated the findings of the Byrd study. In science, it is the accretion of the results of repeated experimentation that builds up a body of evidence in support of a theory/hypothesis.
Thirdly, you latch on to this sentence; "but chance still remains a possible explanation for the results." as a drowning man would clutch at a straw, while deliberately overlooking this phrase "The authors note that their findings would be expected to occur by chance alone only one out of 25 times" which illustrates just what is meant by statistically significant. In order words: how likely is the result to have occurred by chance? Only 4 times out of 100. If I have a number of studies that have similar results (and they do exist), then by the "scientific method", I am safe to conclude that prayer works because the body of evidence suggests so.
Fourthly, your second highlighted sentence: "More studies are needed to validate the findings of this and other studies and to explore the potential role of prayer as an adjunct to standard medical care." only serves to buttress my earlier point that in science, it is the accretion of the results of repeated experimentation that builds up a body of evidence in support of a theory/hypothesis.
In bio-statistics, the method of meta-analysis pools together the results of different studies (both statistically significant and statistically non-significant studies) in order to assess if there is an overall significant effect not explained by chance. Guess what? Meta-analysis indicates prayer is effective.

David R. Hodge, an Assistant Professor of Social Work in the College of Human Services at Arizona State University, conducted a comprehensive analysis of 17 major studies on the effects of intercessory prayer – or prayer that is offered for the benefit of another person – among people with psychological or medical problems. He found a positive effect.

Hodge, D.R. 2007. A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature on Intercessory Prayer. Research on Social Work Practice 17: 174-187.

Here are other papers reporting the effect of prayers

Byrd, R.C. 1988. Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population. Southern Medical Journal 81: 826-829.

Harris, W.S., Gowda, M., Kolb, J.W., Strychacz, C.P., Vacek, J.L., Jones, P.G., Forker, A., O’Keefe, J.H., and McCallister, B.D. 1999. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit. Arch Intern Med. 159:2273-2278.

Leibovici, L. 2001. Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 323, 1450-1451

Benson H, Dusek JA, Sherwood JB, Lam P, Bethea CF, Carpenter W, Levitsky S, Hill PC, Clem DW Jr, Jain MK, Drumel D, Kopecky SL, Mueller PS, Marek D, Rollins S, Hibberd PL. 2006. Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. Am. Heart J. 151:934-942.

There is also an Israeli study that I have not been able to lay my hands on.

. . .still waiting
. . .waiting for Godot Tonye-t

claremont:
. . .but if you have a research done which conclusively shows that prayer works, kindly let me have a summary.

^Here you go. Knock yourself out.

Intercessory Prayer and Patient Outcomes in Coronary Care Units

Although prayer for the sick is an important cultural aspect of some societies and religions, the effects of intercessory prayer (praying for others) on the medical outcome has not been extensively studied. In a 1988 study, Byrd reported that intercessory prayer had a statistically significant beneficial effect on the hospital course of patients in a coronary care unit (CCU). In an attempt to replicate Byrd's findings, Harris and associates conducted a study to evaluate whether intercessory prayer had an effect on complications and the duration of hospital stay in CCU patients.

The 990 CCU patients in the study were randomly assigned by the hospital chaplain's secretary to a prayer group (466 patients) or a group for whom intercessory praying was not done (524 patients). After a patient was assigned to the prayer group, an intercessory prayer team leader was called and given the first name of the patient. The team leader then called four other members of the team. There were 15 teams of five members each. Other than the patient's first name, no information about the patient was given to the intercessors, and patients did not know that the prayers were being made for them.

The intercessors represented a variety of religious affiliations, and they were asked to pray daily for the next 28 days for "a speedy recovery with no complications." A period of 28 days was chosen as the duration of intercessory praying so that prayer would continue throughout the hospitalization for at least 95 percent of patients. It was not known if other prayers were being offered for the patients outside of the study context.

A scoring system specific for the CCU was used for assessing the severity of comorbid conditions and the medical interventions required during hospitalization. A score of 1 was assigned for each serious event or complication. Hence, the higher the score, the higher the probability of adverse outcomes.

The mean CCU score in the prayer group was 11 percent lower than that in the group for whom intercessory praying was not conducted. The prayer group had 10 percent fewer scoring elements than the usual-care group. The mean lengths of stay in the CCU and in the hospital (after initiation of prayer) were similar in the two groups. The median duration of the hospital stay was 4 days in both groups.

The authors conclude that supplementary, remote, blinded, intercessory prayer produced a measurable improvement in the medical outcomes of critically ill patients in the CCU. The authors note that their findings would be expected to occur by chance alone only one out of 25 times, but chance still remains a possible explanation for the results. These findings are consistent with Byrd's assessment--that intercessory prayer lowered the scores that reflected a more complicated hospital course but did not significantly alter the length of stay. More studies are needed to validate the findings of this and other studies and to explore the potential role of prayer as an adjunct to standard medical care.

Harris WS, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of the effects of remote, intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients admitted to the coronary care unit. Arch Intern Med October 25, 1999;159:2273-8.

luluosas:
A source from the US Redemption Camp in Dallas, the Headquarters of the RCCG in North America, also confirmed the incident, further disclosing that [size=16pt]the church is actually considering setting up a bank in the US[/size] based on its rising size and increasing influence in the Nigerian and African community here.

^How come y'all missed this.

[quote author=agi-tuedor link=topic=711319.msg8697718#msg8697718 date=1310421743]is the sacrifice of blood necessary for salvation?[/quote]^
Yes

[quote author=agi-tuedor link=topic=711319.msg8697718#msg8697718 date=1310421743]Not just blood, but the blood of the son of God.[/quote]^
Yes. Most assuredly so.

[quote author=agi-tuedor link=topic=711319.msg8697718#msg8697718 date=1310421743]Is God bloodthirsty that he wouldn't mind taking the blood of his son?[/quote]^
Emotive words deliberately chosen by you to achieve your aim of ridiculing the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth?

[quote author=agi-tuedor link=topic=711319.msg8697718#msg8697718 date=1310421743]What kind of a father would send his son to die for others in order for him to forgive theirs sins?[/quote]^
You 've already been told before now: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[quote author=agi-tuedor link=topic=711319.msg8697718#msg8697718 date=1310421743]Murder is a sin, how can one justify the murder of man that it is necessary for forgiveness?[/quote]^
Who is justifying murder? Where in the gospel is murder justified?

[quote author=agi-tuedor link=topic=711319.msg8697718#msg8697718 date=1310421743]These are just naive questions  but it clearly shows a fundamental flaw. God, who abhors sin, cannot use the instrument of sin as tool of purification. The murder of Jesus was a sin.[/quote]Of course the murder of Jesus was a sin. . .which is why: Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. (Luke 23:34 [KJV])

[quote author=agi-tuedor link=topic=711319.msg8697718#msg8697718 date=1310421743]If God is just, wouldn't he let every man pay for his sins, as justice demands? Why must he send his son to be killed?[/quote]^
Let me ask you a question. I hope you will lay aside your prejudices and give it serious thought. I 'd like you to answer this question: How do you balance the requirements of Perfect Justice versus Perfect Love.

The scriptures are clear that God is Holy. You yourself have said God abhors sin. True. God is Love. So how do you balance the requirements of Perfect Justice (which must mete out punishment) & Perfect Love (which seeks to forgive).

Joagbaje:
That is why I'm so amazed at those who claim Christianity here , yet they can be so abusive . They lack the simple revelation of Gods love.

^
Why the tangential reference? Are you afraid to mention my name? I repeat you are a pride-filled foolish false teacher and false pastor for claiming: ""Nowhere in the New Testament are we told to obey God"" contrary to the clear witness of scriptures.
You are one of the ravening wolves that Jesus warned us about. . .and we do not embrace wolves in love, rather like David, true Christians will take a cudgel to their heads to safeguard the flock of Jesus. No quarter is given to the wolf that preys on the sheep.

Love. . .rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth

(2John 1:6 [KJV])
And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

(Eph 5:11 [KJV])
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

Begone hence!

Joagbaje:
New testament began after Jesus death dude. Is that What did they teach u in your church? Oh sorry I forgot you are one of the sheep without a shepherd how sad.

^
What a deluded fool you are! I pity the people that call you "pastor"; you follower of Balaam. So because Jesus uttered those words before his death they are of no effect in your theology? How silly is your reasoning: What is the New Testament? Aren't the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts and Revelation which contain the direct words of Jesus part of the New Testament? So according to your message, these words are meaningless:

(Matt 24:35 [KJV])
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

(Matt 7:24 [KJV])
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:


Again I repeat: you are a fool and doubly so because you call yourself a pastor and yet have the temerity to claim: "Nowhere in the New Testament are we told to obey God"

Tell me: Do these words occur in the OT?
(Acts 5:29 [KJV])
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

^More:
(John 14:15 [KJV])
If ye love me, keep my commandments.

(John 14:21 [KJV])
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

(John 14:23 [KJV])
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

(John 14:24 [KJV])
He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

(John 15:10 [KJV])
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.


This last verse even shows a conditional if ye keep my commandments. . .

Jo is a classic case of. . .For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Tim 4:3-4)

What hogwash by Chris Oyaks. . ."Nowhere in the New Testament are we told to obey God"

Joagbaje:
what are the christian commandments for us to obey?

As always you display your ignorance of Christ's words:

(John 13:34 [KJV])
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

(1John 4:21 [KJV])
And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

I suppose these verses are missing from your version of the bible. The reason you miss these rather simple and obvious words is that you are operating and walking in the flesh and in your hubris confusing that with being spiritual. You better repent.

LoveKing:
P.Joe admit you have made a mistake.

Joagbaje admit he made a mistake? Never! This particular god called Joagbaje cannot admit he is wrong or else he will lose the followership of lesser gods like mabell, newmi &c

This thread needs to be bookmarked as a prime example of the load of rubbish and contradictions that is Christ Embassy's Chris Oyakhilome's gospel. But then what do you expect from a bunch of illegitimate children?

(Heb 12:5-7 [KJV])
And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

(Heb 5:9 [KJV])
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

^

aletheia:
. . .Jo is going to shy away from further posting.

True to form, you have added nothing of value since your first rather spurious and shallow pontification. This is no surprise since there was really little of substance in your initial thesis.

@InesQor: All well and good with regard to your caveats, but the problem is that the bible mentions wine and strong drink and does not discuss unfermented grape juice nor unfermented wine in the passages under consideration. Let me reiterate:

1) The Bible does not forbid taking wine nor strong drink. In fact in Deutoronomy, it positively encouraged it.
2) It is one of the hallmarks of false teachers to forbid the ingestion of foods that God has provided for our benefit and pleasure.
3) Despite all the peregrinations none of the forbidding crew has offered up any explanation on the first Timothy verse. In fact one notices a studious and curious silence on this bible verse.
Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
I guess as a Priest, Timothy was to absolutely abstain from wine (forgetting that the Jesus is a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek which operates under a different set of rules from that of Levi). Funny that Paul didn't know that Timothy wasn't to take wine!
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
Oops! I guess Melchizedek forgot to leave the wine out.
3) Notice how in a bid to justify the twisting of the simple, explicit and clear to understand bible verses, appeals have been made to extra-biblical sources.

So InesQor, you have provided the bolt-hole that some desperately needed.

^
Please clarify what you mean. I don't want to misunderstand you.

^
www.apprising.org

Sweetnecta:
this dude compounds his disbelief by not just remaining in his 3 gods concept. he is vying into hinduism. when you believe in what they believe, which is not part of your original believe, you have believed in their belief.

^
I must say you are quite silly. . .because you deliberately seek to twist my conversation with nuclearboy to mean something else.

nuclearboy:
Right now, this poster is about to learn (on some new thread here) that some truths are great and some are lesser. My pencil and 2B exercise book are ready. And so is my theology

^
I would be surprised if he-who-shall-not-be-named posts any further on that thread about greater versus lesser truth. I am hoping he will so that we can see an illustration of their technique of twisting God's word into fables.