₦airaland Forum

@Drusilla,

Thanks once again for sharing, and perhaps there's more to the list than you've
taken time to share. Good effort though, and let me share a few things with you:

I'm not usually one to be drawn into other people's concerns where they use the
name and Word of God for their personal purposes. Certainly, I've worried myself
sick with these issues earlier, and if only you knew me before now, I'm even more
guilty than anyone else in this thread of using cuss words to the extent that I got
the sack twice from my former places of employment! Then I learnt to calm down
and be just what God asks me to be - His loving and trusting child - and to help
share the Gospel graciously while praying sincerely and deeply for others.
Admittedly, it's not easy to do that, but I enjoy the help of His Spirit.

Yes, in many quarters in Christendom, we hear and see these things; and believe
me there'll be worse than those listed in your reply. How do I know this? Jesus said
so prophetically as He warned the disciples about the nature of religious confession
in the end-times. What then am I to do in times like these? On the one hand, I could
present myself to God to pursue what pleases Him according to His Word; and on
the other hand, I'll leave Him to be the Judge over these issues. Sad reality that it's
the order of our day to see and hear about these unfortunate experiences, but I'll
guarantee you that God isn't taken by surprise in these matters, as we can see for
instance in Acts 20:28-32, part of which I'll quote here:

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not
sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to
draw away disciples after them. [verses 29-30].

I don't know if this would help, but while we cannot ignore these matters or be
passive about them, a verse that has often helped me is I Cor. 4:5 -

"Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to
light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts:
and then shall every man have praise of God."

Thank you again, Drusilla. I know how these things affect us sometimes, but I'm
quite confident that as many of us seeking to enjoy His truth will find grace to do
so until Jesus comes.

@elampiro, I 'preciate your food for thought and understand that women
are not to teach or be leading speakers in church (which is different from
the general understanding of 'talking' or saying something in church). At
least, they're not denied praying, singing and even teaching other women
and taking other leadership roles like what we call Sunday School classes,
I suppose. But I'm also of the view that God's concern for covering and/or
exposing the head is directed to both men and women.

It's significant that all twelve apostles chosen were men, but it is quite a
remarkable thing to note that there were many women of faith who were
mightily used of God in the Church. We can praise Him for the examples
we read of in His Word and hope that many of us would find grace to
apply ourselves to everything He says.

Bibi, I was thinking the same thing even though I'm a Christian - it
would help promote a balance so our Muslim friends don't feel left
out.

Drusilla,

No, I'm not taking it personal, and hope that my earlier reply didn't
sound as though it meant that.

You're right - some people evaluate others' Christianity on a few out
of context premises, such as just the expressions they hear of them.

One may be 'morally' civil in diction and yet not even blink at the plight
of the less privileged around them. Coincidentally, what you'd pointed
out happened to be the very thing I was reading about in the Scriptures
this morning in my quiet time: Luke 10:28-37, about the priest and Levite
who were (probably) sanctimonious as not to offer help to the man who
fell among thieves.

Indeed, there's much more about this topic about practicing one's faith
than just the mere focus on cuss words - and I very much appreciate
that you and syrup have helped to broaden the scope of what this
entails. Please forgive me if my reply earlier raised any concerns out of
context, and thanks for your input.

No vex - most often I work and answer from my office as well.

@ajia23,

Glad to read from you again and hope that we can have a dialogue in good spirits.

What you need to understand is that my style is unique, as I believe everyone else
has his/hers. I shied off leaving too many references from either the Qur'an or Bible
in deference/respect to olabowale's and trust that he might ask me to provide any
reference - to which I'd be glad to share them with him. That does not amount to
asking him to provide "proof" of anything, as nothing in my reply suggested that.
All I said was that "I'd be glad to share on those as soon as olabowale provides
counter claims to my reply" - which is not the same as asking him to prove anything
about the Qur'an.

I understand the sensitive nature of discourses like this and I try not to offend the
religious sensitivity of people. That's the reason why I was reserved up until now.

It would have been great if syrup had showed up to confirm that I've tried to share
the references with her by email after she left me an offline. I haven't heard from
her but hope that she's got some answers. This is why I don't agree with your
statement that I was being queer in responding to syrup's enquiry; and I'm not
in any way attempting what you're suggesting.

Indeed, I'd only be glad to share my notes on the Forum as regards the enquiry and
will do so soon as time permits. Thank you for your observations and concern.

@KAG,

It's interesting when convictions can be stated as clearly as you've done, and
I appreciate the fact that you've helped this to be easier for me at least, even
though I still would not agree with some of the ideas expressed.

There are a few things to bear out:

(a) the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is not to save humans from God; rather
it is to save humans from His wrath on sin.

(b) the sacrifice is divinely applied throughout all ages  - past, present and future,
even though it happened at a specific point in history, so that those in the era
before Jesus was born (Jews and non-Jews alike) could benefit from the grace of
the atonement, as I'm persuaded is what Rom. 5:10-18 seems to teach.

What about those who have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ? They also
will be judged (if you permit the term) on the basis of what light they had in the
period they lived their lives. This is explained in Romans 2:6-11 and the summary
is that those who pursued 'good' or 'evil' will be rewarded accordingly either way
for whatever course they pursued.

And children? I'm also persuaded that children are innocent and those who die
in whatever circumstances (war, disaster, disease, murder, etc.) do not get sent
to hell. This seems to be implied in Jesus words in Matt. 18:14 & 19:14 - and to
just quote of the first:

"Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little
ones should perish."

You notice my use of "I'm persuaded" as not alll Christians will be persuaded of
the same thing, and I'm open to the persuasions and views of others.

It's true that at the present discourse the reasons for going to heaven or hell
may not be all that central; yet it's not correct to assume that "an omniscient
God can intentionally make many of his most beloved creatures just to be
punished infinitely". No, 'infinite punishment' was and is not His intent in creation
and the issues would be better helped when we keep them in their proper
perspectives.

I'm persuaded that God is both loving and holy - and the understanding of His
holiness would necessitate divine judgement upon evil, especially when He
had left a warning to the effect. This takes into account those who might not
have heard the Gospel, but who know in their consciences that somethings
are considered right and others wrong. And I dare add here that this includes
people who go by the name "Christian" though they contradict the pursuits
of "good".

The preceding should not be taken as an attempt at "preaching" to you, lol. . .
but how else would I have been able to explain why I don't agree with some
of the views you expressed? In anycase, I'm deeply persuaded that God's
attributes would not presuppose that He "intentionally" damns His beloved
creation; but at the same time, I don't see how a holy God would glibly pass
over "evil" simply because He is omnibenevolent.

I've enjoyed your piece and the challenges posed. Warm regards.

@KAG,

Thank you for at least seeing my point with the earlier attribution of the 'light'
thing to me - I suspected that was what might've happened, and we all make
mistakes sometimes, don't we?

As to the "correction", I completely agree with you - because I actually saw
that wikipedia article a few days before you recommended it, but point was
that I was drawing nferyn's attention to the idea that a logic supposing the
contradiction of attributes (as he had said) did not justify the denial of the
existence of an entity. All the same, I forebear as requested of him and in
good humour leave off using that logic in hope that he understands it does
not apply only conveniently in a one-sided argument.

I respect - and always try to respect - the views of anyone or their convictions.
True, I don't have all the answers and my opinions may be untenable to a
lot of people who read them. What I coudn't grasp and thus could not accept
out of hand is how the attributes of God contradict one another. Introducing
"evil" as the necessary ingredient for the inference that God's attributes are
contradictory and thus negate His existence thereby is actually weak - and
that's what I was appealing to or trying to point out.

Again, one has to understand the context of whatever one discusses - I try
not to misread people, and apologise where they point it out to me that I'd
inadvertently done so. A case in point is that God did not create people in
order to send them to hell; the question is what qualifies one for either the
place we call 'heaven' or what we believe to be 'hell'?

It's difficult for people to understand or grasp the concept that a loving and
holy God must punish evil deeds - for that should also be a concern in this
issue. Like you, I agree that when we take it one step further, we'd all have
to come back defining concepts, and "evil" needs to be defined before we
trade ideas across board.

Bottomline is: I don't necessarily agree that the attributes of God are in any
way contradictory - and the only way someone would suppose that they do
is to try and introduce 'evil' into them as if it's part of His attributes. That's
why for me, I would suppose by that very same rule of logic, 'darkness'
presupposes that light does not exist! But, of course, that would only be a
big laugh.

Thank you again for sharing with me, and I'd like to thank all who've made
challenging inputs, no less nferyn, even if I don't agree with some of his
logic.

@nferyn,

Now it's becoming a shouting game for you and as expected you'd have had
to come back accusing me of being disingenuous. One thing is for sure: you
don't understand logic, and I'll state again that I wasn't the one using logic to
try and establish the (non)-existence of God. If Seun used it, why has it become
a worry that I replied that I stand by what I stated and wait to see how he
counters what I stated in reference to his post?

Whether or not you applied logic in reference to light begs the issue - you
can say that now because it has become a narrow noose around your own
argument. The point is that when you try to establish the non-existence of
God on the premise of perceived contradiction in His attributes, my question
suggests that 'contradiction in attributes' does not provide grounds for 'denial
of existence' of an entity. That you're holding on to that "logic" simply left
me no alternatives than to draw your attention to the earlier statement you
made about the contradiction of the characteristics in light. Bottomline -
the idea that contradiction in attributes negates the existence of an entity
does not apply - and that should have sufficed. Where you want to pass that
on only to the case of your atheistic ideology against the existence of God,
I reckon that you're bending the rules, and I made bold to say so.

Question: does contradiction of attributes constitute denial of existence?

Simply admit that the logic does not hold true rather than come back with
your accusations of my being disingenuous. What is even hilarious to me
is that one minute "it does not apply" and the next minute "it does" - and
then you excuse it under the sob story that my misrepresentation doesn't.
Repetition ad nauseam indeed, because you choose to edit and re-edit
the premises.

Come back yet again and cry hoo-ha, afterall you're entitled to your opinion.

If the argument contains both the either and the or part, did you fail to see
that I used the same application in an earlier reply? When your discourse
wobbles, then I'm all of a sudden at play with a "strawman"? Try something
else - not that weathered appeal you unsuccessfully used with 4get_me.

You probably know me by now - I iggy invectives and try to keep to an issue,
so all the talk about being disingenuous notwithstanding, I'll grant you that
I'm one of those who believes that the attributes of God include His omniscience,
omnipotence and omnibenevolence. How these attributes are in contradiction
has been a concern in my discourse with you, but I haven't read anything in
your rejoinders to that effect other than the introduction of the existence of
evil in the world as a prism for scrutinizing His attributes. That sounds like
the example I derived from your analogy with light - properties/characteristics/
attributes of light are not affected by darkness even though the latter is a
real and existing phenomenon.

The idea of wanting to disavow God's existence by an appeal to a contradiction
in His attributes is yet to be dealt with in your rejoinders. So, what is it -
that the attributes of God contradict one another; or that the presence
of evil justifies the idea of His non-existence?

I applaud you for your very limited understanding of the supernatural, and
I actually didn't expect anything better from you. Whether or not you reject
the concept altogether is in fact inconsequential, because as earlier, not all
materialists or naturalists will agree with you. What you don't understand
ought not to become once and for all "inconsequential"; the best you can do
is not pretend a superiority over those who know what they're talking about.

@Drusilla,

I'd have loved to see more examples than the not-so quaint "new hypocritical
Victorian code" of SHYTE. You see, I'd asked if I was not missing something to
observe that Christians banter some expressions that would make unbels or
non-believers raise their brows. At least, someone earlier told me that they
use curse words and have no problem with doing so, and I didn't think that
he/she was necessarily consigned to a "new hypocritical Victorian code".

Ok, was just teasing. But seriously, when we look deep in our consciences
and wonder about the transforming power and work of the Holy Spirit in our
lives, then some would agree that language reveals one's true identity.

I don't think that my entry is set to "make up sins and then accuse people of
violating them." My concern was that many of us as believers don't seem to
care these days about these things. Being "Christian" does not rest on what
expressions we use - good or bad; rather it is a personal relationship that
is evidenced in every aspect of our lives - and that includes not only what
we say, but how we say them, Victorian hypocrisy or not.

Fear not - I was there and used them so well that they earned me some
despicable appellation, to the extent that I got the sack twice and had to
move on to other jobs. It wasn't anyone who "made up" my sins - it was
rather the fellowship of God's Spirit in my heart that gave me a change of
attitude, and that's why I don't see the need to use them anymore. Good
though, if you find them well suited to your witness - and in that, peace
to you.

@nferyn,

You should understand that you'll go round in circles because your presentations
are not helping your arguments at all - and only when I apply the same rule of
your own logic that it suddenly becomes inconvenient - yes? Please.

What you accuse me of conveniently focusing on ('only one part of the argument')
shows that you don't understand logic at all, or at best you persuade me that you
really do not. If you know it does not apply all through, why use it in the first place?
I've held that I'm not the one applying logic, and if you hold onto that, all well and
good - I'll use it in just precisely the way you formulate your arguments. Sorry to
notice that KAG didn't even address your remarks, but that's not my loss - at the
very least, I was making reference to what you said and didn't see the need for
KAG to have tried to slice my piece without realising that the verbatim quotes were
yours and not mine.

I still stand by what I stated - Seun's contribution is illogical, and I wait to see
how he counters that.

Now then, if 'the logic still holds', I take it that by your own use of your logic, the
question of the "attributes" (or whatever else you choose to edit it to mean) of
"light" shows that, if the properties/attributes contradict each other, your light
does not exist - yes? That's why I've consistently asked that you look closer at
the application of what you call "logic": the basic question I've been asking is -

"How does contradiction of attributes constitute denial of existence of an entity?"

If you keep telling me that the contradiction of attributes of an entity denies its
exstence, then for fairness sake be willing to apply that rational thought to your
own example of the case in light - if that's rational at all. How have I misapplied
this or conveniently held on to "only one part of the argument" when you keep
presenting the same logic over and over again and now even saying that "the logic
still holds"? - what am I to do with that, if you feel it is only convenient to be applied
to one side of the argument that best suits you?

Good to know that you're consistent with "evil exists" - but does that negate the
existence of God? You really don't know what you're saying, nferyn. Let me help
you a bit more with your assumptions again with the example you gave about the
case of light: be reminded that we're here dealing with 'attributes', so if darkness
exists, how does that affect the properties/characteristics/attributes of light?

Please slow down and before you rush a reply, think through your statements
carefully. What exactly is your supposition? So far, there have been mixtures I
can't accept out of hand in your replies - it seems to me that you're trying ever
so hard to establish that "the attributes of God are contradictory", [quotation
marks are mine now as I'm not quoting you verbatim just here] and on that basis
you reject the existence of God - did I read you right?

As for the definition of the supernatural - I thought it was attempted in simple
form in one of my earlier replies?

@KAG,

I'm sorry to say that you're not reading the logical sequence of our argument.
If anyone is having a weird inference, it's the gentleman who supposes that
the attributes of light contradict each other - and then my simple question to
him was: "how does contradiction of attributes constitute denial of existence?

The suggestion of the logic was not mine - it was his; and if anything at all,
you should have seen that clearly. At the end of the day, I made clear that
I did not necessarily agree with him and the only reason why I used what
he called logic was to amicably show him that his logic was weak and thus
untenable in its application. Trying to slice my post is hilarious - at least you
ought to have seen that I was quoting him verbatim; and your agreeing
with him is even more surprising because you're bending the rules as well.

Anyone is welcome to apply whatever logic they so please, but mark well:
they should not be so convoluted as to spiral out of context. Evil exists in
the world, but the logic you're all happy-clappy to apply is quaint because
you're making evil one of the attributes of God. How you manage to do that
is beyond me. Darkness is a phenomenon that exists but does not constitute
the attributes or properties of light - are you then saying that light does not
exist because darkness is real? Just because evil is real does not negate
the existence of God as far as evil is not one of His attributes - that's why
the "square-circle" concept comes closer home to you than anyone would
suppose it does to my rejoinders.

@Seun,

It's okay for you to present a case and hide behind an idea you're unable to
sustain, only to show up with a joke. At least, it eases the tension.

@nferyn,

I'm not surprised - it's becoming more contracted for you to apply some
logic in some situations; but when the same logic is used to mirror your
own reasoning, it "does not depend on what I or anyone else believes."
Don't sweat it out, pal - it does not help to try any logic at all if you're at
all uncomfy with it in your reasoning. The question still remains, though
I'm not forcing you to answer it - I'm only just wondering about it:

"How does a contradiction of attributes constitute a denial of existence
of any entity?"

Look again at the application of your own logic -

"Light has both particle and wave characteristics and these attributes
contradict each other."

Since the attributes contradict each other, then I suppose by your own
assumptions, the phenomenon called "light" does not exist? Or again,
it's either "light" does not exist or it does not have the properties you
ascribed to it. And if the entity called "light" has these attributes that
contradict each other, then it does not exist. So if it exists, it does not
have the properties you said it has.

Of course, you shouldn't be alarmed about these suppositions, for I'm
not the one applying logic to the existence of God. My application of
your own logic to that argument, to the effect of disavowing the (non)-
existence of God, is to persuade you to see that your premise is weak.

In the same vein, I'd like you to see that if you apply your reasoning to
the question of the existence of God, then perhaps it holds true and
becomes even easier for you to grasp that -

" . . our understanding of [God] is limited. It only shows that attributing
any characteristics to [God] does not adequately capture His essence."

So, dear nferyn, it doesn't make sense to bend the rules and see the
logic only applicable for your own convictions while distrusting the same
rule of application in matters of faith and the existence of God. You may
pedantically assert that God cannot exist because of some perceived
contradiction in His attributes, but be willing as well to admit that your
idea of "light" cannot exist because of your stated contradiction in its
attributes. If it does regardless of any contradiction in its attributes or
characteristics, what does that tell you about your logic in the question
of the existence of God?

Finally, the preceding argument does not in anyway indicate that I'm
admitting to any contradiction in the attributes of God; I'm only offering
at the present to amicably show you that the logic you applied is weak
and does not hold true.

You're an inspiration, and I'm confident that you'll find the healing
your heart longs for from God - He's loving way beyond anything
I can say. You're in my prayers from today.

@TayoD,
I've enjoyed everyone's contributions in the topic, and I'm particularly
much helped by mlks_baby's and yours - and yes, you're right, every
individual is unique. I don't think mlks_baby hates Muslims even though
she's very strong in her replies. It wasn't until I read her entries that
I finally decided to join the Forum and since then have tried to have a
second look at Islam. It just doesn't make sense for the Qur'an to have
endorsed the Bible sometime and then discountenanced it altogether.

@nferyn,

You're not really contributing to the issue in a way that can help you.
Perhaps it's convenient for you to state that you're incapable of faith,
not because it goes against your nature, but because you simply do
NOT want to believe, and that's that.

You have actually contradicted yourself in this recycled escapist idea
of skeptism. How does contradiction equate denial of God's existence?
Let me even apply some logic to help your argument:

Do you deny the existence of anything at all just because of some
perceived contradiction? Now, a moment ago, you stated that:

"Light has both particle and wave characteristics and these attributes
contradict each other."

nferyn:
Light has both particle and wave characteristics and these attributes contradict each other.

Granted. Question: just because the particle and wave characteristics
contradict each other, does that provide the grounds for denying that
a phenomenon known as "light" exists? Does contradiction translate
into denial?

The logic you see as conveniently applicable in your case against faith
in God seems to have been altogether forgotten in a matter of hours.

Interesting and thought-provoking. I'm one of those persuaded that
to be "Christian" is to have a living relationship with Jesus Christ by
faith which helps us daily experience God's love in righteousness. I'll
break this down:

This relationship is not based on some rigid code like the Mosaic Law
or the Ten Commandments; however, the righteousness in them is
evident in the Christian life. If the Law said not to bear false witness,
my Christian exprience delights in telling the truth - by the help of the
Spirit of God.

I suggest that the difference between a religious life and a relationship
with Jesus Christ is this: religious observance may be of benefit to some,
but it is a lifeless formality. On the other hand, in a relationship with Christ,
we discover a living vitality planted in our hearts to always long to be
pleasing to God by the help of His Spirit.

I've been there before - wondering how I could ever get out of that
cycle of religious life. I sang the songs and praises but they were drab;
I tried to participate in 'church' things, but it was all dry. I'll never forget
the day that a simple prayer delivered me from the most painful sin in
my life (I'm so ashamed to say it here); but since that day, I've known
the reality of His presence and power.

Just seek Him and be sensitive to what He ministers to your heart -
perhaps something to give up or a word to obey: the results are dramatic
and your life will be enriched.

God bless you much.

@nferyn,

You see why you have a problem that will last a lifetime? You're trying
ever so hard to reduce God into a test tube by thinking He is "falsifiable".

I'll provide you this one thing - the one attribute you need is faith - for
that is the only way to know Him. If you reject that and instead ask that
the one requirement He asks be thrown out, then you're the one under
spotlight.

How does the question of contradiction equate denial of God's existence?

Even you as a man can contradict yourself in matters of character traits -
and when you do, would that be grounds enough to deny your existence?

It's of very little consequence that anyone tries to find contradiction in the
attributes of God - what is the essential question is: how does that deny
His existence?

Well ToyM28, depending on what version of the Bible one is using,
the word "science" appears in our English Bibles (KJV) in only two
verses that I can think of presently:

I Tim. 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane
and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.

Daniel 1:4
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.

These are the only two verses I know of at the moment where "science"
appears in the KJV.

From what I learnt today in church, science is simply "gnosis" (Gr. for just
"knowing", but as used in those contexts it's more than general knowledge.
Luke was a physician, and that would've involved some biological sciences or
some knowledge of it. Philosophy is a branch of science, I believe, that
deals with the nature of human behaviour (sometimes called 'behavioural
sciences'), and there again the Bible gently warns us to not anchor our
faith on that philosophical branch of science:

Col. 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the
tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Well, at the end of the day, our pastor encouraged us to respect and pursue
science, but that we should understand that science and faith in Christ are
not the same things. Perhaps this helps?

ToyM28:
Gwaine u certainly right nd like hot-angel i can't deny i use it sometimes nd i'm in d wrong. But what she doesnt do is waht m gona do: which is defend why i use it soemtimes.

Believe me, I'm touched by your sincerity.

It wasn't easy for me either. God help your walk as I pray
He does mine. And thanks for your input.

You know what? I actually don't understand how people just sit up
and think everyone who's religious is ignorant one way or the other.
But I must say that in the journey of life and faith, I've learnt always
to respect people for their convictions - whether atheists, deists or
theists.

Apart from the philosophical stretch, it's really hard for anyone to just
dismiss the supernatural, whether or not they understand what the
term is. One thing I know is that the realm or field of spirituality is a
very broad one, and Christianity is only one expression of it, albeit
not classed along with all other forms of spirituality.

What for me holds sway at the end of the day is that I've experienced
God's power and love for myself in circumstances that can only be
described as supra-natural (to borrow from syrup). It is this and
this alone, perhaps, that science doesn't deal with - faith, and that is
the one requirement that is key into the supernatural experience of
God's power. . incidentally, faith is the one thing that most scientists
ask us to throw away - and then what is left of spirituality and the
supernatural?

My convictions are that faith and science are both legitimate concerns
in their own rights; but when the scientist or philosopher thinks himself
superior to all others, that's where some things go wrong.

Thankfully, that's something I benefitted from today in church from the
preaching referenced on I Tim. 6:20 -

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane
and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called."

The Bible does not reject science outrightly; rather it is the baseless
arguments of "science falsely so-called" that is in question. One of such
would be this: science or not, I had a supernatural encounter with the
living God in 2004 (even though I was born again much earlier) - and
from that day, anyone appealing to science as "proof" that God does
not exist will have to kill me first to convince me later.

You just cannot explain away an experience that is supernatural.

As it turns out, when you've lost steam and can't face your own
issues, reason gives way to rascality. I didn't expect anything
better from you, and I've always made it my aim to iggy any and
all invectives - from politician to pharisee - and instead, keep to
a present topic. Welcome back anytime if you care.

That's quite a broad one, and good input. Initially, I was concerned
about the use of certain uncouth language among those professing
faith in God and wondered if there wasn't any qualms to it.

However, it is true that there are many issues involved in the real
essence of what it means to practise one's faith. Alas! how often is
the wonder that compromise is rife among believers today, and only
by God's grace do we see and deal with them.

I would not like to be in a situation to compromise my faith; but if I
so happen to be, I pray grace to stand for what I believe than give
in to what is inimical to my relationship with the Lord.

@nferyn,

I'm not surprised that you'd deny you have a spirit or conscience and
just simply consign it to some neurological state. I understand that,
and even then, not all materialists and naturalists would agree with
you. Sociologists try to explain these things away, so it does not add
anything new to the subject of spirituality and the supernatural, and
if you insist on your own view, no qualms about that. . . except that
the same sociological rule applies to you.

Shagari2, you are the politician by skillfully dodging my question:

"What has sabbath got to do with the present topic?"

As soon as you let me know about that, I guarantee you I'll
answer your question.

The present topic is referenced on I Corinthians 11:1-16, and if
you find the subject of sabbath there, let me know. If you want
to discuss the sabbath, you can do either of two things:

(a) post your concerns on any one of the existing threads
on Sabbath concerns, and I'd be glad to meet you there
(for easy reference, click on the following links):

The Sabbath - What day is this?

What Is The Right Day To Go To Church: Saturday or Sunday?

(b) or, you can open a new thread if you so wish, and I'd be
equally glad to meet you there with any other question you
may have.

I'm not a politician nor am I dodging your question, but I simply don't
have the interest of losing focus on the present topic and therefore
don't want it to degenerate into something else. This is about Ladies'
Hair In Church, and it stays that way, thank you.

Taah, how did you come about your inference that "Christianity
was formed to praise there beloved Prophet Isah(ASW);reffered
to as Jesus"? That's not what Christianity is; more than anything
it is a relationship by faith in Jesus who is the Messiah to bring
us to God so that we may enjoy His amazing grace and mercy.

Drusilla, I get your meaning, and thanks for your comments.

Shagari, what has sabbath got to do with the present topic? And
how do you get "the Word" if not from the "Book"? The whole
essence and basis of Christ's teaching is that you obey what He
has commanded - and that includes what the apostles taught. At
least, I know that if a woman does not cover her head in church,
she is dishonouring her head - which is precisely what the apostle
taught in I Cor. 11:5.

@nferyn,

Why do you always write off people as ignorant simply because you cannot
understand what they are talking about? I really don't think there's any
point in trying to offer any defintion of a term to you because you haven't
demonstrated that you have anything to contribute other than sit as judge
over what you cannot understand. But to be fair to you, I'll condescend and
offer you some:

The supernatural is what is not easily detected by the natural, and I mostly
use the term when discussing issues of faith and religion. One may determine
natural causes by natural means; but supernatural causes can be understood
by the sensitive part of man known as the spirit. This is that part of man that
is incorporeal but is capable of experiencing the supernatural, not by natural
and "controlled" determinants as are best applicable to the field of natural
enquiry.

I hope this helps. If you don't understand, it is quite normal and honourable
to say that you 'don't know' what and how the supernatural operates. But to
go further to deny something that you can neither understand nor explain is
quite another thing.

This is interesting, and different strokes for different folks.

Seun, I don't have all the answers, but I wonder why you so
quickly flared up at some perceived "bulls¤¤t" in Drusilla's.

For one, I'm not sure that the soul is part of the body - it simply
is not. This is easy to understand when one dies: the soul exits
and no part of the body leaves with the soul. Here's a Bible text
that might help:

"And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died)
that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin."
[Gen 35:18]

The soul is that immaterial and animating part of a person that
seats his/her will, mind and emotions. It can be affected when
the material body experiences certain actions - pain, injury, or
sighting some gory scene. The degree to which a person's soul
is affected is determined by the degree of the experience of the
action. Loss of memory (temporary or permanent), or damage to
the brain or any other material part of a person is not the same
thing as the loss or damage of the soul. The brain is an organ
that is generally thought of as housing the intellect - where the
thoughts of a person are performed. When that is affected in
some adverse way, the soul is still intact but the organ for the
function of the thinking process is unable to operate normally.

However, in some more involving way, the Bible sometimes speaks
of the soul as the real person - the real character that defines any
person. It means that one is not just defined by the material body,
but even more by what that person actually is. Thus, Adam became
"a living soul" and then again, "And it came to pass, when he had
made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was
knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul."
[I Sam. 18:1].

I believe that animals have souls - that is, in terms of the said
animating principle. In Job 12:10, this seems to be so: "In whose
hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind."
The difference is that animal soul are not the same as the soul of
man, and the simple reason for me is that since the soul seats the
will, mind and emotion, animals do not express the same will as
that of man.

Second, it seems most probable that some animals are spoken of
as to be found in heaven at some point. Rev. 19:11 & 14 speak of
white horses.

At the end of the day, what separates man from animals is spirit:
animals don't have spirits while man does. It is the spirit that helps
man communicates with God. Our soul (as the seat of will, mind and
emotion) are many times incapable of grasping the spiritual and the
supernatural, and that is where our spirit function. In brief, I offer
that the spirit is the deepest part of man capable of grasping the
things of the spiritual world that are invisible to our natural senses.
This is clear from the basic teaching of the Bible, that man is a
composite of the spirit, soul and body (I Thes. 5:23).

Lastly, I'm not quite clear what you mean by "butcher", and if you
mean the killing of animals for food, I see no big issue about that. But
I object to the matreatment of animals as much as I object to their
veneration as though they matter much more than human lives.

Perhaps, you might find some help in my post, but I don't have all the
answers.

The validity of the Bible does not hinge on whether or not the
devil repents. The devil by default is beyond repentance - he
cannot repent even if he tried, and we wouldn't have to wait all
this time to see if his repentance lies within the realms of any
possibility. He will simply go headlong as is predicted in the Bible,
and his end will be disastrous. QED.

@nferyn,

While not holding brief for syrup, I think you shouldn't belabour the point.
No rational skeptic denies what he does not understand, and that should
suffice for you. The question here is simple for me:

               Do you deny that the supernatural exists?

What you need is not "definitions" but a humility to not quickly write off people
as ignorant over issues that you have no explanations to. I perfectly agree
that what lies outside natural explications are not necessarily defined in
naturalistic terms, and to insist otherwise is to be additionally arrogant.

Seun's post is illogical by your definition of logic, and as far as I can see,
syrup used it perfectly well to show that Seun's views are untenable. One
could well reason logically from a premise, and it's baffling to me that you
couldn't see that syrup has done that by showing the fallacy of your
arguments. I don't believe in the Allah of the Quran, though I can reason
logically, based on the premise presented by Muslims. That does not mean
the same thing as denial of a reality.