₦airaland Forum

@seeklove
I purposely had kept quiet, while observing the transaction between you and m-nwankwo, because sometimes when somebody is seeking clarification on a particular issue, he/she is better left to one voice. Many voices sometimes do more harm than good. Since m-nwankwo's replies are in accord with the WILL OF GOD, my additions would have also been the same but only expressed in different words, that's why I left you alone with him. Sometimes hearing different voices, different expression, and different people serve only to confuse even if the theme of their advices are the same.
I would have offered you my opinion if it were different from m_nwankwo's but since it isn't, I felt that in this particular case, offering it might only confuse you further since it will be clothed in different words. Also, I didn't want you and your friend to feel that you are surrounded by a bunch self-righteous people telling you what to do. I have had an experience with a pregnant woman who approached a friend for advice. This friend adviced her to keep the baby and she was yielding to his advice but when so many people got involved and telling her the same thing. She felt judged and accused, she got upset and felt they all a bunch of self righteous hypocrites trying to control. She ended up aborting the baby just show them that they don't control her.
I am happy that your friend had decided to let the woman have the embryos, This is the right discion. This decision is tantamount to leaving the situation in the hands of God. If the woman deserves the kids, she will use the embryos successfully; however, if she doesn't, then once again the procedure will not work as it didn't the first time she tried with your friend. Either way your friend should be grateful to God who in his love and justice gives us what we deserve.
My heart and prayers go out to you and your friend. Thanks for being there for him, and keep watching out for him.

@m-nwankwo
thanks for being there for a brother in need.

@seeklove
The issue you raised and your friends situation requires a detailed reply and explanation. Such reply I cannot give today, but be assured that as soon as I can I will return.
Expect my opinion soon, at the moment I am preparing myself, weighing and examining the issues you raised(including m_nwankwo's replies). I intend to give you the answer when I'm done weighing and examining the issue.
Sorry about my delay but I do not want to tell you what I am not sure of.

4 Him:
This is the problem with your simplification . . . taking "have none other God's but me" without the CAREFULLY ELABORATED EXPLANATION is a subtle way of making that commandment open to several false interpretations.

I see your point but that is not enough reason to labell the elaboration a commandment. They are numbered, summarized by their main points or their themes. If somebody lets himself be lead astray by the summarization, then that is the person fault. Still that doesn't mean that " thou shalt no make image , " is the second commandment, it reamins an elaboration of the first commandment. If somebody feels that the summarization is open to false interpretations, then he should read the Scriptures where it is fully elaborated. But for the sake of memory, it is nessecary that the commandments are summarized and numbered, otherwise they will be hard to memorize.

4 Him:
Everything written in the word of God is for a specific purpose and not merely as an elaboration of another.

If this is the case then why don't you add, "And God spake all these words, saying," as the first commandment.  You cannot because it is not a commandment but rather and narrative stating that God spoke to Moses. You cant labell everything a commandment just because it is written in the Bible. Actually as you mature spiritually, you will come to the realizations that the ten commandments are actually two commandments. (1) Love God with all your might, and (2) Love your neighbor as yourself. On this I can elaborate further.

4 Him:
This clearly makes the worship of statues of Mary, the veneration of dead "saints" andthe worship of the crucifix unbiblical. It would also be clear to those who are not spiritually blind that to make any mortal man VICARIUS FILLI DEI (the likeness of Christ on earth) is blasphemy. You would never be able to understand this if you simply looked at "have none other God's but me".

Here you are right. Mary worship, the veneration of the dead and the worship of the crucifix is wrong. But the Protestants have not fared better than the catholics in this either. The protestant pastors call themselves "Gods anointed." They label everything they do with, "In the name of the Lord/Jesus" even when they are lying or not sure of what they are saying. Going to pastoral school, learning how to preach and being anointed by a church(all of which are man made) does not make anybody "Gods anointed." They should rather call themselves "self anointed." Who gave them the right to call thier Churches(which are nothing but business) names like "Christ's embassy, Church of God, Church of Jesus, and etc" All the above names are blashpemous and against the second commandment: Thou shalt not use the NAME of thy LORD in vain.

I do not write in defence of Catholicism or any religion.
I write in defence of the Truth.
Here is how the commandments appears in the Bible:

1 And God spake all these words, saying,

2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

If you read this carefully, you will notice that everything on red has one theme, which is "Have none other Gods but me."
Making images and worshiping them is the same as having another God. Therefore, the expression:
" Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
is only a continuation or an elaboration of the first commandment. It is still the first commandment, since it forbids worshiping another God ie an image. The elaboration tells us that having images(sculptures, status, pictures.) of earthly things is wrong when we bow down and worship them or take them to represent God or heavenly things. Other than this, it not wrong to have images as long as the images are not worshiped. Thats why the commandment is elaborated further with:"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"


Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
This is a completely different idea and not part of the first one. Therefore, this is the second commandment.
The second commandment is not, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."


The first commandment is:

1.) I am the LORD thy God! Thou shalt have no other gods but Me!

The second commandment is:

2.) Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.

There is no omition here, only a summarization.


Cgift please read deeper into things. That said, I dont agree with the precepts of catholism but in this case the catholics are not wrong.

The ignorance in this thread is appalling. Even a child can see that Cgift and 4Him are only driven by hatrad. With every post, 4Him exposes ignorance. I cant believe that somebody in this day and age can be that ignorant.

Earlier in this thread, I made mention of the fact that the Bible was collected and complied by the Catholics. Can you believe that 4Him's reply was: "King James was not a Catholic.
Please what has King James who addicted an already existing Bible, got to do whit the collection and compilation of the Bible. The guy is terribly ignorant thats why I chose not to address him any more.

@imhotep
I agree with you in many things. One thing is certain, you know you're history. Your analogy about the protestants rejecting Catholicism yet accepting the Bible is flawless.  The Bible primarily remains a book of the catholics.

I am not a catholic but I am against injustice of any kind. Let the Truth be said: Protestants are not better than Catholics.

4 Him:
@ justcool, you're more than confused about the bible you purport to know.

@4 Him
I never "purported" to know the Bible. Thanks for labelling me: "confused," my dear brother I have forgiven you. But rest assured we will receive the treatment we give others (what you sow, you must reap). You have sown a seed today by labelling me confused and attributing something that I never claimed to me.
May God bless you.

@4 Him
I don't need to reply your post. I completely stand by my first post with no reservation.

For those who might not understand my first post. Let me summarise.
I am not a catholic neither do I belong to ant religion. I am of the opinion that no religion today stand completely in the WILL OF GOD. Neither God nor Jesus started any religion therefore all religions today are completely man made.
No religion has the right to criticise, dislabel, ridicule, and condemn the other since they are all man made.
There has been too much religious battles on this forum and this has to stop.
We should be able to examine our faiths, share it with others and examine others too all in a civilized manner without condescending to religious battles. There is no need calling Mohamed a paedophile or labelling Jesus or the pope a devil just because we don't agree with them. These icons represent something so important to our fellow humans therefore it will only be wise and civilised of us to offer such icons respects, or at least give them the benefit of doubt.
You have the right to agree to certain precepts of any religion and also you have the right to reject it. But attacking religions and deciding who will go to hell or not and which religion is of God or not is completely uncivilised. And nothing good can be learnt from such attacks. Such attacks are not of God.

The issue is "Pope Is 'Deeply Ashamed' Of Pedophile Priests" we should be able to discus this issue without insulting Catholicism and sending them to hell, or dislabelling them as Christains. None of us is GOD. Only God knows who is of him and who is not. There is nothing in this thread yet that warrants the hatrade unleashed on catholics by "Cgift"

cgift:
MC Usman et al, you guys are new to this forum i believe and i wont nail you for that. Pilgrim and others have duely confined catholicsm to where they belong. It is public knowledge that they don't belong to Christ. Revel in your ignorance till tomorrow chanting jihad songs, it does not change the facts that Catholics are not for Christ especially at the core center; the Vatican. Facts have these because they do things that are actually anti-christ in nature. So please in your wildest imaginations and in a bid to have a good discourse of real christiantiy, just desist from referring to them as Christians. Forget the claims of they are the mothers of christianity and others, the gospel truth is that they don't preach and do the sayings of Christ.

Seeing therefore the lamentation of the pope does not move my feather in anyway. We have always known this but unfortunately, the adamant will always think catholicism stand for good. No. They stand for inherent evil. Catholicism is like a leviathan that cannot change its skin. It may pretend, but beware, when the time is right, its true self will emerge and catch you unprepared.

We have taken time to confine most of their doctrines, teachings and Catholicism to the dustbins of history. Go figure out! So, dear mu'slim friends, raise your level of thinking and conception of Christianity. No Christian will ever defend the pope or try and make any sense out of this story you have up there. Its only the catholics that will defend themselves and in vanity at that.

Bottom line: the call to priesthood as ordered by the authorities of RCC is not divine. It is aimed at something entirely different which some of the priests themselves do not even know! Their priests are called Christs and creators of Jesus especially at mass - the same reasons why they burned people at stake and exhumed unborn babies from their mothers for not consenting to their demonic doctrine of the sacrament. And since their call is not divine but human inspired, they are still highly susceptible and often fall into such temptations since they have no grace backing their priesthood. Let me even give you a shocker: Do you know that St. Alphonsus, their reverred author and a canonised priest wrote that a priest is allowed to fall into sin (sexual) twice or thrice a month and so long as it is not more than this, he is still very much a priest that he is! Now tell me, if you legitimise sin or fornication for your priests, why don't you just given them the go ahead to marry instead? This tells you there is more than just celibacy to the priesthood system in the RCC. I wish you could read in between the lines.

For me, Catholcism is not materially different from I'slam. They can both co-habit as they share many things in common. So, if i were you mu'slims, i will be defending the pope and not exposing him. Have you forgotten the pope once kissed youor Qo'ran? oh o o

@cgift
You are full of hatred. At a the slightest oppunity you start hating catholics your fellow Christians. Why do you guys do that? Is it jealousy? I am not a catholic and yes I am a Christian(Although not belonging to any religion) but I have to say this to you.
1.) Catholicism is the only organised Christian religion.
2.) Catholicism is the only Christian religion that every world power respect.
3.) Catholicism is the oldest surviving Christian religion.
4.) Every other Christian religion today descended or branched out of Catholicism.
5.) The Bible is actually belonging to no other but the catholics-- it was the early fathers that collected the books and kept it within church, only for the priest to read and interpret until Martin Luther and Henry the eight branched out and made the book public.
5.) Most of the major beliefs held today by other Christians were discovered and introduced by the catholics. - IE the concept of Trinity.

I am not here to defend Catholicism, but I am tired of people hating people who are as guilty as them. No religion today stands in the will of God, therefore none has the right to chastise the other like you do. The so called born again Christians( I used to be one) are no better than the catholics, neither are the deeper life nor the Jehovah witnesses.
One thing is certain, all you mushroom Christians should be tankful for the catholics because of the following reasons:
1.) If Catholicism never existed, your religion may not be here today since you descended from the catholics.
2.) If not for the catholics, the Mus'lims would have wiped Christianity off the face of the earth. Remember the crusaders and how they dealt with the Mus'lims.
3.) Catholicism is the only Christian religion that dares openly oppose Is'lamic killing. From the time of the crusaders till now, the Mus'lims fear and respect Catholicism.

I agree that Catholicism is not christianty but also no religion is Christanity! True Christianity is a way of life and not any religion. Therefore since you are wise enough to know that Catholicism is not Christianity then you should also know that your religion too is not. The catholics are as much Christians as any of you born again Christians, Anglicans etc.
Please prove otherwise. Three last questions for you who seems to know who is a Christian or not:
1.) The hatred for Catholics in your post, is it of Christ or of the devil?
2.) Where did Christ say: Hate, judge and criticise those that are not of your religion?
3.) Does any religion belong to Christ? If so, show where and when Christ founded the religion.

Christ started no religion. Folwing Christ should not be a religion but a way of life.

Sun God:
Alot of people talk about father christmas, super man, vampires etc everyday but we know they are imaginary folks or creatures. Jesus fits perfectly into this club. As for bob, go to jamaica and see his house, ask his neighbours about him and so on and so forth. Physical evidence is the ultimate evidence.

May I bring it to your knowledge that father Christmas -- Santa clause-- actually existed.  Although today we attribute so many things to him in other to entertain kids but the fact remains that Santa clause once lived in Europe. He used to send presents to kids on Christmas. I am glad that you mentioned father Christmas, Jesus today could be likened to father Christmas. Both have so many impossible things attributed to them but it doesn't mean that they never existed. To say that they never existed is like throwing away the bath with the child. After bathing a child, you keep the child and throw away the bath water. Likewise after considering the issue, you should separate the myth from that actual man. You don't discard everything because of some myths associated with it. The History channel today presented a program about Pontus Pilate. I am happy that in your last post you acknowledged that he existed. His birth was recorded, everything about him was recorded and comfirms his recorded dealings in the bible. The bible said he was the roman governor of Judea -- history comfired it. Here we see a person in the life of Christ completely confirmed by history.

Sun God:
If you say jesus's awards are the chuabout the various Santa Grottos dedicated to father christmas during christ mas or temples of Zeus that are scattered all over europe? Does that mean Santa Claus exists?

Yes Santa Claus(saint Nicolas) once existed! Santa means saint in spanish, and claus is an abrivation of Nicolas. I leave you to do the research yourself. Also remember, I never claimed to have convincing evidence based on historical records and archaeological excavations that Jesus existed. My argument is that you cannot prove otherwise either. Therefore it boils down to using your commonsense or your intuitive perception. There as as much logical facts to support that He existed as much as there are to support that He never existed. I have said earlier that in issues like this, mare logical reasoning will not lead us any where. Therefore accept that your conclusion on this issue is completely your choice. You chose to believe the logic that Jesus never existed. The Christian chose to accept it. Since neither of you can show any concrete prof, neither of you have the right to mock the other. In court they use the slogan: "beyond any reasonable doubt." This is the measure for the court. Now apply the same to this issue. His existence has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt of the Christians. Therefore they are not fools to accept His existence. His existence has not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt of you (sun-god). Therefore he has chosses reject His existence. Every individual (likewise every Jury or judge) has the right to decide what is a reasonable doubt to him/her and what is not. That's why people re-apeal their cases to different courts and judges. But every individual is responsible for what he accepts to believe and what he refuses to believe.

Sun God:
It really makes no sense really. He neither wrote a book, wrote a scroll, did anything unique to differentiate him, ahhh! its not worth it. The truth just cool about this jesus nonsense is that it is really a badly plagiarized version of ancient pre-christian pagan worship. The similarities are so congent that its almost weepfully shameful for christians to stoop so low and draw inferences from them to make christianity up.

Obviously their is similarity in between the Jesus story and the ancient mythology. But this does not mean that Jesus never existed. Peharps, the early Christians, in their quest to win pagan converts, introduced so many things that the pagans would respect and fear to the personality of Jesus who was already dead at that time. The ancient Romans claimed that Julius ceaser's father was a lion (myth), this made the superstitious Romans to fear and respect Caesar. Such superstitious people will not accept a God or a son of God born by a human father; hence, in other to win the Romans and in other to place Jesus higher than Caesar in the hearts of Romans, the early Christians started the notion that Jesus didn't have a human father. Of course you and I know that this is impossible. But it doesn't mean that Jesus never existed.
Also it is understandable that the early Christians had a hard time telling people that they(the Christians) denied Jesus and allowed the son of their God to be crucified. Thus they had a hard time facing their own cowardice and betrayal. In their quest to hide their cowardice/betrayal  and win converts they invented the idea that it was Gods plan that Jesus should be crucified.

All these fantasies attributed to Jesus does not mean that Jesus never existed. Up till today people still attach fantastic ideas to their gods. Go and tell any Rastafarian that emperor Haily Selassie of Ethiopia(Rastas believe he is God) is dead. They will laugh at you and tell you that he cannot die. They claim that as a child Haily Selassie painted a picture of a bird which imediately became alive and flew off the page. They circulated such rumors even while Halie Selassie was still alive and despite the fact that Halie Selassie made so many speeches telling people that he was not God yet the rasters refused to listen. Poor angry black sons of slaves were too disgusted with whites and their god that they(the rasters) invented their own god and atrributed it to the person of Halie Selassie (a powerful black king), who they can relate to and whose image would easily win black converts. Perhaps a similar thing happend with the early Christians.

Beyond all these fantasies there is, was, and will ever remain the savior called Jesus, who is of Devine origin. He didn't save the world by His death (such thing are fantasies invented by men) He saves by His words which is the PURE TRUTH. My dear sun god Search for the true Jesus. Don't base your judgement of Him only on the bible, a book written by man. I personally found the true Jesus in a book called In The Light of Truth: The Grail Message by ABD-RU-SHIN. I advise you to read this book.

Sun God:
Let me put it in a very simple way.

1. Bob marleys children are still existing

2. His grandchildren are still existing

3. I may not have witnessed bob marley live but he is always on Mtv and my mom did attend one of his concerts in england in the 60's or 70's and has a back stage picture to prove it.

Now what i am saying is that from all this rich source of knowledge, it is very very easy for bob marleys name to still ring a bell for centuries to come because there is proof physically.

4. Now i am not disputing that that various biographies of bob marley wont be re edited and redracted over the coming years but it doesnt change some salient facts about bob marley that all men would agree on. e.g

His awards are there for history to see

his schools are still there

his former band mates and children of the band mates

His siblings and so many things which you can point to and say bob marley existed

But jesus doesnt offer any of those proofs.

He was neither recorded as any special being and roman laws then were very meticulous to record all events.

the birth, miracles, apostles, cruxificion, ressurection, ascention and what have you have no basis for believing any of it because it is wasnt there in the first place.

Even if you take jesus out of the picture, the stories of the multitude he fed and preached to would have some way attracted attention that one of them out of the thousands could actually be traced through his geneology.

But till today, not one, not a single one of the thousands and thousands of people he came across can actually be verified.

Even the gospels have been discovered not to be the works of the original disciples because the dates contradict themselves.

My friend proof means tracing history till your fed up and you give up. Till date, nothing has been offered as a sign of proof of his existence, Why then should i believe such psychobabble?

LOL
1.) Jesus didn't have kids
2.) There couldn't be any grand children since He didn't have kids.
3.) You did not see Jesus personally but He is talked about ten times more than Bob Marley on TV. About your mom attending bobs concert, there has been countless testimonies of people who claim to remember seeing Jesus in their past lives. Also countless Christians today claim to have seen Jesus or claim to see Him on regular basses. And they have miracles which they claim as their prof. About backstage picture, cameras didn't exist the time of Jesus. Ever hared of shroud(the burail cloth of a crucified man discovered) which bears the imprint of the crucified man, some historians believe that the man was Jesus and that is a much an evidence as a picture.
4.) About bob's award. Jesus has a million times more awards than bob today. Every Christian church is supposedly built in His honnor, in other words the churches are his awards and they are physically present today.

About bobs school. -- Parts of the temple in Jerusalem where Jesus once taught still stand s today. Jews, His tribe/people, are still present today.

About bob's former bandmates. -- Jesus live thousands of years ago. It is impossible for any of his associates or his mates to still be alive today.

About bob's siblings. -- Jesus lived thousands of years ago and it is hardly possible to trace his siblings linage to this day. Please can you trace yourself to your ancestors that lived two thousand years ago. Moreover today Jews still exist and since Jesus was Jew, every Jew today could be considered His sibling.

(But Jesus doesn't offer any of those proofs) this statement is Very wrong and very arguable and completely unprovable.

(He was neither recorded as any special being and roman laws then were very meticulous to record all events.) Were Romans that meticulous, even today with all our technological advancement birth records are sometimes missing or recorded wrongly. According to my mother, my birth record is wrong because I was born on a different day that was recorded in my birth certificate. A friend of mine here in America, mistakenly in his birth record it is stated that he was born in Connecticut. So if in the future historians want to trace his existence, they will not find any record of his birth in California where he was actually born. Does this mean he never existed. My grandfathers birth was not recorded any where, infact he doesn't know where he was born, neither does he know his age. Does this mean that my grandfather never existed? Show me in the roman records where the birth of Brutus, Cassius, Casca who allegedly stabbed Caesar was recorded.

(Even if you take jesus out of the picture, the stories of the multitude he fed and preached to would have some way attracted attention that one of them out of the thousands could actually be traced through his geneology.)
Cicero, the great roman orator who live approximately at the time of Jesus spoke to many groups and crowds. Can you trace any body today back to any of the people that listened to Cicero?

(Even the gospels have been discovered not to be the works of the original disciples because the dates contradict themselves.)
still this is not a prof that Jesus never existed. Jesus didn't write the gospel. The gospel and Jesus are two different things. Historians today argue that some of the works attributed to shakespear were not actually written by Shakespeare. There are facts which point to the fact shakespears famous book --Julius Caesar-- was a compilation from many authors. Does this mean that shakespear never existed?

Sun God:
This is still not an issue. bob Marley existed. Plain simple. The biographies may be diverse and controversial but no body on this planet would argue that bob Marley never existed. Jesus is another story entirely.

Its a plain Hoax!

Here you are just making an assumption. If no body on this planet should argue that bob Marley never existed, then on body on this planet should argue that Jesus never existed.  What makes Jesus story different from bob's story in terms of wheather they existed.
Have you ever seen bob Marley personally?  The answer no. (Yet you believed he existed.)
Have you ever seen Jesus personally? The answer is no. (But you refuse to believe HE existed.)
Have you ever seen any evidence IE works that bob did when he was alive?  The answer is yes, you hear his music and you are told that the music was made by bob. (Yet you believe he existed)
Have you ever seen any evidence ie works that Jesus did when He was on earth?. The answer is yes, you hear his quotes -- the beatitude-- and you are told that words were said by Jesus. (But you refuse to believe HE existed)

So the question of bob and Jesus are not entirely different. The same evidences that convinced you of bob's existence are also present in the case of Jesus. But in His case you refused to accept. Therefore accept that fact that it is a question of choice on your own part for you cannot convincingly prove that either party ever existed; neither can you convincingly prove otherwise. In this case we employ our commonsense and our intuition because intellectual logic will lead us now where.
In any issue, there are as many reasons for it as there are as many reasons against it. Therefore reasoning that is not guided by the intuitive perception will lead us only in a circle. In your case you let mare choice guide your reasoning, and this is not a refined way to arive at a conclusion

Sun God:
No eye witness accounts that can be verified

No historical records that make sense

Convoluted stories that are side splitters

Widely unimaginable things that christians said he did

The list is endless abeg!

Anyway, thumbs up for a respectful and brain stimulating debate. I appreciate it. thats what rationals do. Ask questions and query them till they get it right!

You can also attribute all you said above to bob Marley's case, yet you chose to believe that he existed.

(No eye witness accounts that can be verified)
can you verify any of the witness accounts of bob Marley's life? Please do so

(No historical records that make sense)
the same can be applied to bob. Infact there is controversy about his actual date of birth which was supposedly recorded.

(Convoluted stories that are side splitters)
the same can be applied to the different biographes of bob

(Widely unimaginable things that christians said he did)
the same can be applied to bob. Some of his biographers claimed he did so many "unimaginable things" ie he could tell the future; he was a prophet; he could lead palms; he fought the devil.

(The list is endless abeg!)
abeg so is the list of things attributed to bob, Hitler, ID amin, and the every figure in history.

(Anyway, thumbs up for a respectful and brain stimulating debate. I appreciate it. thats what rationals do. Ask questions and query them till they get it right!)
Thanks. I also respect you for your obvious intelligence. But I have to warn you that the intellect should only be used as a tool. In any issue, there are as many good reasons for it as much as there good reasons against it. A very inteligent person can give many reasons to prove that you don't exsist and can mislead logic-slaves/intellectual slaves into questioning their own exsistance. Eventhough this sounds laughable but it has happend. We chose to accept any line of reasoning based on many things. Some people, by mare choice, other by predisposition but the advanced person chooses his line of argument by his intuition and commonsense.
Thats why people go to school to learn to be a judge -- to learn to use their commonsense to guide their decision and not remain a slave to reasoning and logic. Suffice to say that the truth in any issue should not be wanting in logic. Everything could be logical, depending on the way you look at it.

@ Sun God
The only reason why I contributed to this thread is that you appeared logical and had scientific knowledge. But from your replies I see that you are overwhelmingly emotional against Christans. I don't get into religious fights, I have always said that I don't have a religion. Religion and God/Jesus are very different things. God is not religious, neither was Jesus.
The theme of this thread is wheather Jesus existed or not. Lets not deviate from the topic.

Sun God:
@justcool

1. I can safely tell you that the discovery of the slab you said was discovered has not been validated by historians in any way and until it has been validated it remains a ruse.

2. Even if i remotely believe the slab for one second, the slab doesn't point to any physical evidence apart from saying it directed priests to stay in Nazareth. It simply makes no sense at all. The question is does Nazareth exist as enuciated in the bible? No! The scriptures doesnt talk about priests in that village or imaginary town and even after a very torrid investigation in the 1930s, Catholic scholars themselves noted with alarm that “no trace of a Greek or Roman settlement” was found in the venerated area of Nazareth (that is, where the Church of the Annunciation and nearby structures now stand)

3. Also your post from wikipedia argues it from the point of christian apologists but from the same page, this is what i also got:


Frank Zindler, editor of American Atheist Magazine, has asserted that Nazareth did not exist in the first century.[52] His arguments include the following:

No "ancient historians or geographers mention [Nazareth] before the beginning of the fourth century [AD]."[53]
Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature.
Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulun (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages
Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD).
Nazareth is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.


So we are just back to square 1 which is even more damaging to christians because his arguments relates to the nazareth in the bible and the very existence of it.

4. To go back to your earlier point about the man who discovered pots, i just want to assure you that he's just one of the numerous "fakes" parading themselves as archeologists discovering this or that from Nazareth.

I have a classic article that exposes the shenigans of one of the so called respected archeologist who discovered a shell from nazareth and the contradictory claims that ended up being his water loo


from the above its not today we have been seeing fake and untrustworthy claims trying to prove the existence of nazareth. So sorry mate, your brief defence is largely unsubstantiated and it still remains a fable.

Your mistake is that you base your arguments on the opinions of historians and aceologists. If you think that the slab issue has not been validated by historians then tell me how historians validate findings. What is the formal procedure for this. And show me where they validated any of your claims. Historians report their findings which seldom conclusively prove anything thing. An educated historian or an archaeologist in his report will always say: "Based on the most recent discoveries, Nazareth not been or has been found.  This does not mean that Nazareth existed nor does it comfirm that it exisisted. This is how educated poeple approach such issues -they don't make bugus claims about something based on excavations. A few centuries ago no dinosaurs fossil was yet found, but that does not mean that dinosaurs never exsisted.

Sun God:
I think this quote is laughable because the bible is the central theme of this falsehood. If chriChristiansaround bamboozling people to believe the word of god and its the word of god and god is perfect and omiscent and all that crap and referring to the bible as its source of credibilty, doesnt it also make sense to investigate that source of knowledge?

This is a "Logical and Factual Error" you cannot validate an issue based on something the exisistence/validity of which you deny. If I go to court and tell them that Mr X never existed. Then when I am asked to provide a witness to an issue, I cannot use Mr X as a witness because I don't believe his existstance. You cannot base you arguments that Jesus never existeted on the inconsistencies of the Bible. You should not even bring the Bible in your arguments because you already stated that the bible is false. Also, the bible should not be a source of knowledge, the bible is only a written acount. The Bible and Jesus are two diffdifferent things, and the fact that the bible is incoinconsistent does not prove that Jesus never exsiexisted. Like I said, the incoinconsistency of the bible should not validate your argument because you don't consider the bible a valid witness.

Sun God:
To summarize this point, all these people never claimed to be perfect, all knowing, ominiscent and demanded me to worship them and pray to them 24/7 lest i go to hell and burn there for eternity. The bible on the other hand makes allusions to all that. There is a big difference between attacking bob marley and attacking the imaginary jesus

Here you are missing the point again. The issue is not wheather Bob Marley claimed to be perfect or not. I used Bob Marley as an example because both Bob Marley and Jesus have the same case-- the case of having many divergent recorded accounts of their lifes and actions. If the fact that the divergent and incoinconsistencies in the different accounts of Bob Marley's life does not disprove the fact that he existed then the same should be applied to Jesus. The inconsistencies in the different stories and accounts of Jesus' life is not a prove that Jesus never exsiexisted

In 1962, a 15 cm x 12 cm marble slab with four lines of inscription in Hebrew square character was found by Israeli archeologists in Caesarea, indicating that priests from Jerusalem were assigned to live in the village of Nazareth in Galilee. The slab bears the first non-Christian mention of Nazareth and is dated from the late 3rd or 4th century AD. This suggests that Nazareth at least existed around the time the Gospels started to be transcribed.
Dr. Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land has been conducting excavations in Nazareth since 1996, and claims to have found pottery dating from the 1st to 3rd centuries AD, associated with agricultural terraces and wine presses [1]. Based on this evidence, Dr. Pfann argues that in the 1st century, "Nazareth was tiny, with two or three clans living in 35 homes spread over six acres (2.5 hectares)" [2].
(Wikepedia)

@Sun God
How would you explain the passage above about the existence of Nazareth?
You cannot deny the existence of Jesus based on the inconsistencies found in the Gospels. The Gospels are only written accounts. If you base your argument on the gospel then you might as well be a religious person. But I am of the opinion that you don't believe in the bible. If so, you should leave everything about it alone. You shouldn't use the Bible, which you don't believe in, to prove something IE that Jesus never existed.
A lot of people in history have inconstant versions of their lives and existence, does this mean that such people never existed. Read shakespears biography from different authors, you will see inconsistencies. Does this mean shakespear never existed. Even Hitler who lived less that a century ago, in his biography so many historians disagree and give divergent accounts of his childhood, upbringing, and lifestyle. Do these inconsistencies mean that Hitler never existed?
I have three different books on the life of Bob Marley, they all differ in so many things and these books were written by close associates of Bob Marley, even family members.

The boy from Nine mile -- written by Bob's mother
No woman no Cry    --- written by Bob's wife about three years ago
Marley and I -- written by Don Taylor. Bob's former manager
Catch a fire  -- written by Timothy white

Do the inconsistencies in these books about Bob Marley's character and lifestyle prove that Bob Marley never existed?

@son god
I commend your logical, sound, and scientific analysis of the Noah story. Unfortunately, the religious ones are already attacking rather than providing a logical counter argument. Do not let them degrade this mind stimulating tread to an arena for religious attacks.
I have points to support the story of Noah, and I will try to make my points logical, scientific and devoid of any religious persuasions. I don't belong to any religion but at the same time I don't think that all the stories in the religious books are fallacies.
There are my points:
1.) The bible has gone through so many translations and it is possible that some things were lost to translation. IE the counting system. Perhaps when the story was written their counting system was different to what it was later translated to. Perhaps what they counted as 450 feet may be only 450 inches when translated to modern counting system. This is also evident in their ages -- perhaps 500 years to them may be only 50 years when translated to modern counting system. After all, today we use the roman callender which was not yet invented during the time of Noah.
2.) Scientific discoveries today point to the fact that there was once a great flood that covered almost the whole earth. I will research on this and give you the scientific write-ups. If you watch discovery channel, they spend a lot of time investigating this great flood. Perhaps this flood was the flood that Noah experienced.
3.) So many ancient cultures of the world tells the story of a great flood that once consumed the whole earth. Although some historians think that it is the same story that was plagiarized by different cultures. But, it could have been that the flood actually happened and was experienced by other societies whose survivors later wrote the stories. This is only logical, since if the flood was worldwide, it couldn't have only happened to Noah's society.

tpaine:
If you think the bible is errant, what then is your basis for accepting Jesus as the Son of God. What if the bit where he says he is the Son of God is a human mistake? That too could be in error?

I would really like to see your criteria for accepting/reject sections of the bible.

One can seek GOD in HIS work.

I all cultures of the world, one thing is generally believed -- A superior BEING/ Beings or FORCE/ forces created the universe and everything in it. The Jews call this BEING JEHOVAH, English call him God and Arabic people call him ALLAH
A man is a work of this BEING, so is the universe. If a man wants to understand this BEING, he must try to understand HIS work(the Being's work) which is the universe including man himself. Not from a book (Bible or Great Book) written by man.
Since we are in the age of science, lets look at the universe scientifically. If we analyse the universe we see that the universe is guided by laws-- gravity, electromagnetism, etc. The same laws that guard the universe are the laws of this BEING because He created it. And the law bears witness to HIS character and HIS existence. HOW?

1) Newtons first law of motion (law of inerstia).
"Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed."
Since the universe is constantly in an eratic motion / changing directions (expanding, collapsing) and not in a state of being at rest nor in a uniformly straight motion, based on newtions law one can logically conclude that there is an external force that compels the universe or effects the universe to be in an erratic motion rather a uniformly straight forward motion.
It doesn't matter what you call this force-- God, God, Force, one thing is certain: There is a force beyond the universe that sustains the universe.

2.) newtone third law of motion:
All forces occur in pairs, and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
There for if I hit the wall with a force of 10 newtons, I automatically receive the force of 10 newtons back to me. Sounds like: what you sow is what you reap! By this I can logically conclude that whatever I give out comes back to me. And since this law applies to all parts of the universe, it must also apply to all my actions, words and thougths since these operate within the same universe. Thus makes sense for me to conclude that if I act in an evil manner, I will receive evil thrown back at me by the law that operates in the universe.

3.) The sun rises everyday from east to the west. It supplies energy to all things in our solar system; irrespective of the belief, nature, and color of man, this energy is given for all.
From this I can logically conclude that the universe is not partial and that everybeing and everything on earth has as much right to the sun's energy as man. Everything uses this energy and produces what the other needs. If I live by this wouldn't I be tolerant, wouldn't I respect and love all creatures. Wouldn't this recognition of the importance of everything make me to see the need to love every creature as much as my self. One who live by this will not kill or condemn people just because of their religion. Scientific knowledge alone should make one see the need to live by the ten commandments.


If one carfully analyses everything in the universe. The laws speaks to man. And from the little things he can understand the bigger things because the laws of the universe are constant, effecting all parts of the universe. As you trace the laws, they will lead you to recognise the need for balance and the appreciation of every being in the universe, you will definitely see the need to love your neighbor as yourself. If you seek rightly you'll be lead higher and higher. Even to the non physical things.

tpaine:
What is special about a few words and miracles from an illiterate gang of farmers and fishermen. Do you need a degree to be told to love your brother, to obey the law, to not work on the sabbath.  If so, why are/were missionaries going into the remotest places to preach these inane words to people who previous had no schooling?

In fact, studies show that some of the gentile towns were the most literate of the time. These towns had schools of hellenistic and pagan philosophers and roman scholars. They would have torn the backward doctrine of JC to pieces, as Celsus and Pophyry later did.

This show that you have absolutely no idea about what I was saying. You don't need educatedness(litracy) to understand Jesus' words which are spiritual. My analogy about primary school students not being enrolled in universities should not be taken literally. Let me explain what I mean to you.
Primary school students are not allowed by law to enroll in the university because the primary school students do not have enough education and maturity to undersatand university courses. It is for their own good that they are left to mature and go trough secondary school before they can be admitted in the university. Otherwise the university education will do them no good, it might even destroy the little they know.
The same way some people who are not matured enough spiritually to understand the message of Christ are best left alone. What Jesus told the Jews are based on the Jews level of spiritual maturity, any people of less spiritual maturity would not comprehend it. It is not for them. They are better left alone by the Jews. When they are ready for IT God will give it to them just as He gave the Jews. It doesn't mean that they are evil or that they are less humans than the Jews.

You asked, "What is special about a few words and miracles from an illiterate gang of farmers and fishermen"
Are you kidding me? Do you not know how much wars, hatrad, and genocide that man has committed because of the alleged words of GOD(Bible, and Koran). Doesn't this clearly show you that those teachings may not be for everybody, because the teachings are adapted to the needs and nature of the people it was given.
Only a fool will give another person a medicine that the doctor proscribed for him without knowing the nature of the persons sickness.

You wrote, "If so, why are/were missionaries going into the remotest places to preach these inane words to people who previous had no schooling?"
I have said in another thread(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111110.0.html#msg1931675) that the missionaries did not know what they were doing. Some of they people that the missionaries taught Christianity were not yet ready for Christianity. By accepting a religion that is alien to them, they lost even the little spiritual maturity that they had. Think about Africa today and ask youself this question. Now that Africans have abandoned their traditional way of life and have accepted various Christian religions, Is Africa today more moralistic and peaceful than before?
Think about the Sudanese killing each other. Do you think Islam (a religion adapted to the Arabic way of life and thinking) is good for them. Observe an Arabic Muslim and you see the difference between him and a black African Muslim.
If the missionaries and the Jihadist had listened to the Biblical words, "Do not go among the Gentiles, or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel" they wouldn't have forced people to accept Christianity and Islam. The world would have been a better place today. World trade center may have stood till today!

tpaine:
As an onmiscient being could he not have picked his words more appropriately? Did he not know that this would he misread in years to come? What would his companions have thought of such sentiments.

Once again your argument holds no water. Remember that Jesus never wrote any book. The bible was written by men and not Jesus himself! The words that we are talking about are not actually Jesus' exact words. They are mans transmition of Jesus's words. Apart from the fact that the words were written by man, they were written in another language and have gone through translations. Every educated person knows what translation does to the meaning of sentences! Therefore if any errors are found in those words, such errors should not be attributed to Jesus.

tpaine:
Is this not the inspired word of god? Is this not the inerrant word of god? If it is not, why should we believe anything in it? How do you know what to pick and what to reject?

Who said you should believe anything in it! Only religious people tell you that. I have no religion but I am of the conviction that Jesus is the son of GOD. God remains eternally and we humans have the ability to recognize HIS will which is anchored in HIS works. I am as much a humanbeing as the writers of the Bible and the God that they wrote about still remains. Why should I neglect my own ability to recognise him personally and believe what another person recognised. I deal with God personally, and I don't allow any religion or book to interfere with my recognition.
None of the prophets taught of God based on any book. Jesus did not teach based on the Bible. Neither did John the baptise nor Mohamed.
Whoever truly seeks God shall find!
And from your own experiences you can agree or disagree with what others wrote. God can reveal himself to you as much as He revealed to the writers of the Bible, if only you seek keenly, humbly and without prejudice. You will receive as much as you are worthy to receive.

tpaine:
"Do not go among the Gentiles, or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6).

"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24).

Can I rest my case? You see Christianity thrives because a lot of people are ignorant of its tenets, until they have become emotionally involve and can't leave, but rationalise every evil in it with the most bizarre arguments.

Here you make absolutely no sense.
As a child my mother warned me not to go with strangers or accept gifts from certain people. Does this mean that my mother doesnt know that those people(strangers) are humans too. How does this prove that my mother doesn't know that all humans are related.
Has it ever occurred to you that there may be another reason that is of good faith why according to the Bible Jesus said, "Do not go among the Gentiles, or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6).
Universities are forbade to enroll primary school students by the law. Does this mean that the law thinks that primary school students are less humans. Have you considered that what is right for one may not be right for the other at the same time. Maybe the Gentiles and Samaritans of that time were not yet ready to understand the message of Christ.

tpaine:
Well, you have not read the bible then. Jesus explicitly instruct his disciples not to go to the Gentile towns and then likens a Samaritan woman to dog. Is that what you would expect of a god?

You are completely off point. You gave two isolated examples, but the question is what did Jesus generally think of humans. And the answer is that from His teachings one can deduce that HE thought humans are bothers and sisters.
I know that my brother and I share the same mother but sometimes when I'm angry I call him a fool or a dog. Do these isolated situations define what I think of my brother? The answer is NO

Secondly you judged Jesus based on what you read about HIM on the Bible, a book the authenticity of which you cannot prove? It is unjust to judge HIS character based on just the Bible because the bible was written by men and it has been interfered with so many times to suit religious beliefs.

Jesus taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves. To treat all humans like they are your brothers. What else do you want HIM to say. In HIS teachings lies the knowledge that all humans are bothers and sisters.

tpaine:
Did Jesus and Mo know that we are all Africans? What have these two characters done to benefit mankind, other than sow the seeds of bigotry?

Strange choice of words!
Jesus never sowed any seeds of bigotry. Can you prove that HE did that? Do you even know what bigotry means?

The problem with African religions is that we abandoned it and accepted already corrupt religions -- Catholicism, Protestanisim, Pentecostalism and The Great Religion. If the missionaries had the true Christianity they would have helped us improve our own culture and religion. We would have improved our culture till it becomes completely God pleasing. Christianity is not a religion but a way of life, it doesn't force people to accept foreign customs, religion and languages. Our own customs should have been reformed and improved not abandoned.

I will give two examples:
1.) Imagine catholics teaching Africans converts to pray through saints all of who are Europeans. 
2.) Imagine Great Ones teaching African converts to pray to God only in Arabic.

Are these instruction for the spiritual benefit of the converts or are these agendas to promote Arabic and European culture? Even a child can tell that the idea behind this is to conquer and increase their culture in foreign lands -- cultural slavery!

lucabrasi:
@lady f
sorry to barge in and first all im a christian,but from some scenarios i have witnesed in naij all religions have a positive as well as a dark/negative side to it, i have seen people putting keys in the middle of bibles and making the bible turn and also heard of some white garment churches using some parts of the bible and candles to bring some harm unto others, there was something i read in the papers when i went to naij on hols about a certain white garment pastor that specialises in praying and giving spiritual guidence to drug mules amongst other instances, so i think it actually depends on the individual/individuals and not on the religion

This goes to show that so called African Christians are neither really Christians nor are they really African traditionalists. They simply replace the African ancient gods with the God of Christianity. They kept the practice of African religions only under the cloak of a false Christianity. I have heard of pastors telling people that their lack of progress is due to their girlfriend's, wife's, mother's, or neighboor's witchcraft. This is exactly what some the ancient native doctors told people, it is never a Christian practice. A true Christian knows that living aright(Christlike living) automatically protects him from any form of witchcraftcy. I have never seen a white(Caucasian) pastor give such wicked diagnosis. This shows you that some of the African pastors, eventhough they call themselves Christians, their spiritual maturity is still at the same with ancient African native doctors(dibia).

Check out this thread:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=29429.msg686053#msg686053

@ibksolar
@Backslider 

Thanks for you guy's contribution but my conviction remains in the fact that Jesus' death was murder committed by mankind and it is against the will of GOD.
But there is no need going round and round over the issue, and besides it is not exactly what this thread was created for. Perhaps, I will open another thread specifically on the issue of the crucification of our Lord Jesus.

@ m_nwakwo

m_nwankwo:
It is the word of Jesus that is salvation, not his death.

You said it all. Also, your analogy with the burning house and the rescue indeed describes the purpose of Jesus' mission very well. Once again I'm humbled by you wisdom, spiritual alertness, and maturity which never fails to reflect in you posts. I wish you strength that you never to deviate from the true path which you have found.

Obalende:
So understand that Christ is a race, Adam is a race - Adam was a shadow of things to come. The truth of the Bible is: "Of Him are ye in Christ" (I  Cor 1:30). The hiers of salvation were in Christ when He died and all died in Him; so when a believer believes in 2010 - He has not chosen God; God prechose Him; Salvation is not a contigency action plan, the hiers of salvation were predestined.

Adam is metaphorical man who represents the whole of mankind. If Adam was an actual man, then God wouldn't punish his(Adam's) descendants for a sin that their father Adam ccommitted. God doesnt punish people for the sins of their fathers for this is injustice. Only humans do such a thing IE-- a fathers teaches his children to do evil, this evil will remain in the family and they will keep suffering from it until the children stop doing it. Hence your bible said: "the sins of the fathers shall be visited onto the sons."

Even if you belong to the race of Jesus or Adam, you are still accountable to God for your own actions. Don't ever think that by belonging to Jesus' race you are already justified. This is blasphemy. The ancient Jews had a similar belief- some of them believed that just by being descendants of Abraham they were justified. This is wrong, hence John the baptise rightly warned them:
"do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father,' for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham."

Nobody is justified or saved just because of his belief or his ancestry(race). Only by living your life in accordance with the Will of God will save you.

@Obalende
Thanks for attempting to answer my questions, I commend your effort but I disagree with you.

Obalende:
a.) [b]Jehova God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the ONLY TRUE GOD. He is the maker of Satan, demons, angels and man as well as the angelic hosts (not visible in the physical realm).

First of all God did not make satan, and demons. God created angels who remain beautiful, good, and powerful beings as long as they live in the will of God. However if any of these beings stray from the will of God, they become bad and evil. That is what happend with Lucifer who at first(when he obeyed the will of God) was a good and a powerful angel but he made himself satan by straying from the will of God.
Some demons were created by man. No demon was created by God for God is absolute goodness and cannot create evil. We humans are creators too. Our thoughts, words and actions take on forms in the non-physical planes and await us. Being our works, they are attached to us and they affect us. We must experience them when we pass on, thats why your bible said, "your works awaits you." When we think or behave in an evil way, these thoughts and behaviour will take an evil form in the beyond, attached to us and await us. These evil forms that result from our evil thoughts, words, and actions are what we call demons. These forms are living beings and as long as we keep thinking, behaving, and speaking in an evil manner we give them the power that keeps them alive.

Obalende:
Satan was predestined to rebel and become the head of the hosts of wickedness and the hosts of wickedness were predestined to be just that. We man are the Adamic race, demons are the pre-adamic race which are disembodied spirits. Now, please understand that the hiers of salvation (the real christians i.e. not religion) were predetermined and predestined by God from out of the world before the foundation of the world. The Gospel of Christ is that all men are born sinners involuntarily 'in Adam'

Saying that satan was predestined to rebel is blasphemy because you are calling God the author of rebelion and wickedness. You are also accusing God of injustice by believing in predestination. You are saying that HE chooses to save some by predesignating them to accept while others are predestined to refuse Him and go to hell-- even a child can see that this is injustice.
God predestines nobody. We humans have the gift of free will, which if used rightly brings us joy, blessings, and happiness; however, if we use our free will wrongly, we create evil forms which will bring distruction. God does not interfere with our free will. But He urges us through his prophets and his Holy son to choose rightly, for our own good, in-other to avoid destruction.Otherwise why would He send us prophets to urge to change our ways if He had already predestined us to salvation or distruction. Do you think God is a fool? Why would Jesus spend his energy preaching to people if he already knew that they are destined to distruction.

Backslider:
You have a question that only in hell fire the answer will be clearer to you. But you see God cannot be questioned. He says I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy on.

@ Backslider
If my question can only be made clearer to me in hell then it means that my question cannot be answered. Any answer about life and God's relationship with His creatures that cannot be made clear in creation(From the spiritual worlds to earth) must be a lie since in HIS creation God makes everything as clear as abc. One who truly seeks anything, even an answer to a question, shall surely find. "Seek and ye shall find," God does not deal in mystries. His ways are clearly written in the laws of creation. Every law in creation even the laws of nature and physics speak of nothing but balance, Love, and Justice. In creation God does not deal in mysterious ways (ways that cannot be understood by man).

Backslider:
But you see God cannot be questioned.

If by this you mean that God should not be challenged then you are right. But if you mean that man should not ask questions about God's dealings with him then you are wrong. Like I said God deals with all creatures clearly. His dealings are always clear and always express Love and Justice for all. Where man fails to see this Love and Justice coming from God he should not only question, but he should earnestly investigate and ardently seek. If he questions, seeks and investigates rightly and humbly then the answer will definitely be given to him. Therefore it is the duty of man to question, seek, and investigate and find the reason behind his life, condition, and God's dealings to him. This is how you draw near to God.

@ Backslider
Your blasphemy is unbearable!!!!!!

Backslider
link=topic=111110.msg1988194#msg1988194 date=1203778365:
You have a question that only in hell fire the answer will be clearer to you. But you see God cannot be questioned. He says I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy on.

Even you as mortal man have a similar Attribute. You choose to hate or love someone with no just cause. The word is Agape unconditional love to man and it is kind.

Do you know the meaning of what you just said! You reduce God to the level of imperfect humans who give their love arbitrarily. The first thing you should know about God is that God is Love. God cannot be without HIS Love! Being Love, HE loves all HIS creatures equally. And love cannot lack in Justice otherwise it's not love. Love and Justice are one!One can equally say that God is Justice. Being the perfect Justice, HE cannot give His love arbitrarily otherwise He will be unjust.
Therefore God is perfect Justice, He will not even let a creature as a little as an ant suffer innocently.
Your post speaks of unbearable blasphemy because you described God's love as something HE gives arbitrarily(to whoever HE pleases), in-other words you called God unjust! This is wrong! God gives HIS Love equally to all HIS creatures-- man, ants, cows, lilies(plants),angels etc. God does not chose to hate or love someone for with no just cause! This is an injustice which God cannot do, and this is not what Agape love is!

It's unfortunate that so many Christians have reduced God's son(Jesus) to the level of a slave used for ransome, or a dirty rag that God used to cleans their dirty sins.
They also reduced God to an imperfect ritualist who will give anything (even his innocent son) to die for the sake of mankinds dirty sins.
You can see that by your teachings you make man the most important creature, even more important than God, since God(Jesus) was used as ransome for man. This is the height of selfishness, selfcenteredness, and blasphemy! So many Christians today worship man(themselves) and not God.

This is why our country does not progress. We blame everything(even our own faults) on other people's supernatural abilities. If this man is truly living a God pleasing life how can the wife's supernatural evil powers deter him? Is evil stronger that good? Is Satan stronger than God?
If he is not compatible with his wife, he should divorce her for such a marriage is against the will of God and thus immoral. Only in the case of immorality should one end a marriage. He should desist from making allegations that he is not sure of and look for the true cause of his failures.
You said that "the man said after several years of marriage without progress in all his endeavour" yet you said that the marriage produced 3 lovely and God fearing Children. This is contradictory! What progress and blessing is more that than a marriage being blessed with 3 lovely and God fearing Children?
People that are full fear of their neighbor's supernatural powers are usually spiritually asleep and unintelligent! Any wonder why such people hardly progress?

Horus:
You are clearly[b] Off Topic.[/b]If your Jesus already came to save you and remove all your sin, then why are you still waiting for him to return, and why are you still sinning?

@ Horus
Very good point. I bet they wont offer any reasonable answer, the next thing now is personal attacks.

I already sheared my view on this issue in another thread.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111110.0.html#msg1931675

@ Stimulus.
What in the world made you think that I am a Great One? Before you go attacking Great Ones because of my post, re-read my post which obviously you didn't understand.
When I said that the missionaries brought an already-corrupted religion I meant both Christian missionaries and the so called (great ones) jihadists.
Please go to my profile and read some of my earlier posts. I am not a moselem. I don't belong to any religion. My relationship with God is personal -- Only between HIM and I.

@ Trukoments.
Thanks for your kind words. I am happy that someone understands the reality of the situation.

@ ibksolar
Thanks for you long post but I totally disagree with you. The crucification of the son of God(Jesus) was a murder committed by mankind. Christ came to teach us how to live a God pleasing life, by his words and actions he lead a perfect live which we should emulate. But his sincere words and honest living did not sit well with a lot of men-- especially the leaders of religions who felt threatened and challenged. Christ's words exposed their fallacy and hypocrisy; in other not to loose their power, they connived and got Jesus arrested, then they pressured the roman governor (Pontus Pilate) into convicting and crucifying HIM.
HIS crucification was an injustice that almost resulted in an instantaneous karma which would have destroyed the world, had HE not prayed -- "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."
If HE had come to the earth to be crucified, then those who crucified HIM would have been doing the will of God, hence they wouldn't need forgiveness. The fact that Jesus prayed for God to forgive them clearly shows that they committed a sin by crucifying HIM.
I do not draw my knowledge from the Bible because eventhough that the Bible still contains some elements of Truth, it has been interfed with and some of it's contents are not true. The scriptures (Bible and Great Book) have been interfered with by men who engineered the stories to suit their purposes and religious beliefs.

I have 4 questions for you:
1.) Why would God send His beloved and innocent son to die for mankind?
2.) Does God love mankind more than His own son?
3.) Why would God let an innocent person pay for the sins he never committed? Is this not injustice?
Your Bible said: "A man must reap what he sow." Why would God let Christ reap or pay for sins he never sowed(Committed) while the offenders receive forgiveness and not reap what they sowed(pay for their sins)
4.) If God had to kill his son to achieve an aim(forgive mankind), then God is a ritualist! How then, is God different from the occultists, satanists and the ritualists who allegedly do human sacrifice in other to achieve an aim (get rich). ?

I wait for your reply!

The Truth of the matter is that God did not create evil. Man by his nature has the gift of free will which if used rightly will always result in happiness; however, man sometimes uses this gift wrongly -- by making wrong choice's, and bringing harm to his fellow creatures. The result of this wrong use of the free will is evil.
Newton observed that action and reaction are equal-- Newtons third law of motion.
This law works in all areas of life, in our thoughts, words and doings. When we do wrong to others the reaction is that we will reap evil, ie we will receive a worst treatment letter. This is action and reaction. "You reap what you sow."
This is a beautiful law made by God to help all creatures. But man used his free will wrongly and the reaction of this is that man receives evil. Imagine what the world would have been if man (we humans) had not always chosen wrongly.
God being perfect cannot change his laws just for one creature(man). This will be injustice since this law allies not only to man but to everything, even non living things. Therefor the source of evil is man. This is the truth that even the churches don't teach.
Think about cars. The person who invented cars did a good thing -- to make transportation easier. If somebody chooses to use the car wrongly-- hit and kill people with it, would you blame the maker of the car.
The same applies to the question at hand.