₦airaland Forum

felixomor:
Once such people are exposed, they only try to hide behind derogatory posts. It doesnt work. Its an old trick known with atheists.

Please whose words are those above?

lordnicklaus:
Guy think straight. Satan was talking to Eve and we are her children, right? Then if Eve ate the fruit and we inherited death from her, then how come our soul still lives if Satan was actually lying. Again, how come we only hear of spirits of dead people and not spirits of dead animals.

felixomor:
First although let me highlight some error from your likening.
Eve wasnt born, she was made.
We were born.
Eve's natural state at the garden of eden prior to the temptation when she was approached by Satan, is different from that which we are born with now. That aside.

Secondly,

Rev_20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Rev_21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death[/b].
[b]

The Bible even helps us to understand later in Revelations, that there is a second death.

When God spoke to Eve, he spoke of the final and second death. The permanent one.
When Satan tempted Eve, he meant the first death which is only a temporary transition prior to the second permanent death.
So it was a bait to arouse the inquisitive nature of man.

So you get?

And I didnt mean "spirits of people" when I referred to after or near death experiences (NDEs). I am not an advocate of that. Even the devil can transform himself to an angel of light and appear to anyone.

I mean people who were certified dead, then later came back to life or regained consciousness to their physical bodies.


Worldclass post. that is just the truth. even Christains are decieved. they believe in an immortal Soul. which is a lie. the Bible said the wages of Sin is death. not this one we die here on Earth. but at the Judgement day.

KingEbukaNaija:
Nice write up bro

adoyi8:
I know that the Christian God is not the true God because the true God will answer every question about life and not raise more questions and then ask you to believe by faith.

adoyi8:
I know that the Christian God is not the true God because the true God will answer every question about life and not raise more questions and then ask you to believe by faith.

MuttleyLaff:
[size=3pt]Gombs - LOL ooo ybɒɘɿ ƨi booʇ ubudO ʇo idO[/size]You have every legitimate reason to be surprised because the way speaking in tongues is being done today - church folk, 21st century believers uttering unintelligible words is bable, confused noise made by a number of voices
This is not speaking in tongues (i.e. not speaking in a foreign language) but is mere babbling by unintelligible utterraces

It is the end time deception of the demonic spirit in Rev 16:13-14, symbolised as three unclean spirits that looked like frogs
And how do frogs catch their prey? Yes, using tongues to snare believers with their false speaking in tongues deception

To speak in tongues means audibly saying something out or make sounds with your voice to express your thoughts and feelings in a structured, conventional, intelligible and understandable way

Speak in tongues is language (i.e. tongues of man=human language)
and has the same meaning with mother tongue, native tongue, dialect, vernacular etcetera
For example, you can speak in vernacular, can speak in your local dialect, might speak in a native tongue or speak in your mother tongue

There is a time and a place for everything. Also there is always a reason for everything that happens or why it does not happen
Things do happen for a reason and what took place in Acts Chapter 2 happened importantly because of Acts 2:5
Place Acts 2:5 close together with Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:24, Romans 1:16, especially for a comparison or contrast effect

1 Corinthians 14:22 confirms that, what took place in Acts Chapter 2, was for the benefit of any unbelieving Jews at Acts 2:5
The Jews (i.e. all adult Jewish men) thousands of them from different nations dispersed to or from where they are scattered to, would travel to Jerusalem for this pilgrim festival called Feast of Weeks or Pentecost to celebrate the giving of the Law to Moses at Mount Sinai

What took place in Acts Chapter 2, was for the benefit of the lot in Acts 2:5 and nothing to do for and/or with the lot in John 10:16

ROTBL. You havent heard anything yet, you will fall off the chair if you are shown ''praying in tongues'' typed on Facebook

Yes, absolutely, and it was apart from being a sign, was for the benefit of the unbelieving lost tribe of Israel pilgrim to the festival, who incidentally were always at the top of Jesus' list of priorities.

What has born again got to do with speaking in a different language
If you see the Kingdom of God, then you are born again.
Please carefully revisit John 3:1-15 (i.e. the conversation between Nichodemus and Jesus) to get the low-down on born again

No. Haba Chief, you've turned 1 Corinthians 14:2 on its head ooo

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God:
for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries
- 1 Corinthians 14:2 KJV

Here is an illustration of what 1 Corinthians 14:2 is saying:
If you speak and understand only Ibo, but I, bilingual in Ibo and Hausa, start to speak, preach or pray in Hausa
Then the Hausa tongue or language would be unknown to you, you wouldnt understand what I said, preached or prayed in Hausa
I wouldnt be communicating with/to you, as it all be mysteries to you what I said, preached or prayed in Hausa
Only God will understand what I said, preached or prayed in Hausa, not you, as God understands all languages or tongues

Yep if it was me I'll seriously go brush up my Bible, Acts Chapter 2 and all, to prevent truth decay

I throwe salute ooo but Glossa and Dialectos are interchangeable words because they literally mean the same thing (i.e. means language)

Anyway, one is not even meant to continue speaking in tongues if there are no interpretations or audience that understands what are being said, as the main reason for speaking in tongue or in a foreign language, is a sign, not for believers (i.e. sign not for church people) but for unbelievers (e.g. for atheists, agnostic, pagan etcetera)

What took place in Acts 2, was the Apostles were actually speaking in the individual languages or dialects of the visiting Jews and each of the pilgrim Jews present, without need of interpretation, heard and understood the preaching

It's so infrequent because it's original and primary purpose was for the benefit of the unbelieving lost sheep of Israel at Acts 2:5 and elsewhere before it got passed down to the church

JackBizzle:
Yet, you are here on nairaland arguing with people you call "fools".

www.nairaland.com/attachments/3971807_ilaff_jpeg_jpeg40d810f7440ed021716175b8a3ef9f96

adoyi8:
I know that the Christian God is not the true God because the true God will answer every question about life and not raise more questions and then ask you to believe by faith.

JackBizzle:
You that you are fool of the lowest order, how has not being an atheist improved your life? What have you achieved?

adoyi8:
being querulous? we are all just trying to understand the life that we were given but there are just different answers to life, most of which i find irrational. as an atheist, i will recognize and accept the truth about life when I see it because i search with an open mind. if God exists and he is not the christian God i doubt if you will ever recognize and accept him. you are not ready.

winner01:
31. The honesty of some evolutionists

In biology, one of the most widely recognized laws of science is the Law of Biogenesis. “Biogenesis” is composed of two words “bio,” which means life, and “genesis,” which means beginning. Thus, this law deals with the beginning of life, and it simply says that in nature life comes only from previous life of its own kind. Over the years, the truthfulness of this law has been documented by thousands of scientists, most notably Louis Pasteur. His work dealt a crushing blow to the notion of spontaneous generation.

In 1933, evolutionist John Sullivan admitted that “it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as the actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion”. Okay, but that was 1933. As we move further into the 20th century the obvious question was “Is it still the only possible conclusion?” What have we learned since the days of Louis Pasteur in the 19th century and John Sullivan in the first half of the 20th century? Observational science has reached the same conclusion experiment after experiment, year after year.

The eminent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson and his colleagues observed that “there is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell”.

Evolutionist Martin Moe noted that “a century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life”.

More recently, staunch evolutionist Neil Shubin conceded the following in his book titled Your Inner Fish:
“I can share with you one true law that all of us can agree upon. This law is so profound that most of us take it completely for granted. Yet it is the starting point for almost everything we do in paleontology, developmental biology, and genetics. This biological “law of everything” is that every living thing on the planet had parents. Every person you’ve ever known has biological parents, as does every bird, salamander, or shark you have ever seen.... To put it in a more precise form: every living thing sprang from some parental genetic information”.

The importance of Shubin’s concession must not be missed. He recognizes that the actual scientific information verifies that life in the natural world must come from previously existing life. Yet he refuses to carry that fact to its proper conclusion: that life could not have sprung from non-living chemicals. Materialistic evolution cannot adequately account for or explain the most basic laws of science, not the least of which is the Law of Biogenesis.

If it is the case that the “only possible conclusion” which scientific evidence demands is that in nature “life never arises except from life,” then, pray tell, how did the first life come into being? Did it somehow break the most fundamental natural law of biology and arise “naturally” from non-life? Or is there another possibility? The truth is, there is another possibility (which science has not disproved), but it is one that evolutionists such as John Sullivan admitted that “scientific men find very difficult of acceptance”. According to Sullivan, “So far as the actual evidence goes,” biogenesis “is still the only possible conclusion. But he admits that it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act”. Do not miss the point: real, true, operational science indirectly supports a “supernatural creative act,” which implies a supernatural Creator.

Evolutionist and Harvard University Professor George Wald similarly admitted in an article he wrote titled “The Origin of Life” that there ultimately are two options for life’s origin:
(1) spontaneous generation and
(2) “the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation.

There is no third position”. Sadly, though “[m]ost modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis,” they are “unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation”. Rather than follow the evidence where it ultimately leads (to a supernatural Creator!), atheists would rather put their confidence in a theory that was disproven long ago.

Antony Flew, who for five decades was the world’s leading atheistic thinker, was forced in the end to conclude: “The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such ‘end-directed, self-replicating’ life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind”.


32. Man’s needs are insatiable

The ex-atheist C. S. Lewis, sums up all i wanna say here: "Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A dolphin wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." (Mere Christianity, Bk. III, chap. 10, "Hope"

What exactly do we want?: To be the wealthiest, most handsome, most intelligent, the worlds first citizen, the worlds greatest etc.? The death of Muhammed Ali taught me a serious lesson. Vanity upon Vanity, all is vanity. If nothing in this world can satisfy my desire?. The most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.




These are just some of the reasons why I believe in God. Even if nobody in the world believed in God, I will always believe in God.

---

Some selected references
http://headhearthand.org/blog/2014/10/23/the-most-honest-atheist-in-the-world/
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=5045
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/02/war_for_islamic_sharia_law.html
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/13/christmas-gift-for-atheists-five-reasons-why-god-exists.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians




cc; KingEbukasBlog, Richirich713, thoniameek, anas09, Tufanja, elantraceey, OLAADEGBU, KingEbukaNaija, ceeted, Chidexter, lezz, analice107, bxcode, Topeakintola, UyiIredia, Tellemall, vooks, Ishilove, sukkot, gatiano, mrpresident1, Drefan2, Strawman, dazzle101, lalasticlala, seun, Dejideji1, Farmerforlife, muafrika2, 4evergod2, udysweet

dalaman:
Perfect summary. These apologist will twist and turn words and give them every meaning in the world. Imagine someone that just wants to tell lies saying that the words were inaccurately translated without giving us the accurate Hebrew words. These guys are ridiculous.

oglalasioux:
Are you too confused about your god of 'grace' and favouritism?

Ubenedictus:
blueagent,this is my simple question not d long story above.

ifenes:
Did you Google or just because it is not in the Bible?

sukkot:
what do you call a white male tourist in malaysia ? a pedophile

oglalasioux:
The only thing you can attribute to your biblical god is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah which I believe he owes them apology. As for the universe there is a greater power beyond your biblical god. That power is all encompassing. That power doesn't single out the Israelites or anyone for favouritism or become arbitrary in judgment.

sukkot:
white men cant jump. non athletic lazy race

ifenes:
Sirius the dog star can be seen during Winter or Spring evening. Look it up on Google.

At least we are getting somewhere when you say your god has his home planet up North

oglalasioux:
Are they other gods?

If your biblical god is not weak why would the Israelites be his weapon of genocide? Do I need to point out examples of such genocidal murder? Let's start with Prophet Samuel and King Agag. If you need more I'll give you evidence that your bible taught Boko haram what they are doing.

sukkot:
what do you call white ballers in the NBA ? BALL BOYS

sukkot:
what do you call 5 white men seating on a bench ? THE NBA

fork outta ere mayne

oglalasioux:
I read the article on the link you provided and it's obvious you didn't understand a thing there. Moreover, there's nothing in the article to suggest that the heaven your religion preach exist not to talk of it being in the north of anywhere.

ifenes:
Star system Sirius comes to mind. Christian have no clue at all. Star System Sirius,the home planet of the Anunaki is what the OP has no clue of.

TrajansKong:
No.

I don't believe in the Big Bang. As you noted, it is a theory. A very sound theory consistently supported by extensive new evidence and experimentation, but a theory nonetheless. Another stronger idea could replace ot incorporate it. That's how science works.

I don't need to believe in it. I'm happy to accept we don't know things, which is why your insistence on talking snakes and donkeys and 600 year olds in a boat with 15 million life forms baffles and depresses me.

oglalasioux:
Sorry, bro, I know God and I'm very sure He's not your biblical god limited to arbitrariness and personal whims.

sukkot:
what you doing around here anyway ? nigga this aint whiteville or crackerville, we aint discussing hockey or mayo sandwiches around here, this here is nairaland

kumulus:
So many things are hard to understand for certain reasons. Society has used some of its tools to alter the mind of so many that only very few are left that can comprehend. Even the bible made it known to us that "Bring up a child in the way he should go, when he grows he will never depart from it"...... I'm really grateful to the Almighty for being who I am. Early in life I was able to discern things and didn't have to be taught what to know or do.

....not to bore anyone, just know these;
* There's a God
* He's a Living God
* We are His image
* He was, is and will be till the end of days
* He is SO close to us
* He works ways that are not physically visible to us
* He's the ɒmni

As for where He is (Heaven)..... Only those with understanding will see the answer in those lines above.

- Lloyd

kumulus:
Okay...the bible whether it has seemingly contradictory stories or not is one of the greatest piece of art known to mankind.

For there's NOTHING I have, EXCEPT that which is given me.

"Seek ye first the kingdom of God and every other things shall be added to thee"

The bible explains the mystery of life so openly but requires that you have the GREATER connect so you could see them.


Again I say, my thoughts are not your thoughts.

Peace! be still on my issue.

-Lloyd