Hnd-holder:

God and Allah: Are they the same?
I think this is the topic,

I think I made that clear in my post (see below), and I'll be happy to see Ajisafe return to the topic.

choice.A:

,,,if you've now left off the main topic in order to occupy yourself with trivial stuff,,,,I'm disappointed that you failed to craft a meaningful discussion with regards to the topic,

donnie:

Dont you not know that there are more false preachers among the non-miracle performing pastors than there are among the miracle performing ones? These ones are quietly collecting money for so-called deliverance. Some are not born agian, nor do they know what the term 'born-again' means. Others came into ministry to make a living while some others came because they can speak clean english and have gone overseas for bible school

Fascinating. I thought you had no intentions to judge, but forgive me if what you stated above is not a classic example of judging others. Doesn't it say in your own Bible that you should not condemn yourself in the very same things that you allow? (Rom.14:22). So, it's okay for you to condemn others, but sinful for others to disagree with your ideas about your choice of miracle worker?

donnie:

Ok where are the true miracles, like those of Peter and John who healed a lame man at the gate called beautiful, taking him by the hand and lifting him up?! Oh what boldness and faith in the all powerful name of Jesus!
No wonder atheists and freethinkers are happy when we condemn people like these, it only goes to butress their point that we are only praying, hoping , suffering and smiling with no results of power.

It is particularly sad that your ideas are lopsided as regards ministers - whether miracle on non-miracle workers. In the first place, you make it sound as if anyone who doesn't perform miracles is therfore not called of God. That idea is not sustained in the Bible, because John the Baptist (though he was not a pastor in the church) was mightily used of God even though he did not perform a single miracle (John 10:41); and in the church, the apostle Paul taught that not everyone works a miracle because we all have different gifts (I Cor. 12:10,29). The power to work a miracle is given by God to whomsoever He wills - it is not the minister who forces himself to perform miracles.

donnie:

Dont you not know that there are more false preachers among the non-miracle performing pastors than there are among the miracle performing ones? These ones are quietly collecting money for so-called deliverance.

And what would you say about those who perform miracles but whose focus on money is as equally hideous? How long ago was it reported that Benny Hinn was in Nigeria conducting a crusade that flopped on questions of how much money was being collected? (if you've forgotten, you can find the story here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4619733.stm ). I don't care whose ox is gored or whatever big names they represent; the call of God upon a minister does not give him the license to use bad language (as secret_447 did) or use the ministry as a money-making enterprise. There are sound teachers who perform miracles and have a balanced view of money matters; and there are equally sound teachers who do not perform miracles and have godly respect for money matters. True servants of God will not focus on themselves, but rather turn people over to focus on God Himself.

Whatever your ideas or convictions, I don't make it my aim to judge TB Joshua (or any other minister) to be this, that or the other. Everyone who has worn the ministerial cloak is answerable to God. However, that does not mean that we should be gullible and swallow everything that is said or done in Jesus' Name. If I know nothing else, I know that my Bible says I should 'prove' (or, test) all things and hold onto that which is good (I Thes. 5:21). My salvation does not rest on what TB Joshua claims to be, or who is defending him. There is only one Name under heaven that saves - Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12).

@ Ajisafe:   that the southwest of Sweden was being refered to

Many thanks for that typo: yes, I meant "referred." And like I said, if you've now left off the main topic in order to occupy yourself with trivial stuff, there'll be no end in sight. We all make mistakes, and the wise will be humble enough to learn; and if you can't acknowledge that, it leaves me wondering what sense you make in your high sounding "intelligence" that leads nowhere.

   @ Ajisafe: You want to teach me how to spell? You must be out of your mind!,,,Were you ever thought about ,,,

You may think me out of my mind, but should that not have been "were you ever taught about,,," instead of "thought"? Or was that another kufar mistake on your part?

   @ Ajisafe:   Your so-called "English alphabets" did not originate in England.

I don't see the connection or where I ever said the English alphabet originated in England, unless you deliberately wanted to misread that into my thread. I'm disappointed that you failed to craft a meaningful discussion with regards to the topic, and have instead taken to this pet mischief of twisting language, especially where you know very little about it.

Praise God!
Father, thank you for the gift of life, and we ask in Jesus' Name that
the shedding of blood through excuses of politics or religion will be stopped.

We pray for healing in hurt feelings, confidence instead of suspicion,
and freedom instead of the fear that has descended in the past weeks.

Thank you for mighty answers in Jesus' Name! Amen.

Ajisafe,
Applause!! For the first time I couldn't find acrid language in your post, and I hope you would keep that civility, unless it fluctuates. However, when you try to correct people, especially about spellings and all those trivial stuff, there'll be no end in sight. To make matters worse, it might only put you on spotlight. Check out the following blooper in your 'corrective' post:

    Actually, the right pronounciation,,,
    That should have been "pronunciation" (drop the 'o' after the first 'n')

     for eons, they have made us to beleive that "Bombay
     "believe" is the correct spelling ('i' before 'e' after 'l' except in words with 'c' where 'e' comes before 'i' as in receive or conceive)

No one's perfect - we all make mistakes. But then, thank you for pointing them out: I've had the good fortune of going back to my ABC's in the rules of grammar (or is it gra[b]m[/b]er or gramm[b]e[/b]r?) and good writing.

Ajisafe: For example, for eons, they have made us to beleive that "Bombay, India" are the right words, whereas, the right ones are "Munbai, India." Another example will be "Munich, Germany," the locals proudly call their city "Munchen, Germany." What can we call these? Arrogance or sheer ignorance?

At least, when we read of 'Bombay' there's no confusing the fact that it's the same place as 'Mumbai' (not 'Mu[b]n[/b]bai' - I can't find that on any map) in India. Let me offer a little more to this amusement: the citizens of Sweden proudly call their country "Sverige" (don't bite your tongue in trying to pronounce that); and the locals in the southwest of the country call their city "Gotebörg" instead of the widely used 'Gothenburg'. Even the Muslims I know there use either spellings, and no one would be confused that the southwest of Sweden was being refered to (although, the only other "Gothenburg" I know of is in Nebraska, USA!). So, ajisafe, what do we do in these other cases of "arrogance or sheer ignorance"? I guess you'll have to gather non-kufars to come up with a suitable dictionary with new names for "Sverige" (instead of 'Sweden') and "Göteborg" (instead of 'Gothenburg'). No one is forcing their opinions on you by spelling it 'Qur'an' (or 'Koran') and 'Muslim' (or 'Moslem'). Besides, these are just matters of your own thoughts and not shared by many other Muslim believers.

Secondly, there's no need to make so much of the issue because whether you write it as 'Qur'an' or 'Muslim', you're still using the same alphabets of the 'kufars' who wrote it as 'Koran' and 'Moslem' - they're all written in English alphabets. It is like asking which is the correct spelling of the past tense of 'spell' - is it 'spelt' or 'spelled'? Incidentally, you allowed nferyn to use the one ("spelled" from the Westerners that you described as having "done things stupidly." I hope that wasn't "inadvertently or perhaps knowingly" on your part! 

Amen and Amen!! - alheri and Free.

What Does It Really Take To Be A Man Of God?

Most of us as Christians believe that God has given some men the power to do signs and wonders in the name of Jesus Christ for the purpose of bringing blessings to people in need. However, the Bible also warns that not everyone that comes knocking on your door with signs and miraculous power is actually a true servant of God or of Jesus Christ (I John 4:1).

I'm just wondering: if miracles are not the sole criteria upon which to attest a person as a man of God, what other criteria should there be for this qualification? Or, is it the other way round where miracles alone should be the sole criteria? How can we know that someone is actually making a genuine claim to be a man or woman of God?

Dear donnie,

First, if you'd read me well, you'd have seen that judging TB Joshua was not particularly my point. I wonder what you're doing here if you did not come to judge as well. No, I was not of any opinion about TB Joshua as you suppose - I clearly stated that it was "not in my place to judge as to whether or not TB Joshua is a man of God as I don't know much about him." You've tried to read into my statement things that I did not say.

Secondly, just because I don't necessarily agree with you or secret_447 does not make me a mute when he calls people retarded. He claimed to be a pastor for God's sake, and he had the temerity to try to defend his lack of grace and tact in addressing people as "retarded" with emphasis! I'll shut my mouth if that is what Jesus said we should do when people don't agree with us - please show me just one verse that justifies what secret_447 did by calling others 'retarded.' It doesn't matter to me who the people were that he was referring to; it is uncouth for someone with a badge to his shirt as "pastor" to have used such expression on any body on the forum.

Third, I still maintain that just because someone performs miracles does not necessarily follow that he is a man of God, and I quoted Matt.24:24 to that effect. I know and believe that some men of God are given the power to do signs and wonders; but we are told to 'test the spirits' because not every spirit is from God, even though they call on Jesus' Name (see I John 4:1). What is so offensive in people expressing their opinions of disagreement about whether someone is actually called of God or not, that a "pastor" would try to write them off as retarded? Please, don't even try to defend what is openly crass. secret_447 would've done better by apologising and then making meaningful contributions as to why he thought TB Joshua was whatever he thought of him. The anointing was not given to anyone to harrass people with sordid language - and that was what I tried to point out to secret_447.

This is not so much a discussion thread on a topic; it's a place where we bend the knee to Him who is greater than us. Please post a short prayer for sanity to return to our beloved country Nigeria. If you've got almost nothing to say, a simple "amen" or short verse to encourage others will do. Thank you.

O God, please step into our situation and stop the murders taking place in our nation. We ask in Jesus' Name. Amen.

Related: Christian Prayer 'Forum Game'[/url]

ijebuman:

@choice.A
Then i suggest you read LadyC's previous post where she starts talking about dates, that is why i've asked her for a date (an exact year will be a good start )
She might as well come out and say its 2013. If she's so sure of the signs then she should just say so rather than using confusing vague statements. (and then using quotations from the bible as a get out clause about not knowing the true date)

From the above post, it is legimate for me to ask her to reveal the date if she is so sure of what she has posted.

Phew! Okay, I see your point. Even then, I can assure you that regardless of events occuring and fulfilling prophecies and our interpretations of them (whether we agree or not), one thing is for sure - the coming of Jesus Christ is not dated in the Bible, and it doesn't make any sense for anyone to ask for a particular date. This is not to say that we are given a blank cheque to make guesses. I'm rather of the position that certain events being fulfilled today are veritable pointers that there's substance in Jesus' prophecy about His coming. However, many thanks for setting me straight, because I was a bit confused as to why you had asked for dates when _______. lol.

ijebuman:

Unless Nigeria is now one of the triggers for the end of the world i don't see the relevance. As far i know Africa doesn't even feature in any of the so called signs. 

This is interesting, but please bear with me a little on my amusement. There are over 191 countries in the world, and some have even changed so that today they are not existing on our geographic maps and atlases. If the Bible was to record the prophetic detail of every continent and country, what kind of book would you be reading? I believe that the Bible speaks to every nation - and in that context, Africa is indeed featured on the pages of the Biblical texts in prophetic signs. I'll give you two examples:

1. The African Case
Ethiopia and Libya (African countries) are clearly mentioned in prophecy; as a matter of fact mention is made of the former turning to seek God (Ezek.38:1-6 and Psa.68:31 - "Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God." However, in general prophetic language where the Bible speaks to every nation, you'll find that the following indeed include Africa as part of the earth that will be affected by the events of prophecy to be fulfilled -

               (Luke 21:25) - And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and
                        upon the earth distress of nations*, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring
                       _{(*'nations' includes African nations.)}

              (Luke 21:35) For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.
                       ('the whole earth' definitely includes Africa)

Indeed, Africa was definitely mentioned in the Bible, if you'd carefully read it as not to miss the verses above.

2. The Nigerian case
When in 1999 democracy was to be hatched with the swearing in of our illustrious OBJ and his team, a lot of people were optimistic (yours truly couldn't contain his joy!). Then a hitherto unknown 'prophet'* announced that Nigeria was going to face a series of difficult times, contrary to what the big evangelistic names had prophecied. When I asked for pointers to his 'far-fetched' prophecy, this is what he came up with (please notice the emboldened words and see if you can connect the dots):

   (Eccl. 4:13-16) Better is a poor and a wise child than an old and foolish king, who will no more be
   admonished. ¹⁴For out of prison he cometh to reign; whereas also he that is born in his kingdom
   becometh poor. ¹⁵I considered all the living which walk under the sun, with the second child that shall
   stand up in his stead. ¹⁶There is no end of all the people, even of all that have been before them: they
   also that come after shall not rejoice in him. Surely this also is vanity and vexation of spirit.

To this gentleman, the 'king' who came out of prison to reign was OBJ himself - for he was an 'old king' in the sense that he had ruled Nigeria in 1977; and as soon as he was released from prison he became Nigeria's President. The follow-up was that he would not bring the expected wealth and prosperity; rather, during his tenure in office, many families would find it really difficult to cope financially in Nigeria ("he that is born in his kingdom becometh poor". Then, the trend would be that OBJ would not be a better ruler than those who "have been before him"; and those who come after will not rejoice in him as they would be as corrupt as he was. The interesting thing is that, even before OBJ was sworn in, this chap said that Nigeria was not going to be a super-properous nation overnight as the various popular MOGs had 'prophecied' on May 29, 1999. I know of an MOG who even went as far as to say that within 'two years' Nigeria will be a very wealthy nation because democracy had arrived. For two years I laughed at this guy (my 'prophet'); but as 2001 drew to a close I was uneasy in my seat. Typically skeptic, I turned around and asked him what he thought about OBJ's campaign for a  second term: would he be voted in again? He came back with a resounding "yes," and went as far as saying that OBJ would seek a 3rd term (even though he conceded that he did not particularly like OBJ's style of governance). I know: it seems this is an afterthought for the fact that I'm now saying this in 2006. But if you keep in mind that this guy was not popular and said what he did way back in 1999 and 2001, you would not dismiss this as mere rhetoric.

It was compelling evidence of what I was presented with, that made me believe that Eccl. 4:13-16 had a bearing on Nigeria's destiny; therefore, the Bible did mention something about our country. But this is not to say that some positive blessing was not being offered to the nation - I believe God loves us and seeks to bring us such unquantified blessings; but if the country keeps going the way it has, your guess is as good as mine.

_{*I speak of a 'prophet' here, not in the official capacity, but simply referring to a quiet Christian that I'd often derided until quite recently when God used him to lead me from my skeptic backgorund to the Saviour.}

ijebuman:

If its the last generation then it shouldn't be too difficult to provide an actual date,,,

1666
The world seemed at an end to most Londoners. The fact that the year ended with the Beast's number?666--didn't help matters.

1967
When the city of Jerusalem was reclaimed by the Jews in 1967, prophecy watchers declared that the "Time of the Gentiles" had come to an end

1977
One prophecy prognosticator linked the bees to Revelation 9:3-12. After 20 years of progression, the bees are still in Texas.

1981
One author boldly declared that the rapture would occur before December 31, 1981

1982
It was all going to end in 1982, ,,,

1997
By adding 1,260 days to September 1993, you arrive at February 24, 1997.,,,[/color]

Then it shouldn't be too difficult to identify an exact date or identify without using vague words who the Antichrist is

You leave me scratching my head about where exactly you stand on prophetic matters. Perhaps I'm wrong and I won't take offence to be told so. Even then, you don't seem to be intelligently putting your case across (not deriding you). This is how the picture looks to me:

1. LadyC makes a statement (The World Is Coming To An End) and tries to advance prophecies that point to the fact.

2. You try to present a contrary view - whether as alternative interpretations - to the effect that the world is NOT coming to an end.

Whatever the position you take (whether or not you belief the Bible to be right in anything), by asking for an actual date you have not helped my understanding of where you're coming from. The bible clearly states that no one knows the actual date when this is going to happen, and the reason is given - because, it is the prerogative of the Father (see, for example, Mat 24:36). Quoting the articles of people who have contravened that clear Biblical statement does not help your case at all, because like them, you are trying to force an interpretation that is unwarranted and asking the same of others who know better. People might think and interpret what they want, but that does not take precedence over the clear statements of the Bible. I may not know so much, but one thing I do know is that Biblical prophecies are being fulfilled in our day in such a way as to give substance to the sure return of Jesus Christ. If you believe that the world is NOT coming to an end, good for you - but it does not change anything about the prophecy of Jesus' second coming.

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Mat 24:36)
Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh. (Mat 25:13)
And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. (Act 1:7).

secret_447:

I use the word retarded, because so many of us Christan are just that, we are so bible smart, that were spiritually retarded.

You've no excuse whatsoever to call people retarded the way you did, so don't even make matters worse by trying to justify it. Just because people don't agree with you is not reason enough for you as a pastor to throw words carelessly.

secret_447:

take sometime my brothere and study your bible history, you'll find some suprising things, I believe it is the word of God but not the whole word, the red letters in the Bible which are the words of Christ, do you really believe thats all the son of God had to say? I don't think so

So, tell me: what kind of a pastor are if you don't believe all in the Bible to be the word of God? Or, am I not reading you correctly? There's just no time to waste with you here - you said something wrong, and you need to be told that as a pastor such language was not expected of you.

nightrider:

whats all this crap you people are saying, please forgive my english, you're all just going round in circles. GOD exists simple
he created the heavens and in the heavens he created angels,,,

My crap is that atheism does not accept simplistic statements like what you spent several paragraphs presenting. I'm a Christian who believes in rationally engaging people who ask for a basis for my convictions. Questions will be asked, and we are to be always ready to gently give answers about the hope we have (I Pet.3:15). God created the heavens and the earth, and all in them. But the atheist says, 'Give me proof, or there is no god.' I don't yet understand what sort of proof I'm asked to present, and therefore my approach; albeit that's not the only way I can present the little of what I understand about theism.

KAG:
Tell me, how would you disprove the claim that a tiny teacup orbits the Sun? Remember, the teacup is too small to be picked up by even our most powerful telescopes*

Well, that's news to me since I haven't heard about that until today. Tell me, is there really a teacup orb___ing the Sun, and is anyone believing that as a religion, ideology or worldview?

KAG:

There are a lot of rebuttals and refutations to the deieties that have already been presented for examination, when a new one arises, there will be new refutations and rebuttals, but to ask atheists to disprove the existence of a generic, indescript God, is an impossibility in itself.

That all the more amplifies what I've said before - atheism has nothing else to present than refutation and rebuttals in statements; and I've said that will not do. In the same way atheists seek evidence from theists, they should themselves prove with 'evidence' beyond mere rebuttals that there's no God.

KAG:

but to ask atheists to disprove the existence of a generic, indescript God, is an impossibility in itself.

I do not see why it is an impossibility in so far as atheism makes an assertion, viz: 'God does not exist.' It is rather an escapist theory that negatives cannot be proven - and to rebut that idea is what I attempted to mathematically demonstrate earlier in my simplistic analogy.

KAG:

the baby is merely a container ,,,

I should not be hard on you for that, but it makes me wonder how uncouth some ideas can be if a human being should be refered to as a mere container. _{unless my sense of humour happens to be on vacation at the moment.}

KAG:

"Couple" shows that it is still two.

In the illustration, you could not be correct if you call 1 man + 1 woman = 2 couple. A couple is a group: it takes two people to make a single couple, isn't it?

KAG:

I  don't understand what you mean here, and I obviously didn't understand the purpose of the above exercise, well all I got out of it was that linguistic sleight of hands (for lack of a better word) can make any constant look wrong.

I wasn't engaging in sleight of hand by any stretch.

KAG:

Perhaps I should expand a little, atheists say I've seen no evidence for a God

Atheism goes beyond that to assert that 'there is no God' (afterall, is that not the meaning usually vendored - that 'there is no God'?). Contrary to your statement, atheism says: 'I have not seen proof of the existence of a God, therefore God does not exist!' It is the last clause of that statement that makes atheism what it is.

KAG:

If unrefutable evidence for a God, any God is presented, then you can bet atheists would either convert to the religion of that God, or become deists.

And what kind of evidence are you asking for? Remember, it did not take a religious belief in the sense of "unrefutable evidence for a God" for Antony Flew to become a deist.

To take a hard-nosed position of asserting that God does not exist is what atheism is all about; and that is a claim that cannot be sustained merely by refutation without evidence, or the claim has not substance.

KAG:

Evidence?

evidence?

I wonder what type of evidence you're asking for.

KAG:

Lucifer didn't do any deceiving.

Now may I ask you to provide evidence for that?

Refuting a belief system will simply not do - and that is all I've seen so far.

exu:

1. "does not" is always a negative. You cannot prove a negative.

That has been the one weak excuse atheists give to the challenge of proving what they cannot sufficiently disprove. It is true that you cannot prove a negative, but only in a limited sense. In Mathematics, negative theorems can be proven, for when you state that (-1) + (-1) is not = +2, it is not sufficient to refute it; it is also necessary to both state and prove the opposite, which is, (-1) + (-1) = -2. You'd recall my argument has always been along the lines that atheism cannot sufficiently disprove the existence of God; or, 'atheism cannot sufficiently prove the non-existence of God.' I've heard it countless times said that 'it is not the intended aim of atheism to prove' its refutations. Even then, for one to refute the claims of another requires logical proof: refutations or rebuttals alone will not be sufficient. I'll give you another example:

As a Mathematician,
1 + 1 = 2 is always true in heaven, on earth and beneath the earth. But someone will come up and say that is not true. It will not be sufficient to refute the statement that '1 + 1 = 2 is always true,' but we want him to tell us why this claim cannot be true. I hope you see sense in that. Now, my answer will be something along these lines (depending on what ideology I ensconce):

1 + 1 = 1 is true; if as a philosopher I add a jug of water to another jug of water, what I get is not 2 jugs of water[b]s[/b], but 1 jug. For my answer to hold true, the question must be asked, in what sense could it ever be true that my answer is not '2 jugs' but rather, '1 jug'? I go on to provide the veracity of my claim that on the grounds of adding both jugs of water in a bigger single jug, then my claim is true. In this sense, I have not only 'refuted' the positive statement that '1 + 1 = 2 is always true'; but also adduced my own reasons for my own position. QED.

Again, different ideologies might come up and make their own positive postulations:

     '1 + 1 = 1 is a biological truth' because 1 spermatozoon + 1 ovule = 1 baby.
     '1 + 1 = 1 is a matrimonial truth' as 1 man + 1 woman = 1 couple.
     
But the above basic postulations (simplistic as they are) might be refuted by those who disagree. It will not be sufficient to refute them, but we want an equal and logical proof or deduction for the refutation to hold true.

Now that sounds simplistic, but patiently apply that to your postulations and see if the mirror is opaque. What atheism says is that 'God does not exist,' and if that is a refutation, it requires a follow-up logical proof for it to hold true. It is this simple: one cannot prove the non-existence of 'God' by mere refutation: by merely 'refuting,' you have not 'proven' anything. I suppose if refutation alone carries any substance, then the statement is also true that "exu does not exist", and I don't need to prove it. _{which, of course, is not true and as meaningless}

I still believe that atheism does not sufficiently disprove the affirmations of theism; and if that statement does not hold true, I wait for equal logical inducements that can be subjected to the same tests atheism requires of theism.

exu:

You might want to rethink this little claim:

but to make a claim that something* does not exist sounds more like an affirmative

Outside Nairaland, if I said exu does not exist, that is not an open ended statement - it is a claim, and I'd be called upon to prove that he does not exist. Whereas someone else would think me to be silly for making the claim, I don't necessarily agree. So, they advance all sorts of 'proof' that exu does in fact exist, and if I'm not seeing that, then something is wrong upstairs. For both statements to hold true, both will require proof, not just one side of the argument.

In the same way, both atheists and theists have each made their claims - atheists, that God does not exist; theists, that God does exist. You cannot satisfy logical reasoning by calling on just one side to prove their claims; atheists are called upon to provide logical proof in just the same way they ask theists to prove that 'God' does exist.

Prof. Antony Flew is a deist - although he did not subscribe to religion, the point is that he abandoned his former atheistic postulation of 'no-god' especially as regards the question and explanation of the origin of life and the complexity of nature.

KAG:

I'm sure you've been told this ad nauseam, but atheism and atheists make no attempt to disprove the existence of any Gods, besides you are asking for a negative to be proven by the disbelievers, and that for intents and purposes is a logical impossibility. As always, the burden of proof lies with those that assert there is a God (or ______)

I've always patiently asked the atheists I know to give me a succinct statement of their ideology or worldview. In one line I hear from them that atheism is 'no-god', or the belief that God does not exist. That is what I have asked them to provide 'proof' for. It may seem a logical impossibility to require 'proof for a negative' from disbelievers; but to make a claim that something* does not exist sounds more like an affirmative, and therefore certainly requires rational proof for the statement to hold true.


*_{For the religiously minded, I'm not referrng to God here as 'something' - I was only speaking in general terms for illustrative purposes}.

I'm not particularly sure that I agree with your idea that just because someone performs miracles therefore he must necessarily be a man of God. The antichrist and false prophets will come with spectacular miracles that Jesus said if it were possible the very elect would be deceived (Matt.24:24). It's not in my place to judge as to whether or not TB Joshua is a man of God as I don' know much about him. Yet, I'm amazed that one in your position as pastor should refer to people as retarded (with emphasis). You may disagree with people or views that you read; but it just puts me off when leaders in the church speak the way you do  _{and that says so much about knowing "there bibles, and where it came from.}"

I wonder.

KAG,
I understand your concern and pique at religion, but if you'd only looked a bit closer at my post you'd have seen it's not about that at all, even though you feel it's always about that, as in the case of Prof. Flew. Second, I'm well aware that there are more than 3 monotheistic views of God, but my context should be taken to point to the general groups that atheists often concern themselves about. Again, I did not assert that atheism ever had a doctrine to preach, and that should be clear from the play of words in the line "if atheism ever had a doctrinal stance" - if ever. I know passions run high when you read stuff like this, but at least you should try and read threads in context instead of taking them out of their contexts.

I did not see anything about Flew disproving or converting to religion or Christianity or Islam; he left his atheistic (no-god) position and that's what I wanted to point out, because all the talk about connecting this with an idea of affirming religion simply misses the mark. Even so, atheism does not sufficiently disprove the non-existence of God. If there's just such a proof, I'm waiting patiently.

I'm all the more saddened by this narrowness of questioning whether the victims are actually Christians and the notion that this is just about the north vs the south. Seun, with all respect, you should have an international focus: this is beyond the confines of the Nigerian geographic boundaries. We are talking about an agenda that is barbaric and an attack on humanity. The geographical divide between Nigeria and Pakistan is great; but when you see Pakistani Muslims attacking everything not labelled "Muslim" or "Islam" (including embassies, businesses, and even structures owned by non-muslims who are not known to be Christians), then you would not be so small in your view about what is happening. In some cases, it is reported that Muslims have attacked fellow Muslims in the wake of the riots. The country where I live in is squarely secular; but the Muslims know better than to call for a demonstration of any sort. I don't know why, but it is rumoured that the non-religious people are waiting to give them bigger than they ask for should they take to the streets.

The Federal Government in Nigeria has really been biased in the way they have handled the spate of violence in the country. I welcome the C.A.N. communiqué, if for anything at all but to warn the Muslim community that the Christians in the country should not be taken for fools or weaklings because of their willingness to foster peace in the face of the senseless barbarity.

Understanding Prof. Antony Flew

It is really amusing that when questions of a belief in God arise, all that the atheist does is to seek ever so sarcastically to pick holes in what he cannot sufficiently disprove. The question is not about Flew's conversion to religion or even to any of the three monotheistic religious views of 'God.' When someone who was a confessed atheist abandons his views of the 'non-existence of God or a divine being,' we want to know what his new views are, especially when his statements are antithetical to what he formerly held. Whatever ideas of a 'God' that Prof. Antony Flew is now courting, it is clear that they are fundamentally non-atheistic. "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam," he says, and then adds: "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." Now that is not atheistic dialect, considering that he had been anti-God for several decades.

It is well to realise that as a deist, Flew applied some scientific reasoning (aided by biologists' investigation of DNA) to arrive at his position. This may not be satisfactory to the general scientific community, especially those who seek to explain the existence of the natural world and almost everything else by some laws of natural or physical science. However, it is particularly up to Flew himself (rather than the religious community) to provide the skeptic and atheistic minds with "proof" of his deistic assertions. It should be well remembered that Prof. Flew is a philosopher, and not many philosophical questions can be sufficiently answered by recourse to natural science.

The atheistic community is understandably concerned by this twist of events championed by one who was a big name in their circle. However, in the field of rational thinking, Richard Carrier's material on the atheistic website assuring atheists that all seemed well is critically weak. Carrier's antidote was that Flew accepted only a 'minimal God'; but does that not sound really disappointing to the definition of atheism - the belief in 'no God' at all? There is no meeting point between a zero (no-god) and a minimum (possible existence of a God). More than that, if atheism ever had a doctrinal stance, it was the denial of the possible existence of an 'intelligent designer' as explaining the origin of life. That had been Prof. Flew's 'evangelistic campaign' for several decades as an atheist; and though he accepts Darwinian evolution, he doubts that the theory can explain the origins of life. Instead, he leans more towards the very idea that atheism attacks by admitting: "A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature."

Prof. Flew has not arrived at a sound belief in a well-defined 'God' - at least, he might be faulted by atheists and skeptics alike on his lack of 'scientific proof' for his conversion. What he does relate to is that the evidence he has gathered gives the idea that belief in a God (or, at least, a super-intelligence) is possible as the "only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature." What this could mean is that, those who have a problem with 'proof' and 'evidence' will need to tell us if the existence or non-existence of the Lock Ness Monster has been sufficiently proven.

Just as the conversion of the 81 y.o. British philosopher does not say anything to the effect of 'disproving' Christianity or Islam, it does not 'prove' anything to the correctness of atheistic claims. Anyone reading the story clearly sees that Flew was rejecting atheism as insufficient and banckrupt in providing a rational explanation for the origin of life.

I don't see anyone having mentioned anything about religion on this thread. The point is that an atheist changes his mind from a position of 'no-god' to the direct opposite. It matters little at this point what 'god' he might have had in mind - he subscribes to neither the Islamic nor the Christian deities, but it is clear that he leans towards a belief in a 'God.' So, what then is deism? I found this interesting in the first paragraph of ijebuman'[/b]s link:

"Historical and modern Deism is defined by the view that [b]reason, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God.

If we follow that trite definition of the term, at least it clearly says that Deism points to a belief in God based on reason, _{unless Wikipedia was incompetent there}. That speaks volumes for someone who is said to have been an atheist for more than a half-century. That he neither subscribed to the Christian God nor to the Allah of Islam does not weaken the fact that he was pro-'god', which is not an atheistic view at all.

Well, let me ask:

what day is the seventh day?;
what day is the first day of the week?
what day is the Lord's day? (see Rev. 1:10)

Perhaps these verses could be a bit helpful:

1. "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils." (Mark 16:9; see also John 20:19)
2. "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." (Act 20:7)
3. "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." (1Co 16:2).

Jesus rose on the first day of the week, and the disciples' normal Christian worship activity seemed to have been held on that day. The key is finding what day corresponds to 'the first day' of the week - and I think that falls on Sunday. I should also note that the day we gather is not really the paramount thing about our faith (Christians being persecuted in some Islamic and communist countries gather on some other days during the week, and the Lord is showing His hand of blessing strong upon them). Every day is special to God, but we ought not focus our worship to the day itself - but on the Lord (see Gal.4:9-11).

Perhaps, the topic of this thread should read: "Got questions about your faith in Christ?" or "Christianity: wondering about those questions?" so that the thread doesn't just die out after a short time. This could help Christians who have other questions besides the one above to get answers from contributors visiting this page. You may wish to review it, perhaps?

ijebuman:

I suppose if Saddam Hussein or Hitler repeats the same message i should ignore the messenger, but accept the message.

If Hitler said my grandfather was a girl, or that Saddam said G. Bush was an arab, we'd all agree that those are lies. So, why should anyone want to post those on his or her website even if they are opposing views - so people could make up their minds? It would be inconsequential and a waste of time. On both sides I'd agree to two things: (1) certian circumstances require us to check out the trustworthiness of a source without necessarily allowing that to bias our sense of judgement; (2) in other circumstances we ought to care more for what is said than who says it - especially when truth or facts are all we care more about than anything else. I could care less if it was a pauper or preacher that tells me that Jesus Christ is coming back soon. Fact is, He surely will come one day. If the Bible clearly states that Jesus made unmistakable prophecies about the end times (both as a warning and an encouragement), then we have nothing to lose in believing Him, especially when we see His prophecies being fulfilled in our day.

ijebuman:

this a public forum if you don't want anyone to challenge your views and beliefs don't post them here.

Challenging the views of other people doesn't make much sense if you don't really have much to present yourself. It's not enough to argue that the number ought to be 616 or 666 or 161 or something of the sort. The question is, is there any substance to the prophecy and do we believe it or not. If yes, that's why we preach it by pointing to events that buttress our understanding of that prophecy being fulfilled today. If no, then it is not enough try to pick holes in what has been stated, but to show why that interpretation could not stand.