₦airaland Forum

cyrexx: i was raised a very religious fellow. i have read everything from cover to cover over the course of my religious life which spawned several years when i was quite younger. i strictly followed a read-the-bible-thru-in-a-year plan. i even used to teach in a church group.

besides i have many books and teaching tapes of great bible teachers like kenneth hagin, kenneth copeland, rick joyner, smith wigglesworth, derek prince etc etc. (yes, before you say it, im a bookworm, and my family complains about it).

so if i talk about the bible, im not talking like an ignorant fellow. i know the thing very well.

surprisingly i still read it now sometimes, but as a literature that contains some inspirational truth not the words of an omniscient being cos whoever the people that wrote those words, they are surely not omniscient at all, neither are they inspired by an omniscient being.

@cyrexx

Those two that I have highlighted in particular are far from being great Bible teachers; in fact they are responsible to a very great degree for the corruption of Christianity and the aberration that is known as the Prosperity "Gospel".

Of the others, the most tolerable is (the late) Derek Prince .

Let me make a recommendation and set a challenge to you.

Get a (or get out your old) Bible with the words of Jesus in red; read and study the words of Jesus only ---- on your own and try as much as possible to exclude any external influence on your thinking; then follow your own conclusions after doing the exercise.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]LOL! Abeg posters please help him spot the "proof" in his post.[/quote]Forgive me I just saw this, lol

"Proof", Mr Anony, "proof" ---- you are looking for "proof"?

From our friends?

Ok oh!

Ah "lol" ---- just like that.

Members of the Anglican Church and Communion and people of the Reformed tradition and even "evangelicals" happily say the line below from the Nicene Creed as amended/updated.

I/We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

Anyone with a proper intellectual and historical understanding would not say that by the word "catholic" they mean The Roman Catholic Church or even The Catholic Church.

Similarly with the word "apostolic" which cannot be taken to mean the denomination/s known as The Apostolic Church.

Dr young: @ at nl, Did anybody bothered to give the op a reasonable answer instead of this age long argument?

Different people have made suggestions irrespective of the arguments about the Roman Catholic Church.

One thing we all need to realise is that salvation is not found in a particular "church" or "denomination" or for that matter "abomination".*

Salvation is to be found in the person of Jesus Christ.

(*On a previous occasion some time ago, I pointed out the folly of a particular "G.O." making an 'altar call' and saying that even people who had been "saved" elsewhere should come forward for "the genuine salvation". )

One more Gray extract --- this time in relation to the hive colony etc thing that someone mentioned earlier on the thread and I guess also the 'hive psychology' thing that I saw on another thread some time ago.

Evolutionary psychology is in its infancy, and much of what passes for knowledge in the subject is not much more than speculation—or worse. There have been countless attempts to apply evolutionary theory to social life but, since there is no mechanism in society comparable to natural selection in biology, they have produced only a succession of misleading metaphors, in which social systems are mistakenly viewed as living organisms. Indeed, if there is anything of substance to be derived from an evolutionary view of the human mind, it must be the persistence of unreason.

As the related discipline of behavioural finance has shown in some detail with regard to decision-making under conditions of risk and uncertainty, human thought and perception are riddled with bias, inconsistency and self-deception.** Since our minds are animal minds—as Darwin argued in The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872)—things could hardly be otherwise. Shaped by imperatives of survival, the human mind will not normally function as an organ for seeking out the truth.** If science is the pursuit of truth—an assumption that begs some tricky questions—it doesn’t follow that anything similar is possible in other areas of human life. The idea that humans can shape their lives by the use of reason is an inheritance from rationalist philosophy that does not fit easily with what we know of the evolution of our mammalian brain. The end result of scientific inquiry may well be that irrational beliefs are humanly indispensable.

** Cf

Jeremiah 17:9 (NLT)

"The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?

Romans 8:6 (NLT)

So letting your sinful nature control your mind leads to death. But letting the Spirit control your mind leads to life and peace.

This below from a different Gray piece is also relevant to this thread, I think.

Science and humanism are at odds more often than they are at one. For a devoted Darwinist like Pinker to maintain that the world is being pacified by the spread of a particular world view is deeply ironic. There is nothing in Darwinism to suggest that ideas and beliefs can transform human life. To be sure, there have been attempts to formulate an idea of progress in terms of competing memes—vaguely defined concepts or units of meaning that are held to be in some ways akin to genes—although nothing like a scientific theory has been developed. Even if there were such things as memes and they did somehow compete with one another, there is nothing to say that benign memes would be the winners. Quite to the contrary, if history is any guide. Racist ideas are extremely resilient and highly contagious, as is shown by the re-emergence of xenophobic ethnic nationalism and antisemitism in post-communist Europe. So are utopian ideas, which have resurfaced in neoconservative thinking about regime change. The recurrent appearance of these memes suggests that outside of some fairly narrowly defined areas of scientific investigation, progress is at best fitful and elusive. Science may be the cumulative elimination of error, but the human fondness for toxic ideas is remarkably constant.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]. . . Now what Dawkins unknowingly implies here is that our reasoning minds are not a product of genetic evolution since we can use our rational minds to go against what we are genetically predisposed to do.
To be fair, Dawkins introduces memes which are units of ideas and culture that are transmitted much like genes i.e. behaviours we have but we don't know why we have them. Basically, Dawkins contradicts himself as he seems to be saying on the one hand that we are powerless against our genes/memes and then on the other hand that we can fight against our genes/memes. . . .[/quote]@ Mr Anony

Per John Gray on "memes":

In The God Delusion, Dawkins attempts to explain the appeal of religion in terms of the theory of memes, vaguely defined conceptual units that compete with one another in a parody of natural selection.

Unfortunately, the theory of memes is science only in the sense that Intelligent Design is science. Strictly speaking, it is not even a theory. Talk of memes is just the latest in a succession of ill-judged Darwinian metaphors.

Dawkins compares religion to a virus: religious ideas are memes that infect vulnerable minds, especially those of children. Biological metaphors may have their uses - the minds of evangelical atheists seem particularly prone to infection by religious memes, for example. At the same time, analogies of this kind are fraught with peril.

^^^

Bros, I suggest that we let the issue rest, bo.

The two viewpoints are on the thread; let each of us continue to examine our positions, let others consider the issues, arguments and analyses and decide where to pitch their tents.

One thing I will do is to leave a link here on the thread which has a concise yet reasonably detailed presentation of the line of argument I have put forward.

http://truthsaves.org/doctrine/bible-from-catholics.shtml

chukwudi44: @olabode

My posts were directed @ enigma. I posted this quotations to display the kind of beleifs that early christians had.According to enigma the RCC and their teacings only came after the council of chalcedon.I only posted this quotes to refute him

Nna bros, I have not said or argued that the RCC came after the Council of Chalcedon.

Rather my argument is:

1. The Roman Catholic Church is to be distinguished from the [b]c[/b]atholic Church (or the Church [b]c[/b]atholic or the universal Church); and

2. It was not the Roman Catholic Church that "compiled" the Bible but rather it was the [b]c[/b]atholic Church (or the Church [b]c[/b]atholic or the universal Church); and

3. Similarly the Nicene Council (on the formalisation of the Trinity doctrine) was not a council of the Roman Catholic Church but of the [b]c[/b]atholic Church (or the Church [b]c[/b]atholic or the universal Church).

Enigma: This Federer aka the grandaderer should just stop embarrasing himself!

Pleased as anything for the GOAT.

Murray's day will come.

If Olympics Gold counts - esp beating TMF in the final - then this was slightly prophetic. Still wish him well for the future anyway ----- well as long as TMF doesn't need the win.

Previously posted here https://www.nairaland.com/1016132/catholic-position-dont-point/3#11813883

Read these below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church

The term "catholic" is derived from the Greek word καθολικός (katholikos) meaning "universal" and was first used to describe the Church in the early 2nd century.[17] The term katholikos is equivalent to καθόλου (katholou), a contraction of the phrase καθ' ὅλου (kath' holou) meaning "according to the whole".[18] "Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) first appears in a letter of St Ignatius written in about 110.[19] In the "Catechetical Discourses" of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catholic Church" is used to distinguish it from other groups that also call themselves the church.

This according to the same Ignatius who coined "the Catholic Church" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_the_doctrine_of_Papal_Primacy

For Ignatius each church under a bishop is complete – the original meaning of "catholic". For Ignatius the church is a world-wide unity of many communities. Each has at its center a bishop "who draws together the local community in the Eucharistic celebration."[13] This then is the unity of the church – each church united to its bishop -each of these churches united to each other. There is no evidence of him accepting a single supreme bishop-of-bishops as the bishops authority is localised to a particular church.

Note this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentarchy

In the Apostolic Age (largely the 1st century) the Christian Church comprised an indefinite number of local Churches that in the initial years looked to the first church at Jerusalem as its main centre and point of reference. But by the 4th century it had developed a system whereby the bishop of the capital of each civil province (the metropolitan bishop) normally held certain rights over the bishops of the other cities of the province (later called suffragan bishops).

Check where Christians were first called "catholics"
ETA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_the_Bishop_of_Rome#Relationship_with_bishops_of_other_cities

Rome was not the only city that could claim a special role in Christ's Church. Jerusalem had the prestige of being the city of Christ's death and resurrection, and an important church council was held there in the 1st century. Antioch was the place where Jesus' followers were first called "Christians" {7} (as well as "Catholic"[48] and, with Alexandria, was an important early center of Christian thought.

Again, note this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church

The term Christian Church as a proper noun refers to the whole Christian religious tradition through history. The term does not correctly refer to a particular "Christian church" (a "denomination" or building).

. . . .

In the New Testament, the term ἐκκλησία ("church" or "assembly" is used for local communities as well as in a universal sense to mean all believers.[2] Traditionally, only orthodox believers are considered part of the true church, but convictions of what is orthodox vary.

The four traditional "notes of the Christian Church" or descriptors of the church, first expressed in the Nicene Creed are unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity.[

1. Do you still want to say there is no such thing as the c[/b]atholic Church (small C) i.e. the universal Church?

2. When the Bible was being "compiled" did the catholic Church (deliberate small C) or even the Catholic Church (capital C) consist of just the RCC?

3. Was the Bible "compiled" before or after the Chalcedon that is being trumpeted here?

4. How would you classify the Eastern Orthodox churches?

5. Did the Eastern Orthodox church/es play a role in the "compilation" of the Bible or not?

[b]6. Which See was first established: Jerusalem, Antioch or Rome?

Ogozirim: You will agree that it is by these same words of Popes and priests that a number of ordinances not expressly written, or probably never indicated in the Bible, have become mainstream christian practices.

You may want to read up the origins of :

1. The Easter date which, though is not fixed, was established by the Council of Nicaea - yes, a catholic council.

2. The Trinity - established by the Council of Nicaea (catholic again)

2. The New testament of the bible - compiled by 4th Century theologians, eminent Christian teachers and great bishops including inputs from Saint Augustine(Bishop of Africa) and decree of Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, "The Decree of Damasus", in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments.

....the list goes on, and goes to show you that most conventional christian practices, accepted memorial dates and theologies emanated from this church you have so much fallen out with. I can tell you with confidence that insofar as you are a Christian but not Sabbatarian of JW, you rely on, use and live by so many enunciations that originated from the mouth of catholic bishops, like it or not. And quote me, these are not all written in the Bible.



Matt 22:32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?’God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”
Of course death is not the end of our immortal souls, but eternal death (separation from God) is. I'm sure you'd agree that at least a few souls (redeemed by the blood of the lamb) have made heaven, including the one whom all generation shall call blessed (Luke 1:48)



Again, pls refer to Luke 1:43. If the mystery of the Trinity is anything to go by then dear Frosbel the Lord Jesus is one and the same God with the Father and in His wisdom God chose to come in flesh through a woman, calling her mother. Why should you (Frosbel) take Panadol on behalf of someone else, eh?



I'm sure even at work you seek council from subject matter experts and senior colleagues; God's injunction that the Spirit will teach you all things does not in any way preclude occasions of learning from spiritual advisors. Keep an open mind bro

Got to give it to you, you got me talking - with my fingers.

Unfortunately, some of the information in this post is misleading.

The first thing is that the present Roman Catholic Church (sometimes misleadingly called The Catholic Church) is simply claiming for itself some things which the entirety of The Christian Church did! And when Roman Catholics do this and pretend/claim to be the only true/church they open themselves up to the vehement criticisms that they receive from other Christians.

It was not the Roman Catholic Church that "compiled" the Bible; it was The Christian Church which can also be called the [b]c[/b]atholic Church (note small C) or the "Church catholic" or in more modern terms --- the universal church.

Even when the expression "Catholic" was made official in 380 by Theodosius through the Edict of Thessalonica, it did not refer only to the Roman Church but still to the universal Church ----- in so far as it subscribes to the doctrine of The Trinity. (Edit: note that even that 380 AD is obviously later than the Nicene Council of 385 325 AD)

I also reproduce in a following post something that I posted on another thread yesterday.

Edited

^^^ He is unquestionably the most sly and dishonest of the evangelical atheists.

There are some of them who make up for poor argument with rudeness and obnoxiousness.

There are one or two (only one currently active IIRC) fairly intellectually honest.

Then you have the ranters who regard unthinking, ill-thought or even outright senseless rants as "logic and reason".

Pastor AIO: @Enigma, it seems that there are some underlying issues that you and I need to discuss, and not just brush under the carpet with glib apologies. I'm open to having this discussion, I hope you are. It'll have to be publicly, here on NL though.

Every thing has been public.

^^^ Will you please top stop the lie that I mocked someone.

As for your defense of your own action, that to me is just weaseling nonsense to be honest.

^^

@ Mr Anony

I have not actually got involved on that point here and would leave it to Ihedinobi if he wants to address it.

^^^ I am sorry I am simply not going to get involved in this thread.

Those who called Jesus a bastard - at least one on this thread and one or two others not here - know themselves and I am confident you were on at least one (if not more) of those threads.

Ihedinobi: MyJoe, my feeling about you is that you're a believer. I'm still not very willing to take that fact on face value and show you the meaning of that part of the Bible. I will know if it's worth it if you please accommodate one question, or two as the case may be, for me.

What in that passage indicated that it was angels that married these women? And why?

Pardon my seeming arrogance. I have suffered from opening up deep meanings to abusers of my family heritage and do not intend to put the value of my family treasures through such terrible handling again. So show me, if you will, that there is truly that in you which knows the value of the Scriptures.

Edit: I see that you have answered the first question: the term, sons of God, is what you receive as refering to angels. And you say that the devil (that is, Satan, right?) is numbered among them. Please tell me why you receive that to mean "angels".

Quite often I have felt it is not worth expending energy on schooling some of the non-Christians here who are usually ungrateful anyway ---- "casting pearls before swine" and all that.

Pastor AIO: Well, I apologise for offending you. I was not digging up the thread to dig at you. I dig up old threads when I find the current page 1 threads boring, and I chanced on that one and made the comment.

I've just looked at the religious practices thread and fail to see what was 'nonsensical' about it. https://www.nairaland.com/524398/religious-practices

It seems that you're really smarting from my comments, but really think about it. You were mocking someone for not knowing some vague english phrase (Indian Summer) which is different from calling people up on their beliefs based a misunderstanding of the bible's english. (eg. Thou shalt Suffer a witch to not live - misquoted and used to justify torture of those accused of witchcraft). Okay, it's possible that I might have pointed fingers at someone else's misunderstanding of english outside of biblical or theological contexts in which case I would have been just as pathetic as the whole Indian summer debacle. I don't recall ever doing so but I apologise if I did.

1. On the Religious Practices thread: this was a thread that I had not got involved in at all; the very first line on the thread was pitifully stu.pid anyway (as was relying on a dictionary merely to "define" religion!) and even if I had seen the thread I would have kept out of it. Anyway, on a thread that I was not involved in you felt no shame making the dig that I would avoid it like the plague.

2. As for your hypocrisy regarding calling people up on the English language, here is just one example https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/3#10831529

Pastor AIO: Either you don't understand english or you hallucinate as you read. . . . .

That alone is worse than what you said caused you "pain deep within your soul" (O ga ) as done by "bloviating"* "ITKs" "doing like say na dem papa get language".

Hypocrisy much? Also dishonesty, as I said before, because of course the fact that I told the other poster to let it go was conveniently overlooked.

Anyway, I note you are now apologising; it's all good.



* Thanks again, davydlan.

Pastor AIO: it seems that enigma is not talking to me because I called him (amongst others) up for trying to use english language to mock Deepsight. What a pity!

@Enigma. All that stuff about separation of church and state is water under the bridge for me and I don't think you have to imagine that everything I say is being addressed to you. I was talking about upstart evangelicals, and if you are not one then you don't have to take it so personally. My point about the upstarts still stands whether you're one or not.

^^^ Water under the bridge --- but you went to dig up a thread that had been dead for about a year (9 months) to make a pointless and even dishonest dig at me. And hypocritical too --- because I can point to examples of you calling people up on English language.

Yeah right, water under the bridge indeed; even after the 'separation of church and state' debate and even after your nonsense on the Religious Practices thread, I was still quite disappointed that you could sink so low! I guess it was your reaction to the fact that your arguments on some 3 or 4 other/preceding threads were shown to be tosh.

^^^ But I already alluded to the history of The Christian Church earlier and even previously gave the following link!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church

chukwudi44: . . .The bible was compiled when the entire catholic church was under the authority of the bishop of Rome.The canonization of the bible was ratified by popes Damasus 1 and innocent 1 before they became binding. . . . .

^^^

Edit PS Not everyone accepted the "authority" of the Bishop of Rome; some simply accepted it as having some kind of preeminence and they saw it otherwise as equals with the other Sees hence the expression "primus inter pares".

@ Chukwudi44

Nna Bros

NOPE!!! I do not have a bias against the Roman Catholic Church.

I have just stated that I even have strong Catholic credentials and connections.

I say again that on one of the earliest anti-Catholic threads on this forum in 2005 I was one of those defending the Catholics. Edit I have also defended the Catholic Church on other occasions.

I am not one of those who will tell you that Catholics are not Christians.

I am nether "Pentecostal" nor even "Protestant" so I am not bothered about all those nonsense about 'upstart evangelicals'; that is the problem of those who are interested in that.

The point is not about antagonism of the (Roman) Catholic Church --- the point is about being truthful and realistic on the history of The Christian Church. Please note the importance of that deliberate expression --- The Christian Church.

People should stop spreading the falsehood (born of ignorance or poor learning) that the Roman Catholic Church "compiled" the Bible -- yada yada. That is the real bottom line for this thread.

^^^ I have even seen it argued that the Roman Catholic Church started at Pentecost!

I wonder which true Christian church in that sense did not start at Pentecost; cf e.g. the arguments of Anglicans and evangelicals on apostolic succession.

At the risk of offending my nna Chukwudi, I guess some will go as far as saying that even Jesus Christ Himself was a Roman Catholic!

And then we get the obfuscation with Chalcedon - Chalcedon ko, Chalcedon ni.

Meanwhile I speak as a person with very strong Roman Catholic credentials and connections --- and who has actually defended the Roman Catholic Church on this very Nairaland occasionally since 2005.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]....so much for "logic and reason"[/quote]For most of our friends "logic and reason" = rant; unthinking/ill-thought and sometimes even senseless rant.

@chukwudi44

Read these below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church

The term "catholic" is derived from the Greek word καθολικός (katholikos) meaning "universal" and was first used to describe the Church in the early 2nd century.[17] The term katholikos is equivalent to καθόλου (katholou), a contraction of the phrase καθ' ὅλου (kath' holou) meaning "according to the whole".[18] "Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) first appears in a letter of St Ignatius written in about 110.[19] In the "Catechetical Discourses" of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catholic Church" is used to distinguish it from other groups that also call themselves the church.

This according to the same Ignatius who coined "the Catholic Church" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_the_doctrine_of_Papal_Primacy

For Ignatius each church under a bishop is complete – the original meaning of "catholic". For Ignatius the church is a world-wide unity of many communities. Each has at its center a bishop "who draws together the local community in the Eucharistic celebration."[13] This then is the unity of the church – each church united to its bishop -each of these churches united to each other. There is no evidence of him accepting a single supreme bishop-of-bishops as the bishops authority is localised to a particular church.

Note this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentarchy

In the Apostolic Age (largely the 1st century) the Christian Church comprised an indefinite number of local Churches that in the initial years looked to the first church at Jerusalem as its main centre and point of reference. But by the 4th century it had developed a system whereby the bishop of the capital of each civil province (the metropolitan bishop) normally held certain rights over the bishops of the other cities of the province (later called suffragan bishops).

Check where Christians were first called "catholics"
ETA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_the_Bishop_of_Rome#Relationship_with_bishops_of_other_cities

Rome was not the only city that could claim a special role in Christ's Church. Jerusalem had the prestige of being the city of Christ's death and resurrection, and an important church council was held there in the 1st century. Antioch was the place where Jesus' followers were first called "Christians" {7} (as well as "Catholic"[48] and, with Alexandria, was an important early center of Christian thought.

Again, note this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church

The term Christian Church as a proper noun refers to the whole Christian religious tradition through history. The term does not correctly refer to a particular "Christian church" (a "denomination" or building).

. . . .

In the New Testament, the term ἐκκλησία ("church" or "assembly" is used for local communities as well as in a universal sense to mean all believers.[2] Traditionally, only orthodox believers are considered part of the true church, but convictions of what is orthodox vary.

The four traditional "notes of the Christian Church" or descriptors of the church, first expressed in the Nicene Creed are unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity.[

1. Do you still want to say there is no such thing as the c[/b]atholic Church (small C) i.e. the universal Church?

2. When the Bible was being "compiled" did the catholic Church (deliberate small C) or even the Catholic Church (capital C) consist of just the RCC?

3. Was the Bible "compiled" before or after the Chalcedon that is being trumpeted here?

4. How would you classify the Eastern Orthodox churches?

5. Did the Eastern Orthodox church/es play a role in the "compilation" of the Bible or not?

[b]6. Which See was first established: Jerusalem, Antioch or Rome?

Kay 17: @mr anony

Just watched the video, and I saw the parallel drawn btw Christianity and humanism, but note that John Gray is a nihilist and just stating his view.

Was it not your much vaunted "rationalism" that was first seen as nihilism?

And is the point not that if your position is that rationalism is all, and according to it there is no God, the logical end result is nihilism?

Is that not why even Dawkins is seen from that viewpoint as a soft atheist --- a description which I personally regard as charitable and polite. I would rather use a different term like 'intellectually unfaithful' or even intellectually dishonest. The same point is what is being said of so-called "humanism" and the injunction is to have the courage of your convictions ---- if atheism is right, there is no point to "humanism"; everything and anything goes --- murder, cannibalism , ra.pe, pa.edophilia etc etc

souldust: in all of my honest search i have just come to know the truth about the rcc and also the propaganda. I think the reason why many pentecostals refuse to accept that the rcc compiled the bible is that: their view of the rcc is the stereotype and propaganda against the church. They are like: 'can this holy book come from this church that negativity is said of?'
but what does it matter if the church did it?

I have spoken to my church members and other pentecostals and its shocking the stereotype among them against the rcc. When you tell them that the teaching of the trinity actually started with the rcc, they find it diff to believe even though they have lil knowledge of history

Would you kindly clarify what you mean by the RCC.

When did it come into existence?

{How} would you distinguish it from The [i]C[/i]atholic Church? (Pls note italicised capital C)

{How} would you distinguish it from the [b]c[/b]atholic Church? (Pls note bolded small C)


PS we can ignore what "Pentecostals" think --- I am not one and I am not even "Protestant" either.

davidylan: hehehehe i'm from ijebu oh my sister.

Omo alare, sh'awo r'awo k'arugbo jeun.

Manmustwac

No vex with me but truth be say if na Christian start this kind thread about atheists --- you go lock am one time.

davidylan: . . .I agree with you... but isnt it strange that you park yourself DAILY and for HOURS at a stretch on threads solely discussing this same christian God you despise and claim exists only in our imagination? I cant imagine spending a fraction of an hour talking about the validity of Sango's existence.

^^^

They hate the light but they can't escape it.

Edit: message to hands --- 'must type faster'; caught again by flying posts!

Ihedinobi: . . . Christianity is "knowing [the] true God and Jesus Christ Whom He sent". Did you have that? You never did. That's why you keep saying these silly things about Him.

"You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free"



Edit: thread is rather hot and posts flying! Anyway, this post is in relation to Ihedinobi's last post.