₦airaland Forum

I thought we have "Holy Spirit filled members" on this forum that know it all (J/K )

Okay, seriously, I'm not trying to mock anyone here.  But I believe there are folks with extensive indepths concerning the scriptures that should be able to explain this to us.

shahan, TayoD, TV01, m4malik, syrup, and the rest, where art thou?

Interesting. Very reasonable, and to be honest, I also share the same opinion. Also, note that I am not totally ruling out the possibility of humans having a freewill.

Now let me ask you this question - Do you believe in the statement below?

"If God wants something to happen, it will. If he doesn't want it to happen, it will not."

If yes, then you'll be contradicting yourself.

Backslider, did you bother to read through that article at all, or you just saw the title of the thread and decided to post? Thanks for your input anyway.

BTW, why are there very few responses on this thread?

Po Deep:
@goodguy
About that 'predestined' thing,u know destiny can be altered so even if God has predestined someone to be great,some familiar forces can alter his/her destiny if he/she is not protected enough.
So also Adam & Eve were destined to be sinless but the serpent altered it through temptation.
So free will still plays its role even amidst God's governance.

So what you're saying now is that God's plan can be altered?

Wetin be Zuma? Abeg make all of una dey play beta game like Yahoo! Pool. Now, that's what I call . . A GAME.

Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of Jesus, ranks as the most hated and despised character in the Bible with the possible exception of Satan. Is such intense loathing justified, or is Judas the victim of biased reporting? Interestingly enough the sole source of information on Judas is the New Testament gospels and the Book of Acts all of which were written long after the events allegedly took place. He receives not a single mention in the writings of Paul, the Gospel of Thomas, or the reconstructed document, Quelle (Q). Also, any mention of Judas is conspicuously absent from the writings of such important first century Jewish historians as Philo Judaeus and Flavious Josephus.

Judas first appears in the nineteenth verse of the third chapter of the Gospel of Mark, the oldest of the canonical gospels, where he is appointed by Jesus as one of his twelve disciples. In this passage we are tipped off in advance of Judas’ treachery. The authors of Matthew and Luke, recognizing a good thing, repeat Mark’s version almost verbatim. The author of John does likewise but embellishes the story. In John 6:70-71 Jesus announces that one of the twelve, Judas, is a devil. In John 12:4-6 we learn Judas was also a thief. At John 13:18 Jesus says, obviously in reference to Judas, that he made his choices “so that scripture might be fulfilled.” He then quotes Psalm 41:9 “He that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me.” This, in all probability, provided the inspiration for the betrayal story.
As was predicted, Judas went to the chief priests and offered to identify Jesus. They accepted his offer and agreed to pay him thirty pieces of silver which brings up another perplexing question. Why would the authorities pay to have someone pointed out to them whom they already knew? In Matthew 26:55 Jesus says to those who came to arrest him, "I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, yet ye laid no hold on me."

Judas proceeds to identify Jesus by way of that treacherous kiss, and that’s the last we hear of him in the gospels of Mark, Luke and John. However, the author of Matthew doesn’t let it drop there. Apparently Judas’ conscience got the better of him because according to Matthew 27:3-5 he made a sincere attempt to repent but was denied forgiveness. In a gesture of frustration he flung the money on the temple floor and went and hanged himself. Matthew goes on to say that the chief priests and the elders used the money to buy a piece of land. Because it was bought with blood money, the land became known as "The Field of Blood."

In Matthew 18:21-22 when Peter came to him, and asked, “Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times?” Jesus replied, "I say not unto thee, until seven times: but, until seventy times seven." Therefore, wasn’t Jesus obligated by his own words to forgive Judas? But instead of forgiving him, Jesus openly cursed Judas when during Passover Seder (Matthew 26:24; Mark 14:21) he said, "But woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed for it would have been better for him had he never been born". Contrary to Peter, Judas never denied Jesus. While his action may not have been all together ethical, Judas, unlike Peter, committed neither apostasy nor blasphemy, the two unforgivable sins.

Had the Judas story ended with the betrayal followed by the suicide everything might have been hunky-dory, but the writer of Acts couldn't leave well enough alone. In 1:15-19 he tells us that Judas didn't give the money back; he invested it in real estate. We also learn that Judas didn’t commit suicide; his death was accidental. Because of the messiness of this accident, the property became known as (you guessed it) "The Field of Blood." So, did Judas commit suicide as the writer of Matthew claims or was his death an accident as we are told in Acts? Also, was this the same land that the priests bought, or were there two fields of blood? But, it gets worse.

Mark 16:14 and Luke 24:33 state that following his resurrection Jesus appeared to "the eleven." Who was missing? After all that had transpired one would just naturally think it was Judas. Apparently not, because in John 20:24 we learn that the one missing was Thomas. Therefore the eleven had to include Judas. To further confuse things, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:5 that following his resurrection Jesus was seen by “the twelve.” This had to include Judas because it wasn't until after the ascension, some forty days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3), that another person, Matthias, was voted in to replace Judas (Acts 1:26). So, apparently Judas neither committed suicide nor died by accident. In Acts 1:25 we are told that Judas "turned aside to go to his own place."

Another clue confirming the absence of the Judas story in the earliest Christian documents occurs in Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:28-30. Here Jesus tells his disciples that they will “sit on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” No exception is made for Judas even though Jesus was aware of his impending act of betrayal. The answer may lie in the fact that the source of these verses is Q (QS 62). Q predates the gospels and is considered to be one of the earliest Christian documents. It was obviously written before Judas and the betrayal story were invented by the writer of Mark.

For centuries Judas Iscariot has been held up as the archetypical traitor, the exemplar of treachery, the quintessential turncoat. This is strange indeed when one considers Acts 1:16. Here Peter tells us, "This scripture (Psalm 69:25) must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus." So according to Peter, Judas' betrayal was a part of God's grand plan all along. Not only did Judas serve as a vehicle through which key Old Testament prophecy might be fulfilled, it was by way of his betrayal that Jesus was able to complete his earthly mission. One might say that it was a dirty job, but somebody had to do it. Judas was in reality an enabler. Instead of hating and reviling him, Christians should appreciate Judas’ contribution.

Source: http://www.inu.net/skeptic/judas.htm

[Last paragraph of that article not included for obvious reasons.]

P. S. Please, please, and please, this is not about me, and it is not my article, and as such, nobody should direct any inflammatory comments at me. I created this topic so that core issues on this subject may be compromised, and misconceptions totally cleared. Please deal with the issue at hand, and stick to it. That's going to be really appreciated by me and those willing to learn. Thanks for your anticipated co-operation.

Regards.

Grouppoint:
What about people who are born disabled or suffer terrible accidents? As a result are pretty upset with God and thus cannot see truth from fact.

What about Adults who are slightly retarded. Their brains are unable to understand the concept of faith. Hence the view that a jew died for their sins 2000 years ago may be difficult to comprehend.

Yeah, I was wondering what happens to the imbeciles as well?

Why is it taking forever for the Bible quoters to answer the questions posed here?  I thought ya'll were God's PA that know who enters heaven or not.  Funny people.

KDK:
ok, I have heard a lot about this age of accountability thing and to be sincere, it will be a great relief to agree with it but there are so many exceptions. Take three instances in the bible such as in Genesis when God destroyed sodom and Gomorrah, He spared no children; take another instance when God destroyed the world with flood, He spared no children; Take the case in 2 kings 2:23 & 24 where elosha cursed kids, he spared no children, can u then explain it?

To the best of my understanding, this age of acountability stuff is only applicable on the judgement day.  The fact that God did not spare any children here on earth, doesn't mean He'll allow them rot in hell forever.

I have noticed that a lot of people see God as unfair whenever He allows "innocent people" die "for no just cause".  But one thing they fail to realise is that their death on earth here is just as inconsequential.  Afterall, we'll all die some day and whether some peeps die very early in the lifetime, or in an excruciating manner, or in an unjust way or he allows poverty to kill them, that does not make Him unfair.  Far from it; because those are just the way we see them as humans that we are.  I believe God has only taken them away from where He placed them initialy, for reasons best known to Him, and in the way best appealing to Him.  What really matters is where they end up eternally, and that is where we can begin to rate the fairness of God. .  again, as humans.

debosky:
Jesus stated that someone would betray him out of the 12, but Judas made a choice to be that one, it could've been any of the other disciples

Did Judas really make a choice? I have some words to deliver on this, but I guess this should be another topic on it's own.

rufflychux:
Most narrations in the bible are actually metaphorical. I am still finding it hard to believe that God something as simple as a "fruit" is responsible for the human race's predicament. God always ilustrate things using parables and metaphors. It will be wise to think he is using the concept of a "fruit" to illustrate
something else.

Nice submission here.  I've also thought the same thing, and also considering the thread someone created recently:

"Is The Biblical Cain The Son Of Lucifer Or The Son Of Adam?"

. . . I was thinking that perhaps, there could be a connection.  But then again, if we read the scriptures carefully, we'll see that the tree talked about was a real tree - yes, like the one at the back of my house.

Genesis 2:9 -  And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

[quote author=gbade. x]@goodguy:

please don't put words into my mouth. I for one never said God wasn't Omniscient, please stop putting words in my mouth!![/quote]I should be the one begging you not to put words into my mouth. Please read my post again. I never said that you said God isn't Omniscient.

[quote author=gbade. x]What i said earlier on was that Omniscience and freewill go hand in hand, but run parallel. take for example this: perhaps in the future, it is predestined that a man, say corrupt, commits a grave sin. There's every chance he uses his freewill to change his ways. Meaning he can change that destiny. A good graphic example is Judas Iscariot. The Lord Jesus had prophesied he'd betray Him. While Judas fulfilled that prophecy, there was every possibility that he change his ways and repent but like the Scriptures put it, his mind was already corrupted, set on what he'd achieve- temporary pleasure via monetary gains.[/quote]This is very sensible, and I am trying very hard to reason with you here. But again, there is a contradiction. If anything at all, the concepts of predestination and freewill are just completely logically impossible. If a man has been predestined to do something, then there's absolutely no way his freewill can help him. As a matter of fact, he has no freewill. Being predestined, is more like being programmed to do something, and no matter how hard you try, you will end up doing that which you have been predestined to do. In the case of Judas Iscariot, he was predestined to betray the Lord, and there was no way he could have changed that. He was the scapegoat that was used for the salvation of mankind, via Jesus Christ, and of course, he's going to rot in hell for that . Telling me that he could have repented, seems to me like a not-so-rational-enough argument. Before he was predestined, God knew Judas would not be able to repent for what he did, so why was the task of betrayal put on him in the first place?

[quote author=cute-ass link=topic=43442.msg943605#msg943605 date=1173298445]@ goodguy

now its very obvious you're just playing the i-know-best-game and in my opinion the game is dumb and old. So get real and behave smart instead of twisting what we've said, putting words in our mouths.[/quote]So because I posted what I gathered from your post, I am suddenly playing the "I-know-best" game, huh? Is this how you normally respond whenever your thesis is refuted? Is yes, please get real and behave smart, instead of misunderstanding me without bothering to asking for clarification. I wonder why people always automatically assume that the other party is playing smart whenever their defenseless arguments are countered. I'm sure if I had come with something like, "You're so right, cute-ass!", you'd be very excited, abi?

[quote author=cute-ass link=topic=43442.msg943605#msg943605 date=1173298445]We'er trying to tell you that God gave every man the ability to choose between wrong and right. I'm sure your mind is actually questioning God for creating women if he dosen't want men to commit fornication/adultery, right??
Sweetheart please snap out of it [/quote]Now let me tell you what you and the others may not know already. The truth is, no response here is new to me (Apart from those that say God would have eventually allowed Man to eat the fruit - I've never thought to that side before). What everyone else here has posted, I have always thought deeply about it too, and tried reasoning it out. Do you think I just woke up suddenly and came to this thread to make my posts on this issue? This issue is something I think about almost everyday, and I keep arriving at the same conclusion -- 'If God doesn't want it to happen, it will not happen - Freewill or no freewill'. There's absolutely no way one can justify the existence of freewill, without contradicting at least, one of two attributes we humans have always attached to God - Omniscience and Omnibenevolence - and that's simply what I pointed out in your post, and the others'. Nonetheless, I always try to satisfy my curiousity with Deut 29:29 and Isaiah 55:8 whenever everything gets blurrier.

sharetroll:
Yeah, but goodguy was trying to point out (on post #5) that it isn't fair for God to punish people for eternity, so I wanted him to say that he would rather choose ignorance and slavery.

I don't really get what you're driving at here, or what exactly you're trying to convey.  The Garden of Eden, as we've been made to understand, was a paradise.  It was a place of eternal bliss for God's creations, and everything was going on perfectly well, until Eve ate the fruit.  And as I said earlier, prior to that moment, Adam and Eve were completely ignorant of good and evil.  And of course, that wasn't a problem for them, as they were not even aware that they were ignorant of anything. 

Just imagine what life would have been like back then.  I can imagine them even playing with wild animals without getting hurt, as well as so many other things that couldn't have bothered them.

So what's with the "ignorance and slavery" talk?

Hmmm. . . So many interesting responses so far, albeit, there are loads of contradictions.

This is what I've gathered so far:

According to Backslider, God is NOT Omniscient.  Interesting.

According to gbade. x and some others, God is Omniscient but is NOT sure of our ultimate choice/decision because He gave us a "freewill", and that's why He has to carry out a test on us so that He can be sure.  Interesting as well, albeit contradictory.

According to cute-ass, God knew Adam and Eve would fail, but still went ahead to present a temptation to them.  And as expected, they failed, and He sent them out of the Garden of Eden for what He made them do.  And of course, that is no fault of God.  Why? -- Because He is God!  Another very interesting thesis, I must say.  I must have underestimated the "Omnibenevolence" of God. 

Keep it coming folks.  I'm enjoying this.

P. S.  I appreciate your inputs, honestly.

Backslider:
Who are you To question God

Ndipe:
Who are we to question the motives of the Almighty God?

Could this be another way of saying "I don't know" ??  I would have really appreciated it if you were more direct in your responses.

Anyway, I believe if God never wanted man to seek/find answers to mind-boggling questions concerning Him (or in your own words, "question Him/His motives", He would have simply prevented such thoughts from coming to our minds from the onset.  That isn't difficult for Him to do, I believe.

sharetroll:
So which is better to you? To remain ignorant for eternity

Perhaps, this world would have been a much more better place for mankind, if were ignorant of good and evil.  That way, we wouldn't even know if we are ignorant or not, and no one would be punished for doing "bad" because he has no knowledge of what is called "bad" or "evil" in the first place.  This, I believe, is what God actually intended for his creations initially.  But happened along the line?  Why didn't everything go on as planned?  Could it be that there was something God did not have power over?  (Before anyone crucifies me for this, please note that I am just wondering).

Now this leads me to another mind-boggling question:  Why didn't God want man to have the knowledge of good and evil?  (Could it be due to the reason I highlighted above?)  Also, since He wanted so bad, to keep man from having such knowledge, why make available to man something so tempting, that would make man know that, which he never wanted man to know at all?  And since God knew the devil would come tempting, why didn't He stop him?

sharetroll:
or be punished for choosing wrong w/ your free will?

This is actually what we are all made to believe is going to happen after we pass away.  But then, this is so so unseeming of an Omnibenevolent God.

sharetroll:
If God had stopped Eve from eating the fruit, than mankind would not have had a free will. . . .

Which is better? A hard life with freewill plus eternal punishment for misusing the freewill or a blissful life without freewill?

If God had stopped Eve from eating the fruit, then there will be no sin, suffering and evil in the world.

Thanks for your attempt, but I'm sorry, you didn't answer the question.


P. S. On this issue of freewill, nferyn made a post (Falsification on logical grounds) concerning that, and that's also how I see it.

Clarification seriously needed.

Shalom.

alexj:
Somebody should please tell me why God planted that tree @ the middle of the garden.
because i really want to know may be God did it purposefully or not

This is a very serious issue, as I have always asked this same question since childhood, but never got any answers.

This very issue makes me somewhat skeptical about the attributes we humans have always attributed to God, that is, Omnipresence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnibenevolence.

Actually, this is the way I see it:

Since God is Omnipresent, He must have been present at that very spot where Adam and Eve ate the fruit. So why didn't He stop them? (Afterall, He's omnipotent).

And since God knew that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit (He's Omniscient), why did He plant the tree there in the first place, if He did not want them to eat out of it?

And let's assume now that He was truly present there, He knew they would eat the fruit, and He had the power to stop them, why did He allow them to go ahead? - Did I hear someone say freewill?

Good. If truly they ate the fruit out of their "freewill", God had every power to have stopped them, and that would have saved the world from all manners of evil we see today, since it is believed that it was through this act of Adam and Eve that sin entered the world.

But since He did not stop them, does that mean He purposely left them, even though He was present there, knew beforehand that they would eat the forbidden fruit, and also had the power to stop them? If that is the case, why then punish and curse them for what He allowed to happen? (Looking at it from a rational point of view, He actually allowed it). Why on earth will an Omnibenevolent God punish anyone and send them to hellfire for doing something bad, supposedly done out of the "freewill" He gave them (which they didn't even ask for), knowing fully well that they will misuse it eventually?

Is anyone following me at all? Yes, I know and agree that I am confused in this case, and I don't need anyone to iterate that to me here.

I hope someone will provide credible answers.

Shalom.

buluti:
goodguy thanx for your piece which is devoid of insults and sarcasism, its really a good trait and God bless you.

I equally appreciate your rejoinder, as well as your experience you have shared with us here. I am indeed happy for you that you have received a gift of the Holy Spirit.

buluti:
My question: Do you believe the gift of speaking in tongues is manifest in todays church,

I strongly believe so. But the truth is, I do not believe in majority of them, especially those that publicize themselves on the media.

buluti:
you made a reference to those who claim to be born again, do you claim to be born again yourself because i also noticed you used the word unbeliever.

Let's leave 'me' out of this for now. My reference to unbelievers there is solely based on the Scriptures - 1 Cor 14:22.

buluti:
A little clarification to your post. The fact that some blab random syllables i agree occurs doesnt suggest that some do not actually genuinely receive the gift.

Sorry for the broad generalization, but I was talking based on what I see happening around. I believe that there are people that truly have the gift, but then, as I said earlier, I do not believe in majority of those I see around. The way they go about it just isn't scriptural.


Now, my own question: You claim to speak in tongues. What I will like to know is this: Can/Do you interprete whatever you speak in tongues? If you can't/don't, have you ever prayed for the gift of Interpretation, as Paul admonished?

One again, I appreciate your input and look forward to reading your reply.

Thanks and God bless.

Shalom.

About 4 years back, I was a in a youth gathering, and there was a Christian motivational speaker.  As usual, his words uplifted me internally and I was really flowing with him.  But the problem set in when we went into a prayer session and everyone was required to "pray in tongues".  At first, I was confused, as I had never spoken in tongues before.  As if he knew what my problem was, he then asked everyone of us to just open our mouths and begin to utter anything that comes to the mouth at that moment.  There I stood for minutes, with my mouth wide open - nothing happened.  Then I tried mimicking my friends who were apparently rapping in random syllables (they later confirmed this because they all joked about it after the programme).  But after a shortwhile, I stopped and realised that the whole thing did not make sense at all, because the Muslims among us were also required to speak in tongues.  I then started praying to my God in simple English language that I myself could understand.

What is my point, you ask?

This act of speaking in tongues has been seriously basterdized by the modern day church, and millions of Christians over the world have been made to believe that rapping in random syllables is indeed the true way to speak in tongues, under the guise of "speaking in mysteries" or some "angelic language".  Some are even made to believe that only those with the Holy Spirit can speak in tongues, and that those that do not speak in tongues do not have the Holy Spirit.  And of course, not leaving out those that teach that speaking in tongues is something you learn to do.  The funnier thing is how most people that speak in tongues always seem to be following the same cadence in their deceptive raps.

However, my own understanding of the Holy Scripture on this issue of speaking in tongues stems from 1 Corinthians chapter 14.

1. Speaking in tongues is meant to serve as a sign to the unbelievers --> 1 Cor 14:22

Let's go back to Acts Chapter 2.  There, we'll see that the speaking of other tongues by the apostles led to the conversion of about 3000 people that very day.  Apparently, the speaking of the tongues served as a sign to the unbelievers that got converted.

In today's churches, how many people get converted by the Pastor's/members' speaking of tongues?

2. Speaking in tongues is meant for the edification of the church, and not for some spirituality show-off.  And that's why Paul said this in 1 Cor 14:19: "But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue."

So what really is speaking in tongues all about?  In Acts 2: 4 - 12, we were made to understand that those that spoke in tongues, spoke in other languages that other people could hear and understand.

Speaking in tongues, to my own understanding, is not some kind of magical recitation or incantation of random syllables, as is clearly visible in the pentecostal churches of today.  They try to make one believe that they speak in "mysteries", using 1 Cor 14:2 as a back up.  But that verse, indeed, has been widely erroneously interpreted, even by the most ardent Bible-thumping folks, claiming to be born again.

Speaking in tongues, to my own understanding, simply means speaking in other languages.  Full Stop!  There's absolutely nothing more to it.

The Greek translation of 1 Cor 14:2 explains explicitly what Paul meant by "unknown tongues".  Bobbyaf is indeed right by saying "unknown" is an applied word.  In Greek, the phrase "unknown tongue" is "glossa" or "gloce-sah'", which means "a language (specially, one naturally unacquired)".

And talking of "mysteries", other Bible translations use "secret", which simply means that the one who speaks in another language is simply saying things that are secret or mysterious to the rest of the church, but only known to God, hence, the need for an interpreter/interpretation so that the church may be edified, as the "tongue speaker" edifies himself alone at that moment.

So now, what does Paul say about interpretation or no interpretation?  Different verses (1 Cor 14:5,6,13) show that Paul really advocates interpretation of tongues in the church for the edification of the church, though he's not against speaking in tongues (outside the church/gathering) without it.  In vs 12, we'll see his reason for advocating it; which is, spiritual gifts are meant to build up (edify) the church.  Come to think of it, what's the essence of having a spiritual gift if it's only going to be for your own edification?  That is why he also says that even if you can't interprete, pray that you should interprete, so that the church may be edified.  But if there will be no interpreter/interpretation, simply STFU!

No wonder he says in vs 5 that he prefers prophecies to speaking in tongues (in the absence of interpreter/intepretation).

Let's reason together here.  What really is the essence of speaking in tongues if the unbeliever will only end up more confused and more unconvinced?  Yes, that's what actually happens - they'll believe you're really out of your mind (vs 23), for what good will the speaking of tongues be to them, unless some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction is brought to them (vs 6)?

syrup:
Verse 39: "Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues."

While this is indeed, very true and very important, it is also very necessary not to leave out the concluding part of that statement, and the chapter as a whole.

Verse 40:  "But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way."  (NIV)

Anyway, I am not in any position to label anyone a liar if they claim to speak in tongues since they say they are talking out of experience.  But then, as I said earlier, this is just my own understanding of the Holy Scriptures on the issue of speaking in tongues.  I am very open to corrections, if the need really arises.

P. S.  I humbly suggest that everyone gets an NIV Bible for better understanding of contextual statements.  KJV could be confusing atimes.

God bless.

Shalom!

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=37590.msg910381#msg910381 date=1172190652]This simplistic "having-just-only-heard-the-Gospel-but-did-not-believe" argument is an empty drum. What happens to those who heard several times and yet still did not believe?[/quote]You're asking the same question I need answers to.

One thing though, do you guys really think people just choose to disbelieve just because they feel like? For all you of to have believed in and accepted Jesus, you had to be convinced first, right?

davidylan:
Num 14: 26 And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
27 How long shall I bear with this evil congregation, which murmur against me? I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against me.
28 Say unto them, As truly as I live, saith the LORD, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you:
29 Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward which have murmured against me.
30 Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.
31 But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised.

@ Group point, thanks for your valid question. I must confess that like you when i was much younger i once asked my dad whether babies would go to hell or heaven.
The verse i just quoted gives us a very clear understanding of how God operates. There is definitely an age of accountability, below which God will not hold you guilty for whatever you do as you are not expected to know right from wrong at that age. It is clear that God set the age of 20 as the age at which you became accountable for your deeds.

Is 20 still the age of accountability today? No. In bible days, men were still having kids at 120 today that is not so. Now children of nowadays mature much earlier than the children of 30 years ago so it is likely the age of accountability is now much lower.

But yes infants who die go straight to heaven because at that age they are not responsible for their own actions.

Beautifully stated. Thank you.

davidylan:
This question has been asked more than 50000089 times now. I am sure more than enough answers have been provided but since you are simply looking for the answers you want to hear in complete disregard to the various scriptural references that have been sighted to counter your argument, there is very little anyone can do but to leave you to continue peddling your "questions" while we settle down to have a productive discussion with the likes of grouppoint who are here to learn and not merely to attempt to show their "superior wisdom".
God bless you.

Once again, you evade the question, as usual. I will be greatly surprised if you tell me that you are a Christian today because you just 'heard' the gospel. If you say you are a Christian because of what you have experienced and seen, then why do you think others who haven't had such experiences will go to hell, as you've been trying to make me believe? Guy, I'm in serious need of answers here, I'm not here to show any superior wisdom.

davidylan:
My own question: what happens to those who were taught chemistry by a bad teacher and thus could not understand the fundamentals? should they also fail their exams?

They should not fail their exams because they know fully well the aftermath of their failure. They should get a Chemistry textbook by all means in order to pass their exams. This is absolutely not the case with an unbeliever. Again, your analogy is flawed.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=37590.msg910069#msg910069 date=1172182645]they resort to the "ad hominems" because you refuse to see the vaildity even when it is SCRIPTURALLY support.[/quote]And since they resorted to ad hominem, I guess the validity of their scripturally supported input has been made clearer to me? I guess Jesus would also do the same, right?

Why do you overlook the responses I gave to these "scripturally supported" posts? Obviously, you guys refused to reason with me, because you believed you had said the final words on the issue, and when I came with my own refutation, the best you could do was to label me a deluded Christian.

Anyway, back to the topic itself. Syrup made a post here (5th paragraph), which I believe, has helped buttress my point further on this issue. She said that her belief in the existence of God is founded on having experienced His power and grace in a very real way. And my question is: What then happens to those who have never had such experiences, despite having just 'heard' the gospel?

shahan:
@m4malik,
!!ffo dehctiws s'enohp ruoy .won smrof eht tog s'ehs ;reh ot klaT

Hmmm. . .

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=37590.msg910012#msg910012 date=1172181249]5995, please don't disappointment me, i already booked the virtual party room and ordered virtual cake and balloons [/quote]With the rate at which we're going, I may possibly exceed 6000 tonight.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=37590.msg910012#msg910012 date=1172181249]is the problem the fact that you can't take correction, or that you don't like the way we correct you. are you saying we should be nice and gentle like TV?[/quote]I take corrections. Even on this thread, I took corrections from bari_kade. Besides, what you call corrections (if you're referring to David and pataki's inputs), I call them insults. I suggest you read from page 1 to really know how things turned out to how we're seeing it right now.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=37590.msg910012#msg910012 date=1172181249]because we have all showed you valid points that you refuse or can't receive.[/quote]What you call valid points, I responded accordingly to them. And rather than get further reasonable and maturely presented refutations from the opposing sides, ad hominem set in.

I appreciate your post trini_girl.  Really, I do.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=37590.msg909970#msg909970 date=1172180063]during your "break from the forum" I hope you consider being less of a bratty whiner, and more of reasonable young man who's willing to take correction.[/quote]But the problem I seem to have with you here, and perhaps the other two is the "correction" you're referring to here.  So far, no one has pointed out anything substantial concerning that.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=37590.msg909970#msg909970 date=1172180063]5994 and counting , _{(*** anticipating goodguy's departure with great joy ****)} [/quote]No need to get overtly excited.  "I intend" was what I said.  Things may turn out differently as time goes on.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=37590.msg909977#msg909977 date=1172180250]wonder not. perhaps David will explain to you the age of accountability when we know right from wrong.[/quote]I was expecting this.  Thanks anyway, though I'm still anticipating David's response.

David, I'm wondering:  Will an infant go to hell if he/she dies?

mrpataki:
Probably you should go to the forum games and make such wishes. Making it here, is equivalent to pouring water on a hard rock as to my case, because I will never stop short of telling you where you are wrong as to the scriptures.

*Paraphrasing*

". . . because I will never stop short of telling you how deluded, blind and confused you are whenever I don't agree with you."

See, you're free to point out my errors, I have absolutely no problems with that.  I have observed this religion section of the forum and realised that 85% of topics created here are questions, requiring clarification.  Obviously, no one knows it all.  But when people are being insulted for stating wrongly (if at all) what they feel about a particular matter, rather than being corrected reasonably, then one has every reason to wonder.  You know, it's a good thing I'm not the only one that reads some of your posts and wonders. . . (don't ask! )

If you guys have been calm enough to notice, you'd see that I never presented any of my inputs here as facts that should be generally accepted; and I have really stood to be corrected.  But when your refutations do not appeal to me, do you expect me to just accept so as to appear as some "good Christian" before you?  Do you think I am disagreeing just because I want to?  Perhaps, you guys should be wondering why I am not seeing "the truth" you claim to showing me.  Could it be because of your manner of approach?  Actually, it's just a part of it.

Again, pataki, I went through this thread from page 2 to this present page, and I never came across a single post of yours that "told me 'where' I was wrong as to the scripture".  Rather, all I came across were your "lovely, 'Christianly' addenda" to the others' inputs as to how fallacious my inputs were, how a post I directed to trini_girl appeared contrary to you, how deluded my thought patterns were, how you sometimes mistake me for babs787, how I had too many errors loaded on me, how you totally misrepresented a post I made on another thread to make others believe I am a false Christian, how idiotic I jabbered, how hypocritical I was, your sanctimonious injunctions, and finally, the post I am currently replying to.

Anyway, I still honestly wish you and your friend could learn from TV01 and other mature Christians on this forum on how to reply to posts that you disagree with.  Humility is a Christian virtue. .  possess it!

Shalom.

kaydee:
We're just sentimental because it's our own Jay-Jay. ask any neutral person and he'll tell U Ronaldinho's the best since Maradona.

That's not totally true. The french guy that posted on the previous page is a neutral guy, and he thinks Jay-Jay is more skillful.

Note: We're talking skills here.

mrpataki,

I checked your profile and found out you joined Nairaland on my **th birthday.  As a matter of fact, I was enjoying myself with my pals as at the time you joined (4:07pm).  Interesting, innit?

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=37590.msg902815#msg902815 date=1171976578]The thread is essentially dead anyway, because goodguy has no  case.  But the boy really pissed me off at a certain point, and after a while I felt like I was raking him over the coals a little more than he could handle, as was evident when he simmered down and started to respond with "Thank you" for everything.  [/quote]I can imagine you going through your posts once again, and smiling at yourself for 'firing' goodguy.  Sorry to disappoint you, I didn't even feel 'fired' one bit.  Anyway, my "thank you" response was just to bring sanity back to the thread.  I usually do that whenever I want to restore peace to situations like this.  Do you really think I didn't have anything to say to David?  But what's the use when it's only going to generate more commotion?

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=37590.msg902815#msg902815 date=1171976578]Sooo, I felt sorry for him, and that's the truth.[/quote]That wasn't necessary, really, truth or not.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=37590.msg902815#msg902815 date=1171976578]So you gave him the nice respectful response he was happy with in the Does God's Word Allow Divorce thread.[/quote]Now, that's the way a mature human being should respond to posts that he disagrees with.  I wish David and mrpataki can learn from TV01 in that aspect.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=37590.msg902815#msg902815 date=1171976578]I guess he's away recovering, I haven't seen him for a few days now.[/quote]I was not around.  By the way, I intend taking a break from the forum once I reach 6000 posts. I will still be checking in once in a while though.

mrpataki:
@ goodguy,
Please answer my question.

What question?