₦airaland Forum

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

benalvino: ... when you try to say the Word or wisdom was created then the contradiction mounts...

Enigma: Psalm 33:6

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.

Just as God's "word" and His "breath" are both separable and inseparable from God so are Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit both separable and inseparable from God the Father.

Enigma: To know when Jesus Christ began to exist is to know when God began to be as, somewhat paradoxically, it is to know when God's "word" began to exist.

To know when the Holy Spirit began to exist is to know when God began to be as, somewhat paradoxically, it is to know when God's breath began to exist.

Mr anony: ..... Zeisler sneaks his belief that Christ was not seen as God the Son until the 4th century. This is simply a false belief that comes from the urban myth that it was at the council of Nicaea that Christ began to be seen as God. We can trace Christ being referred to as God right back to the earliest church fathers .....

Enigma: ..... I would argue that it should be clear that to maintain or insist that the 'Trinity' was 'invented' at a council meeting smacks of either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty if not indeed intellectual fraud.....

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

In the article ‘After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’ arguments are made in favour of the moral permissibility of intentionally killing newborn infants, under particular conditions. Here we argue that their arguments are based on an indefensible view of personhood, and we question the logic of harm and interest that informs their arguments. Furthermore, we argue that the conclusions here are so contrary to ordinary moral intuitions that the argument and conclusions based upon it—including those which defend more mainstream methods of abortion—should be treated with immediate suspicion.

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

Mr anony: . . .When we say that murder is unlawful, we are not referring to some arbitrary laws that can be made up by anyone rather we are referring to an objective moral law that binds all of us.

Kay 17: ... a 2 month old foetus cannot be murdered cos it can't pass the test of viability in R v W.

Kay 17: ^^
Is a foetus a person in Nigeria?

Also note that 187 is subject to Roe vs Wade

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

“Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

"Who is this who even forgives sins?"

Image123: Unfortunately, frosb will ignore such questions that can help him until time 'covers' it, I wonder how his conscience copes.

shdemidemi: Frosbel has no backbone, what a way to answer a simple question.

Seun: Jesoul: Have you posted the request on the thread in the moderator section that we created for the purpose. I have said that mods should stop asking Nairalanders to send messages to me as I do not respond to my PMs. This must never happen again. If it does, it will not happen more than once.

chukkynwob: Any moderator who asks you to send mails to me is sending you on a wild goose chase, which is unfair to you. She has done nothing to help you by asking you to send me a PM since she knows that I do not have time to check my PMs.

truthislight: Lol.

Oga sir, how far ?

Long time no see.

Hope all is well ?

Its been long i set my eyes on ya.

benalvino: to summarize it for you... he is saying God is a title and the father is God the Son is God and the holy spirit too...
they are not 3 Gods but one God... in other Words God has 3 nature in which he operates to save mankind.
It was all God Yahweh till it was time for Jesus to come suddenly Father and Son distinction came out. you get the idea?

benalvino: and yet the bible says Jesus is the only Lord in heaven and earth isn't it?
just as the father is called mighty God and almighty God... can someone be mighty and almighty at same time?
Jesus is called mighty and almighty God too...

1Cor 15:27-28 God is not a thing so this rendering is not nice... check KJV.

'Everyone, save for mum, thought I should have an abortion,' she says. 'My dad even made an appointment at the clinic, and they showed me the little blob on the scan, I presume, to convince me that it was just a mass of cells and the whole thing would be over quickly.

'But I couldn't go through with it. 'At school, my friends - most of whom didn't even know about the rape - couldn't understand why anyone my age would want to have a baby rather than an abortion.

'And the few I did tell about what had happened were even more horrified that I would want to go through with the birth.

'But I did. And I don't regret it for a moment.

Every time I look at Phoebe, I know I made the right decision. I never wanted to end my baby's life just because of how she came to be.'

To most women, the thought of carrying their rapist's baby would be unthinkable. Elizabeth says that she, too, would once have shared that view.

To her amazement, though, the first sight of that 'mass of cells' on the screen triggered waves of tenderness rather than revulsion.

'It was surprisingly easy to love her as she grew inside me, but I have to admit I was scared my feelings would change when I saw her.

'During the pregnancy, I had nightmares about the attack and I worried myself sick that seeing my baby would immediately bring on flashbacks of that night.

'But from the moment mum put her on my breast, there was no question we belonged together.

'She did not remind me of that night, and I knew then that having her was more important than what had happened.'

Mr anony: Is the baby in the womb human?

As long as the baby is human, r[color=#000000]ap[/color]e is not an excuse to kill it. Emotional answers do not count here.

Bidam: but Christ is the lawgiver na..why can't you see it?

Ubenedictus: . . .
Those individual member of those congregation are christians, members of the church though they may not agree in what is the truth of the divine oracles.
So anglicans, methodist are christians, members of the body of christ, members of the church.

Ubenedictus: hehehehe, i actually opened the thread for frobel who seem to have a problem when the church is called 'mother', that not withstanding, i hope to use my limited time to answer your questions.


liguistically the church refer to those, -each and every one- who has been called out of the world into the newness of live in christ Jesus.
More interestingly,
The church is the body of christ and all christians are members of that body, the body is bounded by cords of love, faith among other things. All member who share these bonds of charity and common faith...are truly in communion with the whole body...those who do not, while still remaining part of the body are not fully in communion. And i sincerely pray that all christians may truly come to that fullness of communion.


I'm very sure u can anticipate my answers to question 2, 3, 4, i do not consider the methodist, anglican, lutherian and redeemed "churches" to the churches except in the sense of "a local gathering of believers", i thus consider them ecclesiatical communities. Apart from that sense i do not associate d word church to those congregations! I do not particularly consider those 'entities' as part of the church probably because i do not exactly consider them as entities but as association of INDIVIDUAL BELIEVERS.

Those individual member of those congregation are christians, members of the church though they may not agree in what is the truth of the divine oracles.
So anglicans, methodist are christians, members of the body of christ, members of the church.

7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? 8 Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.”b Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10 Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?