₦airaland Forum

Hi all and 2 poster!

Yes its a caution we should be aware. in one of my piece i wish to suggest that we simple post the scripture for their understanding, be silent where God is silent and leave the rest to God!
Remember, we (Sons of God) must rule this earth whether athiest or unbelivers accept it or not. Simply remain a King and Priest dear brethern.

let scoffers continue! It must's move us.

Hello

all posters, dont waste your time reasoning with Huxley and his likes,
simply give the word of God and late him/her read and let the Spirit do the work of conviction, arguing only wastes your time, energy. Spiritual things can never be understood by athiest but they can always scoff at it.

[size=8pt][size=8pt][size=8pt][size=8pt][size=8pt][size=8pt]POST THE WORD ONLY[/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size]

Kindly read this article in this link about the unproven theories about darwin - god of atheism.

[b]The Darwinians admit that Darwinism is not proved

As they work themselves into a proper celebratory frenzy over the bicentennial of the birth of the man who, they fondly imagine, successfully murdered God and who is thus himself the ultimate god of modernity, the priesthood of the Darwinian cult are engaging in the same doublethink that I have frequently noted before in their periodic boasts of triumph. The doublethink consists in the fact that right in the middle of their assured, oh-so-confident, sweeping-aside-all-doubts declarations of the absolute, unquestionable truth of Darwinism, that truth that is "the bedrock of modern biology," and indeed of modern civilization itself and of all that is good and decent, that truth that no one but low IQ backwoodsmen and Christian bigots dares deny, the Darwinists quietly but clearly let on that the core and essence of Darwinism--the evolution of new species by means of random genetic mutations and natural selection--has not been proved. Repeat: the Darwinians openly admit that Darwinism has not been proved. Yet such is the hypnotic power of the Darwinian ascendancy over men's minds that even as the emperor strips himself naked before the populace, no one notices that he is doing this.

The latest instance of this remarkable phenomenon is found in the February 10 New York Times, which has a special section on Charles Darwin as part of its build-up to his birthday on February 12. There is an embarrassing piece of Darwin hero worship by Nicholas Wade, a worthwhile writer who has turned himself into a court flatterer for the nonce. Then there is an article by Carl Safina in which he argues that what we call Darwinism is largely the result of discoveries that came after Darwin, and therefore we should stop calling evolutionary science "Darwinism." The point is misleading, even mischievous, because, notwithstanding the many refinements in the theory since Darwin's time, the fundamental assertion of Darwinism, or "evolutionary biology" as the Darwinists now prefer to call it, has not changed: that new life forms have come into being by random variations (later understood as random genetic mutations) plus natural selection. As I argued last year in response to a similar proposal by evolutionary biologist Olivia Judson of the Times, the reason the evolutionary biologists want to get rid of the name "Darwin" is that it is ineluctably associated with, and thus reminds people of, the troublesome and still unproved core of, uh, evolutionary biology.

Has anyone but me noticed the irony that the house organ of liberalism worships Darwin as its god even as it tries to shuffle the old fellow off stage? Of course, liberals have lots of practice in this, since shuffling God offstage--meaning the real God, the God who created the heaven and the earth--is the central project of liberalism. But what is passing strange, and a sure indicator of the actual turmoil hidden within the confident-seeming Darwinian edifice, is that now they are shuffling off stage their own god, the man who they believe overthrew the God of the Bible.

Finally, in the Times' Darwin section, there is the jackpot for the discerning: Carol Yoon's somewhat obfuscatory yet unmistakable and stunning admission that the Darwinian theory of evolution remains unproved.

Below is Yoon's article in its entirety. Of main interest here are the first several paragraphs, where she plainly states that, according to the Darwinians themselves, the Darwinian theory of the origin of species is unproved. In the rest of the article, Yoon discusses at length what she suggests is the cutting edge of current attempts by evolutionary researchers to prove the origin of species by Darwinian processes (they're still attempting to prove it, they haven't proved it yet, even as they sneer that anyone who doubts that it has been proved is a religious idiot): the search for a special type of gene that separates closely related species from each other by making their mutual offspring infertile. Whatever the importance of this research, it would seem to be far removed from any kind of decisive demonstration that entirely new organs and new life forms evolved through random genetic mutations and natural selection.

Thus, like Safina's and Judson's attempts to get rid of the name "Darwinism," Yoon's article seems directed at distracting readers' attention from the fact that the evolutionary enterprise has not proved what it purports in loud and dictatorial tones to have proved. Yet in doublethink fashion, as you will see in the bolded text in Yoon's article and my interspersed comments, the Darwinians openly admit the very failure that they simultaneously try to cover up.

    February 10, 2009
    Genes Offer New Clues in Old Debate on Species' Origins
    By CAROL KAESUK YOON

    Charles Darwin called it the "mystery of mysteries," a problem so significant and one he was so sure he had solved that he named his world-changing work after it: "On the Origin of Species." So he might be surprised to learn that 150 years after the publication of his book, the study of how species originate, a process known as speciation, is not only one of the field's most active areas of study, but also one of its most contentious.

    [LA comments: if the explanation of how species originate is "one of the most contentious areas of study" in Darwinism, then the core of the Darwinian theory is not proved, is it?]

    While researchers agree that many of the recent breakthroughs would have come as a huge surprise to the grand old man, they seem to disagree about almost everything else, from what a species is to what exactly is meant by the origin of species and even whether Darwin shed any light on the process at all.

    [LA comments: Take that in: many evolutionary researchers believe that Darwin "shed no light at all" on the origin of species. Does William Jennings Bryan get rehabilitated for having said the same?]

    "Speciation is definitely one of the big-picture grand themes of evolutionary biology," said Mary Jane West-Eberhard, an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama. She described study of the process as "an apparent turmoil that might be misunderstood by an outsider as a caldron of doubts and uncertainties but that in fact is a vitally alive science."

    [LA comments: Yes, evolutionary science is "vitally alive"--because the scientists are still desperately looking for the proof that they claim to have already found!]

    Part of the difficulty with studying the origin of species comes from the vastness of the question--how did the diversity of all life on Earth arise, from orchids to elephants to bacteria to ourselves? It is difficult, too, to try to reconstruct events--the birth of species--long past.

    [LA replies: No kidding! Which underscores the fact that the Darwinians have had no business in claiming for all these years to have demonstrated something--the origin of new species by random genetic mutations and natural selection--that they have never demonstrated.]

    "A decade ago, the joke was that spell-checkers regularly attempted to substitute the word 'speciation' with 'speculation,'" Mohamed Noor, an evolutionary biologist at Duke University, wrote in a commentary in the journal Nature. But he added, "Speculation in this area will soon be a thing of the past."

    [LA replies: Oh, I see: speculation will "soon" be a thing of the past! Haven't I always said that the scientific truth about evolution is that we do not know how new species originated? Now the Darwinians themselves are admitting they don't know, but are only speculating.]

    To support such optimism, researchers point to the recent discovery of so-called speciation genes. Most biologists define a species as a group that is reproductively isolated--it cannot interbreed or exchange genes with any other. The newly discovered genes cause reproductive isolation between two groups by causing their offspring, or hybrids, to be infertile or die. Scientists say the identities of the long-sought genes, several of which have recently been pinpointed in fruit flies, mice, fish and yeast, came as a surprise.

    [LA comments: The Darwinians' assertion of "optimism" about the prospect of their getting beyond speculation to knowledge shows that they don't yet have such knowledge. Yet they simultaneously tell us that anyone who doubts that Darwinism is a proven fact is a faith-based ignoramus and an enemy of society. The Darwinian orthodoxy parades itself as the established, unquestionable, unassailable truth, when in reality it is getting by on a shoeshine and a smile. That's why I call it the biggest intellectual fraud in history.]

    On Friday, Daven Presgraves, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Rochester, and colleagues published a paper in the journal Science identifying the latest such gene to be discovered. It is the second one that the team has found in fruit flies. The newly discovered gene, Nup 160, like its predecessor, Nup 96, causes reproductive isolation between the species Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans.

    Unexpectedly, the genes both produce proteins that are part of a large piece of cellular machinery known as the nuclear pore complex, a gateway that controls what molecules move into and out of the nucleus. It is still unclear why, in what Dr. Presgraves describes as a blind search for genes that cause problems in hybrids, his team twice pulled out genes involved in the nuclear pore complex or why the complex might be particularly important in the evolution of reproductive isolation.

    "The question is," said Douglas Futuyma, an evolutionary biologist at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, "what the hell does this have to do with hybrid sterility?"

    One reason some scientists object to the use of the term "speciation genes" is that although the genes cause reproductive isolation, it is not clear whether the genes in question caused the initial reproductive isolation responsible for the origin of the species.

    To get closer to the crucial early stages of reproductive isolation, Kirsten Bomblies, an evolutionary biologist at the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Tübingen, Germany, and colleagues study hybrids that are the offspring of crosses between strains of plants within a single species. Surprisingly, even among different strains of the weed Arabidopsis thaliana, Dr. Bomblies said, "some crosses fail catastrophically." The hybrids are "tiny, their leaves are twisted and warped, they have massive die-off of cells, and the worst cases are unable to flower."

    As with the Drosophila genes, the function of the hybrid-disrupting genes found in Arabidopsis has come as a surprise. They appear to be genes for disease resistance, suggesting that the rapid evolution of disease resistance in different strains may be the beginning of the evolution of reproductive isolation between them. The study may have significance far beyond Arabidopsis; Dr. Bomblies, who last year won a MacArthur Foundation fellowship for her research, notes that breeders have noticed the withering of different strains' offspring in a variety of species, including wheat, tobacco, cotton and the houseplant Streptocarpus.

    Loren Rieseberg, an evolutionary biologist at the University of British Columbia who was not involved with the study, said the work was important because it suggested that an entire class of genes, those involved with fending off disease, and a particular kind of natural selection--that imposed by disease organisms--could be broadly important in speciation in plants. (Read comments by Dr. Rieseberg's on "On the Origin of Species."

    The surprises now being found in the DNA of diverging species are, of course, things Darwin could never have guessed at. Having written "Origin of Species" decades before Gregor Mendel's genetic work was rediscovered, he certainly did not anticipate such findings in his vision of the diversification of life.

    "Genetics was one area where he really fell down," said Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago and the author of "Why Evolution Is True" (Penguin, 2009).

    Yet the strongest pattern emerging from the study of these speciation genes is one Darwin might well have expected. The single widespread commonality is that nearly all appear to have diverged to produce reproductive isolation as a result of adaptation under powerful natural selection.

    More than anything else, Darwin focused on adaptation via natural selection in the shaping of the diversity of life. The finding comes as something of a surprise to modern biologists, however, because in the absence of evidence, it was plausible that random divergence over time might also have been an important force leading groups to becoming distinct species.

    "Probably the most important finding," Dr. Rieseberg said, "is that selection is driving the process."

    The harking back to Darwin's emphasis on selection goes well beyond studies of DNA. A particularly powerful type of selection that Darwin emphasized was sexual selection, as when females choose showy mates and male suitors violently combat one another, which can lead to the evolution of things like peacock tails or massive deer antlers.

    Now new studies are providing increasing evidence that sexual selection is capable not only of producing outrageous structures but also new species, an idea of Darwin's that Dr. West-Eberhard describes as "almost completely forgotten for nearly a century."

    A small Amazonian frog known as Physalaemus petersi provides a particularly strong example of how females' choosiness in mates may be driving the formation of a new species. Males of the mottled brown species reach just over an inch in length and can be found singing in choruses to attract females. In some populations, the males' song is what is called a "whine"--a kind of frog meow. But in other populations, males whine and add a squawk. Michael J. Ryan, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Texas, Austin, and colleagues have found that the difference evolved because females in one population preferred pure whine, whereas in another they preferred whine and squawk.

    What is particularly interesting about petersi, though, is that the female frogs' preference for different songs in different populations also appears to be causing the populations to begin to evolve into distinct species. When given a choice of songs from either population, females nearly uniformly prefer their own population's song, as strictly as if the two populations belonged to two long separated species. The researchers have even gathered evidence that the populations that prefer different songs, while very closely related, appear to be beginning to diverge from one another genetically, suggesting they are moving down the path toward becoming separate species.

    So if Darwin pointed out the importance of selection, and even the power of sexual selection, why the often heard claim that the "Origin" has little to say about how species originate?

    The problem lies in how biologists define a species. Today, the most common definition of a species is a group that is reproductively isolated from other groups, the biological species concept set out by the evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr in 1942. As a result, the origin of species is, necessarily, considered the origin of reproduction isolation. Yet both concepts would have been rather foreign to Darwin.

    Darwin, who once wrote that species were "indefinable," might have described a species as a segment of a branch on the ever-expanding tree of life, the same tree he drew as the only figure in the "Origin." Or he might have said it was something more distinct than a variety and less than a genus.

    And there are some biologists today who say that Darwin in all his vagueness, not modern biologists, had the definition right. David Wake, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, has studied Ensatina salamanders for decades. He says their patterns of interbreeding and adaptation simply do not yield to their being divided into species as dictated by the biological species concept.

    His salamanders, he said, like so many other real living things, are "much messier" than a definition like the biological species concept allows. Consider asexual species. If a species is an entity that does not exchange genes with others, then every asexual organism, every individual bacterium, for example, could be considered a separate species, hardly a useful distinction. And the complications go on and on.

    So perhaps Darwin hit the mark, at least the mark he intended, when he chose his famed title.

    "I think he's not referring to how do you get two species of finch out of one," Dr. Futuyma said of "Origin of Species." "I think what he means is something much more embracing, something we would today call the origin of biological diversity. You could be talking about two species of finches or a human versus a giraffe or an oak tree for that matter. The world is full of species, and his book clearly embraces the whole thing."

    Darwin's own last words in the book suggest just such a broad scope: "There is grandeur in this view of life," he wrote, that "from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

    [End of Times article.]

See my other articles on this subject in "Anti-Darwinism: a collection."

- end of initial entry -

Laura W. writes:

    Most people reading a piece such as this don't grasp the details. Yet, it is specifically written for this sort of reader. He is told that "discoveries" are being made to clear things up. An army of scientists is working on his behalf. And, rest assured, none of this means life isn't beautiful.

    Yoon concludes with the obligatory religious-sounding note from the final passage of The Origin of Species: "There is grandeur in this view of life, " In other words, we are part of a vast and impersonal natural energy, a pulsing and self-created miasma that fills our veins with its vital force. This is the religion of nerds, drones and paper-pushers. This is the faith not of the energetic, but of the exhausted.

[/b]http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012477.html

Dear fellow sons of God, fellow kings and priest unto God.
Rev 1:5-6
5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.



I wish to humble call on all of us to henceforth, stick to the Word of God for it is the sword of the spirit (Eph6:17) in addressing any of the onslaught of the atheist which are part of the fiery darts of the enemy against your faith.

Lets stay ONLY on the scriptures and not the reasoning of men which comes to nought which is the reasoning of the atheist.

1 Cor 3:18-20

18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
KJV


The atheist anywhere wants you to reason from their point of view and not from God’s point of view, which is beneath but remember ye sons of God are from above, hence your reasoning must be from above which is revealed from the scriptures ONLY. (Eph 2:6)

Paul for instance, reasoned with those that oppose him on the issue of Jesus Christ from the scriptures. So we also should and must stay in the scriptures and where the scriptures are silent, lets not add else we shall be on our own which is not what we want. (Acts 17:2,18:4)

Remember, the Holy Spirit, convicted you, not through human reasoning but through the word of God. Therefore our sole purpose is not to just to argue with them but that through the Word of God presented to them, against their reasoning even though they seem adamant, the Spirit of God will use it to convict them of Sin in His time.
For instance, The Spirit of God was brooding over the waters, then the word of God came, and there was Light. So also the Spirit of God is still at work today, however, I believe He wants us to present the scriptures, not our reasoning, and He knows the best cause of action to carry out on any matter. 


Therefore, lets reason from the ‘box’!!

Lets take some example from this forum on how atheist want us to reason. This is from a thread Re: Are Your Feeling Hurt When Your Beliefs And Religion Are Criticised?

from manmustwac
                                              Rule # 1
                                 You Are Not Your Beliefs
You are not your beliefs you should not associate yourself too closely with any pacticular religion.
Wrong!, The scripture says the Just shall live by faith. (Rom1:16-17)

You were not born a muslim or christian, there is no such thing as a muslim or christian baby you didnot come out of your mothers womb saying Allah Akbar or Jesus Christ is Lord. These are beliefs that you acquired at a later time.
But all of us were born sinners. (Ps51:5) And therefore need salvation through Christ. 

What are beliefs? Beliefs are the information that you have recieved whether it is accurate or flawed combined with your life experiences that lead to certain interpretations of that information. Life experiences such as for example you were indoctrinated to believe a certain religion is true. Critisizing belief is not hate. You were born a Christian or Muslim as mentioned and you can and you can become an ex Muslim or Christian quite easily.
Wrong! But all of us were born sinners. (Ps51:5)



from Blood_Shed
Quote from: Ascony on April 29, 2009, 11:59 AM
The burden of proof lies on the believer. when will you folks understand that?

You know how stupid it is trying to explain that to them? It's too damn obvious but they always try dodging it.

Brainwashed to the fullest.

Acts 17:2
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
KJV
We cant be different from Paul, always the scriptures.


from huxley
Quote from: noetic on April 30, 2009, 02:48 PM
I neither belief or disbelief Nflah-nflah, cos i dont even know who/what it is.

but u dont believe in GOD, right?

Just as you don't believe in Nflah-nflah because you do not know who/what Nflah-nflah is (ie you do not know or have his ontology), atheist don't believe in Yahweh because we do not know who/what Yahweh is.  If you give me an ontology that is plausible, maybe I might change my mind.

Heb 11:6

6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
KJV


from mazaje

here is my own belief. . .i deny existence of all gods, that of the muslims, the hindus, the ancient egyptians, ancient greeks, chinese, south americans and the god of the old and new testaments. all of these are fictional constructs invented by very clever humans for purposes, a variety of diferent purposes, ranging from psychological comfort, emotional comfort, dominance and entertainment. i believe in naturalism. . .
Ps 14:1-3

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God . They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
KJV


Mazaje continues

you believe in the unsubstantiated writings of unknown men who thought the world was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe and you say that naturalism is intellectually lazy?
NO scripture said that but men! Here is what scripture says
Isa 40:22

22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
KJV
[/b]does christianity not thrive on intellectual laziness? does the bible not warn you not to seek for knowledge and accepet everything on based on faith?
[b]Matt 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
KJV


does christianity not label intellectuality as blasphemy? even the bible god did not want adam and eve to eat the tree of "knowledge" according to the bible. . .we have so many anti intellectual statements in the bible like man' cleverness is foolishness in the eyes of god. . . but the same man has shown that he is much more clever than the imaginary bible god. . .such statements are there to keep people in line because the writers of the bible know that their assertion can not stand for them selves. . .
[b]The bible recognize that knowledge will increase, however it forbade us accepting knowledge that denies the existence of God and rejects the provision of Christ for salvation.
Dan 1:3-4
3 And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes;
4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge , and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.
Dan 1:6
6 Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah:
Dan 1:17-18
17 As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.
18 Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar.
Dan 12:4
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.
KJV
1 Cor 1:21-24
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
KJV
[/b]
now to naturalism. . .the cause of lightning was once thought to be god's wrath, but it turned out to be the unintelligent outcome of mindless natural forces the same goes for earth quake. people once thought an intelligent being must have arranged and maintained the amazingly ordered motions of the solar system, but now we know it's all the inevitable outcome of mindless natural forces. disease were once thought to be the mischief of supernatural demons or due to the wrath of god(the bible says that alot), but now we know that tiny, unintelligent organisms are the cause, which reproduce and infect us according to mindless natural forces. in case after case, without exception, the trend has been to find that purely natural causes underlie any phenomena. not once has the cause of anything turned out to really be god's wrath or intelligent meddling, or demonic mischief, or anything supernatural at all. The collective weight of these observations is enormous: supernaturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always lost; naturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always won. naturalism is the belief that there is nothing supernatural.
Ps 14:1-3
[b]The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God . They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Rom 1:18-22
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Mazaje continues
[/b]
based on such ontology that god is impossible to exist, let me give you and example. . .amongst the ontology of the christain god is that he is perfect. . .but we know that if something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. and yet this "perfect" god created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "imperfect" humans.
the ultimate source of perfection is god according to one of his ontology. what is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. what is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so god must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. a poisonous wild desert fruit can never grow on an good orange tree. a perfect god who creates imperfect humans is impossible.

[b]God is still perfect! Read this
Isa 54:16
6 Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.
KJV
Rom 9:14-22

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
[/i]22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
KJV

[/b]
Therefore God is perfect yet Almighty!

the bible says that god is Omniscient meaning he knows all things, but the same bible shows or says that the omniscient god is surprised. how is that possible? how can a god that knows everything be suprised? a god who knows everything cannot have emotions. the bible says that god experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger,jealousy, sadness, and happiness. we humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. a man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger, suprise and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. in contrast, the omniscient god is ignorant of nothing. nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react. we humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. the perfect, omnipotent god, however, can fix anything. humans experience longing for things we lack. the perfect god lacks nothing. an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect god who experiences emotion is impossible.


Mazaje continues


Quote from: mazaje on May 03, 2009, 08:22 AM

where did i say that i believe in the big bang? but it sure makes a much better sense than the the idea of a personal god. . . . the idea of a personal god is only used most of the time to fill in the gaps for things we have not yet known. . .the god hypothesis does not really answer anything, it is just an excuse. . . .the general hypothesis is that god is not visible, tangible or otherwise detectable by empirical means.

Yet He says that what He created speaks of Him. Even in you!
Rom 1:18-22
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 [b][i]Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
KJV
[/b]

god is supposed to act in space and time, but without having a location in space and time.
his essence is, according to the tradition itself, ungraspable and fully beyond the comprehension of finite human minds. and yet belief in this incomprehensible being is supposed to make the present state of the world more intelligible?
everything observable is supposed to be created by god, but this god himself is uncreated. furthermore, events in the observable world can generally be accounted for without introducing a god as an explanation. as i pointed out in my previous post thunderstorms, earthquakes,  lighting, plagues, eclipses, the variety of natural species, and even the origins of life itself all have detailed natural explanations(some of which i don't really agree with), notwithstanding the fact that they were once thought to be the immediate work of god.we are told a great deal about him, but never enough that claims that his existence can be put to the test.

Job 9:10-12
10 Which doeth great things past finding out; yea, and wonders without number.
11 Lo, he goeth by me, and I see him not: he passeth on also, but I perceive him not.
12 Behold, he taketh away, who can hinder him? who will say unto him, What doest thou?
KJV



imagine, for example, a farmer who prays to god for rain to help his drought-stricken crops. suppose it then rains. our happy farmer explains this as the act of god in response to a prayer but suppose it doesn’t rain. the farmer explains this as god having had other reasons for withholding rain so you see either way, the god hypothesis seems to do no real explanatory work. it can be used to account for literally anything in exactly the same way.

[b]Imagine, a pot questioning the potter!
[/b]

Therefore fellow brethren, finally, Spiritual truths are just Spiritual truths! It may not sound acceptable to the worldly, carnal mind of an atheist, but that is not our problem. God knew that scoffers a.k.a atheist will exist that is why He allowed His Word be in human language, which to the atheist like the jews & greeks, is foolishness, weak, base. And He is not afraid of the scripture standing only on its own, defend itself by itself. So lets give scripture as the Spirit gives us understanding.

1 Cor 1:18-22
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
KJV

1 Cor 1:26-29

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
KJV




Let God be God, Atheist want to put God in their level – Liars.
Rom 3:3-4
3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
4 God forbid: yea, [b]let God be true , but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
KJV
[/b]

So lets stay Sola Scriptura!!!

So lets stay Sola Scriptura!!!

Hi horus
Looking at the verses you highlighted as contradictory, does not in anyway contradict itself nor Jesus Christ who is the Blessed God forever.

Looking at luke 6, starting from verse 12-16, you would notice that Jesus Christ, went to the mountain to pray. Then later, in the morning, after prayers, He choose not called, His 12 out of His many disciples.
In verse 17-19, He came down from the mountain to the plain to heal people of their diseases and to cast out devils.

Comparing it with Matthews version, you need to start reading from Mat 4:17-25 and then matt 5:1-2 where you try to form a contradiction.
Before verse 20 of luke 6, read matthew’s account in chap 5 v1-2, which stated that seeing the multitude, He now went to the mountain then began His message.

Summary
From the two books, what I see is this, Jesus Christ after calling His disciples including the 12, He went to the mountain to pray, after praying, He choose the twelve from the many disciples. He later came down with them (12 disciples) to the plain to meet the multitude to heal them of all their diseases and cast out devils for power left Him when they touched Him. After healing them, He wanted to preach to them, He had to go up from the plain to the mountain because on the mountain He will have a larger coverage to speak his message than in the plain; in the plain just the people close to Him will listen but on the mountain, more!

Therefore I don’t see any contradiction. Even in music halls there is a higher place where the musician if He wants to speak without the aid of the microphone, uses the higher platform to speak.

Look at the diagram below for clarity.
Mountain ==>> prayer ==>> plain ==>> healing ==>> mountain ==>>preaching to multitude.
God bless you Horus!! Please repent and be converted before He comes and be washed in his blood to become a king and a priest unto Him.

Issue of His appearance

- Luke says that Jesus first appeared in Jerusalem to the eleven disciples. (Luke 24:33, 35, 37)
- Matthew says it was at Galilee on a mountain. (Matthew 28:16)

Haba mr. horus, you want to put something that is not stated. In luke’s account, please read all the chapter, it wasn’t to the twelve but to the two first, some miles from Jerusalem and later, they returned after seeing Him they went to inform the other disciples and jesus appeared to them including the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus.

In matthew, here all the disciples – the two on Emmaus road, mary Magdalene who saw Him in the grave yard, the disciples in the locked room where He appeared to them, all were in gallilee where they saw Him going to heaven. Acts 1

So sorry He does not contradict himself.


have a God blessed day!

yes i need a thread not a link, can you make it then?

yes i need a thread not a link, can you make it then?

hi horus

i like the way you pick the bible and assume it contradict itself. well am sorry to inform u that it might (seriously) you reason that contradicts the scripture. however i dont intend to answer you contradictions in huxley's contradiction. can you create a link/thread for the following false contradiction which u claim. and then i will answer you perfectly there,


Jesus Did Contradict Himself

- Luke says that Jesus first appeared in Jerusalem to the eleven disciples. (Luke 24:33, 35, 37)
- Matthew says it was at Galilee on a mountain. (Matthew 28:16)

- Christ’s first sermon was in the plain. (Luke 6:17, 20)
- Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. (Matthew 5: 1, 2).

And you wonder why Christianity is divided into so many sects, and no one know their destiny ??

Just be Kings and Priests unto Our God!!!

Hmm! huxley, i Love you!

well JMT or NOT JMT, we shall see, , , later antichrist

Hello satanist

do you know that the god you serve satan was created like you and me?

huxley

kindly giv me the weblink please!!!

non but all

non is worse than the order

yet

all are what mere men and not sprirts, choose to indulge in,

those above stay above, remember adultery and fornication na men's thought and the devil thinks like men ^{remeber Jesus rebuke to peter}

Live as kings and priest  = u will judge angels and reign on earth but never fornicators etc

Hello all

i really enjoy the trend the world is taking
hurricane
terrorist attack
swine flu
insecurity
etc

are you afraid of what this world is making you to feel?


i am so in love with the way things are turning-- nature and all rebelling against man.

its a preparation for the ruling of this world by , those destined to rule.
such is what this world is looking forward to,
get ready for us,



k&p reign