₦airaland Forum

DoctorAlien:
Christ was fully man when He was on earth. He was also fully GOD.

He clothed His divinity with humanity. He was tempted and tried in any way a man can be, and yet He was without sin(Heb. 4:15). This was not because of the fact that He is GOD(of course He never used His divine power to alleviate His suffering/temptation in any way), but because He constantly was in touch with His Father drawing the much needed strength for each day from Him(Mark 1:35).

TomHagen:
I haven't seen ALL LOVING in the Bible. Show me if you have.

Smallville10:
God would always answer those who seek him with faith...


Abt the tsunamis and quakes, u probably havent heard of continental drifts...


U went to school, so u should know cause of earthquakes and other natural disasters

DoctorAlien:
Are you sure? Look well. Somebody talked about child rape.

4everGod:
Your mumu no get part 2. you posted a screengrab to chest beat with and failed to see that they had to put 4 groups together just to boost the number....Secular, non religious, agnostic and atheist...

Indeed your mumu no be here.

DoctorAlien:
This post reeks of ignorance. Typical of atheist arguments, anyway.

The concept of original sin is not biblical. A child is not born a sinner. Man only inherits sinful nature i.e. tendency to love sin rather than GOD. A baby has no knowledge of sin, and if it dies, it will rest in the grave till our LORD returns when it will go back to its Maker.

Jesus Christ was born too. He was not a sinner. He never sinned. And if birth could impart sin, Jesus would have been a sinner. He can't be one, anyway.

It's just that a human being, left alone, would naturally follow sin. Jesus is there, thankfully, to deliver us from sin, and to set us free from its shackles.

It would really do all these nairaland "atheists" much good if they read the Bible thoroughly and understood it, before coming to present intellectually nauseating arguments.

hopefullandlurd:
I tire o

DoctorAlien:
I wasn't addressing the OP.

4everGod:
Eyehategod the nonsensical one has gotten a new moniker to deceive the Religion section that Atheism is growing....lol

God no go kill you.

TomHagen:
This is the same red herring Hopefullandlord tried to employ. Try harder bro.

DoctorAlien:
The same old, meaningless, uncreative question of "why is there suffering?" which has been answered countless times, isn't it?

Somebody once said atheists recycle arguments. I think it's obvious.

ValentineMary:
The bold text is off point and far from the truth. I guess u are just speculating because u probably have met no atheist in real life. How can I hate God atheist have explained how they don't hate God we just make argument in ur universe of discourse assuming ur God is a real entity.

4everGod:
God is not human so if you wish to understand His level or true kind of compassion then come up to His level through Christ Jesus.

Teach your own Kid what you feel is right while others teach theirs the truth about compassion.

Your position and words show why lots of people dread Atheists because they simply hate God so much so that even the good things about God are rejected by them and they would gladly do the opposite to prove that God cannot do anything to them...How sad..

TomHagen:
He's full of compassion, but He uses at His discretion. Bill Gates is 'full of money and charity'. Does he give it to everyone? Why?

LifestyleTonite:
what is rubbish about the thread?
Eternal life on earth or the 72 virgins?
It can't be the 72 virgins, to you.

ifenes:
Interesting

TomHagen:
Why did you isolate only 'compassionate'? Where in the bible did God claim to be compassionate? And finally why are you behaving like Deicide?

TomHagen:
How do you know what ''an actual compassionate God'' is capable of if you haven't met one before''? Why do assume that such a being must do things the way you'd do them?

4everGod:
You seriously need help.

Let me post the different translations for your mental update.... kindly note the words wineskins

4everGod:
Smh...

Why did Mathew and Mark say WINESKINS instead of BOTTLE?

4everGod:
Scholar8200 are you sure this guy is alright?
Mathew and Mark referred to it as wineskins and he does not understand that scripture balances scripture even when you told him bottles were not used back then and their bottles for wine were wineskins....
FMSs ignorance is nothing to be proud of but you seem to be an exception.

Scholar8200:
Old bottle and old cloth have something in common...THEY ARE OLD!!!

Because that is the purpose they served. Just as you will ask why did they say pen when quail feather was used

4everGod:
How ridiculous can you be? I showed you from Mark and Mathew that they used WINESKINS and this was rheir own bottle at that time so if John said bottle you know it meant WINESKINS as well but here you are still asking silly questions after receiving the explanation. ....

I already also told you why the bursting of old wineskins with new wine was used and drew your attention to the parable right before the wine and wineskins parable and how that also said the very same thing but using a different set of illustrative materials in old cloths and a new patch....

Guy grow up pls.

Scholar8200:
Simple, because it is old!!!

How about the new cloth and old? Why would the new tear the old? Fermentation too

Scholar8200:
Did you read that the bottles would burst because they were old? An old bottle would leak out the wine!


The Oriental bottles are skins of sheep or goats. Old bottles would crack and leak. This may be regarded as a further illustration of the doctrine taught in the preceding verse. But it is better to give it an individual application.

Scholar8200:
The point I stressed is that:

Intoxication begins with the very first drink. You should never drink and drive, no matter how much you've consumed. You can be impaired and arrested even if your BAC is under 0.08%

That alone knocks out your claims of moderate drinking!

4everGod:
I already answered this question. That scripture used the word WINESKINS in place of BOTTLE since WINESKINS is what was attainable then..you can refer to MARK 2: 22 or MATHEW 9:17 but that was their own bottle for containing wine back then however the focus was not on the wine being used for this illustration but on the reason behind that illustraton. Lets loo at it from MATHEW 9 vs 15 down to 17 shall we...


15 Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.

16 “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. 17 Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”

That echoes what Jesus said about Him sending us the comforter who is the Holy spirit...So we need to prepare our earthly vessel to accomodate Him Hence the new wine in old wineskins illustration.

Scholar8200:
Intoxication begins with the very first drink. You should never drink and drive, no matter how much you've consumed. You can be impaired and arrested even if your BAC is under 0.08%.
https://www.bactrack.com/blogs/expert-center/35040901-how-many-drinks-does-it-take-to-reach-0-08-bac

From a neutral site this!

hopefullandlurd:
like this?

Scholar8200:
Here is the purpose that Jesus referred to, not fermentation:

38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; [size=18pt]and both are preserved[/size]

That is for storage purposes. They didnt have bottles then.

Scholar8200:
No! Since these Epistles were written to believers, it would be a case of introducing sin to them if you told them to drink moderately knowing fully well that a moderate drink will intoxicate a new comer!