₦airaland Forum

Mcowubaba:
By calling Atheists useless you just spoilt all the sermon you wrote...
Why call them useless How will you call God's creatures Useless
Seun is probably an Atheist and here you are using a Forum created by a Useless person
Same with Facebook and Microsoft soft...
How have you impacted on Humanity as a Christian ?? Tell me?

I know why i put the word useless. Everything about that word i wrote there is concerning atheism. I am not talking about achievement because it wasnt atheism that made Seun to start nairaland and get to where he is now. He wasnt even an atheist when he started this nairaland business. Forget about whether i'm using Seun's forum or not because it is my presence here and your presence that keeps Seun's business going. I am not gaining any financial benefit from nairaland but Seun is gaining.
Bill Gate isnt prospering because he is an atheists and i dont think he is an atheist anyway.

Some of these people stopped believing God when they have already made achievements in life. And if you say that i have not impacted in humanity as a christian then you are only ignorant and i wont blame you because you spoke based on your level of knowledge of me. I dont need to blow my trumpet.

Ranchhoddas:
Oga. If you agree with the Genesis account of creation, then it means that women were an afterthought, God saw Adam was lonely and has to create Eve from Adam's rib while he was asleep. She wasn't part of the initial plan. The pastor was right on the money. Don't attempt to sugar-coat anything.

No sir. God sees the end from the beginning according to the scriptures. If woman was an after thought, why didnt God form him from the dust as he formed Adam? God knew what he was doing from the onset. He wanted to create woman from the rib of the man thats why he created man first. And the reason for creating the woman was for her to be a companion to the man and for the sake of fruitfulness.
The writer of Genesis was just stating the reasons why God made male and female.
God wanted to create someone whom Adam will not see as just another creature like him rather someone who he will see as the flesh of his flesh and the bone of his bone. Such level of intimacy/bond was what God wanted to achieve in creating woman.

Mcowubaba:
I don't understand what has been happening, I no longer do the following
1) Listen to pastors preach on the bus or roadside, because most atimes the will ask for offering or pledges after their sermon.
2) I don't oppose gays neither do I endorse them

3) Going to Church regularly, I have attended different churches in recent times, hoping to find a good one, but the all have the same strategic planning- great sermon/Bible exposition, great offerings and fund raising. Offerings have different names and titles, Thanksgiving, adoration, firstfruits, last fruit, Televangelism, Charity, Tithe, worship and prosperity offering , even fasting offering all this offerings in this Buhari's administration.

Now...
I'm thinking more logically than Religiously, calling a Spade a Spade. Not being Politically correct, the Touch don't my annoited syndrome of most so called Christians.
Pastor dey Bleep up, u no go condemn am, u go dey reason Touch not the annoited, who annoit am

Anyway, I Pray to have the Zeal, good guidance and passion for Christianity...
Churches are not encouraging me.

Ps... I am not broke or stingy about offering, but I don't wanna fund the next Private Jet of a Nigerian pastor

I dont give money to those preachers in the bus. I dont fall for those offerings you mentioned above. I dont believe that Jesus presence is restricted to any church. I do attend church and i see it simply as the assembling of ourselves as the bible puts it. Any other attachments anybody is making to make his church look more special than the others dont trip me. I am not an attheist and i will never be(by the grace of God).
Only you can tell why you are suddenly developing inferiority complex towards the atheists simply because you are trying to reason out certain issues in christianity. I reason out things too, i question some christian practices and teachings in my church and in other churches but I AM HAPPY TO BE A CHILD OF GOD. I AM NOT INFERIOR TO ANY USELESS ATHEISTS.

RCINC:
So women are afterthoughts?
Please, no human being created by the God Almighty is an afterthought! I refuse to accept that ideology!
An ideology that applauds sexism and misogynism in society, no!
How can anyone with half a brain, regardless of who or what you bow to believe for a split second that another human being is an afterthought? Not just an afterthought, but an afterthought created for the sole purpose to slave and serve another man? How?
If I being a woman should be labelled an afterthought created to bow to a man, what business do I have serving God?
Shouldn't this make me completely irrelevant to this God who thought me so unimportant he created me to be on earth just to serve another man?
What business do I have preaching and winning souls for this God who sees me as an irrelevant being? How could God create me to stroke the ego of another human?
Christian women who donate tithes and offering to listen to this message should be slapped mercilessly to stupor!
I want no business serving that God! If that is what your God is about please keep him and keep him to yourself alone!
I want nothing to do with a God that perceives me to be an afterthought.
A God that created a master I should serve all life long.
A God that supports misogynism and third world ideologies.
A God that calls me second fiddle for the vagina he so rightly gave me?
I want no business with that God and religious centres of that God!
I have no business donating to an offering box of men who see me as a filthy rag to be used by them.
I have no business sitting amongst men who jerk off the idea of me being a slave
No! I reject to be associated with this.
I'm not an afterthought! I don't choose to be one ever!
And if you are a woman contributing offering to be told this and you still have the audacity to shout feminist, your case is so pathetic, I shall now prescribe Aluja stop evil oil to you! (Two teaspoons twice daily X 7)
Shut up and serve you master!

https://theadoraweb./2016/09/10/for-the-women-who-are-afterthoughts/

The End.

Why do you people always believe that because someone says he is a pastor therefore he has final say in biblical matters? Pls dont get it wrong, women are not after thought abeg. God created animals before man and he made them males and female thats why he blessed them to be fruitful and multiply. Creation of male and female started from animals so it couldnt be an after thought because you cant tell me that God wanted only Adam to dwell in the earth. And since God made his creatures to procreate, will Adam make love to himself and become pregnant and born babies? Na wa for some preachers.

Genesis 1;

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

For someone to now say that it was an after thought for God to create female human shows the person's lack of understanding of the God he preaches.
From the onset God knew what he wanted to create and he so created. Some of these pastors dont listen to themselves when they talk about God. At one point, they describe God as all knowing, at another point they portray him as limited in knowledge as man.

.

hopefulLandlord:
OP

give your life to Vishnu today

he sent his only son Krishna to us

you can no longer claim ignorance because I've told you now

You are just showing your gross stupidity. Show him krishna book where what you said here is stated or carry your shame out of here.

modelmike7:
Yes, it is.

It's obvious you didnt read the op. You just answered based on the title of the thread.
Learn to read before you answer. Thanks.

hopefulLandlord:
Bible is the infallible, divinely-inspired word of God, right? The entire Christian religion is based on the resurrection of the Christ - so we know that part of the Good Book will be very accurate! The very crux of the argument for Christianity being the one true religion is that it is the only religion in which the Saviour actually rose from the dead to fulfill prophecy- so let's have a little fun:

Father Dan's Easter Quiz:

1. Who first came to the tomb on Sunday morning?
a. one woman (John 20:1)
b. two women (Matt. 28:1)
c. three women (Mark 16:1)
d. more than three women (Luke 23:55-56; 24:1,10)

2. She (they) came
a. while it was still dark (Matt. 28:1; John 20:1)
b. after the sun had risen (Mark 16:2)

3. The woman (women) came to the tomb
a. to anoint the body of Jesus with spices (Mark 16:1-2; Luke 24:1)
b. just to look at it (Matt. 28:1; John 20:1 )

4. The women had obtained the spices
a. on Friday before sunset (Luke 23:54-56; 24:1)
a. after sunset on Saturday (Mark 16:1)

5. The first visitor(s) was/were greeted by
a. an angel (Matt. 28:2-5)
b. a young man (Mark 16:5)
c. two men (Luke 24:4)
d. no one (John 20:1-2)

6. The greeter(s)
a. was sitting on the stone outside the tomb (Matt 28:2)
b. was sitting inside the tomb (Mark 16:5)
c. were standing inside the tomb (Luke 24:3-4)

7. After finding the tomb empty, the woman/women
a. ran to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:7-8; Mark 16:10; Luke 24:9; John 20:2)
b. ran away and said nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8 )

8. The risen Jesus first appeared to
a. Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:14; Mark 16:9)
b. Cleopas and another disciple (Luke 24:13,15,18)
c. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1,9)
d. Cephas (Peter) alone (1 Cor. 15:4-5; Luke 24:34)

9. Jesus first appeared
a. somewhere between the tomb and Jerusalem (Matt. 28:8-9)
b. Just outside the tomb (John 20:11-14)
c. in Galilee - some 80 miles (130 Km) north of Jerusalem (Mark 16:6-7)
d. on the road to Emmaus - Miles (11 Km) west of Jerusalem (Luke 24:13-15)
e. we are not told where (Mark 16:9; 1 Cor. 15:4-5)

10. The disciples were to see Jesus first
a. in Galilee (Mark 16:7; Matt. 28:7,10,16)
b. in Jerusalem (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:33,36; John 20:19; Acts 1:4)

11. the disciples were told that they would meet the risen Jesus in Galilee
a. by the women, who had been told by an angel of the Lord, then by Jesus himself after the resurrection (Matt. 28:7-10; Mark 16:7)
b. by Jesus himself, before the crucifiction (Mark 26:32)

12. The risen Jesus
a. wanted to be touched (John 20:27)
b. did not want to be touched (John 20:17)
c. did not mind being touched (Matt. 28:9-10)

13. Jesus ascended to Heaven
a. the same day that he was resurrected (Mark 16:9,19; Luke 24:13,28-36,50-51)
b. forty days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3,9)
c. we are not told that he ascended to Heaven at all (Matt. 28:10, 16-20; John 21:25; the original Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8 )

14. The disciples received the Holy Spirit
a. 50 days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3,9)
b. in the evening of the same day as the resurrection (John 20:19-22)

15. The risen Jesus
a. was recognized by those who saw him (Matt. 28:9; Mark 16:9-10 )
b. was not always recognizable (Mark 16:12; Luke 24:15-16,31,36-37; John 20:14-15 )

16. The risen Jesus
a. was physical (Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:41-43; John 20:27 )
b. was not physical (Mark 16:9,12,14; Luke 24:15-16,31,36-37; John 20:19,26; 1 Cor. 15:5-8 )

17. The risen Jesus was seen by the disciples
a. presumably only once (Matt. 28:16-17 )
b. first by two of them, later by all eleven (Mark 16:12-14; Luke 24:13-15,33,36-51 )
c. three times (John 20:19,26; 21:1,14)
d. many times (Acts 1:3 )

18. When Jesus appeared to the disciples
a. there were eleven of them (Matt. 28:16-17; Luke 24:33,36)
b. twelve of them (1 Cor. 15:5 )


Hey, when has religion ever let facts or figures get in the way of a good quote. If this quiz has in any way shaken your faith, simply open the Bible and pull out sentences at random that make you feel good or (completely out of context) reaffirm any belief you want to hold.

The differences in the mode of reporting the incidences in the four gospel is not strange because each of them gave account based on their knowledge and experience of what took place. Some of them may not have been present in some of the events that they reported but of course they will hear from others as they interact with them. For example, Matthew,Mark, Luke and John might not have gone to the tomb with Mary and the others but must have narrated based on what they heard from others.

The bottom line is that Jesus was crucified, buried in the tomb and he resurrected on the first day of the week. None of them said that this never happened.


You can go through this link below-
https://www.nairaland.com/3340840/bible-word-god-claim#49225917

Scholar8200:
All scripture is [size=15pt]given by inspiration[/size] of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Timothy 3:16

Meaning everything you find therein is given by God's inspiration (not dictation) for a purpose just as Paul's thorn (and grace of Apostleship) were both given for a purpose!

Sure bro. Thanks.

hopefulLandlord:
what "lessons" can we learn from the below link?

https://www.nairaland.com/3206720/easter-quiz-christians-test-knowledge

I just went through your link and it still boils down to the point i am making. The differences in the mode of reporting the incidences in the four gospel is not strange because each of them gave account based on their knowledge and experience of what took place. Some of them may not have been present in some of the events that they reported but of course they will hear from others as they interact with them. For example, Matthew,Mark, Luke and John might not have gone to the tomb with Mary and the others but must have narrated based on what they heard from others.

The bottom line is that Jesus was crucified, buried in the tomb and he resurrected on the first day of the week. None of them said that this never happened.

Like @Scholar8200 said up there, God did not dictate the writings to them. He only inspired them to narrate the incidences.

THis news is not far from the truth though,

God save our education system from total collapse.

The bible contains

1.words that God spoke directly and the ones he spoke through his prophets and men e.g. We saw God spoke to Moses and through Moses, Isaiah, Samuel etc giving them instructions they should give to people. yet it does not mean that all the comments made by Moses were inspired by God. There are also places where Moses spoke words and did things that God didnt like. We cant say that those words that Moses spoke and God was angry are words of God

2. words that satan spoke. e.g. Satan spoke to Eve, he spoke to God about Job, he spoke when he tempted Jesus. You cant say that those words are words of God because its written in the bible.

3. words that men spoke. I have already given you example of this with Moses. There were also in the new testament where Paul gave instruction to the church and made it clear to them that that instruction wasnt from God, that it was his own instruction to them.
Some books of the bible contains narrations of events, you cant say that all the words used in the narration are words of God. For example if the bible said- "and the children of Journeyed through the city of Moab to Jerico" This is simply a narration by the writer of how God led the children of Isreal. There are places that evil men and women(e.g. Jezebel) spoke in the bible. We cant call that the word of God.

The underlying factor there is that God inspired the writers to put these words together for doctrine, for correction, reprove, inspiration and for us to learn lessons from it. It is we readers that, out of our ignorance, view the entire book as the word of God. As if God spoke every word in it.

Lets us be conscious of these differences and rightly divide the word as we read it.

2dugged:
I know the principles behind asking right and praying amiss Mr,and I have also seen Christian sisters who turned old in the church because they were waiting on the right man,mostly ladies in assemblies of God,Rccg, Lords choosen and some others too,so my own question is why are advanced spinsters common to some churches?, is it that the God of this churches choose not to answer because they are all praying amiss?, I created this thread because I have been.in deep thoughts for days about this issue, but a a fellow Christian who feels I am going the wrong path, it will be better to point me in the right direction than being sentimental about it

One of the factors that causes the bolded is that some of these churches insist that their men must marry their women members and vice versa. But the truth is that a lot of those guys dont keep to this rules these days rather they go and marry ladies outside their church. Who then will marry the ladies in the church who are trying to keep to the rule? My own stand about this is that there is no where God told us in the bible to marry our church members. We are only advised to marry among the people of God.

Again some of those sisters are practicing over holiness which makes them to have some characteristics that the brothers may not find comfortable with. The bible said- let your MODERATION be known unto all. Dont over do things, be moderate. Ironically many of the over-holy sisters will not want to marry over holy brothers rather they will be eying the cute looking and not-too-holy brothers.

2dugged:
I would like to point out that this is my personal opinion, I know the bible admonishes us to not be equally yoked with unbelievers,but looking at the pros and cons, it will be more advantageous as a woman to marry an atheist than to marry from another faith considering that doctrines of religions are anti-women and tend to portray the woman as inferior

You are still talking as a novice. Enter marriage first then your eye go clear. You will still come back to edit this post. The logic of atheists is only about no God so dont be deceived by their noise about logic.

intbizoil:
ok but what if it doesn't collapse, probably stay for a longer period by then it would be late to join because the system has become overbloated considering the fact that many nigerians are not finding it easy with the economy and by then MMM would have become so big as the sustenance of the common man. Anyway let's watch as things unfold.

Bro go and ask questions. Ten years ago people did this thing in PH and some other states around. It crumbled only favouring those who joined early. Till today, one of the men who spearheaded the one of Ph is still on the run because people that he brought into the scheme who lost their monies are looking for him to deal with him. He made money that time, built a house, bought car but today he is suffering. MMM will crash. The leaders will see the crash coming but they wont tell you until when it becoming obvious then they will disappear. Its a SCAM.

Bubewilson:
with hundreds of members joining daily and participating with various amounts new money is always available to be Ghed.
It's not likely to have more than 51% of participants interimly withdraw and capsize the system at any point in time. Ceteris paribus

Young man stop giving yourself hope. This kind of thing has been done in the past and it collapsed after sometime.The cylce will surely break (i.e. if it has not already broken). You wont feel the heat when it breaks, it is after some time.
Everyone i ve talked with in the MMM has one thing in common- to do it for some time and pull out when they think they ve made enough, with this you can be sure that those people who are investing dont even trust the MMM and the cycle cannot be sustained.
Its just that Nigerians are silly and still suffering from the get-rich-quick syndrome. Wake up from sleep and face reality. A business that has no product to sale cannot be trusted by any good business man. MMM is a scam. The people that will be caught by the scam are those who will invest when those who think they have recovered much more than they invested pulls out and the fund starts dwindling.
Some other good countries might be able to sustain theirs but not Nigeria.

This guy attended xmas carol in a church in Enugu and gave all the choir members 100k each. Imagine 100k each for a choir of about 50 people. He gave the choir as a body 10 million naira and a brand new bus. He gave all the priests in attendance one million naira each. All these donations were done cash that day. Thats his style.

OP, welcome to our world where mumu christianity is done away with. Follow Jesus and not pastors. Christianity is about your personal relationship with God.

Good

KingEbukaNaija:
kingebukasblog , forget this atheist troll .

.
The guy is really confused.

Lasveg:
***I was inspired to write this article as a result of my fascination as to how we got here and how the universe came about. A lot of theories abound as to how the universe and everything in it came about. Scientists claim that the universe and matter came about from nothing. But scientific laws (including second law of thermodynamics and newton's law of inertia) disagree with this theory. Something cannot come out from nothing according to these laws.

***But there is another popular theory as to how the universe came about; the religious theory. This theory states that an intelligent all-powerful creator called God created the universe and everything in existence. This theory seems to be the easiest one to formulate. No much scientific brainstorming and research involved here as to how God did this. All you have to do is just tell people; God did it miraculously, and every one is happy. Quite the easy way out. But this theory has some loop holes;

***Firstly, who created God? At this point, proponents of this theory take another easy way out. They claim God wasn't created, and he has been existing since ETERNITY/INFINITY. They claim nothing is impossible with God and, of course, he achieved this through supernatural means. But is this true? Is this even possible??

***Now for those that think there is nothing impossible for God to do, think again. There are actually some certain things God cannot do, no matter how powerful he is. For example; God cannot tell you the last number in existence. This means that if we start counting from 1 upwards, nobody knows the last number we will get to, not even God. This is true because the last number is at infinity, and infinity cannot be reached. In fact, infinity doesnt exist, its just a concept. Similarly, God cannot tell you the exact real number immediately after another real number. For example, God cannot tell you the exact real number immediately after 1. In fact, this number doesn't exist.

***Now in case you are wondering what all these mean; it simply means that there are some certain things that are physically and spiritually impossible, that even an all-powerful creator cannot do. How powerful or knowledgeable you are is irrelevant in this cases, these things simply cannot be done. Shikenna.

***When we are dealing with the concept of infinity/eternity, it is not possible for a defined and tangible entity like a creator to have existed since eternity, because eternity cannot be reached, both in the forward or backward direction. In fact, infinity/eternity does not exist, its simply a concept. How powerful God is does not matter, God simply couldn't have been existing since eternity the same way he cant tell you the last number in existence, the same way he cant tell you the next real number immediately after 1. These three things are the same, and they are all impossible. So claiming that God has been existing since eternity is like a child boasting among his peers that his father is so rich he bought a dinasaur. Of course, this child is obviously lying. How rich his father is does not matter, even if he has all the money in the world, his father couldn't have bought a dinasaur simply because dinasaurs dont exist. In the same light, God cannot be coming from a time that doesn't exist.
***All these proves that IF at all there is a God/Creator, then he definitely has a beginning. This is not a theory or a hypothesis, This is a FACT. The concept of infinity has provided EMPIRICAL evidence to prove this fact.

***At this point, if you are still doubting or you still think God doesn't have a beginning and he has been existing since eternity (despite the fact that this is not possible), then we are going to look at this concept from another perspective.
***If the God who created the universe has been existing since eternity, then there are ramifications. It means that you and I wouldn't even be here, cos God would have created this universe an infinite number of years ago, and you and I would have existed an infinite number of years ago, our children's children would have existed an infinite number of years ago. In fact, everything that has happened up until now would have happened an infinite number of years ago. Yes! This is just to give you an idea of what eternity is. God would have done everything he needed to do an infinite number of years ago, he would have sent his son to this world, the second coming and judgement day would have taken place. The good people would have gone to heaven, and the bad people would be in hell. All these would have happened an infinite number of years ago if God has been existing since eternity. But here we are! All These undoubtedly proves that if God exist, then he has a beginning.

***And if God has a beginning, who/what created him? How did he come about?? Since no one created him, he must have come about from nothing. But scientific laws have shown that its impossible for something to come about from nothing. Thus, the theory that a God created the universe is debunked!

Your submission is myopic i must say. it is not broad enough.

You are looking at God only from the concept of this universe but for me i believe there may be other universes that exist outside ours and with their various features which are different from ours. Some of them may have been created before ours and some after ours. We dont know and we cant draw conclusion that there is no such possibility.
Again your submission tends to look at God as one who dwells in this universe. Infact to you ,our universe is the only one that exists therefore God must be dwelling in this universe with us and be subject to the laws of this universe hence your line of argument. I dont agree with this school of thought.

OP, here is another persons submission which i quite agree with than yours

winner01:
The word “cosmos” is a Greek word that refers to everything that exists—the universe itself and everything in it. The cosmological argument for the existence of God tries to show that because anything exists there must be a God who brought it into existence. In other words, without God to create it, nothing would or could exist. It’s possible for God to exist without the universe, but it is not possible for the universe to exist without God. Thus, the cosmological argument tries to show that the universe is not a necessary being. This means the universe relies on something for its existence; it is contingent and therefore cannot account for its own existence. The goal of the argument is to show that the universe was caused by an agent that is not part of the universe, has no cause itself, and is personal.

There are several kinds of philosophical cosmological arguments, but we’ll focus on what is called the Kalam Argument because of its forcefulness and because understanding it often helps understand the others. The Kalam argument tries to show that the universe is not eternal—that it had to have a beginning and that the beginning was caused by person. Although this argument was first formulated by Christian philosophers, it was not until medieval Islamic thinkers devoted attention to the argument that it found its full force. Kalam is an Arabic word that can be translated “talk” or “speech” though it means something closer to “philosophy” or “theology.”

The argument hinges on three sets of alternatives. The universe either began or had no beginning, either it was caused or uncaused, and if it was caused the cause was either personal or impersonal.

At the core of the argument is an understanding of the difference between a potential infinite and an actual infinite. Potential infinites are sets of numbers that are continually increasing by adding another number to the series. For example, the seconds on this counter are potentially infinite. Once the count began, a set of numbers was generated and will increase until we move on to the next point. If we never move on, the seconds will potentially accrue forever. But no matter how long we let it sit here and add up, the number will never get so big that it turns
infinite. There will always be a finite number that we can add another increment to.

Actual infinites are sets of numbers to which no increment can be added since, by nature of their infiniteness, the set includes all numbers – there is nothing to add. If this is hard to imagine, there is good reason: actual infinites do not exist and cannot exist in the physical world. If actual infinites did exist in the physical world, we would see absurdities and effects we literally could not live with.

For example, here we see the earth rotating around the sun and the moon rotating around the earth. Which is happening more often: the moon going around the earth or the earth going around the sun? Clearly the moon makes more rotations around the earth. Now, if the universe
was infinitely old, which would made more rotations: the moon or the earth? The answer is they would be equal; they both would have made an infinite amount of rotations. Even thought the moon has made 12 times the number of rotations of the earth, they have made the same amount! It is an absurdity that cannot exist in reality.

Or, let’s say you had a CD collection that was infinitely large and each CD had an infinite number of songs on it. If you listened to one CD you would hear as much music as if you had listened to all of the CDs—an infinite amount—and yet those infinites are of different sizes—a nonsensical notion. Let’s also say that there were only two artists in your CD collection, Bach and the Beatles, and that every other CD was by the Beatles. This would mean that you had as many Beatles CDs as you would Beatles and Bach CDs combined; they would both be an infinite number. And would the number of Beatles CDs be odd or even? It must be one or the other, but to speak of infinity in such a way is irrational.


If this makes your brain hurt or is confusing at all then you are beginning to understand why actual infinites do not exist in the real world. These examples are not just interesting brainteasers or puzzles. The fact that if X=Y then X cannot also be twelve times greater than Y is extremely important. You would never want to cross a bridge, ride in a car, or live in a house designed by an engineer who didn’t recognize or didn’t care about the absurdities of actual infinites.

This demonstration of the non-existence of actual infinites is important to us in two real-world areas, time and causality. The best way to show that time is not infinite, that it had a beginning, is to observe that there is a “now.” If now exists then time cannot be infinite. To show this, picture the moment “now” as a destination, like a train station. Then picture time as train tracks that are actually infinitely long. If you were a passenger waiting on the train to arrive, how long would you have to wait? The answer is: forever. You can never reach the end of infinity; thus, infinitely long train tracks cannot ever be crossed. There is no end to arrive at, no station. If infinitely long train tracks could be crossed, they would be the equivalent of a one-ended stick, a nonsensical notion. In fact, this is the opposite limitation of potential infinites. Just as potential infinites are finite numbers that can never turn infinite, actual infinites could never reach the end of their infiniteness and turn finite. But there is an end, a “now”; the train did arrive at the station. This means the tracks of time cannot be infinitely long. There cannot be an infinite number of preceding moments prior to the present moment. The past is not an actual infinite. Thus, the universe had to have a beginning.

The universe, however, did not cause itself to spring into existence. If it had a beginning, then something began it. This is where causality comes into the picture. There is no such thing as an effect that was not caused. You are an effect of the biological process caused by your parents. These words you now hear were caused by my using my voice. The current state of the universe is an effect caused by various astronomical and physical conditions. But notice that each of the causes mentioned are also effects. For example, your parents are not only your cause, but they are the effects of their parents who were the effects of their parents, and so on. But, as the nonexistence of actual infinites shows, the chain of causes cannot regress forever.

The train station in this case is made of present causes; because we have causes now, there must be a beginning to the sequence. Thus, there must be a cause that is not an effect, an uncaused cause, or first cause.

Since the universe had a beginning and is an effect, it must have had a cause itself. At this point there are only two options: either the cause was personal or it was impersonal.
Let’s think about what this uncaused cause would look like. The first cause be non-contingent, meaning that its existence depends on nothing but itself. If it was contingent, then it would simply be one more effect in the chain of causes and effects. It must also be transcendent. This means the cause of the universe must exist outside of and apart from the universe. And because this being exists apart from the universe it must be immaterial. If it was material then it would be part of the universe. The first cause would have to have the power to create the universe. Without this ability nothing could be created. But these things are not enough to bring the universe into existence. There also needs to be a desire to create, a will to make the universe. Without this will to create, nothing would be created because the power to create could not be acted on. Now add all these things together.

What kind of thing
• relies on nothing for its existence
• exists apart from the universe
• is immaterial
• has the power to create something from nothing
• a will to do it or not do it

Does this sound like a personal or impersonal being? Personal, of course. The ability to will is an attribute that belongs only to persons. Thus, the Kalam argument brings us to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning that was caused by a personal, powerful, transcendent, selfexisting, immaterial being. In other words, God.

A question that frequently arises at this point has to do with God’s infinite characteristics. “If there is no such thing as an actual infinite, then how can God be infinitely good or loving?”
When we speak of God’s infinite characteristics, we are speaking in more of a metaphorical manner. We do not mean that God has an infinitely large quantity of goodness and love with which He funds His grace and mercy. We mean He is the ultimate embodiment of goodness and love.
These characteristics are without measure and speak to the quality of His character, not the quantity of His characteristics.

But philosophical arguments are not the only kinds of arguments that demonstrate the universe had a beginning. There are scientific arguments as well. The second law of thermodynamics, for instance, is often used as an illustration. However, the best and most easily understood example may be the big bang theory.

In the 1920s, Astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that our universe was bigger than previously thought. In fact, it was much bigger. Until he saw outside our galaxy, the prevailing thought was that our galaxy was the entire universe. Hubble was the first to recognize that ours was only one of a vast amount of galaxies.

While he was studying the light from distant galaxies he found it was not what he expected it to be like. He noticed the light was uniformly shifted to the red side of the spectrum. This phenomenon became known as the red shift.

Hubble found an explanation for the red shift by applying the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect says that if sound or light waves are emitted from an object moving toward you, the waves are compressed or shortened. In the case of sound, the shortening of the wavelength increases the sound’s pitch. The farther away the object is as it moves towards you, the shorter the wavelength and the higher the pitch. As the object is moving away from you, the sound waves are lengthened and the pitch shifts lower. The Doppler effect is what describes the change in pitch you hear in sirens from ambulances. As the ambulance gets closer to you, the sound you hear drops towards its natural pitch. And as the ambulance gets farther away the siren drops progressively lower than its natural pitch.

Hubble applied the Doppler effect to the light waves he was studying. The blue end of the light spectrum is composed of the shorter wavelengths, while the red end is composed of the longer ones. Everywhere he looked in the universe he saw a shift in the light towards the red end of the spectrum. This meant the stars emitting the light are all moving away from each other. Thus the universe is expanding.

Other scientists took this discovery and built on it. If the universe is expanding, it must have beginning, a point of origin from which it was expanding. Other discoveries were made that showed the expansion is slower now than it was when it began—like an explosion. This explosion became known as the big bang, the beginning of the universe.

The two primary challengers of the big bang theory are the steady state theory and the oscillating theory. The steady state theory argues the universe has always existed and always will exist. There are two problems with this. It does not account for the observations that support the big bang, and it would require the existence of actual infinites. The fact that there is a now makes the theory of an infinite number of preceding moments an impossibility.
The oscillating theory says that the universe will eventually stop expanding and contract back to a singularity which will then explode and continue a cycle that will repeat forever. The problem is a cycle of oscillations without beginning or end would require the existence of actual infinites.
But since we exist in the current oscillation, there must be a start to the cycle. The other problem is the second law of thermodynamics. The energy in the universe is not infinite. Just as a rubber ball bounces lower and faster with each bounce until it stops, an oscillating universe would eventually run down. Again, an oscillating universe must have a beginning.

The big bang remains the best explanation for the current state of the universe. But if the big bang was an explosion, why did it explode? What exploded and where did it come from? Explosions are effects and effects need causes—they do not cause themselves. The cause of
the big bang is not to be found in the physical universe because that is precisely what exploded.

Also, the matter that exploded did not create itself. The non-existence of actual infinites shows that matter cannot be eternal. So, because the universe had a beginning, something must have initiated it. It did not start itself. The cause of the universe must be found outside of the universe; it must be transcendent.

The cause must be powerful in order to create the entire universe out of nothing. The cause must not be an effect, but is an uncaused cause. And this cause must not rely on anything else for its existence; it must be non-contingent—or necessary.
Note that this only describes what is necessary for the big bang to work. But if there is such an entity as the one described it’s still not sufficient for the creation of the universe. Just because this entity does exist does not mean the universe must exist. Something is still missing—intentionality, a will to make it happen.

A car that has a working engine, a healthy battery, a properly connected electrical system to start the engine, and is full of gas has all the necessary conditions for running. Yet parking lots are full of cars that have the necessary conditions to run but are not running. Although they have the necessary conditions, they lack sufficient conditions. Cars that are moving down the street have necessary and sufficient conditions for running—that is why they are moving. What do the moving cars have that the parked cars do not? They have drivers. And what is a driver? It is a personal being that can act on their will. Thus, the universe needs a driver, a personal, intelligent agent that can choose whether to create the universe or not. This necessary and sufficient cause of the universe is what we call God.

It is important to be honest about what the cosmological argument does and does not prove. It does not show that the God of the Bible is the one true God. Remember, this argument is also used in Islamic apologetics. However, the God of the Bible is consistent with the picture of God
the cosmological argument describes. If our case for Christianity relied only on the cosmological argument, it would fail. But when we use it in conjunction with other arguments, it is a powerful component of a persuasive case.




Source; Apologeticbible.com


cc; KingEbukasBlog, Richirich713, thoniameek, anas09, Tufanja, elantraceey, OLAADEGBU, KingEbukaNaija, ceeted, Chidexter, lezz, analice107, bxcode, Topeakintola, UyiIredia, Tellemall, vooks, Ishilove, sukkot, gatiano, mrpresident1, Drefan2, Strawman

Op kindly go through this interesting article below.

winner01:
The word “cosmos” is a Greek word that refers to everything that exists—the universe itself and everything in it. The cosmological argument for the existence of God tries to show that because anything exists there must be a God who brought it into existence. In other words, without God to create it, nothing would or could exist. It’s possible for God to exist without the universe, but it is not possible for the universe to exist without God. Thus, the cosmological argument tries to show that the universe is not a necessary being. This means the universe relies on something for its existence; it is contingent and therefore cannot account for its own existence. The goal of the argument is to show that the universe was caused by an agent that is not part of the universe, has no cause itself, and is personal.

There are several kinds of philosophical cosmological arguments, but we’ll focus on what is called the Kalam Argument because of its forcefulness and because understanding it often helps understand the others. The Kalam argument tries to show that the universe is not eternal—that it had to have a beginning and that the beginning was caused by person. Although this argument was first formulated by Christian philosophers, it was not until medieval Islamic thinkers devoted attention to the argument that it found its full force. Kalam is an Arabic word that can be translated “talk” or “speech” though it means something closer to “philosophy” or “theology.”

The argument hinges on three sets of alternatives. The universe either began or had no beginning, either it was caused or uncaused, and if it was caused the cause was either personal or impersonal.

At the core of the argument is an understanding of the difference between a potential infinite and an actual infinite. Potential infinites are sets of numbers that are continually increasing by adding another number to the series. For example, the seconds on this counter are potentially infinite. Once the count began, a set of numbers was generated and will increase until we move on to the next point. If we never move on, the seconds will potentially accrue forever. But no matter how long we let it sit here and add up, the number will never get so big that it turns
infinite. There will always be a finite number that we can add another increment to.

Actual infinites are sets of numbers to which no increment can be added since, by nature of their infiniteness, the set includes all numbers – there is nothing to add. If this is hard to imagine, there is good reason: actual infinites do not exist and cannot exist in the physical world. If actual infinites did exist in the physical world, we would see absurdities and effects we literally could not live with.

For example, here we see the earth rotating around the sun and the moon rotating around the earth. Which is happening more often: the moon going around the earth or the earth going around the sun? Clearly the moon makes more rotations around the earth. Now, if the universe
was infinitely old, which would made more rotations: the moon or the earth? The answer is they would be equal; they both would have made an infinite amount of rotations. Even thought the moon has made 12 times the number of rotations of the earth, they have made the same amount! It is an absurdity that cannot exist in reality.

Or, let’s say you had a CD collection that was infinitely large and each CD had an infinite number of songs on it. If you listened to one CD you would hear as much music as if you had listened to all of the CDs—an infinite amount—and yet those infinites are of different sizes—a nonsensical notion. Let’s also say that there were only two artists in your CD collection, Bach and the Beatles, and that every other CD was by the Beatles. This would mean that you had as many Beatles CDs as you would Beatles and Bach CDs combined; they would both be an infinite number. And would the number of Beatles CDs be odd or even? It must be one or the other, but to speak of infinity in such a way is irrational.


If this makes your brain hurt or is confusing at all then you are beginning to understand why actual infinites do not exist in the real world. These examples are not just interesting brainteasers or puzzles. The fact that if X=Y then X cannot also be twelve times greater than Y is extremely important. You would never want to cross a bridge, ride in a car, or live in a house designed by an engineer who didn’t recognize or didn’t care about the absurdities of actual infinites.

This demonstration of the non-existence of actual infinites is important to us in two real-world areas, time and causality. The best way to show that time is not infinite, that it had a beginning, is to observe that there is a “now.” If now exists then time cannot be infinite. To show this, picture the moment “now” as a destination, like a train station. Then picture time as train tracks that are actually infinitely long. If you were a passenger waiting on the train to arrive, how long would you have to wait? The answer is: forever. You can never reach the end of infinity; thus, infinitely long train tracks cannot ever be crossed. There is no end to arrive at, no station. If infinitely long train tracks could be crossed, they would be the equivalent of a one-ended stick, a nonsensical notion. In fact, this is the opposite limitation of potential infinites. Just as potential infinites are finite numbers that can never turn infinite, actual infinites could never reach the end of their infiniteness and turn finite. But there is an end, a “now”; the train did arrive at the station. This means the tracks of time cannot be infinitely long. There cannot be an infinite number of preceding moments prior to the present moment. The past is not an actual infinite. Thus, the universe had to have a beginning.

The universe, however, did not cause itself to spring into existence. If it had a beginning, then something began it. This is where causality comes into the picture. There is no such thing as an effect that was not caused. You are an effect of the biological process caused by your parents. These words you now hear were caused by my using my voice. The current state of the universe is an effect caused by various astronomical and physical conditions. But notice that each of the causes mentioned are also effects. For example, your parents are not only your cause, but they are the effects of their parents who were the effects of their parents, and so on. But, as the nonexistence of actual infinites shows, the chain of causes cannot regress forever.

The train station in this case is made of present causes; because we have causes now, there must be a beginning to the sequence. Thus, there must be a cause that is not an effect, an uncaused cause, or first cause.

Since the universe had a beginning and is an effect, it must have had a cause itself. At this point there are only two options: either the cause was personal or it was impersonal.
Let’s think about what this uncaused cause would look like. The first cause be non-contingent, meaning that its existence depends on nothing but itself. If it was contingent, then it would simply be one more effect in the chain of causes and effects. It must also be transcendent. This means the cause of the universe must exist outside of and apart from the universe. And because this being exists apart from the universe it must be immaterial. If it was material then it would be part of the universe. The first cause would have to have the power to create the universe. Without this ability nothing could be created. But these things are not enough to bring the universe into existence. There also needs to be a desire to create, a will to make the universe. Without this will to create, nothing would be created because the power to create could not be acted on. Now add all these things together.

What kind of thing
• relies on nothing for its existence
• exists apart from the universe
• is immaterial
• has the power to create something from nothing
• a will to do it or not do it

Does this sound like a personal or impersonal being? Personal, of course. The ability to will is an attribute that belongs only to persons. Thus, the Kalam argument brings us to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning that was caused by a personal, powerful, transcendent, selfexisting, immaterial being. In other words, God.

A question that frequently arises at this point has to do with God’s infinite characteristics. “If there is no such thing as an actual infinite, then how can God be infinitely good or loving?”
When we speak of God’s infinite characteristics, we are speaking in more of a metaphorical manner. We do not mean that God has an infinitely large quantity of goodness and love with which He funds His grace and mercy. We mean He is the ultimate embodiment of goodness and love.
These characteristics are without measure and speak to the quality of His character, not the quantity of His characteristics.

But philosophical arguments are not the only kinds of arguments that demonstrate the universe had a beginning. There are scientific arguments as well. The second law of thermodynamics, for instance, is often used as an illustration. However, the best and most easily understood example may be the big bang theory.

In the 1920s, Astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that our universe was bigger than previously thought. In fact, it was much bigger. Until he saw outside our galaxy, the prevailing thought was that our galaxy was the entire universe. Hubble was the first to recognize that ours was only one of a vast amount of galaxies.

While he was studying the light from distant galaxies he found it was not what he expected it to be like. He noticed the light was uniformly shifted to the red side of the spectrum. This phenomenon became known as the red shift.

Hubble found an explanation for the red shift by applying the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect says that if sound or light waves are emitted from an object moving toward you, the waves are compressed or shortened. In the case of sound, the shortening of the wavelength increases the sound’s pitch. The farther away the object is as it moves towards you, the shorter the wavelength and the higher the pitch. As the object is moving away from you, the sound waves are lengthened and the pitch shifts lower. The Doppler effect is what describes the change in pitch you hear in sirens from ambulances. As the ambulance gets closer to you, the sound you hear drops towards its natural pitch. And as the ambulance gets farther away the siren drops progressively lower than its natural pitch.

Hubble applied the Doppler effect to the light waves he was studying. The blue end of the light spectrum is composed of the shorter wavelengths, while the red end is composed of the longer ones. Everywhere he looked in the universe he saw a shift in the light towards the red end of the spectrum. This meant the stars emitting the light are all moving away from each other. Thus the universe is expanding.

Other scientists took this discovery and built on it. If the universe is expanding, it must have beginning, a point of origin from which it was expanding. Other discoveries were made that showed the expansion is slower now than it was when it began—like an explosion. This explosion became known as the big bang, the beginning of the universe.

The two primary challengers of the big bang theory are the steady state theory and the oscillating theory. The steady state theory argues the universe has always existed and always will exist. There are two problems with this. It does not account for the observations that support the big bang, and it would require the existence of actual infinites. The fact that there is a now makes the theory of an infinite number of preceding moments an impossibility.
The oscillating theory says that the universe will eventually stop expanding and contract back to a singularity which will then explode and continue a cycle that will repeat forever. The problem is a cycle of oscillations without beginning or end would require the existence of actual infinites.
But since we exist in the current oscillation, there must be a start to the cycle. The other problem is the second law of thermodynamics. The energy in the universe is not infinite. Just as a rubber ball bounces lower and faster with each bounce until it stops, an oscillating universe would eventually run down. Again, an oscillating universe must have a beginning.

The big bang remains the best explanation for the current state of the universe. But if the big bang was an explosion, why did it explode? What exploded and where did it come from? Explosions are effects and effects need causes—they do not cause themselves. The cause of
the big bang is not to be found in the physical universe because that is precisely what exploded.

Also, the matter that exploded did not create itself. The non-existence of actual infinites shows that matter cannot be eternal. So, because the universe had a beginning, something must have initiated it. It did not start itself. The cause of the universe must be found outside of the universe; it must be transcendent.

The cause must be powerful in order to create the entire universe out of nothing. The cause must not be an effect, but is an uncaused cause. And this cause must not rely on anything else for its existence; it must be non-contingent—or necessary.
Note that this only describes what is necessary for the big bang to work. But if there is such an entity as the one described it’s still not sufficient for the creation of the universe. Just because this entity does exist does not mean the universe must exist. Something is still missing—intentionality, a will to make it happen.

A car that has a working engine, a healthy battery, a properly connected electrical system to start the engine, and is full of gas has all the necessary conditions for running. Yet parking lots are full of cars that have the necessary conditions to run but are not running. Although they have the necessary conditions, they lack sufficient conditions. Cars that are moving down the street have necessary and sufficient conditions for running—that is why they are moving. What do the moving cars have that the parked cars do not? They have drivers. And what is a driver? It is a personal being that can act on their will. Thus, the universe needs a driver, a personal, intelligent agent that can choose whether to create the universe or not. This necessary and sufficient cause of the universe is what we call God.

It is important to be honest about what the cosmological argument does and does not prove. It does not show that the God of the Bible is the one true God. Remember, this argument is also used in Islamic apologetics. However, the God of the Bible is consistent with the picture of God
the cosmological argument describes. If our case for Christianity relied only on the cosmological argument, it would fail. But when we use it in conjunction with other arguments, it is a powerful component of a persuasive case.




Source; Apologeticbible.com


cc; KingEbukasBlog, Richirich713, thoniameek, anas09, Tufanja, elantraceey, OLAADEGBU, KingEbukaNaija, ceeted, Chidexter, lezz, analice107, bxcode, Topeakintola, UyiIredia, Tellemall, vooks, Ishilove, sukkot, gatiano, mrpresident1, Drefan2, Strawman

ValentineMary:
Am tired of u guys ranting on NL. I have been observing how u guys potray stupidity as a virtue. Atheist have said several times that we did not say there is no God. Rather we don't believe in any yet due to insufficient evidence. What ur doing is like me walking up to you and saying "I have a pink unicorn I which lives in the moon, prove that it's not real"

Manage your stupidity well. It appears you are new here. The Initial stand of atheists here back in the days was that there is no God.
It was after several trashing of the issue here that some of you changed to this your new stand.

sonofluc1fer:
I really don't care about heaven or hell. I overcame that fear years back. Embrace hell fire. That's when true living begins.

.
God forbid.
Muskeeto comot for road biko.

sonofluc1fer:
Fair and balanced God. So it's possible I might be an elect while you could end up like Judas. Make i dey blaspheme dey go. This una God sweet die.

.
By the grace of God i will make heaven. If you accept Jesus too you will be a partaker in God's kingdom. That's why we dont give up on preaching to you people and praying for u. By the grace of God we are seeing the results in this forum and elsewhere.

Ranchhoddas:
According to them; anyone who doesn't accept Branham's doctrine is not among the elect?

They are wrong. The elect are not restricted in one church. Christ did not establish any corporate denomination as we see it today. The early church didnt operate under any corporate name as we have it today. It was just a simple gathering of believers living in the same area and they meet and have a simple worship. All this ones we are seeing today are inventions of man. Christianity is more of a personal relationship with God.
The bible encourages us to assemble and exhort ourselves not for us to start engaging in marketing competition like MTN and GLO.

The thief at the cross was not a member of any church but he accepted Christ. Thats an elect. Judas followed Jesus for years but ended without Christ in him. So its not about being a church member, its not even about how many years you are a christian.
The biblical quotations that that guy gave was statements made by Jesus and as you can see, there was no place there that Jesus gave church membership as a criteria for being an elect. If it were for membership, Judas woouldnt have missed it.
You see some atheists who repent after many years of blaspheming God. And when you read their testimonies you will notice that their repentance wasnt as a result of any church or pastor preaching to them. It was God himself that worked in them. Those are elects.
God has many ways of calling people, it musnt be through a church. Church is important for the purposes of exhorting one another. The scriptures says- "iron sharpenth iron".

RosaConsidine:
But babies don't worry about what happens after they're born

Ok so you dont worry about what happens in the world? Now dont tell me you are no more a baby. The issue here is that you are still in this world that you are born into.

Remilekun101:
[size=20pt]I don't quite get you. You mean there are some people called ELECTS and the rest of us are ?[/size]

And how do you know you are not among the elect?

handsomeclouds:
Why didn't he get married.

When you see Jesus you can ask him why he didnt marry.
The most important thing is that he didnt condemn marriage. He even attended a marriage ceremony and performed miracle there.

RosaConsidine:
But isn't it possible we would live happier, more contented lives if we know there's this possibility that this is all we've got and that we should give it our best shot?

To a baby in the womb, life is all about his stay in the womb, but that's not it u know. To you now life is all about your ur stay here. But i tell you its not.