₦airaland Forum

dorox:
Maybe you have not been attentive enough, there are lots of christians like myself who think the notion of hellfire is the ultimate expression of evil from a demented mind. We believe that the punishment for sin is death and not life of everlasting horrific torture.
Indeed, how can someone have complete joy in heaven knowing that there are people in absolute agony in hellfire?

.
You are deceiving yourself with your JW belief.
Why would God raise the dead at last if it is only to judge them and kill them again? Doesnt that sound stupld?
Wake up and face the truth. Sinners will be tormented forever and that's why those who died Sinners will be raised at last. If it is only about wiping them out then there won't be need to raise dead Sinners up again since they are already not existing again.

goodforsomthing:
I have been thinking about this how will a loving father feel seeing his children burning in fire forever,as a human being we can't let that happen to our children. God is our father and not just father but a loving father,please I need your views on this issue.

your father is human who is subject to change.Things about him are temporary God is eternal and not subject to change. Things about him are not temporary. Thats why his wrath will be experienced by unrepentant sinners at last forever just as his love and kindness will be experienced by the righteous (repentant sinners) at last forever.

There is nothing any of us can do about it. The nature of God does not permit change. By this i mean there is no way any of God's characteristics(love, wrath, mercy, Jealous etc.) can be expunged from him. Each of these attributes must eternally manifest accordingly.

There is no place in the bible where God claimed to be all loving as some people here are positing..God made both his loving nature and his wrath clear for us in the bible. he never pretended about his nature. Only the evil minded ones here are deceiving themselves and trying hard to convince us of what God is not.

The best we can do is to follow the escape route he provided for us. Thinnking about hellfire and trying to judge God whether he is right or wrong cannot change the situation neither is it an escape route. Dont be deceived bro.

.

hopefulLandlord:
Give your life to Zeus or burn in hades OP

Pls show me where Zeus talked about people burning in hades forever for not worshipping it..
Quite a shame for an atheist to be speaking for Zeus.
Shows how confused you are.
Smh

Of course atheists are more dangerous and wicked but they come here and pretend to be better in morals than others. Thanks for exposing them.

winner01:
There is no doubt that the number of different religions in the world makes it a challenge to know which one is correct. First, let’s consider some thoughts on the overall subject and then look at how one might approach the topic in a manner that can actually get to a right conclusion about God. The challenge of different answers to a particular issue is not unique to the topic of religion. For example, you can sit 100 math students down, give them a complex problem to solve, and it is likely that many will get the answer wrong. But does this mean that a correct answer does not exist? Not at all. Those who get the answer wrong simply need to be shown their error and know the techniques necessary to arrive at the correct answer.

How do we arrive at the truth about God? We use a systematic methodology that is designed to separate truth from error by using various tests for truth, with the end result being a set of right conclusions. Can you imagine the end results a scientist would arrive at if he went into the lab and just started mixing things together with no rhyme or reason? Or if a physician just started treating a patient with random medicines in the hope of making him well? Neither the scientist nor the physician takes this approach; instead, they use systematic methods that are methodical, logical, evidential, and proven to yield the right end result.

This being the case, why should theology—the study of God—be any different? Why believe it can be approached in a haphazard and undisciplined way and still yield right conclusions? Unfortunately, this is the approach many take, and this is one of the reasons why so many religions exist. That said, we now return to the question of how to reach truthful conclusions about God. What systematic approach should be used? First, we need to establish a framework for testing various truth claims, and then we need a roadmap to follow to reach a right conclusion. Here is a good framework to use:

1. Logical consistency—the claims of a belief system must logically cohere to each other and not contradict in any way. As an example, the end goal of Buddhism is to rid oneself of all desires. Yet, one must have a desire to rid oneself of all desires, which is a contradictory and illogical principle.

2. Empirical adequacy—is there evidence to support the belief system (whether the evidence is rational, externally evidential, etc.)? Naturally, it is only right to want proof for important claims being made so the assertions can be verified. For example, Mormons teach that Jesus visited North America. Yet there is absolutely no proof, archaeological or otherwise, to support such a claim.

3. Existential relevancy—the belief system should address the big questions of life described below and the teachings should be accurately reflected in the world in which we live. Christianity, for example, provides good answers for the large questions of life, but is sometimes questioned because of its claim of an all-good and powerful God who exists alongside a world filled with very real evil. Critics charge that such a thing violates the criteria of existential relevancy, although many good answers have been given to address the issue.

The above framework, when applied to the topic of religion, will help lead one to a right view of God and will answer the four big questions of life:

1. Origin – where did we come from?
2. Ethics – how should we live?
3. Meaning – what is the purpose for life?
4. Destiny – where is mankind heading?

But how does one go about applying this framework in the pursuit of God? A step-by-step question/answer approach is one of the best tactics to employ. Narrowing the list of possible questions down produces the following:

1. Does absolute truth exist?
2. Do reason and religion mix?
3. Does God exist?
4. Can God be known?
5. Is Jesus God?
6. Does God care about me?

First we need to know if absolute truth exists. If it does not, then we really cannot be sure of anything (spiritual or not), and we end up either an agnostic, unsure if we can really know anything, or a pluralist, accepting every position because we are not sure which, if any, is right.

Absolute truth is defined as that which matches reality, that which corresponds to its object, telling it like it is. Some say there is no such thing as absolute truth, but taking such a position becomes self-defeating. For example, the relativist says, “All truth is relative,” yet one must ask: is that statement absolutely true? If so, then absolute truth exists; if not, then why consider it? Postmodernism affirms no truth, yet it affirms at least one absolute truth: postmodernism is true. In the end, absolute truth becomes undeniable.

Further, absolute truth is naturally narrow and excludes its opposite. Two plus two equals four, with no other answer being possible. This point becomes critical as different belief systems and worldviews are compared. If one belief system has components that are proven true, then any competing belief system with contrary claims must be false. Also, we must keep in mind that absolute truth is not impacted by sincerity and desire. No matter how sincerely someone embraces a lie, it is still a lie. And no desire in the world can make something true that is false.

The answer of question one is that absolute truth exists. This being the case, agnosticism, postmodernism, relativism, and skepticism are all false positions.

This leads us to the next question of whether reason/logic can be used in matters of religion. Some say this is not possible, but—why not? The truth is, logic is vital when examining spiritual claims because it helps us understand why some claims should be excluded and others embraced. Logic is absolutely critical in dismantling pluralism (which says that all truth claims, even those that oppose each other, are equal and valid).

For example, Islam and Judaism claim that Jesus is not God, whereas Christianity claims He is. One of the core laws of logic is the law of non-contradiction, which says something cannot be both “A” and “non-A” at the same time and in the same sense. Applying this law to the claims Judaism, Islam, and Christianity means that one is right and the other two are wrong. Jesus cannot be both God and not God. Used properly, logic is a potent weapon against pluralism because it clearly demonstrates that contrary truth claims cannot both be true. This understanding topples the whole “true for you but not for me” mindset.

Logic also dispels the whole “all roads lead to the top of the mountain” analogy that pluralists use. Logic shows that each belief system has its own set of signs that point to radically different locations in the end. Logic shows that the proper illustration of a search for spiritual truth is more like a maze—one path makes it through to truth, while all others arrive at dead ends. All faiths may have some surface similarities, but they differ in major ways in their core doctrines.

The conclusion is that you can use reason and logic in matters of religion. That being the case, pluralism (the belief that all truth claims are equally true and valid) is ruled out because it is illogical and contradictory to believe that diametrically opposing truth claims can both be right.

Next comes the big question: does God exist? Atheists and naturalists (who do not accept anything beyond this physical world and universe) say “no.” While volumes have been written and debates have raged throughout history on this question, it is actually not difficult to answer. To give it proper attention, you must first ask this question: Why do we have something rather than nothing at all? In other words, how did you and everything around you get here? The argument for God can be presented very simply:

Something exists.
You do not get something from nothing.
Therefore, a necessary and eternal Being exists.

You cannot deny you exist because you have to exist in order to deny your own existence (which is self-defeating), so the first premise above is true. No one has ever demonstrated that something can come from nothing unless they redefine what ‘nothing’ is, so the second premise rings true. Therefore, the conclusion naturally follows—an eternal Being is responsible for everything that exists.

This is a position no thinking atheist denies; they just claim that the universe is that eternal being. However, the problem with that stance is that all scientific evidence points to the fact that the universe had a beginning (the ‘big bang’). And everything that has a beginning must have a cause; therefore, the universe had a cause and is not eternal. Because the only two sources of eternality are an eternal universe (denied by all current empirical evidence) or an eternal Creator, the only logical conclusion is that God exists. Answering the question of God’s existence in the affirmative rules out atheism as a valid belief system.

Now, this conclusion says nothing about what kind of God exists, but amazingly enough, it does do one sweeping thing—it rules out all pantheistic religions. All pantheistic worldviews say that the universe is God and is eternal. And this assertion is false. So, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and all other pantheistic religions are ruled out as valid belief systems.

Further, we learn some interesting things about this God who created the universe. He is:

• Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation)
• Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known)
• Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space)
• Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it)
• Timeless and changeless (He created time)
• Immaterial (because He transcends space)
• Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality)
• Necessary (as everything else depends on Him)
• Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites)
• Diverse yet has unity (as all multiplicity implies a prior singularity)
• Intelligent (supremely, to create everything)
• Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything)
• Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver)
• Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)

This Being exhibits characteristics very similar to the God of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, which interestingly enough, are the only core faiths left standing after atheism and pantheism have been eliminated. Note also that one of the big questions in life (origins) is now answered: we know where we came from.

This leads to the next question: can we know God? At this point, the need for religion is replaced by something more important—the need for revelation. If mankind is to know this God well, it is up to God to reveal Himself to His creation. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all claim to have a book that is God’s revelation to man, but the question is which (if any) is actually true? Pushing aside minor differences, the two core areas of dispute are 1) the New Testament of the Bible 2) the person of Jesus Christ. Islam and Judaism both claim the New Testament of the Bible is untrue in what it claims, and both deny that Jesus is God incarnate, while Christianity affirms both to be true.

There is no faith on the planet that can match the mountains of evidence that exist for Christianity. From the voluminous number of ancient manuscripts, to the very early dating of the documents written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses (some only 15 years after Christ’s death), to the multiplicity of the accounts (nine authors in 27 books of the New Testament), to the archaeological evidence—none of which has ever contradicted a single claim the New Testament makes—to the fact that the apostles went to their deaths claiming they had seen Jesus in action and that He had come back from the dead, Christianity sets the bar in terms of providing the proof to back up its claims. The New Testament’s historical authenticity—that it conveys a truthful account of the actual events as they occurred—is the only right conclusion to reach once all the evidence has been examined.

When it comes to Jesus, one finds a very curious thing about Him—He claimed to be God in the flesh. Jesus own words (e.g., “Before Abraham was born I AM”), His actions (e.g., forgiving sins, accepting worship), His sinless and miraculous life (which He used to prove His truth claims over opposing claims), and His resurrection all support His claims to be God. The New Testament writers affirm this fact over and over again in their writings.

Now, if Jesus is God, then what He says must be true. And if Jesus said that the Bible is inerrant and true in everything it says (which He did), this must mean that the Bible is true in what it proclaims. As we have already learned, two competing truth claims cannot both be right. So anything in the Islamic Koran or writings of Judaism that contradict the Bible cannot be true. In fact, both Islam and Judaism fail since they both say that Jesus is not God incarnate, while the evidence says otherwise. And because we can indeed know God (because He has revealed Himself in His written Word and in Christ), all forms of agnosticism are refuted. Lastly, another big question of life is answered—that of ethics—as the Bible contains clear instructions on how mankind ought to live.

This same Bible proclaims that God cares deeply for mankind and wishes all to know Him intimately. In fact, He cares so much that He became a man to show His creation exactly what He is like. There are many men who have sought to be God, but only one God who sought to be man so He could save those He deeply loves from an eternity separated from Him. This fact demonstrates the existential relevancy of Christianity and also answers that last two big questions of life—meaning and destiny. Each person has been designed by God for a purpose, and each has a destiny that awaits him—one of eternal life with God or eternal separation from Him. This deduction (and the point of God becoming a man in Christ) also refutes Deism, which says God is not interested in the affairs of mankind.

In the end, we see that ultimate truth about God can be found and the worldview maze successfully navigated by testing various truth claims and systematically pushing aside falsehoods so that only the truth remains. Using the tests of logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and existential relevancy, coupled with asking the right questions, yields truthful and reasonable conclusions about religion and God. Everyone should agree that the only reason to believe something is that it is true—nothing more. Sadly, true belief is a matter of the will, and no matter how much logical evidence is presented, some will still choose to deny the God who is there and miss the one true path to harmony with Him.



source; www.gotquestions.org

.

God bless you bro

Drabeey:
I am this kind of person that scrutinize every thing im told, i dont follow instructions like a soldier.

I have noticed that anytime i follow my dad to his church, i always end up disappointed or would easily get angry at every bit of their service. This is a church where they give different death sentence to their enemy.

Infact during prayers some people will just start speaking i tongues and mentioning peoples name, saying all sort of strange things... There was this lady that mentioned me one day that i should go back to God, that i dont believe God again. How is that even possible? The truth is that i don't believe them (and they are often ladies... Does it mean God doesn't speak with men)

" die by hanging"
" Trailer crush them ”
" Electrocute and fry "
......to mention a few.

Whenever all this prayers are been said, i dont say it because i believe its a sin to wish another person dead.

Now, i have decided not to attend again. Why, The last time i attended a service, the pastor warned strrictly that no one should open his/her eyes.... Simply because Holy spirit is working and he must not be seen. I had always want to know why he was adamant about we opening our eyes.... I didn't close my eyes and yet i saw nothing except him walking around and his eyes wide open. He later ordered the ushers ti take me outside for deliverance. I felt so embarrased as i was escorted out in the midst of the congregation.

Now, i want to know... Am i been devilish or its the church thats just been ......,?

Nairalanders help me ooo.


Drabeey

That church is a useless church.
Pls note that being a member of a church is not what makes you a christian. However, it is good to fellowship with brethren according to the bible.
If you find yourself in the midst of brethren whose fellowship weighs you down rather than lift you up then you need to leave them and find another.

Vicoch:
if what i posted is not true, then show me a proof..

Nonsense.
Christian Indeed.

..

Attend to the challenge given to you and stop ranting. You created a thread and someone gave you a challenge and since then you ve been engaging in all sorts of tactics to dodge it.
Pls prove your case by facing that challenge or you bury your head in shame.

winner01:
Ice cream cones did not come by chance.

Thats our point.

Yea

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

.

Excellent Job

To God be the glory.

Vicoch:
you lack morals too, i would advice you look 4 your fada and ask him to teach you, idiot

Go and face the challenge and stop your diversionary tactics. Just go and face it if you know you are sure of what you posted. Stop ranting, go and face it.

Atheist indeed.

Nostradamus:
i invited you to a church in one of my posts,pls come tomoro,because,you know you sound like an imbec.i.le who really need prayers.

the guy is a pathetic case. He opened a thread just because others are opening. His brain is empty and lacks the capability to defend his submissions here hence his resort to insult..

Vicoch:
Just look at a Christian,
you are in need of a psychiatrist, because it's like you have encountered brain damage before, fvcking stupid fool...

Again you want to dodge the challenge someone gave you. Go and face it and stop behaving like a mad dog.
It's obvious you opened a baseless thread that you cannot defend. You need to go and learn how to open a thread. When you open a thread you must be ready to defend it with valid points not insults as you are doing now.
Resorting to insults as you are doing now clearly exposes how empty your brain is.

Vicoch:
balderdash

The guy gave u a challenge and here you are trying to tactically dodge it because of fear. This shows you are a liar.
If u are sure of what you are saying pls face the challenge he gave u and stop deceiving yourself.

Na wa for christianity of nowadays.

Interesting points have been made here both by my christian brothers and the OP.
However i seem to agree more with the OP in some of his points (not all) than my christian brothers.

Now i have a question for my christian brothers. .

What will you say about choice in the case of Esau? According to the scripture when they were still in the womb God said - "Jacob have i loved and Esau have i hated".
He hasnt been born into the world yet for him to start making choices and God declared hatred for him. S

AnonyNymous:
You've missed my point. My point is not about who specifically carried it out, whether Judas, Peter, Bartholomew or whoever. No.

"Because if there was anyone who would do the assignment, it should not be Judas as he was one of his own."
(Your statement)
It should not be Judas, since he was one of his(Jesus') own, right? But SOMEBODY had to do it to fulfill the prophecy. As you said, Jesus warned him. And he still did it. Since you believe we have free will, what if he did not do it? That's a possibility too, right?
...

"If you are warned against something and you still do it, you deserve punishment, right?
"
(Your statement)
Yes, I agree with this statement. What if everyone else in their time agreed with this statement and decided, they want no punishment, therefore, they won't do it?

...


"I know your next question will be "how would he have died"?. He could have surrendered himself to be killed in due time."
(Your statement)
Surrendered himself? To who? He broke no laws of the land: Christians commonly quote 'Give unto Caesar what is for Caesar'. Therefore he broke no laws! For doing nothing wrong, who, in his right senses, will kill him? Anyone who does that must be mad, and therefore not responsible for their actions.

It appears your submissions agree to a large extent with my views about these biblical events though i am a committed christian.
Somebody must betray Jesus but it must not be Judas. It could be anybody but the betrayal of Jesus was part of the package.
Same goes with some other incidences of life.
Again the freewill we have is not absolute as some of us believe.

The difference between you and i is that while you ll be angry with these your findings, I always accept its reality starring me on the face and ask God for grace to be on.his good side at all times.
The prayer that Jesus asked us to pray comes to mind here (lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil).

johnydon22:
Because that'd take away the ultimate leverage that gives credence to the ultimate hustle of religion.

Don't you see, religion is the ultimate hustle. Like you rightly pointed out God is supposedly All powerful therefore can take Satan out of existence if he wants to but why is he not doing it?

If God was all loving he'd want to do it and an omnipotent God can do it and save christians the trouble of countless unending battles at the prayer houses.

God is supposedly both loving and omnipotent why then is satan still there?

This is the exact same reason a protagonist in a movie won't defeat the antagonist or vise versa at the beginning or middle of the movie, it has to be the at the end part - that's how fictions go.

If God defeats satan now then the story is ruined, the plot is shattered because if that happens then there is no fear anymore and no reason to be shouting in crusade grounds anymore, the one leverage they have in scamming people is gone.

This is the ultimate fiction that yields the best dividends...

How wrong you are. The issue of God and Satan doesnt fit into the movie scenario you painted because Satan isnt going to be killed rather he will enter into eternal torment with his followers while the righteous will enter into eternal glory.
Nothing is ending, just a cross over to the next phase of life which is unending so drop your movie crap and be ready to bear the consequences of your choice.

Satan is on a timed mission.
At the end of his mission he ll be cast into the lake of fire
His fall didnt take God unawares.
Satan is wearing a terrestrial body. He is a spirit and not a flesh that can be anhilliated. He can only be tormented. Same thing with human beings. The body can be anhilliated but the spirit cannot, he can only be tormented.
God had forwknowledge of the fall of satan, the fall of man and everything in life. For him to have allowed it to go on means its in line with his cincept of creation.
Man may rant, yell, abuse and make all the noise yet must succumb to the realities of the good and ugly sides of life.

Ranchhoddas:
Total speculation.

That's your opinion which does not hold water anyway

Ranchhoddas:
Whether you are willing to admit it or not, if what you are saying is correct, the summary of everything is that there will be a factor in Heaven that was absent in the Garden.

Yea that's the point i am making that the righteousness and sin option here will not be obtainable in heaven. In heaven it will only be righteousness. In other words sin/evil is one of the factors that will be absent in heaven. Another factor i said will be absent in heaven is Satan.

Ranchhoddas:
hence man cannot fully be held responsible for the original sin.

My take here is that God as a creator had a concept of how he wants the world to operate and what he wants to achieve with it. But like i said before, I don't think that God as a creator created us with the sole purpose of pleasing us rather it is us pleasing him first. I may not be 100% correct here though.

Ranchhoddas:
. The people in heaven will not be given a choice (freewill) to sin. Adam was set up to fail.

I may not call it a set up. I will rather see it as an outcome of the concept of the creator. He wanted to create a being who will be able to choose between good and evil, realise himself when he has done evil and repent of it or who will harden his heart and bear the consequences of his decisions . He also wanted a being who will have dominion over his other creation, who will explore the universe and his numerours works of creation in various ways to the benefit of humanity and to his(God's) glory.. This may not be complete but that's the little i can put down here. Again i may not be 100 % right. God knows best. [url][/url]

Ranchhoddas:
So you are admiting that the conditions of Heaven will be different from the conditions of the Garden of Eden. Yes?

I have said it before that the scenario in the garden of eden is different because the freedom they had was to choose between good and evil but in the new heaven it will be righteousness based.
According to the scriptures righteousness will reign in heaven, unlike this world where righteousness and sin dwell.
Satan and his cohorts will be cast into the lake of fire to burn forever and ever so he has no place in the new heaven and new earth.

Ranchhoddas:
So why did He not just give Adam and Eve the 'righteousness-based' freewill instead of subjecting them to 'sin-based freewill' and condemning unsuspecting billions of people to eternal torment in the process.

He gave them the freedom to choose between good and evil in this world for reasons that he best knows.
Before i go further let me make some things clear for the sake of my fellow christians here who may tend to misunderstand me and for the sake of every reader here.
1. I am not here to defend or abuse God.
2.i am not also here to blaspheme against God.

I believe that God couldnt have created with the sole purpose of pleasing his creature rather he created with the sole purpose of pleasing himself first, then favouring us as he deem fit along the line.
This is my personal thought based on what i ve read so far about him in the scripture. I may be wrong though.
Every creation he made have some attributes of him they are satisfying at every given time.

tayooluwole:
My brother, no talk this for where d woman husband they ooooooo, d kind slap way he go give u go bad except if d husband is irrational type like u...d woman was killed in such a gory circumstances because it was her time to die ? That means if those behind her killing are eventually arrested, there is no need to bring them to book, since they are trying to help God in making sure that d woman did not live beyond her appointed time... So those who died of hunger as a result of bad governance died cos it is their time ? Those who died by accident as a result of bad road died cos it is their time ? Those who died of stray bullet died cos it is their time ? Those who died as a result of insecurity died cos it is their time ?Now, if I decide to commit sucide as a result of life pressure, I died cos it is time ? My brother haba....

If this ur position is something to go about, that means life it self is valueless...

.
Young man you are just being emotional. Nobody knows how he will die. Nobody can determine how he will die. Death comes in various ways.. The road that people passed safely can be a death trap for others.
Even on a smooth road people still have accident and die.
Even in very developed countries where everything seem almost perfect people still die in gruesome manner.
A disease that someone survived another person may not.
While we mourn with those who mourn yet we are not ignorant of these ugly truths about life.

oyeludef:
Science itself evolves so how can it be trusted? Each generation is limited by the level of scientific discoveries dey av had. There are somethings once believed in past generation dat aren't true today. There was a time dat drugs to cure most disease were made out of human or animal faeces in ancient Egypt which was d most scientifically advanced country at dat time. Science is still on a journey to discover alot even after our generation has past so y limit ursef to d discovery of d day?

.
Good point.

shadeyinka:
An argument I hear often amongst gays is that they were born that way. Look in nature, is there any animal whos sexual preference is of the same sex?

How come its only among human beings we see people claiming an unnatural sexial preference.

If gays are born gay, are kleptomaniacs born kleptomaniac? You apprehend a kleptomaniac stealing in the market, would he be released if his argument was "I was born a kleptomaniac?"

In the name of civilization, we throw sound reasoning out of the window.

I submit the question again, Nairalanders -If gays are born gay, are kleptomaniacs born kleptomaniac?

.

Good submission

dalaman:
Ayne when you show me this God of your giving me life then I will begin to take you seriously. Until then your God remains and imaginary human idea.

Yea the ranting continues as i rightly said. Continue.

dalaman:
Christians just giving out ridiculous answers all in an attempt to speak on behalf of a God they claim knows and can do all things.

.
Yea God can do all things including taking back the life he gave you. The Lord gives, the Lord takes. There's nothing you can do to him than to rant.

tayooluwole:
Initially, she has been protected ? But this time around, it is a different case cos it involve death ? So, God's protection no they potent where death they ?

When its already in the bible that it is appointed for us to die. Also the bible said there is time for everything, time to live and time to die. Why will God stop you from dying when your time comes, when death is an act of God in the first place ?

hopefulLandlord:
Nothing anybody can do about it, including your god?

Show me where my God promised me that i wont die in this world?

Teempakguy:
but this same guy was behind all these statements:

psalm 121: 7

The LORD will keep you from all harm-- he will watch over your life;


Psalm 91:10

No evil will befall you, Nor will any plague come near your tent.


Proverbs 12:21

No harm befalls the righteous, But the wicked are filled with trouble.


2Thessalonians 3:3

But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one.


2Timothy 4:18

The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and bring me safely into his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.


1John 5:18

We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.

---

Wha . . . How the HELL is this not a guarantee?

WTF . . . you guys are so full of crap. your holy book has almost 10 different verses explicitly claiming that God will always protect those who believe in him. several more claiming that he never breaks his promises, even several more claiming that he will do WHATEVER his followers ask of him.

but hey, let's just put a little caveat that DIRECTLY contradicts the claims of NO CONDITIONS, so that the people pushing our propaganda get something to lean on when they get backed into a tight logical corner.


"God doesn't guarantee . . . "

Go self-service yourselves off.

You are not being sincere in your criticism and it smacks of one who is just out to mess himself up.
You quoted the book of psalm written by David while in the same bible David went thru afflictions and even said it that there is room for it in this life.
You also quoted the book of Timothy written by Paul while in that same bible Paul went thru afflictions and even wrote it that we will pass thru it..
Both Paul and David died when their time came.
You ignored all these points just because you want to mess yourself up. Continue.