₦airaland Forum

nora544: that are no lies, that is how it works and i know it is hard to believe when you got brainwashed from your money preaching new church pastors

jayriginal: I dont believe God exists. Can you see how this is different from saying that God does not exist?

jayriginal: Have I said God doesnt exist?

Think man, think!

Who said that my position is that there is no god?

jayriginal: Are you for real?

Did I say that god exists?

Read again and understand.

Pastor Kun: Story!

Pastor Kun: Happy new year to you as well. I am sure you have already started collecting first fruit payments so it should really be a good month for you.

Pastor Kun: In short you are happy that the OP is exposing the false teachings you and your Ogas @ the top use to fleece believers and enrich your greedy selves.

Kay 17: Atheism is primarily about the non existence of God, not the latest scientific theories. Arguments against God need not provide an alternative explanation, but satisfactory in dismantling God's existence.



This is typical inductive reasoning. Using man as the particular premise to generalise. Now besides man as an example, there is nature we observe, therefore throws out God the creator concept.




Coherence and not just proof.

onetrack: We did not evolve from monkeys, but rather we and monkeys have a common ancestor. Our intelligence developed as a result of adaptation to the environment.

which god? Sango, Yahweh, Odin, Shiva....? And why are they hiding?

The world is not art as it is not man-made. In any case beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What you find beautiful someone else may find ugly. Animals have [size=16pt] developed [/size] some communication skills as a means of adaptation to the environment.

For me, yes.

That's correct. I have no idea of an afterlife or otherworldly existence. I haven't seen proof of such.

I gave an answer that expresses my belief.

Very few atheists will say that they can prove that God does not exist. Maybe you misunderstand what atheists actually think. But I'm happy to see that you took the time to ask so that I could correct any misinformation.

onetrack: 1. Evolution and big bang theory are not mutually exclusive. I believe that the existing evidence points toward both the big bang and evolution being true.

2. I don't 'trust' science; I'm a skeptic. Scientific facts and theories can change as new evidence disproves previously accepted information. However I trust the scientific method as being the most accurate way of discerning the truth.

3. Art, music, and religion are all deliberate man-made inventions. Language is innate and a critical tool which evolved to enable humans to work together to survive.

4. No.

5. I don't follow superstitious rituals and I don't give my money to money-grubbing pastors or mallams. I don't worry about some fiery afterlife punishment from some angry, immature, selfish god.

6. The null hypothesis for me is that there is no god actively involved in human affairs. In order for me to accept that my hypothesis is wrong I need scientifically acceptable proof.

7. It is not for me to prove that a god (or gods) does not exist because I cannot prove it. I make no claims about any gods or the lack thereof and so it's for believers to prove that their gods do exist.

8. It's not important for me that everyone should become atheist. It would be enough for me if religion became strictly a personal, non-political affair for each person to follow privately. Something Jesus said about hypocrites who want to be seen praying on the street corner I quite agree with. Oh, and stay out of trying to interject religious mumbo-jumbo into science.

Zikkyy: Why are you asking me to explain?

Bidam: yes it is( in principle so to speak) Let's see what Paul penned down by the help of the Holy GHOST.

Philippians 4:18
Indeed I have all and abound. I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you, [size=16pt]a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God.[/size]


"A sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice" is Old Testament language taken from the Levitical offerings (Ex 29:18; Ezek 10:41; Gen 8:21; Lev 1:9,13,17; 2:12).. Their gift smells sweet to God. It has the fragrance of perfume to God. This is an offering that pleases God.

So you can see how you are shooting yourself in the foot here.

Bidam: God bless you for this post. This is what i was trying to show my brother here o...

Alwaystrue: @bidam,
Hmmmm, you really broke own those commandments. The law of the Spirit is simply the law that is written in our hearts...there is a difference between reading somethin on paper and internalising or personalising it.
A person who is saved looks at God's laws and says 'for me not to fall into this sin or do right, I have to ensure the root of that sin is dealth with.
How will I be able to act right towards my fellow man? By ensuring I harbour the right heart towards. As long as I do good to a person, I must love that person from the heart first even before action.'

When Jesus was to be crucified, even the most staunch pharisees and law advocates of Moses could not find any sin to lay to His charge. Nothing. They eneded up saying he was calling Himself the king of the Jews.
Even the sabbath that people thought he broke, Jesus asked them that if an animal falls into a well on the sabbath, don't they fetch it out, so of how much value is a man who is hungry or a person that needs to be set free from the clutches of bondage...they had no answer and so he healed the person and he allowed his disciples pluck the corn to stem their hunger. Simple ssath was made for man and not the other way. They could not find fault in that.
Jesus came to fulfill and give full expression of love as the fulfilment of the law. He personalised it and gave it the TRUTH meaning.

mba emeka: Joagbaje has already answered you. God already handed down instructions to Adam and co by mouth or in any way audible. A case in point was the do not eat out of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil instruction he gave to Adam. Subsequently he gave moses the law which he had to write down. The law became an avenue to know the dos and don't s of God. Paul explained that in Romans 3:19-20. The law contained moral and ethical principles that are still relevant today especially in showing what is right and wrong. The apostles made reference to it. They encouraged their followers to do like wise.

Is this even a discussion?

Jesus didn't abolish the law. He came to fulfill it thereby ushering us into God's only plan for righteousness - through him. We cannot teach or believe otherwise. It foments some of the errors we see today- gay marriages and what not.

Bidam: Yes..The passover was kept by Faith..Ex 12:21 in reference to Heb 11:28..The patriachs were justified by Faith not by Law...Do go beyond the letters abeg..

What you are insinuating here is that we should discard the whole torah from Genesis to Malachi because the are of a different era. And we shouldn't glean any principles from them.

If your christianinty is limited to only new testament epistles which according to you started from acts of the apostle then i wish you luck.

These are books i read in 2days and i still hungry for more sef....

Joagbaje:
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
:

What scripture did the early church have to study?

ajayikayod: Well if u cant see my stand in those post i will giv u a simple one.

I dont live by d Law of Moses (sin and death) nor d weightier of it, they are done away wit. I live by d Law of d Spirit of Life.