₦airaland Forum

imhotep:
@Jesoul
When do you plan on starting the latest protestant sect that will fiercely contradict and disagree with the ALL of the existing 33,000 protestant sects - all quoting from the SAME bible

lol . . .sweetie, I'm on the side of truth. I do not plan on starting any new sect or religion - I already have one which is based solely and completely on the bible. You wan try?

Now since you've been harping on protestant religions and refuse to face the facts on the catholic contradictions, I'll indulge you.
  Most protestant disagreements are minor and do not strike at the core of christianity.

Sure we're all human and there'll be disagreements - heck Paul had beef with Peter once, and Paul also disagreed fiercely with Barnabas! infact it was such a sharp disagreement they seperated! Disagreements among believers is not a new thing, BUT these disagreements do not stike at the foundation of the faith.
For instance tongues or gifts of the spirit or divorce or types of music or sabbath day sat/sun etc. . .
  most of their disagreements are minor not against the CORE beliefs of the christian faith which include
    1. salvation by grace - not works
    2. forgiveness of sins by God only
the catholic church contradicts these basics and is in a world of their own - outside the holy scriptures

imhotep:
Are you trying to use the words of the servant (Paul) to counter the words of the Master (Jesus) This is bad biblical scholarship/exegesis.

Seeing you completely ignored my previous post where I corrected you on this twisted point you're trying to make, I'll repeat:
I have news for you: ALL the word of God is equally important and relevant and potent and EQUAL!
  Paul's writings vs Peter's writings vs. Isiah's writing vs. Jesus words are ALL THE WORDS OF GOD!!! neither is less important than the other because they all come from God himself. You cannot just quote John 20 and ignore the other verses that contradict your conclusion! whether they come isiah or Moses- it is all the word of God.

  Now, I'm not trying to "counter Jesus words with that of Paul" it is all the word of God and all equal. And since the word of God cannot contradict each other your 'conclusion' is fatally flawed because it directly contradicts other parts of the bible written by not only Paul but Isiah, several other prophets etc.

 

Small wonder there are 33,000 protestant sects that are in perpetual disagreement.

again nobody is talking about protestant denominations here, that has nuthin to do with the fact the catholic church preaches doctrines that directly contradict the bible.

History has shown us the REAL meaning of these words. 'Viva il Papa'

lol. . . did you say history? you mean the twisted, unscriptural/anti-scriptural and heretical history of the catholic church?

This is an example of what the catholic church is saying:
   I write a book about myself claiming to have descended from Queen Elizabeth, and I use this book to prove to anyone who questions me that I am indeed her ancestor. Hence I have rights to the throne and to make laws and decrees.
  Meanwhile all the other evidence shows that my parents are nigerians and my brothers and sisters are nigerian.
How ridiculous for anyone to quote catholic canon and documents to use as proof that the catholic church is who they say they are? when all the other existing evidence says otherwise? 

Continue to quote and hide behind Mt 16, when there's a million other scripture verses that contradict the misguided conclusion you've reached

again imhotep, you're quoting only one verse, drawing a conclusion and then ignoring all the other many verses that contradict your conclusion!

Peter is just a mere man! Christ did not build his church on peter and was not insinuating so in Mt 16:
From the people's new test. explanation- which did a great job of breaking it down, I quote:

The Savior does not say, "Thou art a stone, and upon thee I will build," etc., or "Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build." He changes the word in the Greek from Petros (Peter, a stone) to Petra, a rock, or ledge of rock--a solid bed-rock. 2. Every saint is a stone (see 1 Pet. 2:5[b]). The Lord declares that Peter is one these living stones, made such by his confession of faith, and ready to be built into the church[/b], the spiritual temple, formed of living stones, and built upon the rock. So is every confessor of Christ.

So much for Peter being the rock the entire church is built upon! Peter himself will be shocked and dismayed to think that a "church" was using his name as justification for twisting the word of God.

1 Cor. 3:11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
This directly excludes Peter or any human from being such a stone/rock that the church will be built upon.

1Pet2:4 As you come to him, the living Stone rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone

Eph2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

[quote author=A_K_O link=topic=116335.msg2020869#msg2020869 date=1204633612]

the catholic church might very well continue to grow, so what? that does not mean anything. Everyday the gay and homosexual community grows, violence increases, govt steals and grows stronger, does that mean they're doing the right thing?

WORD!!! LOL [/quote]

waterworks:
The same questions over and over again. . . . its quite simple really[b] you ask.[/b] we answer. but we just don't say what you want to hear so you ask again. . . . this has gone one for centuries give it a break!

we do A [/b]you want to do [b]B. You break out to do B satisfaction? NEVER! you want to come and cause problems for the doers of A!!

if christianity is all about righteousnesss and the kingdom of heaven shouldnt we all be busy serving God? why leave your faith, prayers and beliefs to go and condemn others? i don't know about you all but this is very clear to me. IT IS THE DEVILS PLAN. so please go to your side and we will stay in our side on the last day we shall see kwo?

stop causing trouble for the fellow children of God. is it too much to ask?

Cassiel:
Another addition to the list- praying to statues!

and the rosary, transubstantiation, apocrypha, salvation by works etc I mean the list is endless!

the killing of a person for any other reason than self-defense is never justifiable. Fatwa is never justifable or any other religion-based killing.

 hmm . . . isn't the very definition of a miracle is that it is an event or occurence that cannot be explained?
 
 Like Nwankwo said, many people approach the concept of miracles prejudiced to think that if if doesn't fit the current/existing scientific theories then it must be false. . .when the very definition of a miracle is that it cannot be explained.

 The spiritual world and its manifestations in the physical cannot be understood or re-produced by science - you'll only end up with a headache.

olrotimi:
think that practice should have expired by now

Abi o. Not just that practice alone, add praying to the saints, praying to and worshipping mary, throwing out the teaching mary remained a virgin, purgatory, etc. . .

imhotep:
Not Catholic Teaching but the words of Christ himself.

No it is NOt the teaching of Christ! or else Christ would be contradicting the rest of the word of God - which is impossible!
   It is the twisted teaching of the words of Christ by the catholic church.

John 20: 22-23 ->

No other scriptural text can be more powerful or reliable than the very words of Christ. Its either He was saying the truth or He was lying.

Are you now saying that the direct words of Christ carry more weight than the other parts of the bible!
I have news for you: ALL the word of God is equally important and relevant and potent and EQUAL!
  Paul's writings vs Peter's writings vs. Isiah's writing vs. Jesus words are ALL THE WORDS OF GOD!!! neither is less important than the other because they all come from God himself. You cannot just quote John 20 and ignore the other verses that contradict your conclusion! whether they come isiah or Moses- it is all the word of God.

The Jews also beefed Jesus for forgiving the paralytic - "How can this man forgive sins. Only God can forgive"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not beefing Jesus' authority. Jesus IS GOD! the jews just didn't know that fact.

Jesus passed on His authority to forgive sins to his disciples. Like I said earlier, this is why the Catholic Church is concerned about APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.

No He did not!
why do other scriptures loudly and clearly and explicitly teach that only God can forgive sins? One portion of scripture cannot directly contradict another whether it was Jesus' words or Jeremiah or Job or Moses. Scripture cannot contradict scripture! it's impossible.

Our college of bishops can trace their roots HISTORICALLY to the disciples.
There are thousands of historical documents that outline the modus operandi of the early church long before the bible was approved.

But all these thousands of books are not holy scriptures, they are not divinely inspired by God and hence cannot be accepted as resolute. All we have are those 66books. And any other book that presents a teaching contradictory to it is straight up heretical.
And no, the catholic church did not give us the scriptures. They're using their own documents to prove what they're claiming! how crazy is that?

This is why I asked whether 'sola scriptura' can be shown to be a verse in the bible.
This refers ONLY to the book of Revelation, not to the entire bible. Besides, the bible was put together and approved about 230 years AFTER the book of Revelation was written.

my brotha isn't this really very basic?
If any extrabiblical writing DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS the word of God doesn't that immediately raise red flags?

By the way, Martin Luther, the oga pata pata of the protestants (and the originator of sola scriptura), also practiced confession in his own way (see -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession#Lutheranism)

You musta noticed by now I care little for what other people whether historically famous christians or not thought or did. I care about the bible. My standard is the 66 books of the bible and whether or not our actions align with its commandments.

imhotep,
*shaking my head* you have STILL not addressed the fact that the catholic teaching DIRECTLY contradicts hundreds of scriptures that teach us GOD ONLY can forgive sins. I care little whether it was catholic priests or not that assembled the bible.
WHY DOES CATHOLIC TEACHING CONTRADICT THE BIBLE? you're quoting only John 20 and forgetting every other scripture that contradicts your conclusion that priests can forgive sins.

Claiming that it contradicts OT passages is not an argument. Jesus' stance on forgiveness was at odds with "AN EYE FOR AN EYE" of Moses. And Jesus was very very correct.Claiming that it contradicts OT passages is not an argument. Jesus' stance on forgiveness was at odds with "AN EYE FOR AN EYE" of Moses. And Jesus was very very correct.

ha you're funny, I can't believe you're trying to use this argument.
Jesus specifically said, "you have heard it said before, but now a new commandment I give you. . ."
Jesus specifically said he was changing the way things had been done, he was giving them a NEW LAW different from the old one. So therefore there's nothing remotely close to contradicting anything.

2. You have STILL not addressed the fact that the disciples NEVER EVER practised their "Jesus given" authority to forgive sins, they never spoke about this authority, they never used it or taught about it. But yet hundreds of yrs later a "church" emerges and claims to have been given this same power?

2) I am not 'yabbing' the protestants, not at all. I am only saying that they have not done a great job of interpreting the bible (even though they started out with good intentions). If you move among non-christian circles, you will find that one obstacle to their conversion is the large number of divided and bickering christian sects they find around them.
It is not Jesus' wish for there to be more than 33,000 denominations who do not agree with each other.

I can agrew with that. BUT I'M MORE CERTAIN HE'D BE MORE UPSET THAT HIS WORDS WERE BEING ABUSED AND MISUSED.

[QUOTE]3) Lastly, Protestants believe in the concept of 'sola scriptura' (by the scriptures alone). Can you quote one verse in the bible (which was put together by Catholic bishops) that supports this[/quote]Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

eniyan:
and your point is?

Lol. . . therationa rarely has a point to all his rantings.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/02/28/clemens.fbi.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The FBI took up the Roger Clemens case Thursday, told by the Justice Department to investigate whether the star pitcher lied when he testified to Congress he never took performance-enhancing drugs.

The FBI's involvement was announced one day after the leaders of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee told Attorney General Michael Mukasey they weren't sure whether Clemens told the truth under oath at a Feb. 5 deposition and Feb. 13 public hearing.

A probe could result in charges against the seven-time Cy Young Award winner for perjury, making false statements or obstruction of justice. Congress did not ask for a similar investigation of Brian McNamee, the former personal trainer who testified under oath that he injected Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roger the heat is officially on! confess now Oh!

imhotep:
@Jesoul

I shall tackle your problem from the roots ->

1) This bible you protestants keep screaming (and mis-interpreting) about was approved by a meeting of Catholic bishops in the year 393 AD (See -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_hippo) . No protestant understands the bible better than the Catholic Church that approved it.

If these bishops approved the bible you now practically sleep with, why do you use this same bible to attack them so ferociously There is something amisss here.

2) What are the results of protestant biblical scholarship ->

"There are over 33,000 [protestant] denominations in 238 countries and every year there is a net increase of around 270 to 300 denominations" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant#Denominations)

If protestants alone were entrusted with spreading the Gospel, the message of Christ would have died 1,000 years ago; because each family would have become a church unto itself. Every community/church will be in disagreement with every other community/church. The truth of Christ will be smothered in the heat of arguments and bickering. Non-christians will percieve christians as a quarrelsome group in which each person seeks supremacy for his/her own benefit.

This is in stark contrast to what Jesus wants for his followers (see John 17:8-26) ==>

""I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.

And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me"

3) Jesus Our Lord knows human nature too well. Thank Him for telling Peter (Matthew 16:18): "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church".

He foresaw our confusion and settled it long in advance.

4) The Catholic Church has been a force to reckon with for over 2000 years. The protestants keep dividing and this-integrating. The protestants obviously have a lot to learn.

Of everything you said above, you said[u] absolutely NOTHING based on scripture [/u]to refute that fact that the catholic teachings STILL contradicts the bible!

You are not addressing that fact! but you keep on giving other technical insignificants.

This bible you protestants keep screaming (and mis-interpreting) about was approved by a meeting of Catholic bishops in the year 393 AD (See -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_hippo) . No protestant understands the bible better than the Catholic Church that approved it.

If these bishops approved the bible you now practically sleep with, why do you use this same bible to attack them so ferociously There is something amisss here.

Actually I throw that question back at you!
If the priests really put the scriptures together how come they didn't think to make it agree and be in harmony with the bible? how come they never thot "oh wait! some of our teachings directly contradict this bible?"

"There are over 33,000 [protestant] denominations in 238 countries and every year there is a net increase of around 270 to 300 denominations" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant#Denominations)

If protestants alone were entrusted with spreading the Gospel, the message of Christ would have died 1,000 years ago; because each family would have become a church unto itself. Every community/church will be in disagreement with every other community/church. The truth of Christ will be smothered in the heat of arguments and bickering. Non-christians will percieve christians as a quarrelsome group in which each person seeks supremacy for his/her own benefit.

We're not disscussing the many shortcomings of the protestant denomination. Stop trying to deflect the spotlight off the catholic church's misuse and abuse of the bible.
The fact that protestants have had their issues doesn't mean anything. The church is made of human beings, it has never been perfect and it will never be perfect.

The Catholic Church has been a force to reckon with for over 2000 years. The protestants keep dividing and this-integrating. The protestants obviously have a lot to learn.

the catholic church might very well continue to grow, so what? that does not mean anything. Everyday the gay and homosexual community grows, violence increases, govt steals and grows stronger, does that mean they're doing the right thing?
again Jesus said "wide is the highway that leads to destruction, and many are they on it". Just cos the catholic church has numbers means absolutely nada.

seguno2:
Please read:

James 5:16
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.I hope we all agree that faults also mean sins.

You made good points & yeah I guess you could say faults could be sins. It could just be something I struggle with, or somewhere I fall short. However I'd like to make the distinction here that the confession of faults to one another is not for the purpose of getting forgiveness from the other person.
But moreso we could understand and pray for each other better.

Those who feel comfortable and convinced about confessing to a priest will not be out of line with all the scriptures quoted in this thread to date.

yes they will! because they're confessing in order to get forgivness from those sins! when the bible already tells us only God can forgive sin. That's a direct contradition.

Biafran:
@Cassiel et all
If it so bothers you why the Catholics confess their sins to the Preists, then go jump off the thrid mainland bridge, that way you will easily get to our Lord Jesus and ask Him,

instead of reacting this way, how about you disprove the topic biblically? Prove by discussion and argument that what the topic is saying is wrong. Unless of course you can't!

What of others that don't even bother confessing their sins, why not worry over them, why waste your strength on Catholics, since we've refused to listen to you, why not dust your feet and move on to maybe the Traditional worshippers and others in dire need of Salvation

Sweetie, there is no difference btw a catholic who's confessed to a priest and someone who hasn't confessed at all!
You're confessing to a man, that does not have the authority to forgive sins. So therefore your sins are not forgiven and makes you no different from one who's not even asked for forgiveness.

We are ok with our faith,

but that will not stop the rest of us biblical christians from pointing out the multitude of false and heretic teachings the catholic church holds on to.
Sure the catholic church might grow and grow and get richer and richer, that does not mean a thang! The bible says wide is the road that leads to destruction and a multitude are on it. and that in the last days men will go after their own philosophies and gather round a great number of false doctrine teachers.

Have you ever really compared the teachings of the catholic church in the light of the bible? If you did, you'd be shocked. there's no need for you to tell people to go kill themselves when they challenge you and you can't repond biblically.

Cassiel:
@JeSoul
You're a good bible scholar And let me add this to that list
John 14:6
Jesus said unto him,''I am the Way,the Truth, and the Life; no man [/b]comes unto the Father,[b]but by me''

I wish I were a scholar! still got a long ways to go. But thanks girl!

  Imhotep,
  LOL. . . I like the way you skipped over #1, 2 and 3 in my first response.

    So I'll repeat them briefly before going on to your post:
1. Millions of scriptures teach us God only forgives sins. Catholics say priests can forgive and this DIRECTLY contradicts the word of God.

2.John 20:23 does not declare roman catholic priests to be the ones that can forgive sins. How did the catholic church get and bestow that title on themselves?

3.Furthermore we have the book of acts were the first church grew and organized, we see no hint or evidence whatsoever of the saints confessing their sins to the apostles or church leaders.
  If Jesus really gave them the power to forgive sins, how come they never exercised it? how come they never acknowledged it in any of their letters? gospels? in practice?

Now moving onto 4, which you tried to debunk:

imhotep:
A) The ministry of reconciliation involves repentance and forgiveness of sins. Jesus was not speaking allegorically or figuratively.
You cannot forgive a sin you do not know of. Christ's authority to forgive sins is delegated to his disciples.


Matt 16: 18-19
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

There is nothing figurative in these words of Jesus.

and neither is there anything there to suggest forgiveness of sins had been passed on to the disciples! You're reading the verse out of context and ignoring the preceding verses in 20, 21, 22 and the circumstances in which Jesus made that statement.
  Again if Jesus really gave them the power, how come they never used it? taught about it? wrote it in the gospels/letters?

B) The disciples are priests of the new covenant. Priests like Melchizedek (who offered bread and wine and to whom Abraham paid tithes in the book of Genesis.)

The disciples were NOT priests, the bible does not suggest that anywhere. Please provide the relevant scripture that states they were.
  And who's to say it's the catholic church that descended from the apostles and hence are priests too? Imagine the arrogance.

Jesus Himself is a priest like Melchizedek (Heb 7:17 --> For it is attested of Him, “YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.”)

Yes Jesus is a priest. No arguement there.

Paul was to write many hears later ->

1 Corinthians 10:16 --->
"16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?"

Also, the whole of John chapter 6 is devoted to his offering body and blood for the salvation of all. He speaks in terms of BREAD and WINE --->

John 6: 53 - 60 ==>
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

54 Whoever eats 1my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."

59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"


--------------------
Jesus was not mincing words here. Its either you believe him, or you do not. Many people stopped following Him because of this.

and how exactly does all the above support the notion priests can forgive sins?

C) This is why Catholic Church is very concerned about APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. No street man can just wake up and usurp authority because he mis-read one or two bible passages. Many have tried and failed though. The Catholic Church waxes stronger from millenium to millenium.

Again who's to say the catholic church is directly descended from the apostles? what gives the church that right so make such a claim?
  and even if they were, the the disciples WERE NOT PRIESTS, the bible does not teach that. Maybe the catholic extra-biblical materials contain such BUT THEY WOULD BE IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO THE WORD OF GOD, the bible. So hence fit to be declared heresy.

Horus,
why do you persist in posting inciendiary responses? I know it's a forum and there's freedom of speech but that's not really necessary. abeg eh.

ah yes our John 20:22 verse that is used to support the notion priests can forgive sins:

First and above all if you were to say man/priests can forgive sins that would directly contradict tons of other scriptures that teach God alone forgives sins.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

Mark 11:25
And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."

Ps 103:2 Praise the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits, who forgives all your sins and heals all your diseases

Micah 7:18
Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy.

Matthew 6:14
For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins[b], your Father will not forgive your sins[/b].

Secondly,
 The verse does not say "roman catholic priests are hereby endowed with the authority to forgive sins".
How did the catholic church reach that conclusion and what gives them the power to say that its priests are the chosen ones that can forgive sins?

 3. The apostles were not priests, they did not do any sacrificing or anything so no one can come here and say catholics are descended from the apostles.
 Furthermore we have the book of acts were the first church grew and organized, we see no hint or evidence whatsoever of the saints confessing their sins to the apostles or church leaders.
 If Jesus really gave them the power to forgive sins, how come they never exercised it? how come they never acknowledged it in any of their letters? gospels? in practice? meaning they were disobedient. Right?

4. Read in context the words of Jesus. He was giving over to His disciples the ministry of reconciliation, the message of God. They were to go out and preach. And if anyone accepted their message they were forgiven, if anyone didn't they weren't.
 It's not saying the disciples were placed in charge in forgiving people of their sins, read the verse in context and try to understand what Jesus was really saying. He breathed on them in verse 22, significant of Him giving them His spirit and then he gave them their ministry - to preach the gospel.


 There, this should shatter any misuse or misinterpretation of John 20:23

Catholics are following their tradition. . .which unfortunately doesn't always line up with the bible. They're in their own world. And it's sad too many of them do not even realize the fallacies and contradictions to the word of God Almighty that their church preaches and teaches.
Last yr the pope came out and said that "hell exists". . .as the previous popes had declared hell "was a state of mind", and not really a physical place. Maybe the next pope will change his mind too

I guess to catholics the word of the pope carries more weight than that of God himself. How sad.

Lol. . . this is a man who's had front row seats to "the way things are".

I could not agree more with this quote
Mr Phillips suggested that guilt over transatlantic slavery was behind Mr Obama’s support from middle class whites.
I think it's a lot true and that's how Mass Gov got elected, white guilt. But it might work out in our favor if Obama turns out to be a good president.

He added: "If he fulfils the hopes of whites, he must disappoint blacks – and vice versa."

That's true. Primarily becos both races/cultures have different expectations in a leader and Obama is bound to fail one grp. You cannot serve two masters who both want very different things.
I think him comparing Obama to Oprah and Cosby is spot on. I'll add Tiger Woods to that list. I've seen that black people support other black people that identify primarily with them, and these figures do not identify themselves primarily as black people.
and I actually applaud them for that. If we're going to get past racism thats the way to go, 1st stop identifying people primarily based on race.

KAG:
A strict literalist would be someone that interpretes every thing in the Bible literally.

okay, got ya.

I don't see how or why you've come to the conclusion that it's a wise approach solely by worldly standards. I suspect you arrived at that conclusion because of the source - meaning myself - of the argument. Rest assured, many Christian scholars and influences have tendered such views to.

I'm certainly not advocating we refuse ourselves all use of our mental faculties, no. Becos to understand the scriptures anyways you'll need to reason things out and make conclusions.
  I'm saying that however when our rational thinking and scientific reasoning put us in a position where the bible would appear to be inaccurate, then we need to toss out the window this "wise approach" because faith will need to take over at that point.

Then, it would seem we'd have to view God as deceptive and terrible being in that case.

Not at all KAG. It would mean instead to me that the explanation is simply beyond human understanding! that is was unsearchable, unknowable and beyond and the scope and reach of our current scientific methods - whether or not the science claims otherwise.

Doesn't that view advocate dearth of thinking and reasoning? How then can one be like the Bereans if one tramples all reason underfoot?

You know your bible!  talking 'bout them bereans.
    But no not at all it wouldn't be divorcing ourselves of all sensibility and rationality. No way. We're shown of incredible scholars and poets and doctors and soldiers and accountants in the bible that were christians and served God.
    We encouraged to think and reason and be wise and educate ourselves many times in the scriptures, but where we draw the line is questioning God and His word. We draw the line when our human reasoning contradicts or collides or is inconsistent with scripture - everything else is fair game.

why can't you atheists resist the urge and restrain yourselves for once?

The poster is asking a simple question directed at christians, pls if you have nothing to contribute get out! Yes it's a forum for different opinions but you're not christians and this thread is not for you!

ah ah na wetin dey worry all of you? *hissess*

@Jeseoul,

I'm sorry if I sound condescending. I did not mean to. I'm attending to these issues while working at the same time, so I do not get to peruse some of the things I write and so have a chance to delete what may be offensive. Please accept my sincere apologies.

no problemo. and I apologize if I was harsh too. Me sef I dey for work so I know how it is.

You have indeed quoted scriptures, but it don't mean they are appropriate for the situations you have tried to apply them. I refered to 2 of the scriptures you quoted and showed you that one does not refer to unbelievers and the other is actually a millenial scripture. But of course, many do not know that and so apply the scriptures wrongly.

You musta been kidding right? The unsaved will be judged for all their sins, those scriptures could not have said it any clearer!
Looking at the verses in Revelation alone:
Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

Revelation 20:13
The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.

Revelation 22:12
"Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.

Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

how can you look at these verses and still insist that God will not judge the unsaved for all their sins? there's nothing you can say that can change my mind (except you put up the scripture reference here). which you can't cos there's no scripture or hint in the bible that says what you're trying to assert.

John 16 Jesus says they world will be judged for not believing in Him, true. But it does not say that's the only sin God will judge them of! It is not a "general principle" like you're trying to assert, else that bible verse would be contradicting so many others. Can't you see that?

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=115214.msg1998151#msg1998151 date=1204043783]@Jesoul,

I'm not dodging. I do not have the time to start indoctrinating you. I have provided you with the principle that Jesus mentioned in John 16. It is up to you to use that understanding to interprete and properly divide the scriptures yu've mentioned.

For instance, you talk about the judgement seat of Christ. But you need to know that it is only the Beleivers who will be there. I have mentioned the separation of goat and sheep which is a reference to the millenia Kingdom even though many preachers use that passage wrongly.

So you see, it takes a lot to explain this passages, and I have no time or energy for that, at least for now. Maybe if this drags into the weekend, I'll attend to it.[/quote]hmm . . . much as I don't appreciate the condescending attitude, I'll leave it be. We christians should not be fighting each other but set an example for everyone else in these forums.

  You can say all you want about it takes time to explain this or that - but you are ignoring whats right in front of you! There's no other way to "interpret" those verses and you can say all you want and hold on to your preconceived notions that you cannot prove biblically, (you're hiding behind "not having time" the verses speak for themselves. Period. Don't bother to "attend to it" in the future, you've shown me you cannot simply and explicitly and succintly justify your claims. Remember? like the bible tells us to always be ready to give an answer for what we believe?

 And my hope is other christians reading this thread judge and decide for themselves based on the scriptures people have used to support their stance.

Kobe Bryant Or Lebron James ?

Depends. If you're talking right now, I go with Kobe. He's still the most explosive and dangerous player right now.
If you're talking long-term, I go Bronbron. You can build a championship franchise around him for many yrs. Kobe only has a handful of years of greatness left before he joins Shaq on the retirement block.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=115214.msg1998004#msg1998004 date=1204041867]@Jesoul,

I do not have the time to start walking through the scriptures to prove these basic isues with you, but in the mean time, kindly answer the following question.[/quote]Wow Tayo, I never took you for a dodger.
 I've quoted over 10 scriptures from all over the NT that teach us judgement will be on all sins and according to what men do, you're telling me to go and study acts

 You persist in quoting John 16, and concluding the unsaved will only be judged for not believing in Christ. I've given you 10 other scriptures that say otherwise, you're deliberately ignoring them. and asking more questions that those scriptures I quoted already answered?

 I'm dissappointed.

KAG:
I was trying to summarise a notion that I find thought-provoking: all of nature should also be taken as a testimony.

oh okay got you. You're quoting the bible without knowing it 

Rom1:18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Not necessarily. Several parts of the Bible are meant to be read as allegorical descriptions, rather than "as is" facts. It then becomes important to not assert that one must always be a strict literalist in ones reading of the Bible, as that - to get back to the point raised in my first post - is not only impossible, but also causes one to miss the import of those allegorical tales.

I think where I lose you is in your definition of a strict literalist. But I'll add that scripture leans on other scripture. Certain times you read one verse but it might only make sense after you've read another and lined things up.

I should make clear that it wouldn't be disbelieving the Bible; it would, instead, be, in my opinion, a wise approach to reading and interpretation of Judeo-Christian scriptures.

Yes indeed, it would be a "wise" approach - by worldly standards. And the bible teaches us that using worldly standards to understand spiritual things is impossible.

It's also not just about the explanation being more incredible than the event, it's the characterisation of the deity behind it as well. In fact, at this point, my argument isn't so much that miracles can't happen, but that it seems odd to suggest a literal reading of an event that, though miraculous, it's after effects of it were also miraculously removed.

I understand your point, and wish I had a better answer. But all I know is it happened and whether or not our current scientific methods can/can't prove it, don't matter.

I suspect that they do matter in their own way. In my opinion, the validation or falsification of any of those things may help to indicate or confirm how a particular part of the Bible should be read.

oh I'm not saying they don't matter, but that in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't stand as tall as the biggest issue of all - salvation.

I guess it depends on how you see faith. Either as Luther stated it, something that "must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding," or in Acquinas's sense, something that can "possibly be supported by reason." Or indeed some other subset of the two.

I'm with Luther on this 

Thank you for being cordial too.

you more welcome sir.

Tasma:
Well in a way JeSoul you have an answer to the post, your answer isn't very direct though. For you perhaps I should ask the question "Is Literal Bible Belief Necessary"?

Yes it is. Cos if you didn't believe in certain parts of the bible because you thot it was too incredible - that would be calling God a liar.

Ok now how about this view? That human beings simply don't know, we don't know how the earth came about, though we know bits of the process, we don't exactly how we came about, though we have concepts and scientific theories. We do however find the "need" to believe we understand our existence, so WE come up with religion. In our attempt to understand God and our existence WE write the bible. Now because our understanding is poor and continually growing the Bible we write is flawed and full of bits and pieces from various concepts of God. Unfortunately the Bible has been labelled the word of God and cannot now be changed (even though it may have been heavily edited in the past). What then happens is that as human knowledge makes certain parts of the Bible seem unrealistic (see Earth being flat or spherical) we need to keep coming up with new and more stretched explanations for Biblical stories.

If we accept the Bible and in fact other religious books as man's attempts to describe God, it is unnecessary to become bugged down with literal interpretations of the Bible and we can begin to study the purpose of religion. Consequently we may look for ways to achieve the objective of religion that will be more acceptable to people and will not have to deal with endless interreligious quarrel and strive.

Does this make any sense?

makes sense.
But I could not disagree more

It would be the easy way out to simply say the bible is too hard to understand and believe therefore it musta been a creation from our imagination.
But read it, the depth, the prophecies that came true, the history, the records that match with other historical documents, the power, the wisdom, the amazing events - it did not come from man, but God. You cannot read the bible and conclude it is a story book, save your eyes and mind had already been prejudiced to think that way.
  Again I return to faith and that "A lot of the times biblical events and principles can only be understood with the help of the holy spirit. and that for non-christians trying to understand the bible from a secular point of view will be very frustrating and unproductive"

some more scriptures telling us specifically God will judge all sins

1 Peter 1:17 And if you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each man's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay upon earth;

Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Tayo-D,

  you must not have even taken a look at all the scriptures I gave you to support that those that don't believe in Christ will be judged for ALL THEY DO! all their sins, whether its the stealing, the lying, the refusal to accept Christ etc. ALL THEIR SINS!!!

   [quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=115214.msg1997523#msg1997523 date=1204036851]@Jesoul,
It is actually at the heart of the topic becuase the issues I find that most people have with these preachers is that they do not preach the fire and brimstone messages that we used to hear from the MOG's of old.[/quote]oh the same fire and brimstone message Jesus preached on right?
are these preachers suddenly more better, knowledgeable, spiritual than Jesus himself? or Paul or any of the apostles who spoke so much on sin? Can't you see that the "feel-good" message of today is a drastic deviation from the gospel we see in the NT?

But the question we need to ask ourselves is this: "Is fornication, stealing, adultery and any such sins what will condemn the unbelievers to hell? Is God angry with them becuase of these sins? My unequivocal answer is No.

please when you make such audacious claims like these, back them up with the relevant scripture. or else refrain.

But what law is God holding the unbels to? John 16 is very clear that the only sin God will require of unbels is whether they believe in Christ or not.

You're quoting only John 16, and delibrately forgetting the other scriptures that teach us each person will be judged/rewarded according to everything that he does! (See below for those scriptures) You cannot quote one part of the bible and ignore others that contradict your conclusion!

That is where you are wrong. The unbels will only be judged based on what they did with Christ.

Scripture reference please.
  Cos what you're saying is that every sin committed by the unsaved will go unpunished save the one that they didn't believe in Jesus? Do you even realize that would be calling God unjust?

  I have quoted several that tell us EVERYONE will be judged according to what they do, that God will judge for ALL sins committed against Him.

2 Cor. 5:10, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad."

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

Revelation 2:23
I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

Revelation 20:13
The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.

Revelation 22:12
"Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.
 

No unbeliever will be rewarded for anything even if they are as "righteous" as Mother Theresa.

It is not in dispute unbelievers will not be receiving any rewards because their righteousness is not based on Christ.

You need to look at those scriptures again, and you'll find that rewards are only meant for those who have come to believe in Christ. We are the once that God will reward based on our faithfulness or otherwise. There is absolutely no hope for those who do not die in Christ to receive any blessings.

I don't think I made any claims to the contrary.

However there will be different levels to the severity of the punishment each receives. Worse sinners will get worse punishment
Lk 12:47
And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few
 
  And what again does all this have to do with the topic?
  These men are not preaching a gospel like we see in the NT - bottomline. and hence it is a false gospel and must be condemned!

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=115214.msg1997226#msg1997226 date=1204033469]@Jesoul,
My question to you Jesoul. What sin are we talking about here?[/quote]Sin is the breaking of God's law. Period. Sin is the stealing, lying, immorality, fornication, blasphemy etc.

What does this have to do with the topic?

I skimmed thru a little bit of your posts about it above but I think you're totally going off point. You're saying the sin men will be convicted of sin becos they haven't believed in Jesus (John 16).
Those that are not saved will be judged according to ALL they've done, not just that they didn't believe in Jesus! That is one sin among many.

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

Lk 12:47
And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few

Revelation 2:23
I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

Revelation 20:13
The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.

Revelation 22:12
"Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.

I expected so much more from some nairaland christians, and I'm really saddened by some responses. . . how can anyone, anyone not see thru the lies and facade of these so-called ministers? Has the church now become so blind? so deaf? can't you see the scriptures are being fulfilled before our very eyes?

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear

I'll repeat the gospel is about sin and salvation - nothing else!!!!
If a preacher is not preaching about sin and salvation he is preaching a false gospel! How hard is this to understand? the scriptures teach this so so many times! The gospel is not about giving you a good life, or being financially stable or your best life now! that is rubbish. how blind have christians become? and fallen for these wolves in sheeps clothing?
Indeed the very elect are being deceived.

KAG:
To paraphrase a profound notion, nature - the Earth, the Universe and basically every empirically testable thing - is God's word too.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here.

then it's more than likely that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. To simply state that you believe your interpretation of the Bible whether the evidence suggests otherwise, is tantamount to Biblidolatry.

You're not getting the point KAG. I'm not saying I believe my interpretation of the bible, I'm saying I believe the bible! 2 different things. My interpretation might be wrong sometimes becos I'm human just like everyone else, but that doesn't nullify the truth that the scriptures explicitly state. If the bible says this is what happened, then that is what happened. Period.
For example is says Judas hung, it also says he fell and his bowels split. I don't care how it happened or for my interpretation of how it happened but I believe and accept that it happened!
Get it?

The forces needed to make the feat occur would be noticeable in many, many parts on Earth. none exist.

In your opinion! yes it is your opinion!
Like I said this ground has been covered so many times, there are many proponents and opponents of numerous theories, each person will believe which theory they want. I don't see any use in repitition as I have nuthin new revelation to add to the already exsiting ones.

Look like I said you're still trying to look at these events from a scientific and rational point of view when the very purpose and definition of a miracle or supernatural event is that it defies explanation! I know you're saying the explanation should not be more incredible than the miracle itself but hey Christians don't need explanation and proof - that's where we differ. I could care less how or whether in the first place humans evolved or how the flood occured or if there's evidence of it beneath glaciers or if Nasa can/can't prove we're missing a day - becos all these matters very little.

Tasma summarized it very well here:

I said a lot of the Biblical stories don't seem credible and you are saying that they simply must be accepted as they are. That one must apply enough faith to nollify the need for any critical, scientific analysis of any Biblical story

and that's really what it all comes down to - faith.

btw. thanks for being a gentleman in discussion, most other atheists here are verbally violent and unreasonable, dishonest and resort to insulting christianity. But not so you from what I've seen. Keep it up!