₦airaland Forum

logicboy: The smartest people in the world (Scientists) generally dont believe in God.

logicboy: Here is evidence that the bible lies or worse, bears false witness;


Psalm 14:1
King James Version (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.


So, the bible is telling me that all atheists are corrupt and have done abominable works? Is that not a lie?

Is Bill Gates, who is agnostic but doesnt believe in the Christian God a corrupt someone that doesnt do good? Bill Gates does a lot of charity and research in Africa.


Are people that set up atheist charities to help poor people evil and corrupt?


Are 64% of Japan, an atheistic nation any more corrupt than Nigeria (48% christian) ?


Is the bible not lying and bigoted towards atheists?

JeSoul: The title of their forum does say "Islam for muslims. Muslims only please". So my guess is any non-muslims would be allowed at the discretion of their mods, and of course 'discretion' is subjective. Are muslims being treated differently? yes, they have a seperate section, Seun's perogative and we have to deal with it as we're on his forum. Don't forget he was threatened with a fatwa...Frosbel will you protect him when they go after him? lol.

Johnnie ZM: My guy trust me they will dispute it all with any means possible...I'd tried telling everyone of them who cares to listen but they called me Anti-Christ and that I lied about being an Ex-Catholic. Nice job by the way. God will increase His knowledge in you.

italo: Let us first-of-all handle his point 3, which I think is key to answering everything.

Do you think there is a possibility that The Catholic Church may be right and he may be wrong on these topics?

If your answer is "YES", then (as they claim) they might be truly infallible in their teachings based on their interpretation of the Bible. And you and him might well be heretics and on your way to hell with anyone else who refutes their claims despite knowing them to be true.

If your answer is "NO", then you are yourself asserting that his teachings (from his interpretation of the Bible) are infallible.

What is your answer?

bigd4050: I readily admit that you must repent and believe before you are saved. I just think God brings you to a realization of this, not yourself. You don't just suddenly make yourself believe because you own mind "figured out God". There is no way to logically deduce what God has done for us, or who he is.

I think I'm going to switch my mode of operation on the forum. Arguing is not going to work here. People have been debating this for (I'm guessing) centuries, and we aren't going to come to a conclusion on this tiny forum.

I'm going to seek to understand where you guys are coming from instead of rattling off my points, lol. I have a question that I don't know how it would be answered your Image's and italo's point of view. Perhaps they can enlighten me.

From what I have gathered, it seems as if you guys are saying that once we are saved, it is up to us to remain obedient to God in order to be saved. To me, it sounds as if we have to "keep ourselves saved", or save ourselves with our actions. Basically, the responsibility is on us. Is any of this incorrect? If so, how would you put it?

Second, since you believe your salvation is not guaranteed to anyone, what is the limit at which someone is no longer saved? What or how much wickedness must someone do in order to not be saved? Is the line between saved and not saved the same for everyone?

Again, I apologize for being harsh and abrasive in my earlier posts. We are all Christians here, and whether or not we agree on the basis of our salvation, at least it seems like we all strive for a deeper understanding of God, and live our lives to serve Him. I'm going to do my best to keep my tone civil out of respect just for people brave enough to post on here. Basically, I'm going to actually listen to what you guys are saying before I just give off points that I have been waiting to throw out. So take the floor, answer my questions or say any other points you guys have, let's keep the thread organized and respectful.

ckkris: italo.
Paul was definitely in Rome in AD 60, in the middle of the 1st century, when Nero was Emperor, Acts 28:11-16. Paul's preaching, that of Apollos in Acts 18:28, was based entirely on the Mosaic Laws and the prophets, that is, Genesis to Malachi. Sir, you can now agree that it was not the Catholic Church that created these Scriptures. The Good News of Salvation through Christ Jesus, which brought Paul to Rome, was being proclaimed and documented by His followers, such as Luke, a Medical Doctor from Greece, Luke 1:1-3, Acts 1:1, Colossians 4:14. Take note Sir, that Paul enjoined the Colossians to read the letter to the Laodiceans, and vice versa, Colossians 4:16. In this manner the Gospels, the Epistles, and their Old Testament background, were being copied and circulated, IN THE 1st CENTURY, and not as late as the 4th century.

chinedumo: in the sense that does not suggest in any way that She is the source of his Godhead
[size=24pt]Very simple [/size]

achi4u: well to answer your question am a Catholic but atimes i just feel as if am no longer connected to christ,then if i look the other way(other churches),i still see a worst case.thats what prompted me to ask the house to know weather if there's anyway out.i hope u know where am driving to?,yet anybody with candid oppinion should aswell help.

thanks everybody that have commented so far.

Logic Mind: Nice detailed response. Very convincing but flawed. I will try and respond to each point.

You are right there are so many scientific and historical "facts" that were later found to be false but this is due to the fact that unlike religions and doctrines, scientific theories and assertions can actually be put to test. Although to you this may look negative but this capacity to put things to test, to question everything, (something which most religions, including the catholic church, forbid) is a positive and welcome aspect of the scientific community and is the reason mankind has advanced so rapidily.

Logic Mind: By admiting that organisms can evolve to adapt, you admit thus that god's original creation was not perfect. This puts the god is onmiscience mantra (a catholic doctrine) into serious doubt.

Logic Mind: Although the african elephants phenomenon is not exactly proven to be "evolution" it still shows all the characteristics of evolution as defined by darwin. Long tusked elephants are hunted and killed, their population reduce, less hunted short tusked ones survive to breed and their offsprings are all short tusked. It is doesn't mean that elephants suddenly decided to grow short tusks in case you never understood what evolution by means of natural selection meant in the first place. Many people know how natural selection works and survival of the fittest means exactly what it says. Some people misunderstand it as survival of the strongest but this is simply a misunderstanding. You need to be fit and intelligent enough to adapt to your environment without becoming extinct. This includes hiding and dodging fights, hibernating, camouflaging, etc.

Logic Mind: You can see that my 8 questions about the literal aspect of the bible were rhetorical. The main question was how do you determine what in the bible is literal and what is not?

Logic Mind: After reading genesis 1,2 and 3, I think the author was telling the isrealites his own version of the creation of the world and everything in it. It is a folkloric tale of creation like it exists in every culture. Children take folklores literally. Adults know better. This is why it is highly bemusing that Paul and the rest of christianity base their faith on these tales.

Logic Mind: I appreciate that you can arrive at a different conclusion from me when considering the same dilemma but there's a big difference between that and inventing something else altogether to make your conclusion plausible.

Logic Mind: Did you consider that christian quote I posted? Do you agree with those? Please note that catholic doctrines are not infallible. Infact the church has and is still abandoning teachings it held as sacred and indisputable a few centuries (and even decades) ago.

Logic Mind: "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." makes no sense whatsoever whether taken in a literal or non literal way.

5solas: Sure, he was very worried, in your head!

5solas: You don't believe a christian can be saved in this life and yet believe they can lose salvation? It is a question.

ckkris: italo.
The Bible, or, The Scriptures, is what Apollos preached, in order to convince and convert many people, who MUST believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the expected Messiah. Satanic theologians may lie that the Bible was created later. Paul strongly enjoined everyone to study The Scriptures, which now includes The Gospel, that is the good news that of all that the law of Moses, and all the prophets anticipated, have been fulfilled.

tos4u: Sir,
definately u need a sound church that teaches the truth, firstly make sure you are born again, then join churches like redeemed xtian church of God, winners, deeper life, etc, but u must b ready to study d scripture urself and u w hav to b patient n settle down in ur chosen church so to gradually develop it takes some time to really grow n neva dispise ur little beginin, thnks keep living in d presence of His holy Spirit

Goshen360: Catholic? Error sir
Pls take your time prayerfully and carefully. God will lead you to a bible teaching/believing church. Don't rush. You will notice I have tried in all my advice NOT TO MENTION A PARTICULAR CHURCH TO YOU. Kinly relax, take your time prayerfully and carefully. You will get one bible teaching and believing church soon. God bless you sir.

chinedumo: it is wrong to refer to MAry as mother of God in the sensew that suggests that she made him who he is

Logic Mind: I appreciate that you are at least engaging in this discussion and not running away as most christians usually do when put in difficult position. You at least accept that you don't know certain things. This is by no means an "argument" as nigerians usually do to while away time but, I hope, a serious discussion on belief and faith when compared to hard scientific and verifiable evidence. I try to base my arguments on facts even though I admit sometimes I digress. I sincerely hoped that you would base yours on concrete verifiable fact and not "what we told". I was sincerely hoping that your knowledge were much stronger than your opinions

Logic Mind: What exactly does believing partly in evolution mean? You cannot pick and choose which part of evolution you believe in simply because it is one theory. one which no single or multiple parts can stand scientific test unless all the remaining parts are true. As soon as you discard a part of it, the whole theory falls.

Logic Mind: I wasn't with darwin but his theories has been put to scientific test and they passed those tests. Today, you can "observe" evolution in bacteria. Even in larger animals like the african elephant it has been reported that they are genetically mutating and developping smaller tusks due to danger from posessing larger tusks.

Logic Mind: I do not see why I should start reviewing the literal meaning of genesis when the bible itself described and accepted it literally. See Exodus 20:11, Romans 5: 12-19 etc.
If it wasn't literal, then the whole christian faith was based on a misinterpretation of the word of god by the Apostle Paul himself!
If adam and eve story was not literal, what else is not literal in this great book?
Was all animals living in one big boat for weeks literal?
Was the talking donkey literal?
Was Lot's wife turning into salt literal?
Was Jonah living in the fish belly literal?
Was the virgin birth literal?
Was turning water into wine literal?
Was resurrection literal?

Logic Mind: You are wrong to say that I think that evolution disproves the Bible's creation story and you don't think it does. It is not me thinking. It is an analysis of facts presented by both sides. Here is a quote from a christian in another thread concerning evolution.

Logic Mind: You cannot call god holy, omniscience etc and call the bible his unquestionable word if you believe in (or as you put it, in any part of) evolution.

bigd4050: It sounds like your saying here that we have the holy spirit because of our righteousness, which I disagree with. Maybe you just didn't expound enough..but the order that I see from the Bible is that God gives us the Holy Spirit, and then we begin to live a righteous life.

chinedumo: it is wrong to refer to MAry as mother of God in the sensew that suggests that she made him who he is

achi4u: no church can save you only your good deed and God salvation can.i only agree with what Bro Goshen360 has told me...to read the scripture and understand the word of GOD.
so no need for church.

Logic Mind: are you sure of your belief?
like rationally and reasonably sure. not JUST pretending and repeating what you have been told by someone else.