₦airaland Forum

Redlyn:
Nah thanks, I'll pass. You see, I am unable to accept the concept of salvation as it means I must accept that some will find damnation. And being the nice person I am, I infinitely prefer the idea that we all cease to exist in any form when we die on earth. It appears I am more merciful than the christian god

You're like a fantastical child. You don't want to believe that some would choose damnation over salvation because of sins deception. Abandon your childish ideals and face reality and get saved. Than you can convince as many as possible to choose salvation over damnation.

plaetton:
Epic.

So doing good is not good enough because no matter how good you are, you are still bad?

What a very horrible, very sad philosophical framework.

I do not envy you, josh.
You have just given me a reason why I must rant.

Don't be foolish. Go to a court of law when you've been found guilty of embezzlement or murder or rape. Would they discharge you because you've had no record of wrong before? No. You'll be punished according to the law.

God is then righteous Judge. And look at yourself, guilty of wrong doing and depravities since you were little, till now. If any one goes to Gods court, they'd be condemned, especially yourself. That's why you need his mercy band grace. And he has made grace and mercy possible inspire of his righteousness, through the man, Jesus Christ.

I hope you arent going senile sir, because that sounds genius to me. Its more than philosophy. Try eastern mysticism if you want any "massaging" philosophy behind traditional practices. We deal with the real deal.

While people like me and plaetton were foolishly fighting God. The big one. While we were depraved in our hearts and minds, while we yet sinners, Christ died for us. All Gods idea. Believe him now.

plaetton:
And by the way, a joke is joke, an accusation is an accusation.
That is something that you and your alterego Lastmessenger should learn.

I am still waiting for your apologies.

now he accuses me of being someone else.

plaetton:
Yes.
Boko haram and alqueda are not just reactionary actors.
It is a pattern and chain of thought that every judeo-christian adherent shares.

You, josh, for good example, have often justified the genocidal actions of yahweh with one rationalization or another.
In that way, what makes you different from boko haram.?
I am sure you massacre atheists in your dreams everyday.

If the same joke was played on you I'm very sure you'd be offended. You compare me to terrorists now eh?

plaetton:
Oh really, josh?

So then, a lot of good morally upright and compassionate atheists will make heaven, ahead of a lot hypocritical Christians.
Can you agree with this, or will you contradict your own words, as you normally do?

doing good doesn't get you to heaven. Because you still do bad. Imperfection is in all of us. But God has a remedy through his mercy...I'm sure you know the rest of the story

plaetton:
You still don't get it sir.
I keep reminding that this is the religious section. There are no written rules for discourse. We are not here to present academic papers and peer reviewable materials.

Can you engage boko haram or alqueda in rational discussion about their worlviews?
I bet not.
I see every Abrahamic religious person as a potential boko haram, even if it doesn't involve violent tendecies.

Where you live, the religious beliefs of your neighbor is not a burden and threat to your well being and life.
Here in Nigeria, it is.
I don't need academic papers to fight back.

Quite unfortunate.

Redlyn:
That article is just rife with the typical brainwashed myopic view of a limited "christian".

That article judges a person who has committed no crime, no evil, no wrong except to demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims with words like "arrogant", "fool", "rebellious", "immoral", "corrupt", "abominable", "hopeless" etc etc and then claim to be a "christian".

This is precisely why religion is poison and I will keep me and mine clear away from it.

Good for you. Keep away from religion. But finds Gods love and salvation while you're at it. Don't confuse one for another.

dalaman:
This is the only way religion thrives by condemning and demonizing those who do not believe. An honest and good hindu, muslim, taosit etc can never be considered good in the eyes of the christian, same was a good an honest and good Jew can never be considered good in the eyes of a muslim. You can only be good in the real sense of the word when you accept their religious position else deep down you are deserving of punishment for your unbelief, unbelief in mythical stories that have no evidence to support them.

Nope. Its not unbelief that brings condemnation. You've got it all wrong.

People are already condemned because of the wrong things they do. Wrong doing brings condemnation, not wrong believing.

davien:
Whoa someone subscribed to too much "answersingenesis"
Science is entirely objective,religion isn't....it doesn't matter if science were nurtured by Arabs,jews,christians etc...
And it says nothing about unfalsifiable beings like unicorns,fairies etc
Although its findings goes against various mythologies...for example hindu mythology states the earth is on the back of a giant turtle....we've falsified this completely by circumnavigation and apparent images of the earth from space...
Just the same way it goes against 6,000 year old creation myths..
I really don't know what to say about this....to sum it up in two words.. fractal wrongness

please state how sciences gives false credence to any biblical issue.

Don't worry. I don't need Answersingenesis to see through the delusion that holds you captive.

Science is entirely objective. But unfortunately you're deceiving yourself if you think science backs you up in your anti-Godism

LucemFerre:
I said that? *Sigh* Now, ad hominems... Who are these people? Can someone who understands english comment please?

Yes you did. I made it bold specifically so you could notice.

And I have not resorted to any personal attacks. you're the one who started with cussing and name calling actually. In the end, your questions were just silly.

davien:
now you're sounding like ken ham.....
Science is by definition methodological naturalism....

yes. But you brand your anti-religious anti-God and basically anti-Christian dogma and nihilistic worldview as science or science based. That, my good man, is very wrong, deceiving and manipulative. Most people now think that science favours atheism and it's minions. A lie of course. They forget that the very masters of old who laid the foundation for the scientific method were godly men. They forget that there are scientists even now, who are godly men.

These anti-Godists carry their evil agenda and seek to deceive people like you by pretending that their views are supported by science. A lie. A foolish and blatant lie. The truth is that these people don't have any answers. They only seek to remove God from the mix by declaring that science is against him, or declaring that science implies a creator does not exist.

davien:
Joshthefirst its been a while...have you had the chance to go to a desert and observe sand dunes?...They look very orderly and yet no intelligence stacked them up(unless you term "wind" an intelligence) and then look at diamonds....they appear pretty orderly at first glance...but pick up a microscope to observe them it looks chaotic(infact this method is used to verify the authenticity of rubies and diamonds,a genuine diamond is internally chaotic)...
And does it matter who wrote the article?...would he be automatically wrong on everything he says,simply because he's(to you) "an evolutionist"
You're absolutely free to believe there's a magical "bob the builder" or genie,I'll totally support that.
But when you try to stop scientific progress or shove it into the public,simply because you're too insecure towards your beliefs,then we have a problem...

Is this what creationism drives you towards, rejection of science simply because it's secular?

no. This is what secular evolutionist fundamentalism drives you towards. The redefinition of science to your benefit. hijacking of the word science to fit your own set of ideals and foolish boundaries. You are the one who rejects scientific data and findings that disturb you or point to a creator

johnydon22:
That period he was acting before creating "time" as you allegedly said, Is still time itself

no. There was no "period". There was only infinity. You guys should think things through before putting up lame rebuttals.

before time, there was God, infinite in every way. He declared a beginning, and he has declared an end. He is the author.

LucemFerre:
What the fu<|< is wrong with you theists? Faith is understandable but, not synonymous with dumbness, stupidity or schizophrenia. By faith, God exists, but declaring God (by faith) out of space and time is a serious lame move.
For example: If God created time, who or what created the time (interval) between when God did not create time and when God did? If God created space, where was it (God) before it did? Why can't you people think for once in your delusional life? You can believe in whatever the hell you want to believe in but, AT-fu<|<ing-LEAST be realistic and reasonable. If you can't... then shut the fu<|< up and keep going to church and reading Bible and let us think for fu<|<'s sakes.

Faith is a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. And that was just one google away. If you can't think, read. Wtff

What makes the concept of God any less made up than jack frost, or bogeyman, or the tooth fairy?

Faith means not wanting to know what is true.

--Friedrich Nietzsche

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

--Philip K. Dick

And lastly and more importantly,

No amount of belief makes something a fact.

--James Randi

You should learn civility. you're painting the picture of an angry anti-religious fundamentalist man. Calm down. I wonder what God did to make you his enemy?

How can there be a time interval before time? Your anger has blinded you and made you think foolishly. and you call others delusional?

Before "space"(note the parenthesis closely), there was only God. Infinite by himself and for himself, the all-powerful creator.

Edited*

davien:
This is why one needs to comprehend something before replying....why we say the universe is flat is because any given line drawn from points(a,b, and c) in space stay parallel(plus the mathematical derived geometry from the nature of the cosmic microwave background)
And why I said space expands into itself is because it's in a 4-dimensional plane and hence just expands(carrying everything along with it)......although my answer is just how I understand it....the scholarly answer is that your question does not apply to 4-dimensional expanding space..

Space expands into itself? Nawa o

timonski:
from from post, it seems your god exists in another timeline-there the time works differently from our time. That would mean your god is still bound by the space-time continuum of that timeline.
This would lead to an infinite regression of timelines and their creators

This is more nonsense than I can describe. How you got this conclusion from his post beats me. It clearly states there that God does not exist in any timeline. He was acting before time. He created it. Simple.

davien:
This is very true....everything complex that we see were shaped by 4 simple forces(gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong forces)

this article is also based on the assumptions of evolution and that an arrangement of particles of matter dubs life. It is based on the assumption that life is primitive and can be achieved by a mere assortment of random processes. It is based on the assumption that eons of time have passed for life itself to "evolve". This author of this thread also assumes that intelligence is a function of order, whereas it is ordinary self-proclaimed usual logical reasoning that order is a function of intelligence.


Above all, this article, and all its idiot.ic assumptions is geared against God, the creator. The people behind this have always had one agenda, and that is to remove God from the mix and thereby eradicate relationship with him. It is clearly stated therein:

plaetton: Well, now , we are getting scientifically deduceable theories that yes indeed, the universe is capable of spawning life all on it's own, no god required...

These guys and the foolish others who follow them blindly make stupiid assumptions of their own, and go about pushing with all their might making "theories" and seeking evidence to purport their own worldview of godlessness and futility. Persecuting others who hold on to other views(like labelling them as cults) and receiving the masses by labelling their views as "Science"(quite horrible).

Yes. Those who subscribe to this nonsense are of suppurative minds while those who do not are mindless religious minions. I laugh.

Sunymoore:
Going by this logic, I think men would have made the same mistake during the writing of the 'inspired' Bible. Don't you think so?

as said before, these mistakes are mostly insignificant issues of grammar errors and mild typos, none of which will affect the veracity and reliability of the messages themselves. Don't draw us backward please.

jayriginal:
Damn!

thought you didn't read my posts anymore?

I'm really sorry I missed this argument AIO.

Image has done enough justice though.

Mark my words carefully please so you don't run off misunderstanding anything.

The bible isn't JUST a historical document, The bible isn't JUST a scientific document(it's more than those things). But it contains reliable historical and scientific data from the hands of many witnesses, and it is an accurate record of the original texts that left the hands of the original writers. More accurate than any other ancient text in the world.

click here and here for some mild references.

bringing up petty word plays like "whether it was written by God himself or not" seems like you're deliberately trying to misunderstand the simple issue that the bible is God-inspired but was penned by men.

Your statement of contradictions is also dwarfed by the fact that archaeology has confirmed events, people and places of the bible well enough as I have said before.

The minor grammatical errors and typos are due to the human factor.(The differences themselves are insignificant as image has pointed out) and they cannot change the foundation of the scriptures veracity. let us stop playing over the same issues and move on.

mmsen:
There are billions of people on this planet who are raised without any knowledge of Jesus.

Many of them turn out wonderfully.

The less mysticism that you fill a child's head with the better.

It's odd to grow up realizing that your parents force fed you a fairy tale. Sad even that said fairy tale could tear a family apart should one or all of the children choose to ask the hard questions about religious 'faith'.

That depends on your definition of wonderful. Raising a child without teaching him about Jesus is not wonderful upbringing to me. Sorry.


I have said enough about my faith and my children. You never said your thread was about comparison now did you?

PastorAIO:
How do you know that they died later on? Please provide sources. Unless you are guessing or presuming based on your preconception.

It was a simple assumption to make things clear you you. But it now seems obvious you would prefer to remain confused on the issue. Oh well.

frosbel:
Read the scripture again and then again.

Let me try , even though you refused to answer the other questions I posed.

In v52, they were 'raised out of their tombs ' after the death of Jesus
In v53 , they 'came out of their tombs' after the resurrection of Jesus.

First off , I hope you know what RAISED means , they were raised from their Death, meaning to resurrect , except of course you want to dogmatically and dishonestly twist this scripture.

Secondly , I repeat my question, did they come out of their tombs in v52 or v53 ?

Please ; stick to facts not subjective and defensive actions. I also trust that as a ' christian ' you will be honest with your feedback.

Thanks.

you are the one deliberately trying to dogmatically twist scripture to satisfy your notion of contradiction. Verse 52 clearly states that they were raised, then verse 53 clearly states that they came out of their tombs after His resurrection.

Obviously Jesus was the first to come out of his grave. Alive with a resurrected body.

PastorAIO:
What evidence has he presented? Can you explain it to me in layman terms, in your own words? I suspect that you don't even understand what he presents but you've accepted it because you are not prepared to think on this issue...

And you are wrong. Very wrong. In layman's terms, he discovered evidences of two major earthquakes in the region of the dead sea. The second earthquake was dated around the time of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ under Pontius Pilate as the bible rightly records. That should be enough for you.
Thank you for insulting my intelligence because of your preconception of narrow-mindedness and dogmatism on my part.

I might choose to return the favor by asking you if you really understand what all the "mainstream" geologists and archaeologists have really found wanting about the biblical records. Maybe you don't understand them at all. Maybe you just accept their claims because they're simply main stream and massage your point of view?

PastorAIO: His method has been criticised by other scientists and I'm yet to see a peer reviewed appraisal of his work. Showing me that some 'research' was submitted to the GSA is no proof. Show me the work that was accepted and acclaimed by other geologists and you'll have my attention.

Nonsense. So it is only when your own convenient authority approves his work that you will accept it as genuine? That is hypocrisy pastor.

How do you even expect them to approve or even put an eye to his work when his school of thought is being persecuted by the mainstream thinkers and their supporters such as yourself? As far as there is no substantial challenge to the very publicized paper, it stands.

And this is just one case you brought up. What about the darkness that was recorded? What about the various cities listed in Luke that have been historically confirmed?

You think uprooting one issue that nothing has been said about will negate the others?

@ Frosbel: The tombs opened in verse 52. I see no record of the tomb opening in verse 53. So your much ranting was for nothing.

And the bible has the historical data we need. We do not need it to be confirmed, but indeed much of its events have been confirmed already.

Should we take the prescence of many historical legends of a flood to assume that there was indeed a global flood? Since it has been confirmed by many civilizations and sources?

Also, as common sense points out, the resurrection of the saviour was the "in thing".



Trying to insult his credentials or downplay his school of thought doesn't negate the evidence he has presented.

PastorAIO:
They appeared to many. That is enough to cause commotion, I think.
And furthermore the verse 52 of that chapter of Matthew said that they were raised on that day. Whether they only came out of the tombs after Jesus was risen or not is besides the point. They had already risen. Before Jesus. Like Lazarus. Before Jesus. Like the Shunammite Widow's son. Before Jesus.

I believe the raising of Lazarus and the widows son wasn't a final event. As they died later on. Resurrection implies an event where one is raised never to die again.

mmsen:
It makes perfect sense if you observe the behaviour within such families.

what? I meant that giving my child good welfare and real love is one of the highest advances of what I believe in. Looking at the behaviours of families who act on what they believe as I do will be looking at godly homes where children are brought up in an environment of peace and love for one another and for Jesus.

mmsen:
What 'truth' do you speak of? Is it not a 'faith' that you follow?

Of course. Faith in the truth. I have faith in the truth.

PastorAIO:
The one wey surprise me pass na say dead bodi go enter town...

I take it you know of course that the weren't "dead bodi" and they didn't appear to the whole town publicly. They appeared to a select.

But that is besides the point. The main occasion in that day was the resurrected Christ, not these others. Goodnight Sir.

PastorAIO:
Kindly present the evidence. Thanks.

Click here then.

frosbel:
And ;
If these people did indeed rise from their tombs it means that Jesus was not the firstborn from the dead or the first to resurrect fully , since at the time these people resurrected , Jesus was dead.
Also there are no historical facts to backup this event, not even by a historian who was also a contemporary of Jesus by the name of Josephus Flavius , he did not mention this event and neither did any of the Roman historians of that age.
We need raw facts not assumptions and hearsay .

Sorry to burst your bubble but the very passage indicated that they didn't come out of their tombs until after Christ's resurrection. Frosbel loses to the authenticity of the written word of God.

And the fact that they appeared to many is still a written fact in the bible. And once is enough. Dont you think so? You see the resurrection of THE CHRIST and the salvation he was offering was the talk of the day.That was the sound news dear PASTOR AIO. These guys' resurrection was even as a result of it.

We already have the book of history, the bible, with passages written by eyewitnesses of these accounts. With historical data that has proven to be very reliable. That is enough.

Ishilove:
Please speak for yourself. Our hair textures are different. Combing through my mane, for example is like trying to comb through grass made out of cold fufu. You need to be well fed to successfully comb it. 'Ishon' tinz. It is very thick and very coarse and just sheer torture. I have headaches after combing it, so the best is to use a relaxer so soften the blessed thing.

If you don't feel comfortable with a relaxer then I suggest you use a texturiser. It softens your hair without damaging it like relaxers, but the drawback is in a matter of weeks, three at the most, it reverts to its kinky state and the hair becomes harder than ever.

As for the rest of you men spewing bullshit on this thread, y'all can shove your opinions up you unkempt assses because, as Idowuogbo succintly put it, "your opinions matter not." You are men so you can NEVER understand what women go through in trying to maintain natural hair.

Even in days of yore, our ancestors put hot fat in their hair to tease it out and soften it, and even till date Wolof and Fulani women still practice this. Now that in contemporary times we have the luxury of relaxers instead of hot animal fat, what gives you men the right to point fingers and accuse women who fix weaves and relax their hair of having inferiority complex?

Inferiority complex my African asss. Utter bullshit. As Caracta wisely opined, anybody who is dissatisfied with the state of our women's hair, be it natural or 'unnatural', can go take a dive into the murkier parts of the Bermuda Triangle. Rawbish.

Lol. Happy new year Ishilove.

PastorAIO:
For example, what is your historical evidence or corroboration that the following happened:

…52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. 54Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!"…

Matthew 27

There is geological evidence for an earthquake that occurred during the time constraints of the reign of Pontius Pilate, corresponding with the time of the crucifixion of Christ. A simple Google search will show you.

As for the resurrection appearances, I have not looked them up before.

PastorAIO:
The Audio is not just of any mere man, but of Bart Ehrmann, who is one of the world's leading scholar on NT textual criticism and what he does in the audio if you listen carefully is claim that his statement that the gospels are not historically accurate is not a quirk of his but a widely held opinion amongst biblical scholars in all the top leading academic institutions in the US. Many of the scholars are themselves christians.

Now if you want to dismiss the claim of the world's leading scholars without even considering why they conclude that the gospels are not historical then that is totally up to you. But I believe that the reasonable thing to do is to at least consider their arguments and do some research yourself.

I have done research. Balanced research mind you, not one-sided googling of videos and choking on spicy posts from sites like rational wiki that feed my point of view. And I still consider research and findings. But I have enough, more than enough reason to believe the bible is historically accurate, and that the bible, especially the new testament, is basically one of the most historically and archaeologically accurate books known to man.

I have read about "locational data" confirmed factually. I have considered things very carefully.

I have also based spiritual identity on these truths and have had them confirmed by God.

People will always keep fighting the truth as usual. Like Ehrmann who states we should not use biblical doctrine for our judgements and relationship with others.

frosbel:
Mate, calm down , stop this emotionalism.

Don't rush to attack anything out there that you think is an insult to your faith. We are not dealing with faith here but historical facts, anyone who argues with the opening points is either not aware of these facts or living in a state of denial.

You accused me of quoting Wiki, okay here is another one to digest ;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu0BIKwcKBo

and you post an audio of a man denying the bibles historicity as proof that the bible has no historical basis? Hilarious.

This isn't about sentiment mind you.

lepasharon:
Yes I have checked out the origin and the history. Each book in the bible even has its own history and compilation history. What pathetic tales are you talking about? Are you a christian?

I'm talking about pathetic tales like the one our friend frosbel pasted here from rational wiki. Lies meant to deceive people and instill doubt.

johnydon22:
lmao speaking of archeological facts u will be bewildered when u find out 80% of the bible stories are untrue and jewish myths...hehehehehe

Nonsense. They have archaeological and historical evidences. Especially those of the new testament.

You are ill-informed.