₦airaland Forum

I do not need to reread what I wrote felix. I read it before posting it! I also read yours. You, however seem to have misunderstood mine.

There is verifiable evidence for one to know whether the holocaust happened or not. One does not have to believe it happened or not, but ignoring the evidence is just plain stupid.

To a "believer", the evidence for the existence of God is as compelling as the evidence for the holocaust. But I am afraid that both evidences are not of the same quality, as one requires belief for accepting former while belief is not required for the latter. One can know whether the holocaust happened or not, but ask yourself why believers don't seem to know whether gods exist or not!

Do note, I do not believe the holocaust happened because I know the holocaust happened. There is enough evidence showing it did, and equating the evidence for the existence of gods with the evidence for the holocaust is lame at best, or a misunderstanding of what constitutes as evidence.

felixomor:
Read the bolded you just wrote
Read the op and read my initial post again till u assimilate it.
And in case u dont know
You sound like the minority of people who still deny that the Holocaust never happened.
To them, the evidence all around is not enough.

So also,
remaining in the minority of humans who dont believe In a creator is a choice. Your choice.

UserX18:
If you don’t believe in any God, why are you now asking “Which God” please is that reasonable, oh i don’t believe the earth is round.. I dont believe there are other planets, then I’ll ask you questions about “which planet”? Is that reasonable please?
Is it wise and reasonable to debate something that you absolutely do not believe exists.? Please Be REASONABLE HERE!

It's your "Please Be REASONABLE HERE!" That makes me jump in. I assume that if you can ask others to be reasonable then you are capable of reasonableness so please consider the following.

If say you do not believe in the existence of other planets and I told you there were 196, I expect you to ask me where they are and what are they called, despite your not believing in their existence. I also expect you to go do some further research too. My reason for thinking so is that I do not believe you are stupid enough to think that what you believe is the whole truth. And besides, you'd wish to correct my error, or won't you?

So yes, I would expect you to ask me about the 196 planets I claim exist. And if I insist, I expect to be challenged about my claim. If you don't challenge me, I might go and place my 196 planet claim on the school curriculum and teach my stupidity to your children. Trust me, you'd see the detriment of your not challenging me when your child starts repeating my 196 planet claim amongst intelligent people who know better. They may not correct your child, but they sure would form an opinion of said child based on an unverifiable 196 planet claim.

UserX18:
The Muslims have their own faith, they are serving something of course, I will not want to argue about their faith, because I do not believe in the Q’uran. Anyone who will want to argue or debate about their faith, and that person does not believe in the Q’uran, it will be folly.

I think the issue here is your need to "argue" . Can I ask you to do me a temporary favour and consider that I am not arguing with you here, but "discussing" ? You are more likely to benefit me more by doing the latter rather than the former, and I thank you in advance. I'd also have wished to ask you to consider what you mean by "believe" , but I assume that's too much to ask. Consider the following however.

Imagine that when you asked me for evidence of my 196 planet claim, I answered with "I believe there are 196 planets", perhaps because I read about them in some book, would you not look at me funny? Now imagine you asked me to name them and I started with Earth, Mars, Ganymede, Jupiter, Callisto, Io, Amalthea, Elara, Saturn, Metise, Sinope, Europa etc, and name 196 bodies that I claim are heavenly. Wouldn't you see where my error lay if you knew where I got those 'planets' from?

One "discusses" with others in order to 'learn about', is my point here. "Believing" however, is the closing off of one's senses to contradictory evidence without considering whether any validity lay in the claim made. It is my opinion that if I were to behave in that way - not consider the opinion of others - then I must indeed be, or end up becoming, a stupid person.

felixomor:
Even if God strikes you dumb.
Other atheists will still call it coincidence.
So whats the use?

It is proof for atheist buda, and not proof for all atheists! God will have to prove itself individually to every atheist, I'm afraid. But it's the Almighty God, so hardly a problem.

felixomor:
An atheist professor died and came back to life and now believes in God.
The moment he came back, his fellow atheist professors denounced him and Called him "mad".

I too would call him mad! And I expect to be called mad if after my experience above, I go about telling atheists who did not witness it in its verifiable entirety that there is God o.

felixomor:
So thats how your story will be if God strikes you dumb,
Its evidence to u.
But Your fellow atheists will still call u stupid.

And so they must if they did not witness it. Even I would call me stupid having witnessed it; stupid for trying to convince people who didn't that it happened as I stated.

But that's the price of having information that is unverifiable by others. If people believed any odd stuff I say without me providing evidence for it, then they themselves are the stupid ones for believing me.

delishpot:
point out a bible passage where homosexuality is accepted, get behind me. I will not engage in this topic again unless you do as I have requested then we can analyze whatever proof or fact you have presented from the bible and discuss more.

I'd like to see that evidence too muttley. In all my reading about Christ, I can't recall him engaging with homosexuals. They don't seem to have turned up in the New Testament until Paul started ranting about them.

felixomor:
For example,
Even if God appears in person to an atheist,
He can say to himself out of pride; "its a hallucination"
And that's it.

I beg to differ! It's a God, for Christ sake. After I allow my so called pride to make me stubbornly unreceptive to evidence I demanded and that is provided, the God can just strike me dumb and tell me to return after I lose my pride. Of course I'd most likely run to a doctor and ask for a cure, but after being seen by numerous doctors and not getting my voice back, I'm sure I'd eventually go, "ok God, if you are really real, give me my voice back" , and if on saying so I immediately become able to speak, then fear, if nothing else, would surely make me proclaim that there is a God.

But if perchance my pride is super pride and still stops me proclaiming the existence of the God who gave me evidence which I refused to accept, then took my voice and gave it back, then that God can just take my voice away again. By then, I would most certainly go about writing, "There is a God o" since I wouldn't be able to speak. I assure you, at that point, no one would be begging God in my mind and writing more than I would.

But just in case I have a super super dose of this pride you speak of, the God can always add some death at the next 12 noon to it. Let's see if my pride would help me last till 11:59 before I capitulate and say "ok God, you indeed exist".

Of course, any sensible person would wonder what the heck I was talking to in the first place if not God. So evidence, for me, after checking that I am of sound mind, would be the fact that there is something that I am asking to provide evidence for it's existence, in the very first place.

The fact that there is an entity to ask to provide evidence that that entity exists is evidence that that entity exists, provided I am of sound mind of course.

Who are we?
Who are we?

philfearon:
Will you give the same answer if Satan requests same?

How would he know it wasn't satan in the first place? Would it come with horns and breathing fire?

hopefulLandlord:
We Christians have to obey just like Moses, Joshua, David etc did when all loving Yahweh told them to kill entire races and villages

You 'Christian' suck!

I wouldn't. I'd tell God about a book I once read where it's written that I should not commit murder. "Besides, Almighty God, your hand broke? Kill my child yourself"!

Except that I'd be questioning if it was God I was hearing and immediately book myself into a mental home!

tintingz:
OP have you heard of gender dysphoria?

Most transgenders are having this condition, I don't really fault those that decide to change gender.

- Causes: Biological (as suggested).

- Treatment: psychotherapy, hormone therapy, surgery etc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria

I'd heard of it but thanks for the education.

So, I'm in Nigeria. Ma and pa are struggling to pay school fees for my siblings and I. Then one day I tell ma that I was born with a dog, but I should have had a kitten.

Ma looks at me. Says gently, "that's easily rectified. Show me your dog" .

I pull down my trousers and she grabs a knife off the kitchen table.

That's the point I run out the kitchen. "Come back son", ma calls. "I'd be much gentler than your pa". And I knew she would!

Personally, I think it's a condition called "too much money, not enough sense". By the time pa's done with me, I'd wish I was dead!

9inches:
I forgot to include the link to the article. I wanted to post the segment highlighted in red "The arsenokoitai and malakoi in 1 Corinthians", but then I decided to include the whole article because folks like me don't like clicking on links.

I would like to see the holes you can find in the article. You don't have to read the whole article though.

I first thought Muttley posted it, but he doesn't write so clearly so I searched and found its source. Next time do include links please. People get vilified on here for plagiarism.

Personally, while I don't think the Bible mentions the act of homosexuality, certain verses have been pointed out that it might. If it implicitly was against the act, that would have been its death as people become more tolerant and unacceptable of such bigotry and narrowness.

First, I challenge you, for I see no word of gods before me. We can make it the Word of God though, by breathing holiness into it. But it is mere words until that is done. So, let me go first.

I have heard it said that "Jesus is love" . It's a silly phrase if you asked me, but the sentiment is rather obvious, "if it is not love, it is not Christ". So I assume that a follower of Christ should exude love. Now, why would a person who exudes love be hated? Should the first question not be "Have I done something to make people hate me?"

Here's how Luke put it:

Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.

“Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Yes, it sounds like the more hated one is, the greater is one's reward. But I am most certain that isn't what is meant, though that view is common amongst some.

The verses quoted were not asking the disciples to be hated, but that they should endure, and not to be afraid of the task at hand. And there is nothing in the entire book that claims if people get on with one another, they will kill God - least not as far as I can recall.

live4dgospel:
Don't challenge me further rather challenge the word of God:

“If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you".(John 15:18-19)

"And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved."(Matthew 10:22)

Who is contradicting the Scriptures between you and I?

As I said, a good thing. It does reduce the animosity and hatred between the different religions.

live4dgospel:
This is an excerpt from Wikipedia on Nostra Aetate


Nostra aetate

Introduction
Hindus, Buddhists, and other religions
Muslims
Jews
Conclusion
Interfaith Dialogue
The Declaration begins by describing the unity of the origin of all people, and the fact that they all return to God; hence their final goal is also one. It describes the eternal questions which have dogged men since the beginning, and how the various religious traditions have tried to answer them.

It mentions some of the answers that some Hindus, Buddhists, and members of other faiths have suggested for such philosophical questions. It notes the willingness of the Catholic Church to accept some truths present in other religions in so much as they reflect Catholic teaching and may lead souls to Christ.

Part three goes on to say that the Catholic Church regards the Muslims with esteem, and then continues by describing some of the things Islam has in common with Christianity and Catholicism: worship of One God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, Merciful and Omnipotent, Who has spoken to men; the Muslims' respect for Abraham and Mary, and the great respect they have for Jesus, whom they consider to be a Prophet and not God. The synod urged all Catholics and Muslims to forget the hostilities and differences of the past and to work together for mutual understanding and benefit.

Part four speaks of the bond that ties the people of the 'New Covenant' (Christians) to Abraham's stock (Jews). It states that even though some Jewish authorities and those who followed them called for Jesus' death, the blame for this cannot be laid at the door of all those Jews present at that time, nor can the Jews in our time be held as guilty, thus repudiating an indiscriminate charge of Jewish deicide; 'the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God'. The Declaration also decries all displays of antisemitism made at any time by anyone.

The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4–5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. The Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ. Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

The fifth part states that all men are created in God's image, and that it is contrary to the mind of Christ to discriminate against, show hatred towards or harass any person or people on the basis of colour, race, religion, and condition of life.

MuttleyLaff:
Bud, how isnt subjugation of women not what first came to your mind?
How come subjugation of women isnt the first to start with?
You picked up slavery, next was homosexuality, but the subjugation of women isnt on your radar.

Do the examples I chose not fit the topic at hand? Surely you are aware I left out quite a lot more than the subjugation of women. Incidentally, BBC4 was running a program on the Suffragettes while I was writing what I did. I just chose not to include it.

MuttleyLaff:
Homosexual and/or homosexuality, actually is a word barely 200 years old.

The word "homosexual" was invented in 1868, and the word "homosexuality" certainly was not around in Biblical times

Well, we are not talking about the word, but the act itself which is as old as humans, probably. As you said, "People have been sleeping together with others, having same gender or sex, as them, long before the Greek ever did" .

MuttleyLaff:
Jesus was even willing to visit someone in a same sex relationship but persuaded it wasnt necessary
God is just too Good

I have no recollection of this myself. But if true, its commendable that you mention it. Source please.

MuttleyLaff:
Justin Fashanu didnt get a beating but definitely was let them down completely by his closest and family he confided in
Isnt it funny that John, that gave Justin £100,000 to buy Justin's silence about Justin's same sex attraction
now accepts homosexuality as "a normal thing"

Justin was a victim of his time as homosexuality was, and is still discriminated against in football. John was bothered at the stigma of having a gay brother so would have rather he didn't mention it.

Incidentally, Fani-Kayode also had a brother, Oluwarotimi Adebiyi Wahab Fani-Kayode who was gay. He too died in his prime at 34 but of a heart attack while recovering from an AIDS-related illness. Most people don't even know Kayode had this brother. Shows how such things are hidden under the carpet.

MuttleyLaff:
I think, it was David in Psalm 51:10, that said:
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me
(i.e. create pure thoughts in me, and renew a right attitude within me)

The faculties of the Spirit comprises of:
Fellowship, Conscience,, Discernment or Intuition

The Psalm 51:10 David prayer, kicks in, when these formidable three amigos are in full gear and force
So it will be as if one's behaviour is taking a Director's cue and reading from a script
That's where "written into the DNA" comes from Bud.

Only God knows, aside me, who the other two are, that also, liked generally, what you posted

cc 9inches

You baited me with the dna thing, and I felt a need to respond. Didn't you say you didn't support that view when it was discussed, yet here you go again! Thing is, in a non-technical discussion, I can live with it, except, there are dangers inherent in the idea that "morality is pre-wired into his dna before he was born", especially where the person who made that comment is concerned.

Whatever the faculties of the spirit may be, I am certain you would not agree that the spirit itself is in ones dna, least not if by spirit we mean the holy spirit. Most tend to acquire it through extensive bible reading and church going, both of which constitute learning. But let's stick with homosexuality.

Personally, I understand Nigeria's stance on it. It was after all the same stance UK had about 100 years ago. Yet, today we've completely abandoned the idea that homosexuality is immoral. Now, if morality was in their dna a hundred years ago (and they did claim God said homosexuality was immoral) then would we today say "God changed his mind", and homosexuality is now moral?

The facts are that we start learning what is right and wrong from a very early age. If morals are dna based, like eye and skin colour, no one would feel the need to teach their kids morals they hope they wouldn't depart from. And the danger of thinking morals are prewired into ones dna excludes the need to learn and improve one's morals. But we see that sort everyday. They think they are upright but in reality they are the most bent and crooked.

Nigerians will learn not to discriminate against homosexuals in due time. It took quite a lot for it to happen in UK but it did eventually and will in Nigeria. Peoples' love of their gay children just eventually trumped the hatred they had for faceless gays.

live4dgospel:
And I will remind you once more, when mankind unite they will certainly stand against God. In the future, the world will unite only to martyr the saints of God.

You will remind us that when we all get on we will stand against God and martyr the saints? Guess that's that then. And it explains a lot about some people on here. Let's just all be enemies and tear each other apart so we don't kill God!

I do wonder what ungodly gospel you've been reading! Have you got chapter and verse for this hatred you're promoting? In the version I got is something about a new Jerusalem where the lion and the lamb are friends, and don't even eat each other, not to talk of eating God.

live4dgospel:
For instance after the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) Catholic Church declared "Salvation can be found outside the church".

I don't think you quite understand what was said up there, and its rather comical, and unfortunate.

The notion prior to the Second Vatican Council was that the Catholic Church was "the Church", and any other church (Protestants, Greek Orthodox, etc) were not "Church", and those who went their seeking salvation would end up in hell.

Pope John XXIII said that it was time to "open the windows [of the Church] and let in some fresh air." He in effect admitted that salvation was not only through the Catholic Church and that Pentecostals and other Church goers may go to heaven too. It was also decided that mass may be said in the vernacular, thereby removing the veil of ignorance and superiority of the priests. And that, was amongst many other beneficial reforms that came out of that Council.

I think it is a pity that you would twist what was actually a good thing in order to promote your narrow view!

HappyPagan:
The Bible wasn't written to be understood - faith is all it requires.

Do you know the idea that the Bible wasn't written to be understood is a lie told by the religious leaders so they can exploit the masses?

The stories about Jesus for starts, were about demystifying god, and earlier in the book is a story of two slaves being freed from slavery and bondage by a snake, can you believe it. Then you have Protestantism, another freedom act, achieved by translating the Bible from Greek and Latin to vernacular. All of a sudden, Moses don't need go up the mountain alone because we are no more afraid to look on the face of God ourselves.

Verily verily, I so wish to say, the day cometh when ye will know who the gods are!

mindeed:
After observing my fellow kindred for the last few years, I have come to the conclusion that religious Nigerians are the most morally bankrupt set of beings roaming the face of this earth. They lack any form of conscience WHAT SO EVER. And I mean it. They are devoid of any iota of humanity, compassion or empathy. Simply put, they are the devil in detail, nothing more and nothing less.

I get you op. "ANRFs are so hypocritically evil that they are atheists". I do however suggest that you erroneously assume, like quite a few ANRFs assume, that being an atheist is licence to do those nasty things you listed the ANRFs do, and that atheism and evil are synonyms. You aren't quite definite on that fact however, and to be honest, I feel you lament more the action of the ANRFs moreso than the atheists. You're saying, "the salt of the earth has lost it's saltiness". But note that that does not make them atheists, it just makes them evil.

Do correct me if I've summed this up wrong.

ScienceWatch:
They are begging Christians to turn the other cheek while they insult and mock. Very stupid.

"Begging Christians to turn the other cheek"! How absurd and absolutely ridiculous indeed. I mean, who came up with that stupid, "turn the other cheek"! It sure must have come from the Quran or somewhere else. What do they take you for? Some sort of weakling? The gentle and the meek perhaps? The salt of the earth maybe?

“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."

Those bloody atheist teaching their satanic doctrine of love your enemy and turn the other cheek! Let's go burn them and their book, sc, for thou art Christian indeed.

delishpot:
No gays should be allowed in the church unless they are new converts seeking deliverance.

So, how does this work? Do you get people to fill out a questionnaire, "are you gay?" Or do you only allow people with non-same gender partners into your church? Or perhaps just have a testing room in the church to check gayness? You could place women in it to test the men, and men in it to test the women.

The good thing is that most churches are learning they are not God, and that Jesus is a god of sinners. You don't need him if you already have salvation!

Ubenedictus:
this below may be Budaatum's opinion, but for the Christian Church morality is not determined by society but by God, so even if society says murder is OK, it will still be immoral... atleast that is my perspective as a Catholic Christian...

I wish it was my opinion, that humans decide the morals (right and wrong) of their own society. But let''s consider the evidence, shall we, and by 'morals' I will be very loose.

Slavery, let's start there. It is immoral to enslave another human being, or at least, that's the position today. It wasn't always immoral however, and was highly practised in antiquity, and some claimed justification from the gods. Today, however, would one say the gods changed their minds perhaps, or maybe humans did not understand where it says "thou shalt not enslave a human being" ? Thankfully, humans decided (or finally heard the gods say), "slavery is bad", and it got abolished.

Let's try homosexuality. Did you know it used to be a highly valued act in the Greek society long before the arrival of Jesus? It was not unusual for wealthy Greeks, and Romans, to have their favorite male on the side, and for centuries after. It was considered beneficial for the young male who acquired a teacher and benefactor (a "sugerdaddy", effectively), and for the benefactor who acquired a soyoyo of the male form. However, there were always those who stood against it and the history of the Greeks and the Romans is replete with acceptance of homosexuality, and its non-acceptance, and the laws were written accordingly. Britain is a classic example of this.

If you were gay in and up to the 70-80s in Britain, you better not let anyone know. Many gay people got married just so no one would know they were gay! If it was known, well, just better leave the country as you were fair game for a beating on the street. But that was still an improvement. Up till the 1900s, you'd have gone to jail. Today, however, many nations around the world are apologising for treating gay people so badly in the past. And its illegal to discriminate against gays

Here's another. All the way up to the 90s, though less obvious, "dogs, irish and blacks" were barred from certain places. You'd come across it if you wanted to rent a house or when you applied for a job, though the exceedingly polite English person would never tell you to your face. Funny thing is, when Americans came over during the second world war claiming their own G.I. blacks mustn't be sitting in the same places as G.I. Joes, the same English were not having it. Today however, you call me a black bastard on the streets of London, and your ass is going to jail.

Also consider numerous things humans have at one time or the other deemed moral, but not so anymore - exploitation of women, killing of witches, killing of twins, state legitimised human sacrifice, persecution of Catholics (Britain 1500s), persecution of Protestants (about the same time) and many more that laws have helped eradicate.

Now, if you look closely, it does sound like I am talking about the law, and not morality. However, laws are what have always been used to teach morals, after all those "thou shalt nots", are laws that are meant to teach morality. One wise person even went and wrote "Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."" Effectively, there is no sin if there is no law

The law in UK today is that "thou shalt not discriminate against a person because of their gender, race, sexual orientation and so on". The Church of England had an exemption to allow people to adjust but its run out, and they too have to now obey the law. And in my opinion, the world is a better place for it.

Here's a little secret however. The battle mentioned in the op is happening in the CoE and the Catholic Church. The CoE has no choice but to obey the law as it has 'established status', and the Catholic Church too, as it would not like to seem less 'established'. But go to a pentecostal church or a mosque in England and see how you'd get treated. And the amazing thing? While you would be arrested for calling a gay person on the street derogatory names, the police would not follow you to arrest a pentecostal preacher or imam denigrating homosexuality in his church or mosque. God help either of them if they preach homosexual hatred on the streets however. They be whisked off in handcuffs before you could say Allahu Akbar, or Jesus is Lord!

All said, I think when Christians say their morals come from God, they mean they learn their morals from the teachings written in their Holy Book. It would find agreement with the wise quotes above. Unfortunately, someone claimed he did not learn their morals, and by "from god" they claimed it was written into their dna from before they were born. It was in response to that claim that my response is what muttley quoted me as saying.

The Huángdì Nèijīng, (literally the Inner Canon of the Yellow Emperor or Esoteric Scripture of the Yellow Emperor), is a Chinese book of medicine written by command of the Yellow Emperor in 100BC, 700 years before the Quran. In it is stated that there are 365 joints in the human body, so the Chinese seem to have known long before Muhammed was informed.

Besides, the Greeks too had done detailed studies of the human body before the Common Era and knew this too, so its hardly a miracle unless The gods were sending messengers to just about every group of people in antiquity.

There does not seem to be a definitive number of joints in the human body as there is no agreement on what should be counted as "a joint". Number of joints tend to be between 350-700, depending what's being counted.

johnydon22:
It would interest you to know that the word translated to " Word" in that chapter is the Greek word "logos" which in actuality means "Knowledge"

Thus changes the very meaning that chapter is taught to have in conventional christian religion

'Word' is indeed how it is translated in the Vulgate, but it has been known to mean much more than that, even amongst Christians. Different Greek schools seemed to choose the meaning that best suits. "Ground", "plea", "opinion", "expectation", "speech", "account", "reason", "proportion", and "discourse, are a few synonyms, and even " rhetoric". It seems to have been given a proselytising meaning in John, and reminds me of "Sophia" calling out in the wilderness in Proverbs.

In fact, the entire prologue comes from a separate Greek text that goes on a bit further than that appended to John. Unfortunately I'm still looking for where I found it.

ScienceWatch:
Yes the Father loves His Son and will never send the SWINE to Jesus.

If you were a Jesus follower, I'm most certain you'd have read it said that "God so loved the world" and sent his Son to save that world. But your warped idea of a god loves his son instead. It does explain where you get you hatred from I guess.

And the buda atum called unto Sciencewatch, and said unto him, Where art thou?

Sciencewatch answered, “I saw you in your thread, and I was afraid because I was stupid; so I hid.”

ScienceWatch:
If I should choose to be obedient to the revered, Holy Scriptures which says, "DO NOT THROW YOUR PEARLS TO THE SWINE."
It is with regret that I have to inform you that it would not be fair to you, if I accept your dare.

With all due respect to your superior "intelligence," you will not understand the Holy Gospels of John, which reveals the pinnacle of spirituality know to mankind. The extraordinary scientifically verifiable demonstrable evidence that oozes from John's Gospel is now easily and freely studied world wide.

johnydon22:
He was profound and quite knowledgeable going from the biblical portrayal. I'd like to read about Jesus from other sources but alas the bible is the only source with detail we've got

That's the sad part, it's not "the only source with detail we've got". It's the only ones made available. "Least it falls into the hands of the masses and they tear the veil from in front of God", is how someone put it centurys ago. These days, whats been given is elevated so high into the heavens that other sources are considered not to exist or be fake or heresy. And that's for those in a language that can be read.

I can't wait for the day the Vatican opens its library to the masses even though the battle to demonise them is in full swing already.

oooduancalmdown:
That small country called Iceland dey fear me. Croatia with just 4.2 million people thrashed giant of Africa.

Compared to Croatia, the only thing giant about Nigeria would be our landmass and our many people. They giant than us in most other things.

Read up about Croatia here, least for next time.

johnydon22:
The doctrine of Jesus himself is one I find to be from a man who had profound faith in his convictions. It suggested no thought for the Moro, no attention to advancement, just leave everything and follow me.

Its either he was a fanatic who faught for a reformation of Jewish doctrine or he truly believed the world was coming to an end in his time and he was charged to save it.

Turns out, that too, was a delusion

He fought for the reformation of Jewish doctrine, and it was massive advancement in its time. The pity is the sparsity of detail outside the fantastically fabulous available about him. From the little that stands up to scrutiny though, he was profound enough for some to equate him to a god.

superhumanist:
@ bold,

This is why every pastor has his own way of remixing the bible. Any fool can claim God told him the truth through personal revelation.

This is how Joseph Smith, a convicted fraudster, used "personal divine revelation" to start a racist church called the Church of Later Day Saints.


cc Johnydon22, hopefullandlord, dalaman, budaatum

It is also how Jesus and Mohammed and numerous Judaic prophets 'remixed' Scripture to great benefit to humans in their time - one claiming to hear from angels, the other directly from God.

I think personal greed that gets in the way. If they actually did it for the same reason their prophets did, I'd hardly complain.

jusRadical:
If not, why not?



If not, why not?

Two shirts and tie person. Lol.

Is Moses diving for penalty?
He keeps it he'd go yellow!

jusRadical:
If my driver come wear suit and tie, wetin me go come wear?

What? You want to wear two suits and ties to show you bigger that your driver?

Imagine. Great opportunity to sell electric, allow naijapeople the opportunity to make a living and they go and remove the power! Meanwhile, Mr and Misses I Get Money To Buy Petrol are inside aircon, watching!

I'd like you all to consider that it is way more than corruption. It's evil!

ruffDiamond:
i will not buy any fuel or go to viewing centre!
buhari is a massive failure!
light been dey since morning entet afternoon na!

buhari is a massive failure of a president!



fighting corruption my ass!


wetin go make nepa carry light on a day like this if no be corruption!?!

.Nigeria na confirmed failed state!eod!