₦airaland Forum

Lol. I know what you mean. Some of these falsehoods have been 'true' for so long it almost doesn't make sense for them to be lies. It's the long, horrible tradition of unquestioning acceptance that does it. Indoctrinate them early, tell them the bible is 'infallible' and they themselves do the rest, fighting tooth and nail for the infallible bible. A tactic the Roman Church devised to get authority over Kings and Princes, to access earthly power and riches you can't imagine. They made kings and the people believe you could 'lose your soul' if they excommunicated you, a tactic that frightened the kings and people half to death, and secured the Church's authority. Their authority rested on the infallible bible, so it was crucial that it not be questioned but blindly accepted. And this authority they used to spread lies and do incredible, jaw-dropping evil.

Isn't it better for them to know the truth than to wallow in deception? But they don't want to know. The truth is too scary. More comforting and familiar for them to continue deceiving themselves. It won't change the fact that Paul is a liar and a false apostle, and that Christ had warned his apostles to beware. All this isn't new. Many Christians have long known and have long liberated themselves. Let them stay in bondage if they wish. It's always a choice.

noetic17:
There were no written messages of Jesus at that time. its like asking why was Paul not quoting the scriptures in his letters? Actaually Paul's letters are 50% contents of the old testament.

The messages of Christ were there. The apostles Christ appointed were spreading them. Paul does not buttress his teachings with the teachings of Jesus because he refused to learn from the apostles. He merely propagated his own teachings. Where did he get his teachings? He says Christ was revealed in him. (Whatever that means).Don't take my word for it. He said so himself. Galatians 1 :11-12, 16-17.

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. Yeah, right.

But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was

He was constantly at war with the genuine apostles, who rejected him. Always sowing discord, always boasting and defending himself against accusations of lying. And his letters were written in Greek. The apostles spoke and wrote Aramaic.  Paul could speak and write in Aramaic but wrote his letters in Greek, which the apostles of Christ could not read.  Interesting possibilities as to why.  27 books in the New Testament. Only 8 written by the genuine apostles: Mattew, John, James, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelations. The rest was made up of the writings of Paul and his descendant disciples. And no, they, not Peter, wrote 1 and 2 Peter. Their little fraud was exposed by scholars, and the stylistic similarities between the Peter letters and Pauline writing are too overwhelming for doubt. Not only that, but 2 Peter promotes whatever Paul teaches, even if you don't understand it.  2 Peter 3: 15-16


15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.

Christ HIMSELF taught Peter. What teachings could Paul have that he would not understand? And PETER would tell the churches to follow paul's teachings instead of Christ? To accept no deviation from the teachings of Paul, so you won't lose your salvation? IMPOSSIBLE.

But PAUL's letters are full of exhortations to follow him, to disregard any teachings and gospels apart from his. He is the ONLY 'apostle' who says his teachings are 'Commandments of the Lord'. You will NOT find any of the genuine apostles saying this. But Christ warned them before he died that a wolf in sheep's clothing would come. Paul is very clever. He writes 'sweet things' and then carefully puts his poison within them. Here and there. So he writes of faith and love. What do you expect? He's purporting that Christ sent him. He can't be expected to tell the churches to go out and murder.

But this is what Christ says of his apostles, the ones to whom Paul would not subject himself to their teaching and who rejected him, even though 'Christ' sent him: John 17: 1-25

1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.(Jesus Prays for His Disciples)

6"I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. 13"I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.

20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.

THESE are the true apostles of Christ, NOT AND NEVER PAUL. He is a liar, a boaster and a false apostle. As for where his teachings departs from Christ and God's, they are LEGION. Before any of the true apostles had written a word, he'd begun propagating his own teachings and writimg letters to churches.  So insidous is his influence and his teachings that some people believe he was never converted, but infilterated the church so he could destroy it from within. There ws no other way he could get them. They were all in hiding. That's what wolves in sheep clothing do.

It seems his church grew, as they courted the Romans and seduced them with teachings that say it was God who made them kings and conquerors and Jews should subject themselves. The apostles were in Jerusalem and weren't interested in temporal power and riches but spreading the teachings of Christ. After a while the Pauline disciples attacked the Jerusalem church,as their teachings differed from Paul's, and they fled. Pauline Christianity grew, and when they composed a New Testament, his teachings and those of his cronies and disciples naturally dominated it. Of course they added stuff to these ones too. They're liars and godless men. Why wouldn't they.

mazaje:
My take on this still remains, Why attribute something that so many people are doing to the supernatural?. . .What exactly is the supernatural?. . . .Magicians do "supernatural" things all the time that seems to break all natural laws, but when they explain their tricks, people laugh it off admit that they are very clever people. . . .Are there other natural laws that we haven't discovered yet?. . . .Disease, earthquakes and lightening were considered as supernatural events about 2000 years ago. . .An airplane flying from here to Nigeria would be considered a supernatural activity about 2000 years ago. . . .When men understood how to control things they sent themselves to the moon. . . .There are places in the human body where once you are touched you will loose your consciousness, some people know it and use it(I watched a documentary on it on the national geographic channel). . .If I see a man flying around I will not be quick to label it a supernatural event. . . .When most supernatural phenomenon are studied a natural explanation is found. Even if a natural explanation isn't found it does not mean that it is supernatural since it exists in the natural realm. . . .Who know, 200 years from now there might be new laws that will be added to what we now know as natural laws. . .  .Just as i said the ability to create objects that can fly for hours in the sky will be considered a supernatural thing thousands of years ago. . . .

It's all natural. We merely don't understand them yet. I get what you're saying. In a sense it's what the rest of us are saying; maybe some people know laws the rest of us don't yet, and use it. They may not even think of them as 'laws'. 'Energies', maybe, like some people call it. There's no reason to think we're at the end of knowledge and more laws won't be discovered, so that if we should come back in 2000 years humanity would be doing things that would astonish US, just like anyone who drops in from 2000 years old ago would be lost in wonder at spacecraft and men on the moon and airplanes and rockets and the internet. I quite get you. An absolutely valid take on things. There are views of God that say He established the laws that set things in motion and retired. He rarely intervenes in human events, though He takes a keen interest in it. People advance in knowledge at different rates, and while the scientific societies advance in their knowledge of one part of these laws, other societies, the Tibetans, let's say, advance in their knowledge of another side of the same set of laws. So that while a demonstration of a man going to the moon would astonish a Tibetan monk, His demonstrations of the laws he understands would astonish the scientists too. 

There was a man, an American university professor and atheist lol, who died in a hospital in Paris while on vacation with his wife. He had some VERY interesting things happen to him. He absolutely BELIEVED death was the end and was extremely shocked to find it wasn't. Some things he was told include that there are abilities human beings have but haven't been allowed to discover yet, because they'd destroy themselves with it. And these include discovering some established laws. These laws are there, they've always been there, but we've gotten only a minute fraction of them, it seems. They point out that the ones we've been allowed to discover we invariably find evil applications for. So it would seem the astonishing abilities some people demonstrate are all natural in the sense of being natural laws most of us haven't  discovered or understood yet. Good point you raised there.

But for James Randi to be satisfied, the actual people who can tap into some of these laws the rest of us can't would merely have to demonstrate it. To him, that would define supernatural or paranormal, which is also the definition for a majority of us. Some of these Tibetan monks, and other people in different parts of the world, can do it. But they won't do it to get a million dollars, and they won't advertize themselves either.

LOL. Both of you have come with your respective insanities. Love those lines Spikie.
Welcome cnario.

Master Chen sounds awesome!
Some people understand the laws of physics and build airplanes and rockets and nuclear weapons. Others don't and can't. Maybe some people can grasp laws that work within the natural and immaterial that the rest of us haven't grasped, and build whatever the equivalent of airplanes and rockets are using those laws, which then astonishes us. Tibetans believe it's just a matter of understanding unseen laws and energies and 'forces' and using them to effect what is necessary. In and of itself it has nothing to do with religion. James (Half bro of Jesus) defines religion in Js 1: 27 thus:

Pure and Lasting religion in the sight of God our Father means that we must care for orphans and widows in their troubles, and not let the world corrupt us.

That's the BIBLICAL definition of religion, LOVE AND PRACTICAL COMPASSION, irrespective of what moniker we tag it with; Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, whatever. Contrast that with the religions of the fake faith healers and psychics, with the many sub-sets of the major religions, with their solemn rituals and traditions and religious routines (which they call 'Serving the Lord'), fleecing the flock, their 'we' vs 'them' cult mentality, religious conditioning and autosuggestion,everything focussed inwards and within themselves, instead of radiating outwards to strangers and their communities, and you'll know they aren't even practising any religion at all.

You have to admire James Randi and his work. The one million dollar thing is a trap for the fake religionists, the faith healers and 'psychic' frauds, to lure them into coming out, out of greed, and expose them to the public. And they keep falling into it! It's really clever.

Vesc, you do have some idea of the difficulties involved here? It's not like picking up a book at the store o. It takes decades and decades, and that is if they pay attention to you at all. You may spend years merely doing menial work, and then years doing more menial work, and more years doing more menial work. Notice that most of these advanced monks are practically in their dotage lol. It's not for everybody o.

mazaje:
Scientology is a new religion that began as early as 1952, It was created out of thin air like all other religions, but still has a lot of followers. . . .The religion worships a God called Xenu that was created in the imagination of the sounder of the religion. . .There are million of scientolgist in the world today. . . .

'Created out of thin air like all other religions'.
You're an atheist so you can be forgiven for thinking all religions are based on hoaxes. Religion itself isn't the be-all. There are people who serve God but detest organized religion and won't be caught dead in a temple or mosque or church. Not everyone needs it.

There are religious hoaxs and those who use existing religions to defraud. While Randi exposed many frauds, he also came across the baffling and bizarre. But those didn't publicize themselves. The one million dollar challenge of his foundation remains untaken not because there aren't those who can prove him wrong, but because the mentality of someone who would go to prove the supernatural to collect a million dollars, and the mentally of those who can actually prove it, are VERY DIFFERENT.  The latter simply do not publicize themselves. You won't find followers, you can pass them by on the street and not know what they're capable of, they won't advertize themselves and you may even know one for years without any inkling of what they can do.

Lamaist monks regard the Western materialistic lifestyle with amazement and contempt. Some of them are so advanced in using their minds to effect changes in the physical and unseen realms. If I told you what they were capable of, you would not believe me, And THEY don't publicize themselves either, not even among other monks. There are people like that the world over.  I can bet you they've ZERO interest in either taking up the challenge, which they'll likely consider foolish, or in anyone's one million dollars. That million dollar challenge does something clever; it brings the fakes out of the woodwork to try and win it.

You're going to Tibet, Vesc? Frakking cold there, baby. No one will tell you before you'll skeddadle back to the tropics.

noetic17:
please let us not resort to exaggeration and misinformation here. what was the religion created? when? whats the name of the media house? any link to such a claim?

Read some books on the admirable James Randi, who teamed up with Australia's 60 Minutes producers to invent the religious Hoax called Carlos. His neighbour, Jose Lois Alvarez, a young artist, was  offered the role of Carlos, and he was intrigued and accepted. He played his part to perfection. Randi and his foundation have done a fantastic amount of work for decades, exposing religious fraud and so-called psychics and fake faith healers who leech the gullible of their money. People like  Ernest Angley and W Grant and Uri Geller and Peter Popoff and many more. Popoff, a faith healer, declared bankruptcy after Randi exposed him as a fraud. The objective of the religious hoax they deliberately created with the Australian media house was to forcibly show the public how very easy religious fraud is, how people are desperate to believe and don't care what they're believing. They even had a holy book which Randi and Alvarez came up with, full of vague, mystical sounding words, saying nothing at all. Carlos travelled to different countries and won converts. Not only were the publicn taken in but many of the world's major media were behind him, and promoted him. The whole thing got far bigger than Randi and 60 minutes coould've imagined. When the hoax was revealed, some of them refused to depart from the fake religion, declaring that detractors were after Carlos and they would stick with him to the end. The gullible media houses were furious with the Australian producers. Imagine what 'Carlos' could have done, the money he would have made, the branches of his religion he would have in many countries, if he had been a genuine fake mystic instead of an experiment.

Do some finding out about James Randi and the incredible work he's done.  His foundation offers one million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate the supernatural or paranormal beyond all doubt. No one has won that money yet.

Whle he has exposed many religous fraud and countless so-called psychics, he has once or twice verified strange abilities in people, but these people don't claim any supernatural, paranormal or religious power, much less try to get a following and milk their converts.

Go do some reading for a change. There are hundreds of religious hoaxes. Don't get all hot and bothered over one.

That's complex territory. I'm just beginning my relationship with God. But I'm human, so I too have a capactiy to deceive myself ad others and transmute my own wishful thinking and ideas and opinion into the Voice of God or the Inspiration of God. People have been doing it for ages and it's useless to imagine yourself immune. That's why it's SO, SO important to let God do all the leading and to constantly examine yourself and your ideas and DEMAND PROOF for everything. EVERYTHING.

That being said, I haven't separated God from religions. In spite of that pesky human factor, religions are vehicles meant to take us to God. But many of them have substituted unverifiable doctrine and religious traditions for God himself, and made religion itself the destination and not a means to an end.  You can find God in almost all religions. Depending on who you are and where you are in your journey, different religions help you at different stages. The one you're born into is an accident of birth and has nothing to do with what's real. You're supposed to look for God and let him lead you to where you'll perceive him most clearly. For me, it just happened to be Christianity. For others it may be to Islam or Buddhism that they're led. I don't for one second believe Christ the exclusive property of Christians. He is for ALL MEN. Christians know him as Jesus. We don't know in what guise or form, or by what name other religions and races and tribes know Him. We don't know how he saves men, irrespective of their religion or lack of it, but our thoughts and actions and choices and beliefs have plenty to do with it.

How He interacts with all creation is something I'm still learning and don't yet fully understand. But others have gone far ahead and know all these things. But those who think they and their pastor and their local church are going to heaven, while the six billion other souls on this earth are bound for hell because they didn't happen to be born into Christianity are dead wrong. That, I know for sure.

God's truths are eternal and he has been talking to men since time began, so naturally some of their teachings predate the birth of Christ as Jesus by thousands of years.  He came a mere two thousand years ago. I was fascinated to find some things that are taught in Lamaist Buddhism verified by present-day American Christians in their after-death experiences. And these Christians have no idea! Meanwhile, these Lamaist teachings are thousands of years old.

Another thing is, and I don't expect you to get this, Christ Himself teaches you what is true and what isn't. If you're thirsty, he leads to himself in stages. Who God is, and his laws do not change and never will. It's human beings that get busy projecting their worst onto God when they want to justify their evil. What demonstrable good comes of religious killing? Notice how all religious killing benefits only the killer? To get something he covets, or to satisfy his blood lust or an excess of religious zeal, the stuff of psychosis. What is it to God that you want 70 vaginas or your neigbour's land or virgins from Midian? But they've no qualms about slandering his character to justify their atrocities. Once you know the laws that undergirds His creation, and you understand a little of what God is, what is false and transgresses it is remarkably easy to see. It's like the laws and penal codes of a country. Once you undertstand it, the criminals are very easy to see, because they break these laws. He may kill his neighbour for a promotion or to get his wife or a contract. He may say he hears a voice in his head and it's the voice of God and it told him to kill. (Many of
these psychos are in psychiatric hospitals but don't imagine it's a recent phenomenon. People have been hearing 'voices' that tell them to do evil for thousands of years.)  How the criminal justifies his actions is irrelevant, we know a crime has taken place.

So are the laws of God and its transgressions instantly apparent. They hold true for all creation, all men, in all places, for all time. Detecting what departs from it, what is false and what violates it is as easy as detecting a criminal that's broken the law.

I'll answer you in two posts.

You want to know why I believe some aspects of the bible but disregard others. You think, because people have been indoctrinated to think it's 'holy' and 'infallible', you must then either believe EVERYTHING it says or nothing at all? ALL OR NOTHING is a false position, a false dichotomy. You must realise that human beings are the most unreliable 'inspired' witnesses you can imagine. We have an incredible capacity to first deceive ourselves, and then go out and deceive others. The bible is a collection of writings by human beings, most of whom are humble enough to acknowledge this fact by NOT claiming divine authorship. From where then comes the absurd premise that I must believe every word ordinary human beings wrote as divine and infallible? If THEY claim divine authorship, then the duty falls on them to PROVE beyond all reasonable doubt, to supply irrefutable evidence that they are, in fact, channeling God and not merely relaying their own perspective on things.But then most of them do NOT claim divine authorship. From whence then comes the absurdity of their infallibility? Nowhere but indcotrination. And sometimes, plain
laziness on the side of Christians. Some so-called religious authority says, 'Here are some doctrines to believe. Thank you and goodbye', and they sit by the doctrines till they die.The FACT that the bible has been tampered with countless times doesn't help its infallibity case either. It was with the Roman Church for one thousand five hundred years before other people took it from them and made it public, so they had plenty of time to do whatever they wanted with it.

I know what you're asking next. If the bible has been tampered with how do I know what to believe and what to accept?
VERY EASY, that one. There are many ways. There are many scholars in different countries across many ages whose field of expertise is biblial history, verification and textual analysis. They've spent centuries at their work and there is an incredible amount of material available on the subject. They tend to agree on what the additions are and when it was added. One scholar is Bart Earhman, an American bible scholar. He has an ax to grind with Christianity becuase of his indoctrinated fundamentalist Christian past and his arguments are sometimes slanted, but his credentials as a scholar is SOLID adn his research and books very valuable. There are and have been many scholars in bible veracity for hundreds of years. They don't tell me what to believe though. Their reearch is helpful in separating what biblical authors actually wrote from the many, many additions and mistranslations. It's doubtful they'll ever get them all, but they're getting there.

Another thing is, God's laws and truths are eternal and are not confined to any one religion or tribe but are ABOVE religions, and hold true for ALL his creation. God has been revealing himself to men since time began. From the little they receive, religions spread like weed. Bear in mind that the human mind (brain) is complicated, as are human motivations, so not every truth or vision or whatever is God-inspired. Some are just outright religious hoax because you will always find people ready and willing to believe anything. A media house in Australia set out to see if they could create a religion from scratch. They secretly invented a religion, found a charismatic 'mystic' to be its proponent and launched the experiment. It succeeded beautifully. This 'mystic' attracted followers from many different countries, devoted to the death. When the media house sponsoring the hoax revelead it to the public, many of the adherents refused to believe it was a untrue and stuck fast to that religion. Invented right before their eyes! With how much more salt should you take so-called holy books and religious traditions that has had thousands of years to accrue credibility
and glamour and, er, 'infallibility'.

I'm not saying all religions are false. They're not. There are countless religious hoaxes and charlatans. But there are religious truths and the genuine articles as well. The fact that some are false presupposes that some must be true. Something is false only because there is the genuine to compare it against, otherwise it's not false at all. God is true and real and He forever reveals himself to us. But human beings are what they are, and there are no such thing as 'infallible' or holy books.

Romeo4real:
@Mad Max - You seem believe very strongly in Karma - the law of moral causation(Whatever a man soweth, he shall reap).

Whilst i do not disagree with this, either as a Karmic or Christian principle, i find it to conflict with some of the examples you align it with.
Using David and Elijah as examples of this principle is contradictory. David was not in synergy with Gods word when he took Uriah's wife. It was premeditated and He committed a murder to make it happen. Moreover, God sent Nathan, to make it clear to David it was an abominable act. He told him precisely what he what would happen , and He eevn made David pronounce judgement on himself.

Contrast this with Elijah, whom you adjure got his comeuppance through the beheading of John the Baptist. Elijah was actually fulfilling Gods word as laid down in Deut 13:1-5, and Deut 18:20, unlike David. The Bible does not record Gods displeasure at this act as it did with David's. Moreover, Jehu did exactly what Elijah did, and he was also fulfilling Gods word - and there is no record of any karmic event regarding Jehu.

I don't believe the Law of Karma, which is also a biblical principle, can void, or act independently of Gods will.

I don't 'believe strongly' in the Hindu's Karma. I'm just learning and don't have the firmest grasp on this yet. Reincarnation isn't automatic, nor is it the only thing that can happen to one. But sowing and reaping is clearly biblical, and Christ did say John the Baptist was Elijah. As for Jehu, the writers of the Old Testament did not know we would be having this discussion and so fail to oblige us by recording every single event in every characters life till death and afterwards . Christ does not tell us anything about anyone else but the Baptist either, and then only because He was asked. It could be because it's really none of our business. Our own life is there to sort out.

If you believe God sends people to kill other people on his behalf, kindly stop bothering fundamentalist Muslims who do this. Embrace them instead. Shake them warmly by the hand. They're doing God's work.And please don't come back with something like your God is the true God and it's all right to kill in his name, but the Moslem God is the false God and it's wrong for Moslems to kill in his name. Please, anything but that. Murder is either wrong and against God's will in all times and all places from eternity to the present, or it isn't. And it is this God that told the Jews in one of his commandments, Thou shalt not kill.

If God set up the laws that undergirds the universe and one of them is sowing what you reap, how can it then turn around and be independent of God's will? HE put the thing there so it IS his will, no?

Astral travel? Inner Temple of Wisdom? Automatic writing We're now in bizarre territory.

@m_nwankwo
I know you're well read. Do you read religious thought? Christian mysticism, Islam, Lamaist teaching,  Hinduism, Judaist esoterism, Buddhism, Catholic mysticism, oriental philosophies and ethical systems like the Tao, Shinto and Confucianism? Whic did you read and what did you think of them?

noetic17:
I was honestly not looking for an argument. . . .I just wanted to hear your side of the story and ask questions just like I have done with Nwankwo. If u are convinced that Paul has a different gospel to Jesus . . .then u should be bold to state your case, answer my questions and possibly educate my ignorance.

I can state 'my' case, but I won't. And you've clearly stated you are looking for an argument, to prove my false assertion wrong and pick holes in my 'case'.

noetic17:
I was interested in your "analysis" because u made a bold but FALSE assertion . . . .all u had to do was to prove it and see what holes would be picked up in it. The bible is there for anyone to read.

You already have your bold but true assertion as opposed to my bold but FALSE one. We'll agree to disagree, hmm? The world is big enough to contain everyone's assertions, true and FALSE.

Noetic, I see now you were merely looking for an argument lol. You won't get one from me. I dislike it. Only real motive to prove one side 'right' and the other 'wrong'. And this 'right' and 'wrong' is merely each side's opinions and nothing to do with anything real or important. I've zero interest in 'proving' anything. I don't owe it to you. If you want to know about Paul, you've demonstrated you have eyeballs that function beautifully. Point them at your own research on the matter.

Kay 17:
sounds convincing! but by what means can one ascertain the truth in reincarnation, internal feelings? is simply providing hope and comfort for death?

Yeah. I know what you mean. But people assert things all the time. The trick is to not take anything, ANYTHING, at anyone's word, but find out for yourself what is true and what isn't. Don't let anyone lead you by the nose and tell you what to think. No one is qualified, believe me. Seek for yourself.

Noetic
Stop badgering m_nwankwo lol. He knows what he's doing. I told you the doctrinal differences between Paul and Christ/God will take some time to put together. So will the events in Early Church history. It's a lot. You can save me time and effort by researching these things yourself. There are countless books and research findings.Not from those with hidden agendas and something to prove, but from the many impartial scholars in different places and times who state their facts and have no ax to grind.

obinna5000:
Uwe Boll should be inaugurated into the Hollywood Hall of Shame.

The Hall of Shame. You do him too much honour. You need some shame for the hall of shame, just like you need some fame for the hall of fame. Uwe Boll has no shame.

@Myjoe
Exactly!

@TV01
Naw, a gazillion tampering isn't grounds for dismissal lol. There's both truth and untruth in the bible, as befits the handiwork of men. I first came across Christ, the real Christ, in the gospel of John (who personally knew Jesus, thank you very much).  From his account, I begun to know what I believed and not what I'd been indocrinated with. The purpose of the Bible? What is it's purpose? And whose purpose is it? God's? Maybe. But if it took God one thousand five hundred years to get the man-crafted bible to the masses, it either doesn't matter as much as we think or it matters and God is spectacularly incompetent. There are many ways to God, not one.

@Vesc
IF it's to repay a debt, you don't have to have a memory of it. It seems it's usually paid in that same life anyways. And reincarnation isn't always punishment. Sometimes it's unfulfilled mission. There are other possibilites after death. An incredible amount of choices. But I do think people are sometimes reincarnated if they've done evil and haven't paid for it. I'm talking of the evil 'good' people do. Evil people simply find themselves in hell when they die. Not as punishment, but because like attracts like, the forces of attraction and repulsion undergirds the universe and when you die your spirit is attracted to realms and spirits like yourself. I don't fully understand it yet. It appears that for some, their deeply held and deeply cherished beliefs while on earth determines what happens to them after they die. What happens is something their own mind and will has created. It's possible for others who don't share their beliefs to observe them in the spirit realms as what they deeply believe and so have created, happens to them. It's not very clear yet.

As for sowing and reaping, not only do individuals pay for the choices they make, entire groups and tribes and nations do. Look at the Elijah/Baptist theory we've been dragging.

Elijah was a person, not an office. How can he be referred to as THE Elijah, like THE Messiah or THE Prophet? Elijah's a person's name, like Moses or Jesus. They asked John if he was Moses or Elijah(individuals) or THE prophet. Those are personal names of historical people and they
wanted to know if one of them had returned, for clearly in John was a powerful spirit and they knew people reincarnated. One can't mistake their meaning or the context, I don't think.

I don't know if the Baal story is a myth but it doesn't seem likely. Perhaps events were exaggerated but Elijah was a real person and formidable as Israel's prophet for a reason. The farther you get from Genesis the more historically accurate recorded events tend to get.  Something happened between him and the prophets of Baal and I'm willing to bet they were executed, even if they may not be up to the 450 on record.

There's no way God sends anyone to kill. NEVER EVER EVER. If Elijah killed people because they worshipped Baal, unseen and unchangeable laws automatically compel him to pay the debt, to reap what he'd sown, to correct the imbalance he'd created. Pay for his crime he must. Like poor Jepthah, victim of his times. He promised to sacrifice the first person he sees on his return home if he wins the war. As if God sanctions killing, much less take sides in war. There was a fifty-fifty chance he would win the war. He wins and bizarre irony, his daughter is the first person he sees. He now starts tearing his clothes. If it had been someone else apart from his daughter, wouldn't that person have been another man's child?

He'd prayed to a god he'd created in his mind who accepts burning a child as payment for letting you kill many people. And Jepthah fulfilled his word by burning his child for this imaginary god. If he'd left the girl alone nothing would have happened. It was all in his head. But he has free will and God does not interfere with our choices. How else can we be judged for them? We're free to inflict our choices on others, our thoughts
and actions creating future possibilities moment by moment. Jepthah kills his child and there's no guarantee her blood won't be required of him.

Look at King David. He killed Uriah the Hittite and took his wife. In his case, he was ACTUALLY TOLD the price he would pay for his transgression. Very unusual. Normally, stuff just happen and people cannot connect the effect with the cause. David's payment? His household never knew peace after the murder. The child he conceived with Bathsheba would die. One of his children would r.ape his sister. Another would murder his brother because of that. His favourite son would revolt against him. His son would sleep with his father's wives openly, in front of all Israel.  No amount of pleading and praying and fasting changed the outcome. Christ had not yet come and he had to pay his debt himself.  So will anyone who kills, including Eljah/ John the Baptist.

The Hindus call it karma. Christians call it the Law of sowing and reaping. It's absolutely real  and absolutely true. It's inflexible and yields only to Christ, and that's only if you let Him take over. He knows better than you anyway so you might as well let him. Otherwise you pay your own debt, you pay for your own sins yourself. There IS justice in the universe. Like attracts like, unlike repels unlike. Good attracts good, evil attracts the same. That is all heaven and hell is. Heaven is the presence of God. It's heaven merely because He's there. Hell is where evil spirits are and which they have created merely by being what they are. It's an infinitely complex place, with a staggering diversity of experience to offer. Your spirit's either attracted to God's when you die, or repelled by it, depending on the choices you've made when you were biologically alive. The earth is a testing ground for many of us, and our choices will determine our fate when we die, revert to our spirit form, stop inhabiting time, and are in eternity.

Christ tells you of this in Matthew 6: 19-21
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt"

m_nwankwo is light years ahead of us all. But he's maddeningly modest. He knows many things. One may not agree with everything he says, but you'll learn new things all the same.

As for the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible, it's responsible for many people losing their religion. You're brought up in the unshakeable belief that it's the word of God and so you see everything in it with rose-coloured spectacles. When you leave the cocoon of indoctrination and do a little digging, horrible things come out and you lose faith in God. How can one see nothing wrong with accounts of a tribe waging war on others, dashing children against stones, murdering them all, killing married women and taking the virgins for themselves. They claim God told them to do it. God promised them the land. But the earth is the Lord's and the goodnes thereof. Even now there are un-inhabited stretches of land in the world. Why didn't 'God' lead them to land that wasn't already occupied? But the Israelites wanted farms they hadn't sown, houses they hadn't built, wells they hadn't dug, a ready-made city. So they committed atrocities and claimed it as God that sent them, as if those people aren't human beings, as if they don't matter matter to God. But the OT is the story from the Jewish perspective, so of course they'll make it seem the height of valour to murder children and rape young girls. To make heroes out of murderers. They invented all manner of stories saying their God had given them the land. Is land finished in all the earth? If he could part the red sea for you like you claim, could he not make cities out of deserts for you? They have their myths like all cultures, but since it's in the 'holy','inerrant' bible, God must have sent them to murder and rape, it must all be true. The story of they and the Midianites alone is enough to make you gnash your teeth and wonder at the madness of people.

People have known and believed God without the 'inerrant' bible for ages. He's never left us since we started inhabiting time. The bible itself recently got to the public in the 15th or 16th century, after gazillions of tampering with, every Tom and Harry inserting his own dogma in it. I suppose all those who lived before the bible became public never knew God and are now rotting in hell.

Honestly, if I didn't know God is real and true and absolutely loving and compassionate BEFORE I found out these things I would have left all religion in disgust. I don't blame those that do. But God isn't what the Jews have created. He is a far grander being, and there is no evil in him. We simply can't stop projecting the worst in us onto God.

Well. Maybe not teach him. But your explanations are so eye-opening it wouldn't be fair to not let one know more.

Noetic,

That'll take a while. I'll put it together and paste it, along with some early church history.

@justcool
Noted

@
m_nwankwo
That makes sense. Reading about yourself somewhere, and not knowing it was you. Honestly, if one's mind isn't ready for something true, it rejects it. I'd always classed reincarnation as 'unbliblical' eastern mysticism.It was shocking to discover the thing happens, and much more besides. Because of the verse in the bible that goes, It is appointed for a man to die once and after that the judgement. I'm almost embarrassed to say there was actually a time I believed every word in the bible to be true, Jewish myths and all. The verse is true in a sense, but untrue in another sense. I don't know who taught it in the bible.  Maybe it was the misogynist Paul. His teachings, many of which directly contradicted what Christ taught by his words and actions, are the foundation of Christianity. And yet Christians insist it was Christ that founded Christianity, as if he came to the world to found a religion. We've turned him into some exclusive cult, our personal property, our mascot. I tend to agree with those who say Paul is the founder of the Christian religion. He's just a man asserting his opinions, insisting he's channeling God, and his words are what millions have lived and killed by.  Never mind that he never personally met Christ, refused to subject himself to the teachings of the apostles who had, because of pride; he was learned and they weren't. He openly mocked them, calling them 'so-called super-apostles' and insisting he was just as good as they. Apparently he was constantly at war with them. The early church seemed split in two, Paul's disciples headquartered in Rome and gained converts among the Roman elite because of his manipulative doctrine that Jews are to subject themselves to their conquerors (Roman rulers)because 'God put them there'. 'If you do good they will not be harsh to you' or some such thing. It's somewhere in one of his letters. Maybe to his disciples in Rome. The apostles were based in Jerusalem and taught what Christ taught them. You know what became of both factions, and what the Roman church transmuted into.

Paul's disciples put the bible together, and they made sure his teachings constituted most of the NT. Even the Gospels weren't spared. Mark and Luke never met Christ. They were companions of Paul's. The Acts of the Apostles chiefly concerned itself with Paul. Scholars tell you Peter never wrote 1st and 2nd Peter but Paul's people did. There are many stylistic giveaways. They didn't want to include the Gospel of John, but finally did so after much editing of the text. Most of the original apostles wrote gospels and eye-witness accounts, as did many others who personally knew Christ, like Joseph of Arimathea, Madgalene, Nicodemus.etc. They don't get featured in the bible Pauliners composed and shoved down the throat of the rest of humanity. Of course they'd insist it was holy and infallible. and must never be questioned  Afterall their authority rested on it. If people started asking questions they were done for. Like, Who is Paul that his teachings should usurp Christ's? Where did he get his doctrines since he refused to learn from the apostles? Why be so insecure as to insist his personal opinions is God talking, falsely borrowing authority, a tactic of many religious charlatans? He's zealous, but zealous for which Christ exactly; one he invented or the genuine Christ? If it's the real Christ why do their teachings differ in many respects? That 'holy' and 'infallible' doctrine survived, mostly by indoctrinating people early, as children. It's the most powerful and never departs from you.  Of course the same people who say the bible is infallible soon started insisting a man, the 'Pope', is holy and infallible too. Give it as much time as the bible has had, hundreds of years, and no one will question that either. 

Let me not derail the thread. The Jews wanted to know if John the Baptist was Moses or Elijah or the Prophet prophesied in the OT. Christ did tell them the Baptist was Elijah. Since we don't have the originals of those documents and what we have has been tampered with innumerable times, it's hard to assert He said this or did not say that. I'm taking the story at face value.

Anyways, do continue your earlier line of thought. You were teaching  MyJoe things, and it's fascinating.

Lol. Uwe didn't make Cannibal Holocaust, though. That was just an aside. Boll is a terror to eyeballs everywhere. Hell is an eternity of his movies.

JK,I meant people want to 'murder' Uwe Boll, not the McGuigan guy.Remember Cannibal Holocaust?I hate the movie but the director is a demented genius. He had to flee his country for five years after that movie. It was either he leaves his country or he leaves this world.People were after his life.

Illuminating.
One thing I don't get though. You say a devotee may pray to a holy man, unaware he is praying to himself. Is it possible for the same spirit entity to inhabit biological time and space in multiple instances, simultaneously? How?

In the Gospels, the Jews clearly knew people reincarnated and sent priests to ask John the Baptist if he was Moses or Elijah. Now Moses and Elijah were dead. John told them he wasn't Elijah. And yet Christ said 'That's Elijah'. Of course John the Baptist would have no memories of his life as Elijah. If he's Elijah that probably meant Elijah did something that compelled his return. Perhaps some work was unfinished. Perhaps a debt was unpaid. But from what I'd read Elijah sounded like someone outstanding. I read through his story again and guess what I found? He threw a challenge to the prophets of Baal. They lost. For reasons best known to himself, maybe as a sort of dramatic flourish to the events of the day, he took the FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY prophets of Baal and EXECUTED them. He killed four hundred and fifty people. If you're executing in those times, you behead. Sometimes these heads are hung at city gates. Did Elijah pay for this thing he had done? No.

But John the Baptist, whom Christ said was Elijah, had something interesting happen to him. Herod's niece danced and pleased him and he decided to grant her a boon. She asked for the head of John the baptist at her mother's behest. And John the Baptist was EXECUTED. He was BEHEADED. The whole thing was so casually done. Someone danced and off goes his head.Maybe his debt is paid. Maybe he has to come back and be executed four hundred and forty-nine more times. But there are inflexible laws in the universe. You reap what you sow.

Who's McGuigan? Sorry. Which are his movies? Oh. I forgot Uwe Boll. There are people who would pay to murder that guy. Seriously.
As for Ritchie, I love SNATCH and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Snatch's villain is one of my all-time favourites. I didn't know who directed Sherlock when I left it in disgust. Directing was amateurish. Get better and better at your craft or get lost.

Vesc. Was Battlestar riveting or what? Don't hold back. Tell me all about it.
Minghella delivered absolute perfection in The English Patient. Perfection, Vesc. Along with LOTR, it's the most flawless movie I've ever seen. I don't know that you can be a one-timer with that kind of talent. More like he rarely has the right material to work with. But he's got the stuff all right. Demme knows his characters. He's really talented. I thought he was a one-timer too till I saw Rachel Getting Married.

Welcome Mitcyy

sophy09:
I will like to know if the olay eye roller works, my under eye is black and wrinkled. Will it help?

I just noticed this. Yeah, do check out some of the good brands for eye products. You might incorporate Neutrogena Healthy Skin AntiWrinkle cream into your regime. It's cheap and works beautifully. Years go by and your face remains almost the same.

@shinatu
I use a 35% Glycolic acid peel by Skin Laboratory. Higher concentrations should be administered by a professional. The brand doesn't matter really.

@mitchyy
There are three things you can do about scars and blemishes:

1. You can use any fade cream that doesn't contain hydroquinone. One to three months and the scars are faded. The lightening effect will be temporary and will go as soon as you stop using the product.

2. Microdermabrasion. It's been discussed on previous pages for scars and stretchmarks. Really ladies, look through the previous pages first and make sure a solution isn't there. You mix aloe vera and apricot scrub, 3 parts scrub to 1 part aloe. Apply liberally to the area and use a skin brush to scrub for 2 minutes. Small parts of the skin at a time, 2 minutes each.
Don't do this daily thinking it'll work faster. It won't, and you hurt your skin by not letting it heal. Don't make the number of days even (every 4 days, every 5 days,etc) or your skin will get used to it and stop reacting. Use zigzag intervals. 5, 10, 4, 7, 12, 5, etc. Do this properly and you'll see
results in a few weeks. Baby smooth skin. You can microdermabrate areas of your skin with blemishes so you have blemish-free skin all over.

3 A third effective alternative are chemical peels. They've been discussed some pages back. Select a peel that treats blemishes. It should clear your blemishes without lightening your skin.

But what's confusing about Shutter Island? They explained at the end. They not only tell you, they show you. And Di Caprio coolly makes his choice, knowing all the facts. Mebbe your colleague wasn't following the plot and got lost.

Frak, Vesc? A hallowed word in SciFi-land. Don't take it in vain. Seen Battlestar Galactica, have you?My opinion on Sherlock Holmes stands. Directing was amateurish. Ritchie's a yo-yo.  I liked Law's Watson, but why twist classic characters beyond recognition? Leave them the way they are, or invent your own. He changed Sherlock just because he could. Ang Lee is beauty and power. Nolan is darkness. Spielberg is light. Tarantino is violent art form and nonconformist filmmaking. George Miller is unrivalled genius at animal characters. Cameron is visual innovation always, as is Jackson. Demme gets into his characters heads. Scorcese is complete mastery of the art, like Hitchcock. Ritchie is none of those things. He's sometimes good, but he plies the same trade as those, and he'll be judged by the same standards. I detest shoddy directing. Those deadly little giveaways that add up. It's the first thing I notice. I couldn't finish Golden Compass for the same reason, and Craig was in it.

Lol. Downey's out to prove something. I like the guy though.

SHERLOCK HOLMES
Robert Downey Jr. Jude Law

So many things annoyed me about this movie I've no idea where to begin. The directing, acting, and writing were just average and in some places, outright terrible. The actors didn't inhabit their roles, looked like they were acting and, in the case of Downey, trying too hard. I never read a Holmes novel, which is odd, since my teens were given over to John Le Carre and Agatha Christie and John Creasey and pretty much any novel where death, mystery and mayhem reigneth supreme. Old England held no appeal. But I still I caught vibes from friends who did, and Holmes/Watson sounded pretty cool and plenty cerebral. I've no idea how well the characters were adapted for screen, but my guess is: Not very well.

The visual effects were terrible, especially at the dockyard where the giant went after Holmes and cut the anchor off a ship. The villain was Ok but didn't quite cut the effect the director was after. He didn't seem to notice. I am amazed at the success of this movie, with Downey winning a Golden Globe for Best Actor. Do the voters go intermittently mad or something? Already Guy Ritchie's making a sequel and wants to sign on Brad Pitt.

I couldn't finish the movie.
I'll live.

SHUTTER ISLAND
Leonardo Di Caprio, Ben Kingsley, Mark Ruffalo.

The boat ride. The doors that opened on cue and people came in. At first I thought, why is Scorcese being so obvious? Why is he trying so hard to make this be a thriller? The story was interesting and I sat it through. And then everything CHANGES. Then you see WHY he was obvious. I did not see this coming.

Now the movie has one or two flaws. Sometimes he tries too hard for atmosphere. Sometimes the scenes don't segue into the next smoothly.
But oh my. Oh MY!
Scorcese, you are a directing god.
Wow.

Well. Aren't acne and pimples typically responsible for spots? Glycolic acid isn't a treatment for acne. I use a glycolic acid peel once a week, and it's simply great at exfoliating my skin and other great stuff. It just has to be in every woman's beauty regime. There's something about all the peels there are and what they do pages back. Salicylic acid is one of the best treatments for acne. It eliminates acne and prevents further breakouts.