₦airaland Forum

There is no place set aside for giving to God.

Anyway in which you help others is giving to God.

i didn't know the only place I was allowed to look was into their eyes. The ONE recipient usually has eyes closed,

however, i look at the entire face and more depending on what I can see.

I find it natural too. I don't think open eyes, I just do.

The only reason you couldn't look into someones eyes when you are extremely close to them is if they have shut their eyes. I have my eyes examined about once every two years, so, its definitely not a response from someone being close to you. Its an ingrained behavior which I have managed to escape.

welborn:
Attempting to somehow intimidate you? I couldn't hold my laughter! You're beginning to sound childish indeed. I challenged you to make some sense in your responses and all you get out of it was intimidation? Phew!
There just isn't any need to ask you to go back and re-read my rejoinder.

Funny, I suppose the consistent attempt to pretend this is a christian forum and thus my ideas have no place here is not some way to get me to stop posting. Seriously, nobody is that stupid to believe that is not one of your motives.

welborn:
By your own admittance, you're apathetic - or, to be more specific, you STRIVE to be apathetic. Did I not say so before? Even then, God in the Christian faith in NOT apathetic. And that's why you have grossly misrepresented Him. If you're apathetic as you admit, there is a God who loves me - and you're NOT Him!

I never said I was God. And, I say you are wrong, the God in the Christian faith IS apathetic. All life on this planet points to that.

welborn:
So, you're neither here nor there? Inconsistency has been your trademark and so far it hasn't helped anyone to better understand you. You can't be both for and against something. . . not even the worst of politicians I know are typical of such inconsistency.

Actually, you can. I can be against racism and provoke discussion on the topic by assuming a pro-racist stance. I'm not a politician. I'm not trying to get you to vote for me. If I was, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

welborn:
Hmmm. . . I now sense and understand your fear that pushed you into feeling intimidated when in fact no one was attempting to frighten you. In response to your questioning why God would have rules for allowing anyone into heaven, others have given you sound replies.

I never questioned why God would have rules for allowing anyone into heaven. NOBODY has given any sound replies even to that imaginary question. Stop propagating lies.

welborn:
Responding to my posts is great and by all means do so as long as you make sense rather than sounding off against anyone's faith. And you really don't like some posts? - what gets you so upset about them that you'd have to admit that you don't like them?

What makes me an authority? Don't make me laugh some more. You surely don't expect me as a Christian to be ignorant of my faith - and careful study of the Bible provides answers to some of the questions I encounter daily in my commitment to Christ. Interpretations may differ even among Christians, but no Bible-taught Christian would concede to your view that God is apathetic as you try to make Him out to be.

On the contrary, it seems most of the Christians here are ignorant of their faith. Why should I expect you to be any different. You sure have not shown me you're any more educated than most others here. I like your generalizations about Christians, you are one of those who when they hear Jehovah's Witnessess say that on 140K people are going to heaven, your response is, they must not be christians.

What makes you think I'm upset about posts?

welborn:
If you're propagating your own faith/religion (what shall we call it now. . ) and your own 'God' is apathetic, fantastic for you! If you believe your version of 'God' is apathetic and I argue that he/she/it is not, then I have misrepresented your belief. In the same way, if I know that God in my Christian faith is loving and you try to surmise that He is apathetic, you have misrepresented my faith. There's a simple way round this: as long as we don't misrepresent anyone's faith (even when we disagree with their tenets), there'll be less confusion in discussions. Try that out and see the change for the better.

If you don't want to preach your own apathetic 'God' or religion where you STRIVE to be apathetic, you don't have to feel anyone is thereby intimidating you. What a laugh! By all means feel free to make up your own religion of apathy. But good to note that your 'apathy religion' is not the same as Christianity - they are worlds apart.

I didn't say I felt intimidation, I just said I noticed it. Come on, if you are walking down the street, and a little child walks up to you and says he has a gun, and you should walk away, whether or not you feel any fear, the idiot is trying to intimidate you. I'm not saying you are an idiot or a kid (at this point), I'm saying you were attempting to influence me into not posting here. I'm glad you've at least stopped that foolish track.

There is a section called Christianity for Christians in the religion section of this forum.

That means there is EXPLICITLY a section where so called christians can go and attempt to hide.

So, there is NO IMPLICIT understanding that you need to be christian to post in this section. That is total crap. This is the religion section, and that means ANY and EVERY form of belief, including unbelief.

If I was saying these things in the Christianity for Christians threads, then you would have a valid point.

I'm going to quote your post just so you cannot claim not to have made such a non thought out statement:

t4cash:
My people say that you use your eyes to share the meat in the soup when eating communually.

It must not be written explicitly for you to realise that your views ought to rhyme with Christianity to participate usefully on this thread (not simply arguing). The majority of people in this forum, and especially this section are staunch Christians. I do not know why. I initially did not realise it but in time, I did and I post with this in mind.

You have confirmed that you are looking for arguments not discussions. Argue on. May I recommend you also find on google more fanitical forums in the web for more delicious arguments.

Against who?

Since when is the only "faith" christianity?

If you want to insulate yourself (to some degree), post in Christianity for Christians.

If you haven't noticed, I only question things in that section based solely on what is explicitly said in the bible, yet is contradicted by current christian doctrine.

There is another reason why your post is crap, this is NOT even a "Christian" section of the forum. It is religion, and to my knowledge, that includes all forms of belief. . . including nonbelief.

t4cash:
ALLONYM,

To participate in this thread , you must first believe that there is God. From your posts here and elsewhere, I doubt this.

Even when you do believe that there is God, your concept of God must rhyme with that of most Christians (most posters in this forum appear to be Christian).

Otherwise, you are just looking for an argument. And why would you join threads to look for arguments with people?

Assuming that you do believe in God, and that your belief is in line with the Christian belief, let me try to answer to your argument.

Our (Christian) God is a God of choices. God does not create evil but he did create evil choices. This is the essence of the story of Adam being placed in the garden of Eden with the Tree of Good and Evil. In creation, we could have enjoyed bliss (like other animals) if we had not known the difference between Good and Bad. The tree of Good and Evil symbolizes Choice and conciousness. When man ate it, (in other words when man chose to be a conscious animal) evil entered the world. Man is the only living thin that is conscious and thus the only one that can sin. A lion that kills another animal is not sinning because it does so without choice. Only the conscious can sin. Scientists do not really understand why humans are the only conscious living beings. And it is not the size of our brain that it derives from. Its source is still a mystery.

Did God cause Adam to eat the apple? After all if He had not put the tree there he would not have eaten it. Similarly you may wonder if God did not place a man's prostate in his anus, would male homosexuality exist.

Its all about choices.

To rectify this situation, God sent Jesus as the model of what God wants man to be. True Christianity is to follow Jesus and example and life-views especially comprehending his choice to die for others, if you do so you really do not need any new commandments to find answers to life's choices. The holy Spirit guides you.

If you want you can choose to keep arguing.

I'm not going to respond to this. Clearly, you are confused about many things.

- You are saying that in order to post in this thread, I must
1) Believe in God
2) Agree with a Christian viewpoint of God

- this is utter bullcrap. Seriously, you are going extremely far on this. These are not requirements to post in this part of the forum. This is not present in the forum rules.

Besides, even if I met your "criteria", that still does not stop me from being able to express the views I'd done. . . so what would be the point? Unless there is an explicit rule that people who have remotely contradictory ideas are not allowed to post the the specific religion sections, then I will continue to express whatever views i feel like.

Unless I advocate something which will lead to bodily harm to someone else, or participation in an illegal activity, there is nothing wrong with bringing up issues people are otherwise uncomfortable or afraid to talk about.

[quote author=prince_onx link=topic=9061.msg254602#msg254602 date=1143326309]Like 39.99 or what?[/quote]probably not an example of the maturity she's looking for.

alexis:
allonym,

However you look at it - MS Windows running on PC hardware or any super computer specially designed for it is not better than Linux or Unix in the primary areas of security, stability, reliability and interoperability.

I am not dissing Microsh*t, in fact I use windows if the business case is right and it is only right on my intranet that I use it. I use aspx to write our database management system and try out some of their new technologies coming out.

But ask Seun what powers this website and you will find out that Windows wasn't his list choice. I will tell you this much - Opensource is the future,microsh*t is gradually loosing it's grip on the home and SMEs market bit by bit.

I agree with you. Windows is going to lose. But, at the moment, it is number one.

welborn:
Uhm, which God?

The one that sees the heart of a person who gives money to a pastor that is clearly stealing from the church. In fact, I think that I'd be in a better position. Surely it is a sin to give money to a drug addict who clearly is using it to buy drugs.

pearldrops:
why would God wish for us to be gay? it is not God's plan for us to be gay it is not even his plan for us to perish because being gay is violating the rules and the ten commandments of God
in the times/days of sodom God him self was displease by the indecent act so l think sodomy among us is not the will of God for us if he so displeases it.
besides God making him gay is not just a wrong satement it is the worst to say his being gay has to do with his imaginaiton,his thinking and his fantersis while he was still a kid and probably with the people around him so please, stop saying God mad u gay only l wish God him self would send a reply to this thread and speak for himself.

You really believe that?

Tell me, how many people did God instruct the Israelites to kill in the bible, AFTER giving the ten commandments? Tell me, how is being gay violating the ten commandments anyway? I never remember learning a Thou Shall Not Be Gay rule? Is this some "missing" commandment that has been hidden from the mainstream christian bible? If God created all people in his image, then wouldn't a gay person be an image of God?

i agree, babies don't go to hell. I realized this when I decided to look up what exactly the bible says about it.

welborn:
There's a problem with your presumptions. You don't seem to understand that some of God's actions are not on the same level as those of a person on the human level. If you try to presume things this way, you'll be taking the wrong course of reductionism - in this context, reducing God to human level. Even so, no human being (including you) could ever "truely love and hate someone at the same time" (your exact words). If that's the case, you're also apathetic since you could do neither at the same time; because that's clearly the conclusion you drew from your logic:

Hahaha. Actually, most of the time i'm involved in an argument, I strive to be apathetic. I don't care. To be honest, I could argue either side. I'm starting to see that many people here are more focused on attempting to somehow intimidate or influence me into being silent, rather than trying to respond to my statements.

In further response, I don't see how anyone can tell me anything about God in one breath, and then tell me that as a human, I cannot understand his nature. Strange to me how other humans on this thread seem to possess an ability to read God's mind.

welborn:
First, you were not responding to my post - go check it out (you might be mistaking me for someone else). Second, if you were not complaining, you shouldn't have had that quote in your response. Seeing that you indeed stated it so, I'll reiterate that it is perfectly fitting that God should have rules for letting people into heaven.

Ok, so, its ok that God should have rules for letting people into heaven. So what? I don't care. I was responding to whoever said that God loves us. If it wasn't you, great for you. . .

welborn:
You gravely misread me, allonym. . .and that's trash talk because I did not suggest that you could not respond to any post here or elsewhere. There's a difference between discussing a topic and picking on others' posts. For example, we may view God differently, but that is not the same thing as misrepresenting someone's faith. So far, you've only been sounding off against the Christian view of God, but have not given me any alternative ideas of your own 'God/goddess' by which I could investigate and challenge your own views. If to you, God is apathetic in the Christian faith, we respond by refuting that presumption and misrepresentation; but then, what view of 'God' do YOU hold? Just saying that God in Christianity is apathetic does not tell me anything about YOUR OWN 'God'.

That is why I threw you a challenge to invite others to a thread and preach your own version of 'God' (or whatever you believe in) so that others could respond appropriately. If you open another thread and still attack the Christian view of God, you'd again be failing to see the difference between a discussion and petty arguments. My view of 'God' does not satisfy you is different from you preaching your own 'God'. If your 'God' neither loves nor hates and is apathetic, all the better for you - but that is not the Christian God.

Just one more thing. You really should not be self-congratulatory about equpping anyone to handle 'stuff' - because you have neither helped me nor anyone here nor even yourself. It is obvious from the responses following your posts that, rather than jubilate, everyone has been complaining about your illogical logic and apathetic conclusions.

Ok, that is nice, except, what if I don't feel like preaching and I feel like responding to posts I don't like? That is not against the forum rules. I know at least one other person who does this: you. How have I misrepresented anyone's faith? What makes you the authority on christianity? How do you know you have the correct interpretation? Funny how so many people exactly know what christianity or what God thinks.

I'm sure if I give to the homeless, rather than to the church, God also sees my heart.

welborn:
But allonym, you really haven't answered her questions. No hard feelings, but something is getting twisted here. I'm really interested in where it is you find that God "truely love and hate someone at the same time"? And if you can't find it stated anywhere, why assume that therefore God must be apathetic?

Reread my post, I never said that God truely loves and hates someone at the same time. I said that it is impossible to do so. Since some of God's actions are those a person who truely loves someone would do, and other actions are those a person who truely hates someone would take, then God must actually neither truely love or hate people.

welborn:
Second, why are you complaining that God "lets people into heaven or hell based on whether they followed certain rules" What is so wrong with God doing that? You speak of Seun's punishing people - "When someone breaks them, he attempts to punish these people" - why does that look right to you but wrong if God punishes people for doing wrong or contravening His rules/laws?

I was not complaining. I was responding to your post where you made the statement about God loving us. That was an example of how what may seem to be love can be shown to be apathy.

welborn:
And if you don't follow someone's mould, why all the 'garboil' you keep trumping up? If others are stating who God is to them, why has it been so hard for you to state your own 'mould' of 'God'? Why not invite others to your own thread to see something about your own version of apathetic 'God' instead of picking at other people's writeups?

If you want to say things where people CANNOT respond to you, then post in a journal. If you post things anywhere else, you are opening it up to discussion. In a discussion, it may sometimes happen, that someone's views will be contrary to yours. In any case, I'm just stating something, and looking for your response.

Also, this thread isn't asking for our thoughts on what God is. Additionally, even if it was, I can still talk about what someone else had said, in lieu of giving an orignal response to the topic. I thought that's what discussions were for.

Ultimately, I'm challenging something you say or believe, and looking at your justification. I'm also trying to see if there is someone who has a truely unique argument from the Christian point of view. Think about it, after having these conversations with me, aren't you better equipped to handle the next person who comes at you with the same stuff? Also, isn't it good to be able to see how other people can view the exact same situation? Whether or not you agree with it, I think its good to be able to understand both sides of an argument ( i suppose this only is valid to a certain degree.)

. . . if you say so

Afam:
You will get a Mastercard debit card from Ecobank or UBA. I don't know why they keep your collateral, fund your account with your funds and still call the card credit card.

Is the card a debit card or a credit card? There is a difference.

You are assuming I am bitter or have something against God.

That doesn't make any sense, especially when taken in the light of my posts.

So far, I have indicated that God does not care about humans. If God does not care, the getting mad at God does me no good. So why would I waste time on such fruitless an endeavor?

You are over psychoanalyzing things here.

I'm not complaining about the rules, I'm even disputing that there is any "God" making "rules" in the first place.

On the other hand, Seun actually cares about this forum and adherance to the rules.

When someone breaks them, he attempts to punish these people. If he gets many complaints about an issue, the issue is resolved.

Lets see God try to do that. . . world hunger. . .aids . . . . peace on earth?

Stop trying to treat God both as a human and as God. When it is convinient, he's the almighty, cannot be questioned, etc etc. When it is convenient, he is like a child playing with ants, burning us with a magnifying glass one minute, giving us crumbs the next.

Just because I don't follow your mold, doesn't mean I harbor any bitterness.

Just because I voice my differences doesn't mean I don't like you or are bitter either.

I can't understand why emotions cannot be disassociated from argument or discussion.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=8722.msg253541#msg253541 date=1143238082]All the same, thank you for your generousity in adding the bold in gidig's reply - just for me. . .oooh, just for me!
I'm so touched with your kindness, even though I read and understood her well the first time.[/quote]Really, you understood the FIRST time you read it?

Funny, according to this, it seems like you DIDN'T understand:

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=8722.msg253541#msg253541 date=1143238082]So he did - in what context? Just because you see the words 'Bible' and 'Christian' does not mean those speaking about the topic of the thread are equating the Bible Code to the Bible itself, because if that were the case, you'd be saying that Moby Dick and Vanilla Ice are in the same category - which clearly is not. If the handler of the thread made reference to Christianity and you read the original post well, you'll see he was NOT equating the bible code with the Bible/Christianity as you're trying to make out.[/quote]Whether you like my opinions or not, they were perfectly ON TOPIC.

I would like to know why anyone should avoid sacrilege, but that would be straying from the topic.

Explain to me though, how a discussion about the definition of God is not a part of this topic. . .

Wait, nm, that too would be offtopic.

That doesn't make me ignorant. It just means I don't agree with you.

Ignorant - Africans run about naked and live in trees.

Not Ignorant - Tribe A traditionally based in the Niger region typically build their domiciles in trees.

I didn't mean to have such a disparity between the verbiage used by the ignorant and not ignorant examples.

Ahh, you could not, here is another link to it:

http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/004323.html

Try again my brother.