₦airaland Forum

I'm glad to be of help to you, bennyann. You're welcome.

Bennyann, first of all, I'd advise you to use the KJV.

Now, this wicked world and the abominable religious system(which would enforce Sunday worship) that would be in place when Christ returns would be brought to desolation, and be destroyed "with the brightness of his coming."(2 Thess 2:8 ) After Christ has come to take the saints up to Heaven, nothing will remain on earth. Jeremiah describes the state of the earth and the wicked in it at the second coming of Christ in Jer. 4:23-26 (note the "presence of the LORD" mentioned in v.26). Isa. 24:1-6 also pictures the desolation of this earth. Now notice Isa. 24:10, which mentions the destruction of the "city of confusion". This city can only be Babylon(which means confusion), which Rev. 17:5 calls the mother of harlots. The Catholic church has been shown to be the Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18.

Follow the link below to find out more about the second coming of Christ.

https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/44/t/rendezvous-in-space

akintom:
I do know that you don't have sight impairment, didn't you see that i quoted the verse?

Am asking you, how does folks running upandan with increased proliferation of knowledge (churches on every street) about god, synonymous with ICT?

The Bible says knowledge will increase in the end times, and not just knowledge about GOD. Stop constructing strawman arguments.

akintom:
Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

How does this verse prophesied ICT now?

Read and think upon the last clause.

Richirich713:
this is hilarious, these guys seriously think they nailed ur argument by posting a meme that's got nothing to do with ur argument.

LOL. Our Nairaland "freethinkers" are only good at constructing strawman arguments.

ScepticalPyrrho:
And this is suppose to be the best argument for the existence of God?

At first I thought the op was making jest of bible apologists.

"The bible is always true"

It isn't worth responding to.

It's not worth responding to because one simply can't gainsay it?

Niflheim:
@Doctor alien,

You have no argument!!!............................................Since when did "wishful thinking" become an argument?

You can actually defeat my argument by proving that the Bible is not always true.

Bennyann, please follow the link below to find out what the abomination of desolation is.

https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/51/t/the-abomination-of-desolation

Niflheim:
The Koran is always true!!!(According to Muslims)

The Koran says that Allah exists!!!(According to Muslims)

Therefore, Allah exists!!!(According to Muslims)

@Doctor alien,

Is this what you were trying to say? Therefore Jehovah and allah must both simultaneously exist in this universe, one impregnating virgins(that belong to his servants), while the other preparing virgins(like 72 or so) for his servants!!!

Have you no rebuttal for my argument?

Pastafarian:
Professor David Sperling and Rabbi David Wolpe to name a few

According to Richard Elliot Friedman, Prof. David Sperling and Rabbi were following the claims of archaeologists. Those archaeologists' claims that the exodus never happened are not based on evidence, but largely on its absence. The archaeologists claimed to have combed the Sinai and found no evidence for the exodus as stated in the Bible. Well, the claim is false, as no major excavations have been done in the Sinai, and it certainly has not been combed.

Pastafarian:
most bible scholars and apologists have admitted exodus never happened

LOL. Which Bible scholars and apologists said that the Exodus did not happen?

akintom:
How come this your Bible god didn't prophecy about this age of ICT?

The Bible indeed prophesied about this age of ICT. Read Daniel 12:4 with KJV.

Premise 2: That the Bible unequivocally states that GOD exists is clear to anybody who can read and understand.

"IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Gen. 1:1

"IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with GOD, and the Word was GOD." Jn. 1:1

Premise 1: There is no gainsaying the fact that the Bible is always true. It has stood rigorous tests throughout the ages. It's history is well corroborated(not that it's needful, anyway), it's instructions has been proven to be the safeguard for peace and sanity in the society, it's prophecies have come to fufillment with unbelievable accuracy. The candour with which Bible events were narrated is unparalleled. Uninspired historians often record their events with bias, making the main characters appear in the best light possible. But not so with the Spirit-inspired Word. The faults of its main characters are clearly stated, often more elaborately than their feats. Moreover, it has been proven that the Bible is devoid of contradictions. Indeed, the Bible is always true.

ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE

Premise 1: The Bible is always true.

Premise 2: The Bible states that GOD exists.

Conclusion: Therefore GOD exists.

randomperson:
Hmmmm..... This is what two other versions day about the verse you quoted

Erm, I don't care what any version of the Bible that is not KJV has to say about anything. The KJV is the most correct translation of the Holy Bible.

Thank you.

[quote author=hopefulLandlord post=54468850][/quote]I know that you don't know what the word "reel" means. Just look it up and stop laughing "like an idiot".

randomperson,

"The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again." Isa. 24:20

The great day of the LORD will be very catastrophic. Even right now, the earth rotates on its axis once every 24 hours, and every part of the earth gets to see the sun at one point or the other within that 24 hours. But on that great day, the earth will roll and reel to and fro vigorously like a drunkard. That will afford every eye the opportunity to behold the King in His majesty.

A moral relativist has no moral grounds on which to claim that slavery is bad. That can only be his own opinion, which is in no way superior to the opinion of a slave trader on that same issue. The moral relativist has no right whatsoever to tell others not to own slaves.

Auki:
I bear witness that there is absolutely nothing to be worship other than God. And I will not ascribe partner on to Him nor will I worship Jesus, Muhammad, Marry(Peace be on them) in place of my Maker.

We will see and you will see who will be abased and humble before the Lord of the Throne.

I don't know what you call GOD as a muslim but I'm very sure that whatever it is, it is different from the GOD of the Bible, which is the true GOD.

And you don't have to mention Jesus Christ, the King of kings, and the Lord of lords, in the same sentence with Mohammed the murderer. They did not recognize the same GOD. And surely, Mohammed was never a prophet of the GOD of the Bible.

In the darkest part of that night of rebellion, just when it will seem as if there is no hope for this small group of people, the Eastern sky will burst open, and the Judge of the whole universe will be made manifest. Every eye shall see Him. Some will burst into songs of gladness, while some will be too petrified to even utter a word.

Well, the statistics lied because major happenings in the world right now point to a one-world religion with the Beast of Revelation 13 at the head. All the religions of the world, including Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, apostate Christianity, name them, will unite themselves into one big world religion, with Sunday as their day of rest and worship. They will then get the governments of the world to enact a law that will make it illegal to practise any religion other than theirs. It will also be illegal, on pain of even death, to refuse to observe Sunday as a day of rest, or to observe any other day apart from Sunday. The Beast and his cohorts will claim that GOD is angry with the world, and that calamities and disasters and wars and famines are upon the earth because men do not observe Sunday as a day of rest.

Then there will be a small group of "dissidents" who will choose to obey GOD and keep the true Sabbath, rather than to obey man. They will be labelled as trouble makers, imprisoned and finally killed.

"You cannot even say one ought to be relativist. A moral relativist can't claim that believing the truth or seeking the truth is either good or obligatory. In other words, "free-thought", "openness to evidence", "rejection of dogma", and "pursuit of the truth" cannot be held as virtues or commended to others."

WORD.

emrain:
Before you proceed, reply your private mail.

Done.

Source: www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo1/koukl.php

Rule #7: Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Tolerance

Finally, there is no tolerance in relativism, because the moral obligation to be tolerant violates the rules. The principle of tolerance is often considered one of the key virtues of relativism. Morals are individual, and so we should tolerate the viewpoints of others by not judging their behavior and attitudes. But it should be obvious that this principle fails through contradiction. If there are no moral rules, there can be no rule that requires tolerance as a moral principle. In fact, if there are no moral absolutes, why be tolerant at all? Why not force your morality on others if it’s in your self- interest and your personal ethics allow it? Just be sure not to speak when doing so.

Rule#6: Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions

Relativism makes it impossible to discuss morality. What’s there to talk about? An ethical discussion involves comparing the merits of one view with those of another to find out which is best. But if morals are entirely relative and all views are equally valid, then no way of thinking is better than any other. No moral position can be judged adequate or deficient, unreasonable, unacceptable, or even barbaric. In fact, if ethical disputes only make sense when morals are objective, then relativism can only be consistently lived out in silence. You can’t even say, “It’s wrong to push your morality on others.”

Rule #5: Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality

With relativism, moral improvement is impossible. Sure, relativists can change their personal ethics, but they can never become moral people. Moral reform implies some kind of objective rule of conduct as a standard to shoot for. But this rule is exactly what relativists deny. If there is no better way, there can be no improvement. Not only that, but there is no motivation to improve. Relativism destroys the moral impulse that makes people rise above themselves because there is no “above” to rise to. Why change your moral point of view if your current one serves your self-interest and feels good for the time being?

Rule #4: Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust

Under relativism, justice and fairness are two concepts that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. First off, the words themselves have no meaning; both suggest that people deserve equal treatment based on an external standard of what is right, and as I have already said several times, relativists can’t believe in right and wrong. Second, there is no such thing as guilt. Justice entails punishing those who are guilty, and guilt depends on blame, which, as I have also already proven, cannot exist.

Rule #3: Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise

The concepts of praise and blame are completely meaningless within relativism because there is no moral standard by which to judge whether something should be applauded or condemned. Without absolutes, nothing is ultimately bad, deplorable, tragic, or worthy of blame. Neither is anything ultimately good, honorable, noble, or worthy of praise. It’s all lost in a twilight zone of moral nothingness. Those claiming to be relativists are almost always inconsistent here (they want to avoid blame but readily accept praise), so be careful!

Rule #2: Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil

The reality of evil in the world is one of the primary objections raised against the existence of God. The argument goes that if God were absolutely powerful and ultimately good, then he would take care of evil. But since evil exists, one of three possible scenarios has to be true: God is too weak to oppose evil, God is too sinister to care about evil, or God simply doesn’t exist. Of course, to advance any one of these arguments means that you also have to believe in evil, which relativists can’t do. In fact, nothing can be called evil—not even the Holocaust—because to do so would be to affirm some sort of moral standard.

Rule #1: Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing

Relativism makes it impossible to criticize the behavior of others, because relativism ultimately denies that there is such a thing as wrong- doing. In other words, if you believe that morality is a matter of personal definition, then you can’t ever again judge the actions of others. Relativists can’t even object on moral grounds to racism. After all, what sense can be made of the judgment “apartheid is wrong” when spoken by someone who doesn’t believe in right and wrong? What justification is there to intervene? Certainly not human rights, for there are no such things as rights. Relativism is the ultimate pro-choice position because it accepts every personal choice—even the choice to be racist.