₦airaland Forum

^^^ Well i must say nothing has altered my perceptions, given that i do not describe myself as a christian.

I am definite that there are many many many other worlds of intelligent civilizations within this very universe.

Anything less, would amount to circumscribing the greatness of God.

^^^ So you lot are now free to become mass murderers because "Christ has done it!"

Wake up!

"Verily verily i say unto you, whatsoever a man soweth, the same shall he reap!"

Those are Christ's words too.

jagunlabi:
I am of the same opinion as well . . . for now(nothing definite here 'cos i might be wrong). Bart ehrman might be talking about the possibility of a group of beings who might have teraformed this planet.That is a possibility since we humans, with our still primitive technology and science, are also contemplating doing the same thing on other planets. A civilization that is hundreds of thousands,if not millions of years ahead of us could also have done it with the greatest of ease.
The annunakis(the Elohim),for example, are known in mythology to be masters of genetic engineering who are hundreds of thousands of years ahead of us. They might have easily seeded this planet after the last cataclysm.
The head of that group of aliens(or humanoids) is one of the hottest candidate for the godbeing known in the bible as Yahweh/Jehovah.
But since all these possible mythical characters exist physically within the universe,they are nothing more than the creations of the supreme creator of the universe which remains impartial in all things.
If you watch the last video link i gave in one of these threads of a docu that made a difference between "the gods" and the creator,the perspective is very close to mine.I found the docu and it's content very very compellin,indeed.

I am pleased to see that you accept that even if this planet was engineered by advanced material beings, there woud still exist the ultimate creator of all finite existence . . .

Thank you for bringing this subject up again Noetic. I am deply interested in it, as it gives me great concern to see the shocking perspective of many dogmatists (e.g: Davidylan) on this matter.

I think a reasonable platform for the commencement of the discussion is to address the strange term employed by Noetic - "Jesus Heaven".

What exactly does this mean? I can extrapolate a number of things from that bizzare phrase, primarily the notion that Mr. Jesus from Nazareth has a special and different "Heaven" from any other "heavens" that might exist.

Let's clear this up. For the purpose of marching ahead without distraction, i am going to make an exception from my usual empirical style. I will go ahead and give a picture of existence as i see it, and at this initial stage i am not going to seek to prove that picture to be right. I believe however, that a calm an un-biased viewer should be able to key-in to that picture.

Here we are. We find ourselves on Earth. In a material world, surrounded by Material things. We look up, and see the vastness of the heavens (material universe; stars) and we are humbled with wonder.

From the moment we are old enough to think, we begin to ask those ancient questions: "What are we, and what are we doing here. . .  what is the purpose of all this. . ."

From the most ancient civilizations till date, man has come to recognise that although he lives in a material world, the things that matter most to him are entirely immaterial. To give the prime example - Love.

You can't touch it, you can barely see it, but you feel it in your heart. You know it is there.

Accordingly, men recognised the spiritual - the ancient pang within them for something that transcends this sphere. I should state at this point that the enigma of the spectre of death is crucial in the development of man's thinking in this regard.

If we accept the existence of the spiritual, then it is but a short leap from there, to the natural conclusion of most of humanity - namely that there is a core within man, that survives material decomposition at death. We know this, because we have felt it in our bossoms, at moments when we felt love, or a communal or patriotic spirit. . . Also the fact of visions during sleep (dreams) has always hinted at a deeper sub-conscious, which in many cases actually performs feats such as seeing the future. . . this again assures man that the spiritual is real.

Thus the question should properly read: what happens at death? What happens when the MATERIAL PART is set aside at the moment of death?

Man senses the existence of many possible realms of existence. Indeed, without the need for proof, he has actually experienced such realms within his inner life right here on this earth, in one faint form or the other.

In simple terms, the spirit is a spark of light emanating from the light of the Divine Oneness - God.

It has properties like a magnet. It can draw things to it, or repel things from it.

This simple secret is conveyed in all the ancient writings, and many people do not undertand the basis thereof.

"Whatever a man sows, the same shall he reap" - The words of Jesus. Here he was conveying the eternal truth that magnetic vibrations sent out by the human spirit will always return to it. It is the law of attraction of homogenuous species. It is a universal law, and the orientals have always known it, through their Karma-based religions.

Thus it is manifestly clear that, rearding the question of what happens at death, the human spirit will be naturally and magnetically attracted to that realm of existence which corresponds with its inner state.

A pure spirit will gravitate towards a pure realm. A dark spirit, towards a dark realm.

God is the cynosure of Divinity, and thus of purity. Thus the realms closest to HIM are the pure realms.

Those realms are what i understand by the word "Heaven".

As i have explained above, gravitation to those realms will only depend on the inner state of each human spirit. The inner state is a function of pure or dark thoughts, actions or volitions.

This is the same reaosn it is stated in Acts 10: 35 that "God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him".

Again, The Revelation of John the beloved, is replete with statements rearding judgment according to the works of each spirit.

Thus although Faith is good, each spirit must strive towards purity. Once the volition is right, the grace of God will help such a spirit attain the luminous heights of "paradise".

It can never be asserted with any degree of objectivity, that God in his perfection, would provide different criteria for salvation at different times, or to different peoples. And believing that each person must personally know Jesus of Nazareth is entirely absurd given that millions died without knowing of him already. Also millions more will die having heard of him, but entirely unable to believe anything about him on account of their different cultural backgrounds. God in HIS perfection has only ever required one thing of men, and that is LOVE.

Again note that when asked about salvation, Jesus himself stated that if a Man would love God and love his fellow man, all the law would be complete therein.

I verily believe that his commandments to believe in him, thus referred to obeying his commandment of Love, and nothing more. I can state this because he himself described what it entails to believe in him. HE said - "If you love me, you will obey my commandments." Thus a Mahatma Ghandi (a hindu)who goes through life spreading love and peace and brotherhood, already has "Christ" in him, much more than any person who proclaims belief in Christ, without those acts of love.

I also hope that i have been able to paint a composite picture of existence on Earth, transition to the luminous realms (heaven/ paradise) and the reasons therefore. In this, there is much scripture to support what i have written, aside from the few i quoted above.

I am going to use the life of Mahatma Ghandi as a study for this discussion.

^^^ I'm coming, going to get some hot tea for this. . .

Will be back. . .

jagunlabi:
Moreover, we don't need to mouth any name in other conceptualize the universal creator,because a name is nothing but a box in which we try to limit the creator.

So what do we call "IT"? Having a name for the creator is no problem. Do we just go quiet once we want to refer to the Creator, since any word we use will limit IT? Any how, many names in many languages used to refer to GOD imply mean - "Creator" when translated. In Igbo for example, Chineke means "God the Creator".

Why do YOU have a name?

Would you be a different person if your name was changed? Would it change the fact that you remain you?

Importantly, if you were named after a pagan deity today, would that change the fact that anybody mentioning your new name in reference to you is still referring to you and you only?

I hope you see that the name is not relevant, only the entity being referred to by the mind counts.

jagunlabi:
why should africans bother using the names of yahweh or allah?Why be muslims or christians at all? Why not just be, without associating ourselves with these names? We do have our own african names to conceptualize the universal creator with,don't we?Why does it have to be that of the jews or the arabs?

I support this, that's why i am neither Christian nor Muslim

JAGUN -

  1. Christmas is a regurgitation of the Summer Solstice celebration dedicated to the Sun God. Historical Fact.

  2. The word "Easter," is the modern english for the word "Astarte" - an ancient fertility goddess. Historical Fact.

  3. The Trinity Doctrine was likely gleaned from many pagan "Trinities" including the Egyptian Horus, Osiris and Isis.

  4. Even the word "Yahweh" has possible origins in semitic paganism.

None of these facts above have any bearing whatsoever on the concept of worship of an almighty (monotheistic) GOD. These are traditions, and traditions very naturally creep into religion, and dogma, and culture. . . none of these have a core bearing on the pure concept of loving God and loving one's fellow man.

Indeed i have argued severally that even if "Yahweh" or "Allah" turned out to be ancient names for "Sango", this would be entirely meaningless so long as the concept within the mind of the person mouthing that name, is the concept of the universal creator.

I hope you appreciate the point. It is the mind and spirit that count, and not the historical/ cultural trappings.

coldwater:
Deepsight,

I have been following your posts recently. Your dimension of knowledge impresses me. I want to broaden my spiritual knowledge. Can you be my coach? I, among other things, need you to recommend study materials for me. Thanks.

Thank you, but this is surely too much to say. All of us, i believe, are thirsty, curious, for that elusive something, the mystery of our existence, which stares us in the face as soon as we are old enough to ask that eternal question - who are we, and what are we doing here. . .?

Aside from all these "empirical" arguments i keep trying to make, i strngly  believe that each person can sense essential TRUTH within his spirit. That quiet inner voice, tells it all.

I think we should all learn to look to that voice more.

That's why my favourite quote is-

"Be still. . . and know that i am GOD"

Ciao.

Pastor AIO:
Even with one testicle.

Pastor - it might dissapoint you to learn that i still have both my testicles perfectly safe.

I actually have a storehouse of cloned testicles matching my DNA which i usually use to gamble.

Sometimes i sell them to Ritualists who desperately need to win elections in Nigeria.

I am still waiting for your words on "death and resurection occuring in Eternity". . .

Thanks

More votes please. . . Zidane appears to be leading the pack. . .

^^^ Tudor, why are you spamming the thread with the same post appearing 3 times? I have noticed you seem to have a problem with your Reply button, many of your posts appear twice. . . deal with it!

Krayola/ Tudor - What's your take on the proof of motion?

^^^ Men, it would be tragic to have a PHD Holder with this sort of little reasoning capacity. . .

^^^^^^What is "Reality'"?

^^^ No dear son, i will not do that. Though very well blessed of God, i perceive boasting about it would be a heinous sin, aside from being very very small-minded. I certainly will not do any such thing. I hope you learn something from that.

If i were not a particularly stubborn person, i would abandon this thread, as it may at the outset seem futile debating with a "Christian" who declares "hatred" for muslims, calls them "despicable", routinely brands everyone else "fools", and to cap that, announces the fabulous acheivements of his education as being something that the rest of us can only "dream about. . ."

Wow, i have my hands full, taking such a student aboard.

But so help ne Lord, and please calm his abrasive temper, and pour the oil of understanding upon his arrogant soul. . .

Here we go.

I wish to start the discourse from a few simple questions:

1. What happens to people who lived after Jesus, but never heard of Jesus of Nazareth?

2. What happens to those who heard, but could not understand the dogma on account of cultural and historical differences? For Example, a Mahatma Ghandi, or the Dalai Lama. . . very upright peaceful men who have influenced the world massively in a peaceful, brotherly direction. . . what happens to them?

3. Have you read the context of Acts 10: 35? What was Cornelius' religious/ cultural background?

Let;s start with these.

davidylan:
Unfortunately for many of you noise makers . . . what i have achieved educationally so far is what you can only dream about.

Whoa! here goes the boastful "Christian!" Sometimes i wonder if you ever reflect on how Christlike your posts are, my dear son.

I would really be interested in what you have acheived educationally. Do you really think it makes sense to make such presumptions without knowing the identity or acheivements of the person you are interacting with? Again, more insight into your nature David. It might help to stop being so. . . boastful, you know. I doubt that Jesus would approve of this.

I must admit i am sorely tempted to address to you my educational and professional background. But that would be petty and childish, i will not do that. Rather, i will, as i promised, if not tonite, but certainly, school you in many many essentials which have clearly been left out of your great "educational acheivements"

Here we go. . .

^^^ Well, you did not dissappoint, me with the zero quality of your post.

I am happy to take away a few things from this discussion.

davidylan:
This is pretty stupid . . . in one breath you accuse me of having no understanding of scripture and then say i havent taken time out to reflect on existence OUTSIDE the "limited prizm" of that same bible? You sure you understand your own point?

Great, so you admit your education is limited to one book only. I will cherish this admission (although it has always been obvious).

davidylan:
There is nothing like "ethics" when it comes to christianity.

Great again: so your christianity is devoid of ethics. I will also cherish this admission.

I will take the pains to school you in the essentials of -

1. A broad cosmogony

2. Interpersonal respect

3. History

4. Ethics.

5. Existential Insight and interpretation of Scripture.

Although i am fearful it will lead nowhere, considering the vast limitations of your world-view, clearly conditioned only on background, and not on personal meditation and insight. . .

But, my dear son, i will try. . .

^^^ David -

Let me make one thing clear: i deliberately choose harsh words for you because of the ridiculously harsh words you use with others.

I am more saddened by your presumptiveness because you have never shown any depth of understanding of scripture yourself, certainly not beyond the average Mountain-of-Fire crusader. It seems to me that you have never taken a queit moment to reflect on existence itself, outside of the limited prizim of religion.

I happen to have read the Bible no less than four times from cover to cover, and i am still reading it over and over again. My reading of the bible was founded on a deep thirst for spiritual truth, which i have independently sought since the age of 12. I only state this since you bothered to ask.

It is in this same regard, that i have found it edifying to read far and wide, including the Quoran, a copy of which rests in my bedroom library, along with diverse spiritual works spanning Europe and[b] particularly the Orient.[/b]

The first thing you would have recognised, if you had a moment of true introspection and extropection, is that humanity is diverse, and made in diverse cultural and historical patterns.

Without getting exhaustive, for now i will only remind you of the words in Acts 10: 34 - 35, ". . . God is no respecter of persons. . . but in every nation, he that feareth HIM and worketh righteousness is acceptable to HIM". . .

Given your antecedents, i am certain that the above would either be lost on you, or, not being lost, you would seek to read it through the narrow tunnel of your dogma.

David, to be honest, the very title of this thread alone, proves my point about your mentality. How can any follower of Christ declare that he "hates" another group of people? Did this Christ not urge you to love even your enemies, preaching the "gospel" to them

Again, this convinces me, like i said earlier, that you are a christian only in dogma, and definitely not in ethics.

We will come later, to the shaky foundations of even the very dogma that you espouse.

Viaro - in fairness to Krayola, he is one of the VERY FEW who actually goes the distance, although i do not believe he has grasped the essentials of some of the arguments, but i must concede that he has a very very open mind, and considering the arguments he offers here, you will be surprised to find the fields of study that he is actually involved in.

I will stick my thumb up for him any day. He's an honest guy.

Krayola - when you have the time, please address #70. Particularly the proof on motion (because i am yet to see anything that begins to move, that was not kicked by something moving - e.g: a football) and the proof of degrees of things in existence.

And finally - please nobody should tell me about this having been discussed too much. It is an eternal question, has always been discussed, and will be discussed long after we are all dead.

So please jaare. . . it cant be discussed enough. . . do you think there is a limit to the different angles that existence can be looked at from??

If there isn't, then let the discussion carry on. . .!

^^^ O, and i forgot that in the esteemed opinion of Mr. Davidlylan, that "son" that was killed was God himself.

The same great professor Davidylan imagines that the death on the cross saves him of sins, in utter disregard of Christ's own words - "Whatsoeevr a man soweth, the same shall he reap". . .

Go on, David, knock yourself out.

No serious minded intellectual would ever make the sweeping stereotyping statements that you do, and frankly, they betray a definitely inferior world view, and i dare, say, a definitely inferior personal character and system of ethics.

That needed to be said.

I am so sick of empty and dogmatic finger-pointing.

Look at this typical xenophobic, narrowminded, generalistic, presumptuous quote:

davidylan:
Can the average muslim use his brain?

Some-one is talking about brains and yet a good surmise of his own dogma is -

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=61555.msg4757865#msg4757865 date=1255896633]NO HEATHEN TRIBE HAS EVER CONCEIVED OF SO GROTHESQUE A NOTION AS IT DOES IN THE ASSUMPTION THAT MAN IS BORN WITH A HERDITABLE SIN UPON HIM. AND THAT FOR THIS CURSE FOR WHICH HE IS NOT PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE TO BE ATONED FOR, GOD THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS HAD TO KILL HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON.

Major Yeast Brown[/quote]Still talking about brains

Krayola, i would be deeply interested in a point-by-point response to #70 above containing Dr. Angelicus' proofs.

This is because i am sorely tired of people stating that "this or that argument has been debunked" without ever actually tackling the arguments head on (you are not guilty of this, but others are, particularly Banom, who has never responded to any single part of the cosmological argument).

Please in the name of God (oops, does he exist, lol!) kindly respond point-by-point to #70.

I can assist to summarize the 5 proofs and make them concise single lines; if you find them overly wordy.

jagunlabi:
Their official day of worship is [b]SUN[/b]day.Is this religion a pagan religion in disguise?
Comments,please.

Jagun, please dont let me reach the conclusion that you are entirely unserious?

^^^ Viaro. . . Much appreciated.

But perhaps i should clear up something on that definition.

A person who states - "God does not exist" - must, perforce, have something in mind, which he is stating does not exist.

Just as surely as a person who states: "Pixies do not exist" - must perforce have an approximate idea of what the word "Pixies" refers to, in order to be able to make the inference that such a thing does not exist.

Indeed, nobody can state that anything does not exist, unless, he has an idea of what is meant by the thing which is being stated not to exist.

Accordingly, Banom (and all other atheists) have an idea of what the word "God" refers to.

That idea is universal to humanity: a supernatural entity that is responsible for creation.

I accept your statement on "created all that exists. . . what about who created God. . ."

This has been pointed out severally. But without dealing too extensively with that question for now, let me simply state that by the term 'all that exists", i am referring to the finite world, matter, and observable things.

Mr. Sendme, you are spamming this thread with those ridiculously long posts. Please be conscise.

I am not a christian. Nor a muslim. I believe in, and worship my God privately. Far away from the hypocrisy and dogmatism of religion.

Please if you can, answer these questions directly, what would you do in each instance -

Deep Sight:
Poser 1: Your wife is raped by a Serial Killer and Armed Robber. She gets pregnant? Will you keep the child -- such that the child becomes an eternal reminder of the violation of the woman sacred to you by a tout?

Poser 2: Many Fathers commit incest with their young Daughters. One gets pregnant. Keep the child?

Poser 3: A Pregnancy has complications that may lead to the death of the mother if not terminated. What do you do? Keep the child and lose the mother?

Poser 4: Would the world be a better place if Hitler's mother had intuitively sensed the emergence of an evil child and aborted the pregnancy?


Think outside the box.

jagunlabi:
If so,why does "he" need our love so desperately?
Why does he need to be worshipped by us so desperately?
Why does he need praises from us so desperately?
Why does he need sacrifices so much?

What exactly gives you the impression that GOD requires any of these? Is it not you men who have been falling over one another to give HIM these? Is it not you men who have been killing one another in HIS name, demanding that your fellow man should do these things in the way that YOU apprehend is right?

What has the primordial uncaused-cause of all existence to do with these trifles? Tell me?

Do you doubt that even now, billions of new universes are being spawned into existence outside our universe and outside our apprehension of Space and Time? If so, what makes you think that the PRIME MOVER OF THESE THINGS would be waiting for people on Earth to praise HIM?

Do you have any concept of how miniscule the Earth is within this universe alone?

Even the sun, does not require our praise to exist, not to talk about the Milky-Way Galaxy, not to talk about the Cluster of 100 Billion Galaxies that it belongs to, not to talk about the trillions of such clusters out there, and not to talk about all the universes out there, and not to talk about the non-physical realms in exiustence. . .

And you dare presume that the PRIMORDIAL CAUSE of ALL these things, requires anything from you miniscule earthling ants

Wake up!

ocelot2006:
Those who call themselves christians but support the atrocities in Gaza ought to be ashamed of themselves. You guys are nothing more than hypocrites. You people really need to pick up your books and go through the history of that region. No christian in his/her right mind will support the killing of innocent people on both sides and support the inequality and justice that goes on in that area. Or are you guys trying to say that Palestinians aren't humans and don't deserve to live a peaceful life? What the hell happened to the 2nd of the two golden rules laid out by Jesus in the New Testament ?

Help me ask them ooo? I can't understand a "Christian" like Davidlylan being like this. . . aside from the fact that the thread ab-initio is so conceptually misplaced in its entirety. It seems fairly clear to me that that fellow is more into the "Dogma" of his religion, than into the "Ethics" espoused by Christ. Come to think about it, the aggression he supports in Israel, is the same aggression he displays towards all who disagree with him on this forum. Ha! That ties it up!

^^^ There we go! 90% of the arguments contained in Dr. Angelicus' quote which i pasted above, i have tried at one time or the other to make on this forum, in different words.

So please digest it if you can (i will be surprised if you do) and provide cogent point-by-point rebuttals to each argument (i will commit suicide if you are able to.)

duduspace:
By the way, wetin happen to this thread? DeepSight don run? abi him don realise say him dey try prove the unprovable?

@ Duduspace - No, not at all.

You will notice if you read the thread, that Banom (now Playboy*) contributed next to nothing to this discussion beyond heckling over definitions.

You will see in the thread that many others went far beyond such trifles to deal with the core essentials of the argument-proper.

Although i am doubtful of Banom's capacity to digest the essentials of the below, and follow the core deductive reasoning contained therein, you, i think, may be able to do a better job.

Examine the below, which i have culled from the thread "Dr. Angelicus and his Straws" - It is the Argument put forward by an ancient Roman Catholic Theologian, for the existence of God. It captures many of the essentials of what i have been trying to put across.

Read it carefully, and let me know what you think.

The existence of God can be proved in Five Ways:

The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.

The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.

The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.

The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.

The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God.
In response to the first objection, then, I reply what Augustine says; that since God is entirely good, He would permit evil to exist in His works only if He were so good and omnipotent that He might bring forth good even from the evil. It therefore pertains to the infinite goodness of God that he permits evil to exist and from this brings forth good.

^^^ Well, inspite of the odds, it seems that i am actually going to leave this thread at the end very very fulfilled.

Pastor, now you have begun to nourish my soul, keep it up!

I would be deeply interested however, in an expatiation of the death and resurrection which you said occurred/ occurs in eternity. . .

KunleOshob:
@deepsight
I crave your indulgence to drop another 'morsel' for Noetic to explain better to us.

@Noetic
Could you explain the below better within the salvation context.

Revelation 20:11-13:
The Final Judgment
11 And I saw a great white throne and the one sitting on it. The earth and sky fled from his presence, but they found no place to hide. 12 I saw the dead, both great and small, standing before God’s throne. And the books were opened, including the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to what they had done, as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up its dead, and death and the grave gave up their dead. And all were judged according to their deeds.

GBAM! GBAM!! GBOGA!!!

Poser 1: Your wife is raped by a Serial Killer and Armed Robber. She gets pregnant? Will you keep the child -- such that the child becomes an eternal reminder of the violation of the woman sacred to you by a tout?

Poser 2: Many Fathers commit incest with their young Daughters. One gets pregnant. Keep the child?

Poser 3: A Pregnancy has complications that may lead to the death of the mother if not terminated. What do you do? Keep the child and lose the mother?

Poser 4: Would the world be a better place if Hitler's mother had intuitively sensed the emergence of an evil child and aborted the pregnancy?


Think outside the box.

@ Kunle Oshob -

On the contrary, i believe Pastor's quotes did perfect and deep-lining justice to your request. It shows exactly where "salvation" rests - within.

Pastor, eku ise gaan o. That was sensationally apt.