₦airaland Forum

[quote author=m.k.o2005]The spirit guides you to do or not to do !
God help us[/quote]If the spirit guides us to do right or not do wrong, then those who do wrong or don't do right are spiritless!

onitshaigbo: Stop spewing your nonsense. How dare you compare Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour with some Indian myth-god and some stinky Arab?

Jesus rose from the dead, healed the sick, fed the masses, can any of your fake prophets do that?

Jesus fed 5000ppl with 5 loaves or so, how is that an ordinary belief? For ordinary beliefs ppl are expected to prove the truthfulness of them not to speak of extraordinary beliefs. Likewise Krishna and some "stinky arab" are extraordinary beliefs.

Emusan: Listen to what Stephen Hawking said I do believe you know him


i know truth do hurt. God really exist!

Did you note his point about time? If time begins with big bang, then there can't be a time reference of before Big Bang. Hence the most appropriate time for God to create the universe is at the immediate instant of Big Bang. Which would imply no cause for Big Bang.

As to the Faith claims for Science. I think Faith means blindness

Proffdada: yet again your ignorance precedes you most inventions and inventors originates from studying the bible. technological advances are made everyday by inspirations from the scriptures

Do you think the Bible writers had a grasp of the immensity of modern scientific knowledge? Could they understand a black hole? Or the power of an atom? Did they understand near infinity of space? Did they ever juxtapose God with such knowledge?

I didn't see any reference to the above from the Bible.

We have to praise ourselves for our feats.

loswhite: Only a fool say there is no God. When titanic was made the makers said God himself cannot sink the ship of course u don't nid me to tell u the end of d story

Wrong application of that verse. It refers to people of faith who inspite of faith don't believe.

@M.k.o2005 what's the exact function of the spirit? Self reflection?

Mintayo: man is a spirit,he has a soul and housed in a body!

Ok, a man without a spirit but with a soul and body is what?

Mintayo: Some say God doesn't exist; what if He does?
Some say there is no heaven or hell;what if there is?
Some say Jesus is not real; what if He is?
Some say Jesus did not die; what if He did?
Some say the end will not come,what if It does?
Some say Jesus is not the son of God; what if He is?
Some say Jesus will not come back again(rapture); what if He does?

Yet you use conditional "if" which isn't persuasive

This statement "Man is body soul and spirit" can either be true or false, how do you ascertain the statement is true?

Science definitely undermines the belief in God. That's a truth. Because it is laughable to believe lightning strikes have a sentient purpose, that lightning is considered with what's good and bad. It is extremely difficult to be a Christian and be aware of advanced scientific achievements and philosophical postions.

People who understand black holes, the power of stars and outer space distances can't be caught finding pots and broomsticks inside trees. Or expecting a short man add up a few inches in a few minutes.

Most comments here are pathetic, it can be summed up that to be a Christian, one must be a dunce

Billyonaire: Praise the Lord, Somebody!

Am I the only person to notice that Nairaland has been boring, not just today, but the past week ? Shall we spice it up a lil more.

In a thread in Politics section, some handler instructed me to give my life to Christ. It dawned on me that many folks do not know the meaning of Christ. They basically think that Christ totally replaces the name Jesus, the one called Issa Ibn Mariam by the Mohammedans.

Let me enlighten a few more people who need an understanding as follows:

Christ is just a mystical and Spiritual Title given to 'anyone' who has attained the Christ Consciousness. In Christianity, "Christ" denotes "Anointed One".

Christ Consciousness is the awareness that comes when one attains the 4th Plane of Existence, what science terms dimension. Anyone who attains that degree of consciousness can earn the Title, Christ.

Notable in the Bible are (1) Jesus and (2) Paul. In modern times, they are about 6 persons in the planet who has attained the Christ Consciousness, the only one in Africa, Nigeria's Cross River.

We talk about God later, right now, I got fishies to fry.

Happy Sunday.

The mistake you keep making is to ignore the scientific foundations to pursue your pseudoscience. Dimensions of space are the micro-bits space equivalent of atoms. So its more or less the view of an atom in space

At least the christian God created everything out of nothing.

My argument is simple: if it ia product of the mind, then alter it.

^^
No that applies to those with faith and still don't believe in God.

Reyginus: We're only aware that a thing exists or will exist when it is within the scope of the mind.
What I mean is that, principles in physical laws cannot be said to be or to have being if we don't have a mind establishing their awareness.
In relation to the big bang theory.
Any attempt to assume that a single entity, will experience a physical increase in entities will render an already established physical law obsolete. The first law of thermodynamics.
It contradicts the fact that energy can never be created nor destroyed.

I'm saying regardless of the absence of mind, such abstracts still exist. Just similar to denying the existence of colour cos of the absence of eyes.

^^

If mathematical laws are mental constructs, then we can easily bend them. Then you'd be able to easily bend the concept of a triangle. In as much as these abstracts are independent, they are real but not concrete.

Furthermore Design arguments acknowledge the preexistence of abstracts. That laws demand conformity. Hence it is necessary for God to design.

1. this is your definition of canon:

By "canon" in this sense is meant roughly "yardstick", "standard", or "definitive" (or perhaps "authoritative" as Wiki uses). In relation to the Bible and Christianity in any event, by canon is meant the collection of books ACCEPTED by a particular Christian community or particular sets of Christians as definitely "sacred" Scriptures or the collection of books accepted as definitely "inspired"

You defined the Bible similarly only that its acceptable generally by Christians. So you have to show us proof of positive acceptance of the earliest Canon by the Church! Vague references by authors isn't sufficient. The hallmark event wherein the foundation of christianity was confirmed, definitely has a date, so pls provide it to us mortals. Except you want to claim acceptance is traditional and customary.

2. The Synod of Hippo is a synod wherein bishops come together to discuss issues. Wiki says:

A synod historically is a council of a church, usually convened to decide an issue of doctrine, administration or application

The resolutions of the Synod stated categorically that themselves are subject to the approval of the Bishop of Rome (hence it is beyond a regional affair) and also a council of a Church (thus any decision thereof is a decision of the Church).

3. I have read it again and I didn't see the answer to my question.

4. It is very important so we can distinguish btw the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church

Reyginus: We cannot accept that to be true, since we only began to percieve their existence after the big b.ang. If we still insist, the big b.ang will cease to be the beginning. If so be the case, that it is even creating plurality is not feasible. Except these immutables are the actual causes of the begining which is not true based on available data.

Good question. Check out this demonstration. Draw out a triangle and pay attention to its properties(esp mathematical qualities), now tryto alter it and see if your new shape is still a triangle.

Obviously you wouldn't be able to do so.

Did you invent the triangle when u drew it out? Do you think the first man to throw a triangle was the person that created the triangle? Do you think the big bang had any causal link to it? Or God?

No, because it is a discernible object existing without space or time, perceived by the mind. It has no causal relationships and is in the World of Ideas (as plato says)

Pastor Olu T: God is life, and tell me please how we can come from non life to life, i am ready to learn

Then any question that pertains to the Origin of Life is useless! Except if you can accept non life to life. And I'm surprised you asking about the Origin of Life, rather you should say its a no issue. That life is eternal

^^

In that, they are immutable, they neither have a beginning nor end.

Is Energy transcendent? No its not. God is essentially transcedent.

^^

First of all, accept the inevitability of abstract objects such as numbers, principle of causality, colour, mathematical truths in general. Upon that acceptance, it is easier to believe any singularity acting upon immutable unending mathematical and proprietary principles will obviously produce plurality.

The Big Bang is a reenactment of physical laws probably within a multiverse.

Is non life to life impossble?

Is God life?

The day a scientific explanation is given, your religion will fall apart. Besides, is God life? And is non life to life impossible?

My objections are as follows:

1. Contrary to your definition of Canon and Canon of the Bible, you didn't show any resolution of the Church to adopt a Canon, according to what you wrote out, it seems a canon is more or less a parcel of tradition not thought through.

The canons you talked about were ambiguous, we weren't enlightened as to whether the whole community of christians accepted the purported canons or its the writers' opinions. What collection of paul's letters? Is it all the letters? what proof do you have for that? The purported Scripture you quoted (luke 10:7) had just one similar sentence with 1 timothy, which isn't impressive.

2. Why are we to ignore the resolutions of the African Synods if its doctrinal texts/bases can't be made in the name of the Universal Church? Isn't it inconsistent to accept Councils held in Turkey and Egypt but condemn African meetings as mere regional/inconsquential loud reflections? If such Synods are regional, its reasonable to believe they are a diff church frm the universal church; in effect pronouncing the universal church dead.

3. At last you have made yourself clear about the catholic, the Catholic and Roman Catholic churches. At the point where the Arians and Gnostics were thrown out of the Church, did the Church stop being a catholic Church?? Or the catholic Church encompassed the right/true Church?

4. Pls provide a detailed structure of the Catholic Church.

Enigma: And see the Roman Catholic Church tacitly confirm what I have been saying that a lot of the "church fathers" were not Roman Catholics.

Para 15 of http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Enigma you are muddling things up, the Eastern fathers been mentioned were not under the East Orthodox Church then, there wasn't the great Schism yet. The East Orthodox Church springs up after the G.Schism, and it becomes a new entity with a new structure. Now the Patriarch is the head of the Church, which wasn't the situation before the G.Schism.

Enigma: Meanwhile, see the Roman Catholic Church admit the crucial role of the Eastern Orthodox in some of the most important and significant events of early Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church even admits that it "drew" a lot from them 'Orthodoxen'!

Para 14 of www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

What does that have to do with dosproving Rome as the head of the Church?!

I learn a lot from Christians, still doesn't make me a Christian.

@enigma

1. Some roman catholics would disagree with me? That's your answer?! How subjective!

2. I will concede to Antioch. Given that the Eastern Orthodox Church receives instructions from the Constantinople Patriarch, being the Head of the church, how do you explain his source or recognition of his authority?

God embodies good = perfection. Perfect free will = total freewill. By the act of creation, God lends out his good nature. Hence a perfect Creator begets a perfect creation.

On the other hand,

Evil is the opposition/nullification to the inherent and natural aspirations/purpose of Creation.

Evil is structural defect of Creation, it is a nullification/contradiction of inherent purpose and design. It is damage. Its existence is an inconsistency of the Christian God and Freewill. Evil in fact deprives free will. Evil is imbibed in our cultures and environment, it conditioned into us, distorts our experience to graduate to Evil. It overrides our emotions and feelings.

Evil is encompassing, it is beyond the control of the individual. We are forced to consider necessary evils.

Reyginus: Lol. Kay!! If I get you clearly, all intimate matters are moral, and can be justified by naturalism.

Let me keep it simple, there are naturalistic causes of morality. For example existentialism.

ROMAN Catholic could mean the Church under the protection of the Roman empire. Constantine legalized and promoted christianity and boosted its ranks. Theodosius adopted it as a State religion.

Besides at the Council of Nicaea, it was recognised that bishops of Rome and Alexandria had overarching jurisdictions beyond their cities

Reyginus: I don't think so. If we are to base the argument on self-expression without defining the terms properly, I can also on the same lane say that, murder is evil, so trying to repress it is.
I would prefer we establish a logical basis for whatever we think is moral/immoral here.

Homosexuality is an intimate identity, unlike murder

Reyginus: Interesting..Would you mind explaining homosexuality on the basis of Naturalism?

Homosexuality is a moral issue. It can be seen as an evil and it can taken that repression of homosexuality is a repression of self expression which is an evil. Either way.

1. The presence of reason gives no space to faith, you were committed to the existence of God prior to taking consideration of proofs.
2. Define Faith

3. Subjective and objective together? Are you that desperate?