₦airaland Forum

ok i just vvoted and i see a lot of people are posting from abroad, i hope u are all telling the truth o.

uhhh wassup to those posting from Edo state

Can you tell me what atheism has to do with being lawless? Are you saying we need some supreme being to tell us what to do?

that wasn't about atheists, you don't have to believe in a supreme being, but please stop allowing ridiculousness_{is that even a word?} and immorality and unnatural things in our society.

There is something in arguments known as burden of proof, you first of all said that it is unnatural, I said give me supports for your claim that it is, how hard can that be?

The human genetics shows us that male and male doesn't match, female and female doesn't match. In nature we are to reproduce, and we cannot reproduce with same sex. Even if sexual intercourse doesn't take place the specimen (male) and egg (female) have to come together. The human sexual organ was made for a purpose and that is procreation, if it is not we wouldn't take great precautions to stop the process of procreation. Since same sex cannot procreate, it is unnnatural.

You're funny. Joe asked a very simple question about marriage to a muslim. I answered with the scriptures that God says its a no-no. You're then stretching my reply to apply to an entirely different situation saying "scripture is misrepresented".

Sorry about that, but I was replying to one post, and I wanted you to go into more detail, majority of the time when I ask questions, it's not for me but for those who are reading and are too lazy to pick up the Bible and read and pray and all that. I like it when people are detailed about things so as not to confuse others. But I see you took care of that. Good job.

Now after reading your explanations, I agree to a certain extent, and the extent being I know muslims that have become Christians through marriage, and I think they are worth it. Their families have also become Christians, well some of them. I don't think one soul should be written off just like that.

Olabowale, I have asked you to get educated on Christianity before you speak, trust me you do not want to make this about Islam, because I will make you turn to your cooked up lies to save face.

You still haven't explained how pharoah used crucifixion on his subjects when it wasn't invented until centuries later and then by the Romans. You still haven't explained to me how Allah is so untrustworthy because he doesn't know how to stick to his word, all he does is abrogate things.


Stay out of my conversations until you can actually intelligently carry one. When you learn how to reason, you can approach me in a discussion, until then stay out.

@~Lady~
Ok , I am a Jesuit myself. And considering the amount of work I and my brothers are doing all over the world, I do not think that any of us has forgotten God. Just that Jesuits try to find God in ALL things. Jesuits have been the backbone of the Vatican and the Church at large for centuries now. It might interest you to know that 35 craters on the moon are named after Jesuits.

Furthermore, Jesuits have been known to be mystics and originals. St. Francis Xavier, Fr. Matteo Ricci SJ, Fr. Roberto de Nobili SJ had the issue of INCULTURATION in mind long long long before Vatican II mentioned it.

Yay, you made it. Ok my point isn't that they haven't done anything, my point is that the society is diminishing, quite a lot of them have become proud of their works. Humility is going out the door, and you may have just shown everyone that.

why not greco-hebrew?(pun intended)

I don't get it.

i concede that i can't have it both ways. i know that there were no scripture but some of the books of the old testament when the books of new testament were assembled. the scripture i alluded to in 2timothy does not mean the bible as we know it to day even though most christains mistakenly assume it mean the bible as it is today.

These would be the prostetants. And it is my point, so why were you saying what you said as if you didn't know any better?

the truth is that the catholic bishops choose which books to be assigned as part of the bible as we know it today, edited it to form a coherent narrative and presented it as the word of god. the catholic church assigned the names book of moses to the pentateuch, matthew, mark luke and john to the gospel. even though the writers were unkown.

The Catholic Bishops chose which books were to be included as scripture. The Word of God is still binding and considered the word of God based on the authority of the Church. The authority is the Church not the Bible, unfortunately the view of it has been twisted and that's why people are misunderstanding a lot today. It is the Word of God because it is called so by those whom God gave the power to bind and loose. SO it is no less the word of God because men defined it as such, because the power to do so came from God. So the Bible being revered as the Word of God isn't diminished just because Catholic Bishops put it together. The writers were known, how? Because of sacred tradition. The Church was able to choose the rightful books for the Bible through sacred tradition. Without which we wouldn't know who said what, taught what, wrote what, and did what. Protestants don't realise that they wouldn't have the Bible today if it wasn't for sacred tradition, they don't even know that the Bible itself is sacred tradition. So when they speak against sacred tradition, they're actually speaking against the Bible without knowing it. Lol, funny huh.

do you believe the story as the bible puts it or don't you? the bible says it was a global flood yet you keep insisting that it was a regional flood despite the example i gave you about the city of sodom and gomorrah before they were destroyed

1) What example about sodom and gomorrah?

2) *sigh* Ok one more time, Noah's view of the world was all he could see, therefore when Noah speaks of a global flood he is only talking about what he thinks the world is. Now because the Bible was translated word for word without any attention to fit today's society, global flood is still there.
The story as the Bible puts it is true and it did happen as several archaeologists have proven that a flood like that did take place in the region where Noah lived. What is so confusing to you and so many others is that you all think the world being talked about there at that time is the world as we know it today. It is not the same thing. Just because it says world does not mean the world that Noah saw is the world that we see today. Get it now. The Bible does not need to change, we need to understand the time and place, and culture these books were written.

It is a global flood in the mind of Noah, but what Noah considered as global is not what we today consider as global. So the Bible is not misleading you, it is actually giving you the full truth of how Noah saw it. You just fail to understand Noah's time.

the bible says that it was god speaking why are you still opposing what the bible says? here it is

One more time, did God write it down? Or did the person narrating it write it down? And what are you now a protestant?

do you still want to argue?

we will get to the bottom of it, if you will just answer my question and stop acting like a kid that knows it all.

lady lady, if they are not direct account of events and as a result they report events and mistake dates, time and what was said why then do you guys believe that the bible is the word of god? how can you trust the words of hear say and third parties which were written 60 years after.

Don't twist my words. They are direct accounts of events, but some of the gospels were not written by the eyewitnesses. Notice I mentioned sacred tradition, Mark wrote down what Peter had experienced with Christ, therefore making it authentic. Luke wrote down what was also handed down to him by the eyewitness and because he was a companion of St. Paul, and was well known by the Church as a companion of the apostles. It wouldn't be surprising of Mark and Luke actually wrote what the apostles said before their death and then presented it to their communities.
The Bible was compiled so that the Church can use it for guidance, I addressed this earlier actually so no need to be redundant.

They didn't mistake dates, time and what was said, you still haven't shown me these contradictions. I don't know where you get your info from but you may want to check it twice. Chris did the same thing you're doing now, and then he presented me with these contradictions only to find out that there were no contradictions at all, it was the site he got his information from that was wrong. So be careful to take on your head what isn't true.

are you promoting your catholic faith here or are you trying to explain that which is in the bible? there are so many people here on nairaland that will not agree with what you have written here. you keep repeating the words disciples, apostles and eyewitnesses. why were the gospels not said to have included the words of others? the gospel according to matthew, mark, luke and john is what is written in the bible

Then those people will have to tell us how the Bible came to be. The gospels included the words of others, have you read the Bible at all? Do you have a problem with the gospel using third person instead of approaching it as something personal? Newsflash, it wasn't meant to be a memoir of the person writing it, it was meant to be used for instruction in their respective communities. Just as my accounting textbook is written by stice, stice, and skousen, they are not personal and are not written in the first person.

how does targeting  different audiences explain the contradictory account of the events that happened with the story of the fig tree?

Different societies view things differently, I gave an example earlier of matthew and Luke, speaking to two different societies and using different words and backgrounds and such to explain the event.

I have to run to mass, will be back to finish up.

they became as dead men for fright at the event of the resurrection as mary magdalene approached the tomb. (many apologists seize on this report, indicating the resurrection is the only explanation.) but, john makes no mention of these soldiers and, according to that gospel, mary, in fact believed jesus body had been stolen. there were no frozen guards nor even the angel to greet her as she came to the tomb. left to wonder, she went to the disciples in fear and shared her opinion that Jesus corpse had been stolen. this is different from matthew, again, in that an angel appeared to mary magdalene, sending her to the disciples, not with the theory of grave robbery, but the joyful news of the resurrection.

Continue reading John and you will see that even in John Mary magdalene sees the angel. Just because Matthew doesn't mention the afore mentioned events of Mary running to get the apostles doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Like I said the writers were writing to different people, the way they describe the same event may be different, but it doesn't change the event from happening. I used an example earlier about the sermon on the mount where Christ gave the beatitudes. I said Matthew has Jesus sitting on a mountain to relate to the Jews who were used to Moses as authority, and Luke has him sitting on a plain to relate to the Gentiles who were used to philosophers giving speeches on plains as authority. To you these may seem as contradictory as you will try to figure out if Jesus was on a mountain or not, but to me understanding that these writers were painting a picture that their communities would understand they described things or explained things to fit their audiences.

when we apply logic you guys are quick to say its either a miracle or the story is an allegorical narrative

you don't use logic, you use conclusions that you have. You ask about Christianity and yet you tell us what Christianity is in the same sentence, so why ask? You're not asking, you're telling us. So we tell you what it actually is, and when we actually show you Christianity with logic, you scream foul.
You don't know about Christianity, you don't believe it, you don't take your time to actually learn it, you see one thing and then scream foul because to you it supports your view, but when in fact you look at Christianity as a whole your argument goes down the drain, and yet you don't learn from your mistakes. To understand the New Testament, you must first understand the Old Testament. The Old Testament is the New hidden and the New Testament is the Old revealed. Does that make sense to  you?

the first book that was written was mark and it was written around AD 60, i will send you the link, besides i saw it on a christain website. even if it is 30-40 years as you claim it still does'nt take away the fact that there are contradictions reported and 30-40 years is a long time to make put into question all the account of things that were written.

You still haven't shown me the contradictions, and no what you wrote up there are not contradictions. Like I said go and learn the culture and time of these people and then come have these discussions again. Go and study theology first and then you can attempt these discussions again. Until then you will not get it.

you haven't proven me wrong.

Trust me I have, but you won't see it until you go and study what I pointed above. And besides you've conceeded once before to my point.

@ mazaje

I saw your post but I have to go and hammer my food.

@ lady season greetings, i am presently in a new year party but will reply your post shortly.

^{in a yoruba accent} Same to you. How can you be at a new year party and be online? Hope you are not the host sha?

Carlosein:
how did you know what i had for christmas? do you have goat meat in the states?

me i dey kampe for hia na oby, viee and pamperme we dey expect.

Lol, I know many things o.
Yes o we have goats here, infact you can watch them kill it. I live in the south, and these people are Nigerian o. lol

I didn't eat goat meat though, it's quite expensive now adays so we settled for turkey.

how does this explain anything? the people that alleagedly witnessed all the events were hebrew not greek. i have never heard of greco-hebrew.

But they lived in roman territory, hence greco-roman. They traveled a lot, and some were citizens of rome and rome was not a set place it included nations, and therefore they could travel freely about from place to place.

the gospel according to matthew, mark ,luke and john is what is written in the bible, the gospel according to what they witnessed and saw as deciples of jesus, your claim of other people present is BOGUS. if there are other people then please let us know who their names are.

Lol, so because it is called according to matthew, mark, lukem and john it couldn't have included other people in there. I don't even know why I am entertaining this post of yours, when everyone knows that the writers were not the only ones present in the narratives. Go and read and stop being lazy, I won't entertain foolishness.

what is this lady?    do you really believe what you have written? what about a place in the new testament where it was written that all scriptures are inspired by god? 2 timothy 3:16 says "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,  " what does that statement mean and what now becomes of your assertion? the other day on another thread you claimed that noah's flood did not happen globally because noah wrote the story according to his understanding of the world when the bible clearly say it was a global flood(i wanted to point that fact to you but i was busy). here is what your bible says

Yes I do and know it to be true. When they were written they weren't written to say ok this book will be scripture if that is the case then there wouldn't have been any need for the councils to decide which books will be considered scripture. they weren't scripture until the Church defined them as scripture. This was a point you were trying to make on another thread so please learn to be consistent with your point. It is either the Church defined scripture and therefore you think that scripture is man made and the church is the problem or the writers acknowledged that their writings are scripture therefore having no need of being defined so by the Church. You can't have it both ways, your points contradict each other, pick one and stick to it.

The scripture spoken of by St. Paul is the Old Testament, the New Testament hadn't been defined at the time he wrote it. Only the Old Testament was considered scripture. The New Testament at this point were only writings.

Well that was my point, noah viewed only what he could see as global. Therefore when he wrote global flood, he only wrote of what he knew as the world and that was as far as his backyard maybe. The Bible is translated word for word and is not translated to fit our society.
I was stating that Noah didn't know that asia or the americas existed therefore he didn't know that the world consisted of these, so when he speaks of world he speaks of that which he can only see, not that which we can see.

Genesis 7 said that the flood destroyed "all" mankind and "every" land animal and presumably insects included. If he had meant those in a certain locale and not the entire earth, he could have said so. when describing the destruction of Sodom there was no problem in saying the inhabitants of a certain geographical area were the ones destroyed, not all mankind:

uh duh mankind as they know it. you claim that these people did not know about the rest of the world, well then  how do you expect them to include it in their writings. the world to them at that time, is what they saw, therefore when they wrote of the world, that is what they saw.

and remember when the biblical god was giving noah the warning this is what he said.

I'm sorry but did God write that down or was it the people that was narrating it?

this is another lame excuse. the bible gave it as the report of the diciples of jesus according to what they witnessed not according to what they and others witnessed. what about the parts where it was written that jesus was alone? how did they get to know what happened and what jesus said when he went and prayed alone? there is no where in the gospels where it was written that jesus went and prayed alone came back and shared what he did or said when he was alone to his diciples. how did they know and write about it 60 years later?

Um no the Bible had never done that, you assumed that that's what's being done. We know that Mark and Luke were not direct disciples of Jesus, you that don't want to believe in God, made yourself believe that it was written to give a direct account of what they saw, the only ones that give a direct account of what they saw are matthew and John. Mark gives an account of what Peter saw, and Luke clearly tells you in the beginning that he did his own investigative work and decided to write it, it is even addressed to a man named Theophilus.

Luke 1
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us; 2 According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: 3 It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Notice that he's pretty much telling us that he wasn't an eyewitnesses but that he would write what the eyewitness has handed down to him. SO no one is trying to have a conspiracy here, it is all in your head.

this is BOGUS.  jesus came to save the world as the bible claims yet you say that the account of events written about him were not written to be read universally?

Yes the message was to be spread globally but the writing were targeting different communities. Like I said earlier these writings were not written to be scripture, they weren't expecting us to have it bound as a book to be read in the pews. They didn't even know there would be pews like today, they thought Jesus was coming at their time, they were expecting him to come as they were undergoing persecutions, and as you and I both know it has been 2000 years.
Each writer had his own audience, you read these today as scripture because the Church defined these ones to be scripture, there were plenty of books that were written, these gospels were chosen because they were the earliest to be written and their account supported the teachings of the disciples, apostles, actual eyewitnesses. This is why the Church strongly believes in sacred tradition. Without it we wouldn't have known which books were supposed to be scripture or which was authentic.

what has that got to do with the very contradictory report of events? like when did jesus and his diciples eat the last super? was it before the passover feast(first of the seven anual festival) or on the feast of unleaved bread(second of the seven anual festival), when did the tree wither? is it immediately or the next morning?

None of the gospels contradict each other, they give an account of the same thing in different ways, like I said earlier they were all targeting different audiences.

what did god say and to whom when the dove came down on jesus after he was baptised?

The dove came down upon Jesus and God said "Thou are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased?" Everyone heard it. Did it ever occur to you that they heard it?

remember mark even said "and his diciples heard him say this" yet their account of the same event were very different and contradictory.

their accounts may be presented differently, hello different audiences, but they were never contradictory. I am hoping you know what contradiction means, it doesn't mean that one said this in full account and the other didn't say it in full account, or that one said it in these words and the other said the same thing using different words. I am hoping you know that it means one says this forward and the other says it is backwards. Now please show me the contradictory accounts in the gospels.

this is not true, you are traying to rationalize what is written in the bible, some christains try to rationalize the bible thats why we have christains who believe that non christains will go to heaven, women can preach in churches with men, homosexuals should be accepted etc when the bible unequivocally says other wise. this analogy is ridiculous. by the way those accounts of events were written 60 years after the alleaged death of jesus, that alone says a lot about the veracity of what is written as the accounts of eye witness.

No you never took your time to study the Bible, and came up to a conclusion that it isn't rational. You never met people who could actually get you to understand the Bible using logic, and then when you did, you just couldn't handle it, that's why you have your panties bunched up right now. You just don't want to be proven wrong. You're hoping that christianity isn't rational, and you've been proven wrong, and now you can't take it so your best bet is to get riled up and fire insults our way.
Lol, if you know anything about God's grace you will know that non-christians may go to heaven, if you know anything about not judging another you will know that it is not up to us to decide who will go to heaven, and because we know that God's grace is abundant he can grant it to anyone.

Women still can't preach in churches with men, I am a woman, and I still stand by that. Homosexuals are people and they should be accepted, after all Jesus message is to accept those who are outcasts of society, but that is not to say that we should accept the homosexual acts. So I don't have a problem with having a homosexual friend, but I don't have a problem telling him or her that their actions are wrong and that I won't vote for them to get married. Just as I won't disown my sister for killing someone, but I won't let her walk free because she's my sister, I won't condone her act of killing someone and will tell her straight up it is wrong.

Those accounts were not written 60 years after the death of Jesus, it is impossible. All except for John were written before the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 AD and Jesus' death occurred around 30 AD, that gives 30 - 40 years and not 60, so please you all get your facts straight.

so madam i have seen that you are really a mental gymnast. since the contradictions does not support and makes a mess of what is clearly written in your holy scriptures, you have to try and cloud what is written, twist it and reshape it to make it fit with reality.

I prove you wrong and all of a sudden I am a mental gymnast? Ok, I accept, thanks for the title.

JJYOU:
chill.
these things are above your pay grade
happy new year

lol, u wish, answer me jo.
Happy New year to you too.

I have resolved never to make a new year's resolution as usual. SO none for me.

JJYOU:
2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers [do not make mismated alliances with them or come under a different yoke with them, inconsistent with your faith]. For what partnership have right living and right standing with God with iniquity and lawlessness? Or how can light have fellowship with darkness?

Then all muslims should be kicked out of the U.S. and no christians should live in the middle east. In fact we shouldn't do business with non-christians and they shouldn't be employed by us.
Have you ever heard of discrimintaion?
We shouldn't speak to them or go to school with them, we shouldn't have them as friends as this would be wrong according to the Bible. Abi no be so?

There you go again lady, we have been through this before the bible is the last place to run to when we are looking for morality, the laws of any nation should not be based on any religion whatsoever so what are you saying?

Where did I say that we have to go to the Bible? Please stop making assumptions as usual.
No the Bible isn't the last place you run to. It may be for you, but not for me. If you have truly read the Bible, you will see that the many problems we face today are nothing new. There is nothing new under the sun. We run to many books written by men and some tactics have been proven wrong, but if someone mentions something religious, you jump up and say they are written by men and can't be trusted. This sounds like you have a phobia towards religious people, instead of the other way around. Did it ever occur to you that you are victimizing us too?

Its good you say you have not been informed about when life begins and what can constitue murder, there is an abortion right or crime thread here that deals with the issue maybe you should read it.

Post the link for me pls.
I seriously want someone to define when life begins and if it's not conception, what is it at conception? A chair, a desk? which one?

As for people being gay we have gone through this countless times, maybe you have better supports for your claim this time around other than it is unnatural because that has been debunked, we all know it happens in nature

You never debunked it, you still haven't shown me how it is natural within the human species, as that is what I've been talking about.

Where are the supports for your claims? Bring it forward because laws cannot be made or repealed because of what you feel or because of what some men who knew nothing of how the human body works wrote. No more assertions we need supports for those claims that homosexuality is not natural.
This is the reason why we cannot leave society in your hands, I am sure you will scream foul play if the sharia law became the supreme law in the US. Religious people will destroy this earth

If you seriously want to have this discussion again, I will oblige you. It's high time you stop screaming foul. Society will be down the drain without laws. Everyone will do what they want and the earth will be destroyed.

How does the Chritian law support the jailing of women when they are raped? Have you forgotten that the U.S. laws are based on Judeo-Christian principles? How many people are oppressed by it? Are you oppressed by the laws? The laws are geared towards justice. And sorry my dear homosexuality is not natural and therefore will be an injustice to us all, yes including you. And that it allows freedom for all. Seriously how does the sharia law compare to the U.S. law, it is not governed by the Church, the U.S. law is not a christian or jewish law, it is a people law and the people believe in the judeo-christian prinicples.

Our society has completely forgotten the appropriate functions of sex and that's why we are having this problem with homosexuality. Sorry but they are not oppressed people, the Christians who are called bigots for standing up for what they believe are the oppressed people. How is it that homosexuals can stand up for what they believe and we can't? How is that justice?
They stand up for something without proof, and unless you are willing to show me the proof, please don't start screaming foul.

Joe, if you're truly a christian, then you must surely know that the bible says you cannot be unequally "yoked" with a non-christian?
A christian has no business marrying someone of another religion. You're only asking for trouble.

This is the problem when the scripture is misinterpreted. It causes division. If we are to be unequally yoked with a non-christian as you interpret it to be, then none of us should have friends that are non-christian. What will you do if your sister becomes a musim? Cut her off your family? What is it's your mum? Will you now dishonor her and break a commandment of God because she has become a mulsim?


@ Poster

Pray to God, for direction, listen to him. SOmetimes what we want isn't what he wants for us. Let his will be done. In all you do, be loving towards her and her family, respect their wishes, and go to God. Put God first in your life and before you know it all will fall in place. Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and the rest will be granted to you. You may be surprised in the end. Who knows, her parents may admire your piety in faith and allow her to marry you, she may become a Christian and lead her family to Christ.

Pray and listen, don't ask God to do what you want, listen to know his will. Let his will be done, and you accept it as it is.

1 I have never heard of atheophobia
2 Your post is quite ridiculous
3 When Religious fight you, we fight for our own right, and natural law also. Most atheists want morality to go down the drain, some may not even recognise that they do, we don't want our earth to become ruined by lawless people. example of this is the fight for gay marriage and acceptance of homosexuality in society, and abortion rights. sorry but homosexuality in the human species in unnatural and i haven't been informed when life begins if not at conception.

@ Huxley

DO you constantly have to be redundant? You are now acting like the very people you condemn.

If the deciples of jesus really wrote the gospels as alleaged by bible apologist when are some of the gospels written in koine greek (when non of the writer is greek) or written in the third person ? why are the gospels written like a narrative fiction? why do we have parts where only jesus was present? why were the gospels written about 60(a long time for someone to live in those days, let alone remember what happened all those decades ago ) years after the death of jesus?

I am Nigerian my main language is Benin and yet I speak English. Italians also speak and write in English. Do you get it? You don't have to come from England to write and speak english.

Most of the people living in Jesus' time spoke and wrote greek. Ever heard of greco-roman? For someone with "knowledge" you seem to know little.

The gospels are not written like a narrative fiction, you view it as fiction. However it is a narration and that's why it is in third person, considering the fact that the writer was not the only person present at these events of Jesus' life. The gospels were not written to be scripture. None of the books in the Bible or at least the New Testament were written to be scripture. During a time of persecution the eyewitnesses were dying quickly and they thought it best to write down these narratives so as to have records of what happened before it got lost in time. While Jesus walked the earth, the disciples weren't reporters who carried notebooks and tape recorders to capture every thing that was said.

Most of the gospels were not even written to be read universally, they were written to a specific people, that is why each writer describes things differently. For example Matthew was writing to the Jewish Christians and therefore used images that identified with the Jewish people. Luke wrote to the gentiles who were associated with greek philosophers and therefore used images that identified with them. One example of this is the beatitudes sermon. Matthew describes Jesus as sitting on a Mountain likening him to Moses and Moses is viewed as authority, while Luke has Jesus on a plain likening him to the greek philosophers as most of them gave their speeches on a plain, on level ground.

So you see the gospels or any of the books in the Bible cannot be appraoched or read as if it was written today and to us. It must be understood as it was written, understanding the message one can then apply it to today's life.

If I were to write a narrative of Jesus giving a sermon, I would create an environment that had him on stage with a podium with a presidential sign as this is symbolic of power and authority to people living today.

So oga if you truly want to understand it, you have to first be willing to do the work. Learn the culture of the people then and how they reasoned. Then and only then will you fully understand the messages in the Bible

karlie4nia:
How r u doing Carl, Lady and rest of yáll?Hope yoaru all had a splendid time? Well i Thank God
for all his faithfullove upon our lives and that of our loved ones and i pray he will continue to keep us all in the shadow of his mighty hands for all time.God bless you all even more in this coming new year Amen.

I am well, how are you?

I see people are still enjoying goat meat
Make una come back o.

Jesus Loves you, Mary loves you, I love you

olabowale:
@Kola Oloye: Jesus will come back, for sure. I agree with you on this matter. He will come back, of course not as a Prophet, or messenger of any kind. There is no new Messeage or prophesy from him. There was never essentially any new Message, in the first place, any way.

When he comes back, not as a christian, which is a strange thing to him anyway, and not as a Temple or Synagogue going Jew any way. He will be back as a follower, of whom? Muhammad bin Abdallah (AS)! He will be part of the Muslim ummah, bowing his face to One True God. That is true submission.

Did you get it, ~Lady~? Or you think he will be back as Christian, which he was never, anyway?

Now Huxley, can you find any failed Prophesy of Muhammad (AS)? I will tell you; none.
Take this one for size; what about the talking shoe? It came about, you know. Watch the Nike talking shoe on youtube.

LMBO!!!!!! WHEN U CAN REASON AND LEARN WHAT CHRISTIAN IS U CAN ATTEMPT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH ME.

Carlosein:
hi everyone. been quite busy wrapping things up for christmas like we no go come work again.

i saw this news item:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20081223/tuk-gay-christians-slam-pope-s-comments-6323e80.html

what do you think?

All I can do is laugh. Ok these so called Reverends should read the Bible, and understand that homosexuality is abnormal among the human species. Until they prove to us that it is natural, I stand by the Pope's comment.

This is a tacit admission that the Bible cannot in fact be the undiluted word of God. If all Biblical stories were written based on the knowledge of the writer - mostly ancient uneducated nomads -  one can only begin to imagine the amount of error and wrong perception that must exist in the Bible.

it is either you don't know what it is to be inspired or you don't know history and the behaviours and thinking of people that live through time. pls tell me what has ever been written that is not based on the knowledge of the writer.

Lady can you back up your claim please.

what claim?

oh no

duduspace i replied and everything, it was beautiful and then my comp went off,

Why would god choose a name like god

God is not a name it is a title

Now let me ask you these questions. You say you believe in Christ and the witnesses don't, then why do you pray to God through the innumerable saints you worship in the Catholic church and not through Christ even when it says so glaringly in the scriptures while the witnesses do?

Get your false misconceptions about the catholic church and shove it up somewhere. We say ALL our prayers through Christ Our Lord, so don't come here making noise as if you are actually somebody. Did you miss the passages about intercessions in the Bible? It's in James go and look it up. The saints pray to God, guess who Jesus is? Yup that's right, God.

Why do you not go from house to house and from place to place preaching the message about God and his Kingdom which by the way were paramount in Jesus messages while on earth (and you say you represent Jesus, believe in him and recite the Lord's prayer

If the Catholic church did not spread the gospel through its missions you wouldn't be a JW today so bow and show respect to those that came before you.
By the way you guys are nothing but a nuisance to society, knocking on our doors at 6am, we don't want you. Stop bothering us. Go and do some charity work please.
But if knocking on doors is what you want, don't worry we have the legion of Mary for that, YES SLIMFINE THE LEGION ON MARY NOT REGION OF MARY, GET IT RIGHT.

Did Jesus preach a clergy/laity class distinction in his Church as the Catholics practice?

YES HE DID, INFACT HE PRACTICED IT. HE APPOINTED APOSTLES. Instead of leaving it up in the air for anyone to grab, he actually designated those who were to carry out the job. So yes he did. Check your Bible, even the apostles did, they were all ordained through the laying on of hands.

Did he condone or practice violence in any form as the Catholic church has done in their numerous 'holy' crusades?

It is because of those 'holy' crusades that you are not screaming Allahu Akbar, so say thank you.

Was he willing to be a king when asked to be it a neutral state?

who is a king? And I thought Jesus is King.

Do you even consider your own works like the Catholic Encyclopedia which trace practices like Christmas, birthdays and the rest of them to pagan rites and origins?

Um I don't go by the catholic encyclopedia so it is not my works. Practice of Christmas is not pagan, go and find out why Christmas is celebrated on the day it is celebrated. Infact let me tell you. The calendar you use today is the Gregorian calendar by Pope Gregory. Christmas is celebrated on Dec 25th because that is supposed to be the longest day of the year. The days get longer as it appraoches December 25th and Christ is the light of the world, so what better day than the day of more light to celebrate the Light of the world. What's wrong with celebrating birthdays, will u die from it? infact it helps u keep track of how u should be growing, so u won't be an adult and speak like a dunce. Maybe you didn't know, but you are not Jewish, everyother people were pagans, so yup you were pagan. HAHA

In fact do you even consider your own Bible?

Infact you can come to us, and we can tell you the actual interpretations of the Bible, afterall we did write and compile it. Yup the apostles were catholic, get with it.

Bastage:
How about treating each other a lot better for a start?

Is christianity hindering the better treatment of people?

I want to send my children to the best school in my area, but i can't because they are not Roman Catholic, and don't follow that particular interpretation of the Bible. I pay my taxes like everyone else to help fund and run this school, so i should be allowed to send my children there

I also pay my taxes but couldn't get accepted to Jacksonville University. Ma'am the Roman Catholic schools are not public schools and have the right to accept whatever children they wish to, it is not up to you to force your kids on them.

By the way Roman Catholic accepts kids from different faiths, so I know the reason u gave is false. I'm assuming u live in the UK? Now I definitely know that the reason you gave is false. You must have led yourself to believe it.

@ Chris,

I posted something for you in the thread of JWs against Catholics stuff. Did you see it, please tell me you got it.

This is totally untrue and I'm sure even you don't beleive what you are writing, but lets assume for a while that you do.

It is very true dear, believe it. I know it knocks you off your seat because you've programmed yourself to see the Church the way it isn't and you just can't hate to be wrong, that would injure your ego and false sense of knowledgeability.

1. I never claimed to know all or even much about the christian religion or any religion for that matter but you have lied that I know "nothing" about the christian religion and you are not supposed to lie in case you've forgotten.
At the least I know that the christian faith beleives in a God who has a Son born by the virgin mary.
Pray, are you implying that you know all about your religion?

No I don't know all about my religion, but I most definitely know more than you do. From what you posted you know nothing, because I know you don't. Once again sorry to knock you off your seat and the belief of the Church that you have convinced yourself of. Simply stating that you know that the Christian religion has a God who has a Son born of the Virgin Mary proves nothing. Anyone can google this up. Do you have knowledge of this God, do you have knowledge of the Son, and his Mother, do you know the mysteries of the faith? Sir unless you can answer these things for me, you know nothing. Just as I can't boast about knowing science because I haven't studied, you cannot boast about knowing Christianity.

2. Growing in what sense? a. that it is composed of human beings trying to understand its concepts, symbolisms and meanings? or b. it is an incomplete religion that requires the input of scientists to make head or tail of it?
In either case, why not have it complete before it is accepted as a religion? or what then is wrong in having a belief that it may be wholly or partly untrue and state it as it is rather than holding it out as an absolute truth that must not be questioned.

a. that it is composed of human beings trying to understand its concepts, symbolisms and meanings. Scientists are involved in this process, I assume you know that they fall into the category of 'human beings'

That is your misconception as having it as an absolute truth that must not be questioned. Maybe you haven't noticed but people question it everyday and we are more than happy to respond. Why don't you stop your generalizations and assumptions, leave it at the door if you are going to have this discussion with me. I show people when it is they have resorted to assumptions, and you and several others on this board have done so. The whole notion of Christianity can never be questioned is new to me, mind telling me where you got it from?

You may not know what religion is. Yes we do have our beliefs, but we are human and we are growing and we have mysteries in our faith and as time passes we understand more about our lives, our purpose, our earth, and we do so by acknowledging that we didn't make ourselves as we are matter and matter gets created, and submitting ourselves to the life source that gave all its breath.

Are you slowly catching on? Don't mistakenly define religion as what you think it should be.

3. I doubt that the church works with scientists as a foundational principle at least history paints a very different picture to your statement. It may now be open to experimentation but was not from the onset (virtually all religions are open to science now apart from the ascetics after all, who wouldn't ? And yes the scientists were random people only that some of them were christians but I'm sure if you questioned them, the sincere ones among them would admit that their christianity was only a belief which could not be proven in anyway and who knows, you may even find out that quite a lot of them also have some or all of the questions that have popped up here.

Well then sir you need to do your research and history doesn't paint a different picture, you only see what you want to see. It has always been open to experimentation infact the theories in science and the environment for studying science today derived from those who were in the Church. Our system of higher learning derived from Christian monks, they are the reasons you still have much of the knowledge of the pagan world and history today. They thought it important to preserve them. They thought it important to study philosophy and yes most of them studied the philosophers that were known to them at their time, I know several Christian writers who studied the work socrates and plato and such.
No scientists were not just random people afterall they got their commission from the Church, don't for a minute mistakenly think that science debunks Christianity or God for that matter. Science understands that which is already created, what we understand today have always been there, it took us time to understand them better and realisie their existence. There are several things that are existing that we have no understanding of or haven't "discovered."

I'm so happy you brought up the questioning part because I did speak to a few of them at my parish today, and they asserted me that science in no way proves God to be non-existent and are very willing to answer your questions, so you can post them and I will be sure to e-mail your questions to them.

The problem is not within the Church, it is with what you've already made yourself believe about the Church and the Christian faith. It is with your assumptions. You seem to assume that science is the know it all of all things and that without scientific theories or calculations nothing can be proven, and that if evolution exists then there couldn't possibly be a God. You've forgotten the human mind is unseeable and cannot be calculated, Just like God which is why I have asked you do you think that thoughts are real.

So believe me scientists work with the Vatican and there are christian scientists, they happen to channel science towards doing what science actually does which is explain that which can be seen or matter, or that which is created.

4. Politicians are everywhere as politics is part of human living, the fact that they are also in the church only suggests that religion is also a human concept having nothing to do with a supernatural being whatsoever, even though that is in no way conclusive

haha no it only proves that people that practice religion are human.

5. Correction, you think you have shown us why we should beleive but all you have given us are inconclusive ideas which could be interpreted in a whole lot of ways and no hard or undeniable facts or empirical evidence that would compel us to toeing your line of thought. (Consider the fact that only a fool would deny the existence of the force of gravity on earth)

Correction, I have shown you, but you have decided that what I show you doesn't measure up. And until we start using scientific calculations, your standards, it will never be enough.

Human thoughts IMO are real as far as your definition of thought is "the sequence of internal unseen human activity that leads to decision making" please note that this is my own definition and might in no way be complete, I also don't know in what direction your question is leading but I reserve my comments.

Can you scientifically calculate my thoughts or prove that my thoughts are taking place?

busybein:


i think u even explained too much,u would have told him that d bones r at d back of his house,near the palm kernel tree

oloshi

LOL, hmmm I just wanted to be nice o.

I have said it many times, CRACK IS WHACK O!!!!

SO ALL OF U DAT ARE ON CRACK (there are plenty of u here) PLEASE STAY AWAY FROM IT, GO TO REHAB.

Big difference, the Scientists kept on studying and were open to experimentation and new facts while the stupid church claimed unquestionable supernatural knowledge.
Besides science is not a religion and never holds anything rigid because you've got to prove why people should beleive you and that is what we ask of you and you all seem to be failing badly.

Then you know nothing about religion or at least the Christian religion. The Church is a living Church and as any living organism it constantly grows and science helps it to understand God and God's creation. That is the misconception you have. You view the Church as something stagnant and never growing, while it is very evident that she does. It's funny the Church works with scientists everyday. The Church too was open to experimentation and clearly understands better now than she did then. Who do you think the scientists were by the way? Some random people? No, they too were of the Church. Unfortunately some politicians used the Church's powers negatively and that it is why the Vatican is a country on its own. We are no longer under the influence of greedy politicians.

We have shown you several times why you should believe, but you refuse to accept what we show as valid evidence. But I have been asking this one question and no one seems to answer, maybe you can. Are thoughts real?

Kuns:
Stay focused, This tread is about your pale skinned God , not , coming back.

And there is no record of anybody called Jesus Christ outside of the bible.

Ok. let me ask you all a question, What happened to Jesus Bones? How comes no-one has found his bones to this very day?

Did he take his bones with him to heaven? I know this Jesus Character is no coming back, because it is just a story, a make believe story.

So you all can be[b]lie[/b]ve a thing as much as you like, and still be a 100% wrong.

No it is not, so take you crack smoking self somewhere. Jesus bones are not found today because he resurrected, duh? or don't you know what Christianity is about? I thought you studied it well enough. You should have known the answer to this by now.
By the way the Jesus Character is well documented outside of the Bible, do some research and lay off the crack. CRACK IS WHACK.