Malvisguy212's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Malvisguy212's Profile › Malvisguy212's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 (of 366 pages)
 Christianity Etc › Re: Without The Shedding Of Blood, There Is NO Forgiveness. by malvisguy212: 5:12pm On Aug 16, 2015 |
Princewell2012:1.God was gracious to warn Adam about sin and its consequences. God told Adam not to eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree.He told him that if he did, he would die ( Genesis 2:15-17). 2.When Adam sinned, God did not immediately put Adam to death, as his sin deserved. Instead, God sought Adam out, and exposed his sin ( Genesis 3:8-13). God also indicated the consequences Adam and his wife would experience because of their sin ( Genesis 3:8-19). 3. God promised to provide a cure for sin and death ( Genesis 3:15). He also provided Adam and Eve with coverings (3:21). 4. God graciously removed Adam and Eve from the garden, and prevented them from returning to it. He kept them from eating of the tree of life, lest they live forever in their sin (3:22-24). 5. God was gracious to turn the curse into the cure. Death kept Adam and Eve from living forever as condemned sinners. It was death (the death of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary) that ultimately and permanently defeated Satan, sin, and death -- because our Lord died in the sinner's place, and then rose from the dead. Even the woman's pain in childbearing was gracious, because it was through this painful process that the Messiah would someday come into the world to save sinners. 6. God graciously gave Adam and Eve another son -- Seth -- after Cain killed Abel (4:25-26). It was after the birth of Seth that people began to worship the Lord (4:26). Did this include Adam? I am inclined to think so. All of this suggests that Adam and Eve did seek God's forgiveness, and receive it. The Bible places the emphasis on Adam's sin (and not on his repentance and forgiveness) because it was through Adam's sin that all mankind was corrupted and brought under the same sentence of death ( Romans 5:12-21). Adam turns our attention toward the sin of the human race. Jesus Christ turns our attention to life and righteousness. God forgive adam ,but still the deed has already been committed , are you not a christian? did you not read in the bible ,after the fall of man, mankind continue to be rebellious? Why ? Because human cannot do without sin , the only solution is to provide a way for man (to reconciled himself with us) . 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Thou Shall Not Kill: Does God Violate His Own Commandment? by malvisguy212(op): 12:18pm On Aug 16, 2015 |
musKeeto:and... |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Without The Shedding Of Blood, There Is NO Forgiveness. by malvisguy212: 12:14pm On Aug 16, 2015 |
musKeeto:the death of Jesus signified the wrath of God is fullfiled. The parable of the vindresser indicate "Jesus freely come to die by his own WILL" When the Old Testament prophet Isaiah predicted the suffering of Messiah he said, “But the Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief” (53:10). Why? Why would God the Father be pleased to kill His only begotten Son? The verse goes on to answer that question, “If He would render Himself as a guilt offering.” God was pleased with the obedience of Jesus and the price He willingly paid for the guilt of our sin. 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Without The Shedding Of Blood, There Is NO Forgiveness. by malvisguy212: 11:32am On Aug 16, 2015 |
awotuphylle:God forgive us and even provide a simple way for sin atoning. When I sin, I don't have to sacrifice lamb anymore, I just need to go down on my knell and ask God for mercy through christ Jesus. any muslim should answer this, Under the Mosaic Law, what were the Jews doing on the “Day of Atonement” since 1513 B.C.E.? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Without The Shedding Of Blood, There Is NO Forgiveness. by malvisguy212: 11:26am On Aug 16, 2015 |
musKeeto:where in the bible it say, God killed his son ? Did Jesus remain dead ? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Most Committed Atheists Were Once Chtistians (opinion?) by malvisguy212: 11:23am On Aug 16, 2015 |
musKeeto:All you need to do is to provide evidence, atheists condemned beastility. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Most Committed Atheists Were Once Chtistians (opinion?) by malvisguy212: 11:13am On Aug 16, 2015 |
musKeeto:http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_bestiality |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Without The Shedding Of Blood, There Is NO Forgiveness. by malvisguy212: 11:03am On Aug 16, 2015 |
Rilwayne001:Quran 60:8 Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly. In other word , Allah hate those who fight you and love those who do not fight you. Every sane human being will understand the meaning of this verse. Is it hard to provide something like this ? Romans 5:8 But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. Matthew 5:43-48 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? ... 1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. The quranic verse you provide talk about conditional love compear to the biblical verse I provide which talk about unconditional love for ALL people including sinners. 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Thou Shall Not Kill: Does God Violate His Own Commandment? by malvisguy212(op): 10:53am On Aug 16, 2015 |
menesheh:stay mute. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Most Committed Atheists Were Once Chtistians (opinion?) by malvisguy212: 10:51am On Aug 16, 2015 |
musKeeto:according to atheist, homosexual is right. Even beastility is okay. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: 10 Contradictions In The Bible With Quotations by malvisguy212: 10:48am On Aug 16, 2015 |
menesheh:now I know, you are being manipulated by satan, when the children of isreal disobeyed God, God send serpent to bite and kill them. In the desert , the children of isreal disobeyed God and God punished them for that, many of them died. During the time of Gideon , God abandoned the isrealite almost 300 years letter, he send Gideon , by then most of them should be dead. Infacte the children of isreal that went into slavery in Egypt, most of them did not enter the promise land due to disobedient to God. You need to go back and read the bible. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Most Committed Atheists Were Once Chtistians (opinion?) by malvisguy212: 10:04am On Aug 16, 2015 |
musKeeto:am not satisfy with your answer, okay!! Homosexual is not wrong should we say the killing of the Jews is not wrong too ? Because the two example I gave is the same points am making. |
| Christianity Etc › Thou Shall Not Kill: Does God Violate His Own Commandment? by malvisguy212(op): 9:59am On Aug 16, 2015 |
The sixth commandment is "Thou shalt not kill." Atheists claim that God violated His own commandment in ordering the destruction of entire cities, just to allow the Jews to have a homeland in the Middle East. The Bible confirms that God ordered the killing of thousands of people. Isn't this an open and shut case for the hypocrisy of the God of the Bible? IS ALL KILLING THE SAME? One thing you have to love about atheists is their extreme appreciation for the King James Version (KJV) translation. The KJV was translated in the early 17th century using an archaic form of modern English. In the last 400 years,the English language has changed significantly. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who read the KJV (both believers and unbelievers) are unqualified to know what the text means in many instances because of word meaning changes. In attempting to demonstrate the contradiction of God's commands to Israel and the sixth commandment, atheist cite the KJV translation, "Thou shalt not kill." However, like English, Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder" in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text.The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause." The Hebrew word used here is ratsach, which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional killer could flee to escape retribution. The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but nakah, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context. Other Hebrew words also can refer to killing. The punishment for murder was the death sentence. However, to be convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses. The Bible also prescribes that people have a right to defend themselves against attack and use deadly force if necessary. IS GOD KILLING JUSTIFY ? To answer the question whether God breaks His own commandments, we need to determine if God committed murder (i.e., killed people without cause) 1. The Bible is quite clear that God has killed people directly (the most prominent example being the flood) and indirectly (ordered peoples to be killed). 2. If God ordered or participated in the killing of innocent people, then He would be guilty of murder. Let's look at two of the most prominent examples. THE FLOOD. According to the Bible, God killed every human except Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives in the flood. Were any of these people killed unjustly? The Bible says specifically that all people (except Noah and his family) had become corrupted. Not only had all people become corrupted,but they were continually plotting evil! Is it possible that an entire culture can become corrupted? You bet! Recent history proves the point rather well. When the Nazis took over Germany before WWII, opposition was crushed and removed. When they began their purging of the undesirables (e.g., the Jews), virtually the entire society went along with the plan. So, the Bible indicates that no innocent people were killed in the flood. GOD ORDER KILLING. What about when God ordered Joshua and his people to kill every man, woman and child in Canaan?What crime could be so great that entire populations of cities were designated for destruction? God told Moses that the nations that the Hebrew were replacing were wicked. How "wicked" were these people? The text tells us that they were burning their own sons and daughters in sacrifices to their gods. So we see that these people were not really innocent. For these reasons (and others), God ordered the destruction of the peoples whom the Israelites dispossessed. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN AND OTHER "INNOCENT" Surely God could have spared the children! People tend to assume that children are innocent, even if their parents are doing bad things. The assumption is unfounded. For example, Palestinian Muslim children are officially taught in grammar school to hate their Jewish neighbors. They are so well indoctrinated that some of them give up their lives in suicide bombings as children. Corruption literally does breed corruption, which is why God did not want the Hebrews tainted by the other corrupt cultures of the Middle East. Surely there must have been other innocent adults in those cities who were destroyed with the wicked! There actually is an example of a time when God was asked if He would destroy the innocent along with the wicked. Prior to destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asked God if He would destroy the righteous along with the wicked. God replied that He would spare the entire city for 50 righteous people. Abraham kept reducing the possible number of righteous people, asking God if He would destroy the entire city along with those number of righteous people. God's reply in each case was that He would not destroy the righteous along with the wicked. The lowest number Abraham asked about was ten righteous people, although the answer would likely be the same with as few as one righteous individual. How do we know this? God sent two angels to warn the four righteous people in Sodom to flee before He destroyed the city. It is quite convenient that such details are usually left out of atheistic sites complaining about the "evil" perpetrated by God. In fact, God saved certain people from being killed in cities such as Jericho. CONCLUSION The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is really not as general as the King James version would indicate. The commandment actually refers to premeditated, unjustified killing - murder. Although God ordered the extermination of entire cities, He did so in righteous judgment on a people whose corruption had led to extreme wickedness, including child sacrifice. Did God destroy the righteous along with the wicked? In an exchange with Abraham, God indicated that He would spare the wicked to save the righteous. He demonstrated this principle by saving righteous people from Sodom and Jericho prior to their destruction. The charge that God indiscriminately murdered people does not hold to to critical evaluation of the biblical texts. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Most Committed Atheists Were Once Chtistians (opinion?) by malvisguy212: 9:37am On Aug 16, 2015 |
musKeeto:okay,is homosexual right or wrong ? The society legalised it , should we called it right ? In the nazi camp,they seth the rule of killing the Jews. Because the Jews population are on the risen, will you called this ruled right or wrong because the society agreed on that ? This is what I say to pastorAio: 1. If objective moral values do not exist, moral language cannot be predicated to objective acts, but only to subjective opinions regarding objective acts 2. Moral language can be predicated to objective facts 3. Therefore, objective moral language exists Very briefly, my point here is the words "RIGHT" and "WRONG" and in all their variances are either attributed to ACTS themselves our opinions about acts themselves.There is absolutely NO other way the words may be predicated, so these two categories are exhaustive. An example of each: a. Slavery is wrong b. I think of slavery as wrong In the first, moral language (the word "wrong" is attributed to the ACTUAL ACT of slavery. In the second, moral language is PREDICTED TO MY OPINION. What I am arguing is that, if objective moral values do not exist, then sentences of the first type are meaningless. The reason is that if there is no objective moral reality, then moral language doesn't refer to any existent thing. Why do we say this word? Slavery is wrong if objective morality do not exist ? Instead of "I THINK slavery is wrong. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Without The Shedding Of Blood, There Is NO Forgiveness. by malvisguy212: 9:26am On Aug 16, 2015 |
Rilwayne001:you called God 'a blood thirsty being" but you cannot produce a single verse in the quran where All seems to show love to unbelievers. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Without The Shedding Of Blood, There Is NO Forgiveness. by malvisguy212: 9:24am On Aug 16, 2015 |
awotuphylle:The New Testament says that Jesus is our sacrificial Lamb. The Passover lamb was to be a "male without defect," Exodus 12:5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without DEFECT, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. Jesus forestshadowing this sacrifice in the new testament: 1Peter 1:18-19 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ,A LAMB WITHOUT BLEMISH OR DEFECT. In addition, when the lamb was roasted and eaten, NONE OF ITS BONES WERE TO BE BROKEN. This fact was also prophesized for the Messiah, whose bones were not to be broken: Exodus 12:46 "It must be eaten inside one house; take none of the meat outside the house. DO NOT BREAK ANY OF THE BONES. Again our Lord Jesus christ forestshadowing this event: John 19:32, 33, 36 The soldiers therefore came, and broke the legs of the first man, and of the other man who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, THEY DID NOT BREAK HIS LEGS ;... For these things came to pass, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, "Not a bone of Him shall be broken." Psalm 34:20 He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken. https://www.nairaland.com/2470199/how-passover-reveals-jesus-christ 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: 10 Contradictions In The Bible With Quotations by malvisguy212: 9:19am On Aug 16, 2015 |
menesheh:are you guys insane? How can one tamed the killing of a wicked generation wrong?you are not qualify to teach the word of God because according to you and others atheists, a single verse can explained the WHOLE context of the bible. Note: don't rush and read this. IS ALL KILING THE SAME? One thing you have to love about atheists is their extreme appreciation for the King James Version (KJV) translation.The KJV was translated in the early 17th century using an archaic form of modern English. In the last 400 years, the English language has changed significantly. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who read the KJV (both believers and unbelievers) are unqualified to know what the text means in many instances because of word meaning changes. In attempting to demonstrate the contradiction of God's commands to Israel and the sixth commandment, atheist cite the KJV translation, "Thou shalt not kill." However, like English, Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder" in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause."The Hebrew word used here is ratsach, which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional killer could flee to escape retribution. The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but nakah, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context. Other Hebrew words also can refer to killing the punishment for murder was the death sentence. However, to be convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses.The Bible also prescribes that people have a right to defend themselves against attack and use deadly force if necessary. IS GOD KILLING JUSTIFIED? To answer the question whether God breaks His own commandments, we need to determine if God committed murder (i.e., killed people without cause) The Bible is quite clear that God has killed people directly (the most prominent example being the flood) and indirectly (ordered peoples to be killed).If God ordered or participated in the killing of innocent people, then He would be guilty of murder. So bring your evidence if God had ever kill a single innocent soul. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: How The Passover Reveals Jesus Christ by malvisguy212(op): 7:51am On Aug 16, 2015 |
OAM4J |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Contradictions Analyzed:bible And Quran. by malvisguy212(op): 7:50am On Aug 16, 2015 |
malvisguy212: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: 10 Contradictions In The Bible With Quotations by malvisguy212: 7:48am On Aug 16, 2015 |
menesheh:The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is really not as general as the King James version would indicate. The commandment actually refers to premeditated, unjustified killing - murder. Although God ordered the extermination of entire cities, He did so in righteous judgment on a people whose corruption had led to extreme wickedness, including child sacrifice. Did God destroy the righteous along with the wicked? In an exchange with Abraham, God indicated that He would spare the wicked to save the righteous. He demonstrated this principle by saving righteous people from Sodom and Jericho prior to their destruction. The charge that God indiscriminately murdered people does not hold to to critical evaluation of the biblical texts. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: 10 Contradictions In The Bible With Quotations by malvisguy212: 7:43am On Aug 16, 2015 |
Rapmoney. 6.wisdom is not an asset , is a burden to bear, everyday you logging to nairaland and find soo many foolish topics,its a burden to explained it to a harden man like you. 7.Moses was a 'meek' man and in number 31 it was God himself who sanctioned the command because the people Moses was to kill ,they worship idols and sacrifice their sons and daughter to there gods. 8. This does not show a contradiction any more than two witnesses to an accident at an intersection will come up with two different scenarios of that accident, depending on where they stood. Neither witness would be incorrect, as they describe the event from a different perspective. Luke was not a witness to the event, and so is dependent on those who were there. John was a witness. What they are both relating, however, is that at the end Jesus gave himself up to death. It could be said that Luke used the last words that he felt were necessary for his gospel account, which concentrated on the humanity of Christ (noted in the earlier question), while John, as well as quoting the last words of Jesus, was interested in the fulfilment of the salvific message, and so quoted the last phrase “it is finished”. John 17:4 records Jesus’ prayer to the Father in the light of Christ’s forthcoming crucifixion, stating that He had completed the work of revelation (John 1:18), and since revelation is a particular stress of the Gospel of John, and the cross is the consummation of that commission (John 3:16), it is natural that this Gospel should centre on tetelestai. At any rate, if Jesus said ‘It is finished; Father into your hands I commit my spirit’ or vice versa, it would be quite in order to record either clause of this sentence, his last words. Luke-Acts reaches its conclusion without any climax, because the continuing ministry of the exalted Christ through the Holy Spirit and the Church has no ending prior to the Parousia, and to record tetelestai might have undermined this emphasis, or it could have been taken the wrong way. At any rate, no contradiction is involved; purely a distinction of emphasis. 9.God didn't literally talk face to face with Moses, for no man can see God's face and live (Exodus 33:20). This is a figurative expression intended to convey the intimacy of their relationship that is captured in the phrase,"as a man speaketh unto his friend" (verse 11). Exodus 33:11 intimates not only that God revealed himself to Moses with greater clearness than to any other of the prophets, but also with greater expressions of particular kindness than to any other.He spake not as a prince to a subject, but as a man to his friend, whom he loves,and with whom he takes sweet counsel. The communications made by God to Moses were not by visions, ecstacies, dreams, inward inspirations, or the mediation of angels, but with familiarity and confidence with which the Divine Being treated his servant. 10.This alleged contradiction is related to the fact that Matthew in his Gospel speaks of Judas hanging himself but in Acts 1:18 Luke speaks about Judas falling headlong and his innards gushing out. However both of these statements are true. Matthew 27:1-10 mentioned the fact that Judas died by hanging himself in order to be strictly factual. Luke, however in his report in Acts1:18-19 wants to cause the feeling of revulsion among his readers, for the field spoken about and for Judas, and nowhere denies that Judas died by hanging. According to tradition, it would seem that Judas hanged himself on the edge of a cliff, above the Valley of Hinnom. Eventually the rope snapped, was cut or untied and Judas fell upon the field below as described by Luke. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: 10 Contradictions In The Bible With Quotations by malvisguy212: 7:01am On Aug 16, 2015 |
Rapmoney 1.God is good to all people.Jeremiah was talking about God warning against Jerusalem, if they do not change. 2.there is no contradiction, for God to battle for peace and clean up unrighteousness. 3.Matthew, uses the expression "son of" (in Lk 3:23) or "begat" (in Mt1:16) in a strictly legal and genealogical sense rather than in a strictly literal sense, since Joseph, the husband of Mary, could not be the literal son of both Heli and Jacob.This seeming discrepancy has been explained on the basis that Luke presents Jesus as the actual blood descendant of David through Mary ( Rom1:3, 4), but without listing Mary as a link in the chain of progenitors, whereas Matthew gives the royal and legal line of descent through Joseph, who was Jesus’ father by Jewish law. Joseph could have been the literal son of either Jacob or Heli and the adopted son of the other, perhaps through a levirate marriage by either. 4.The term "better" refers to nature, not position. Here is a good example in illustrating this passage.The President is greater than you or I, correct? Yes, as Chief Executive Officer of the United States he is greater than you or I. But, is the President better than you or I? What I mean is, is there anything about the President that makes him a superior being to you or me? No. If Jesus wanted to say He was inferior to God in nature, He would have said, "The Father is better than I."Here is a biblical example of the use of the term "better" in Hebrews 1:4, "Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." Here we see that Jesus is a being superior to the angels, so the term "better" is used. Therefore, the Father is greater than Jesus, His son, in power, but Jesus is equal to him in spirit and in nature. 5.order to understand the meaning of any text, you must understand it's purpose. If you don't understand why a bit of text was written, you are quite likely to come away with a bad understanding of what it means. In this case your question assumes a mis-understanding of the purpose of the two texts in question. If you correct that understanding, it becomes apparent that there is actually no contradiction and nothing that needs resolving from an inerrancy standpoint. The two chapters you quote from in Genesis serve slightly different purposes. It is quite common on ancient Hebrew literature to repeat parts of a story in different ways to draw out different points.In this case one passage tells us something about the Chronology of events, the second goes on to give us another event that happens to be sandwiched inbetween the last steps of the first event that includes some additional commentary. If you want to know in what order things were created, Genesis 1 should be your guide. In Genesis 2, we find out that that (presumably about day 6) God was trying to show Adam that his own personal help-mate was going to be a different kind of creature than the animals, so after he makes Adam but before he makes Eve he parades the rest of the created order before Adam and demonstrates that none of them are like he is. The animals are not made on the spot, there is just a bit of commentary that reminds us that they were created out of the ground. In the process, all the animals get names. But then we go on to the creation of Eve, made not out of the ground but out of Adam's flesh. This second chapter helps us establish some order or rank to creation as well as lay the foundation for its purpose, not re-sequence the events of creation. To be continue... |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Earth Is 4.5 BILLION Years Old. Surely Many Races Came Before Us! by malvisguy212: 6:13am On Aug 16, 2015 |
menesheh:am not a young earth creationist. I just read your profile, you joined nairaland 2013 but nairaland began, I think 2007, the earth is 14billion years old but man began to live around 6 to 10 thousands years ago. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Shepherd Psalm by malvisguy212(op): 10:06pm On Aug 15, 2015 |
malvisguy212: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: One Question, Three Different Answers by malvisguy212(op): 10:05pm On Aug 15, 2015 |
malvisguy212: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Morality Demands A Moral Law Giver by malvisguy212(op): 9:53pm On Aug 15, 2015 |
PastorAIO:the nature and attribute of God in the bible is beyond imagination. if people were to have invented the God of Christianity, it is unlikely that it would be the demanding God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is described as holy , without sin and without the ability to commit sin. The holiness of God is described as being above anything that humans can attain, such that no human can stand before Him as holy. Behaving more morally upright than most other people is not sufficient to escape the punishment of the God of the Bible. In all religions, salvation is attained by human effort, its is only in Christianity salvation is the free gift of God. But He said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!" ( Exodus 33:20) When He passes me I cannot see Him. When He goes by, I cannot perceive Him ( Job 9:11) The Almighty is beyond our reach ( Job 37:23) Soo the christian God does not look like 'god' invented in human mind. Alright: 1. If objective moral values do not exist, moral language cannot be predicated to objective acts, but only to subjective opinions regarding objective acts 2. Moral language can be predicated to objective facts 3. Therefore, objective moral language exists Very briefly, my point here is the words "RIGHT" and "WRONG" and in all their variances are either attributed to ACTS themselves our opinions about acts themselves.There is absolutely NO other way the words may be predicated, so these two categories are exhaustive. An example of each: a. Slavery is wrong b. I think of slavery as wrong In the first, moral language (the word "wrong"  is attributed to the ACTUAL ACT of slavery. In the second, moral language is PREDICTED TO MY OPINION. What I am arguing is that, if objective moral values do not exist, then sentences of the first type are meaningless. The reason is that if there is no objective moral reality, thenmoral language doesn't refer to any existent thing. Why do we say this word? Slavery is wrong if objective morality do not exist ? Instead of "I THINK slavery is wrong. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Another Error Of Quran Or Muhammed by malvisguy212: 7:37am On Aug 15, 2015 |
Teekrayne:God called Isaac Abraham ONLY son because Isaac was the promise son God promise Abraham. Its was when God sanctioned the sending away of ishmael and his mother, that was when God called Isaac the ONLY son of Abraham.ishmael was born of the flesh, when Sarah lose patience he advice Abraham to had intercourse with the boundwoman. Isaac was born of the spirit ,he was the promise child. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Another Error Of Quran Or Muhammed by malvisguy212: 7:18am On Aug 15, 2015 |
Jozzy4:God did not pray , it was the human nature of Jesus 'pray' .God did not impose His will on the human nature of Jesus. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jehovah Witness! After Admitting This, Why Do You Still Claim Jesus Isn't God? by malvisguy212: 7:32pm On Aug 13, 2015 |
Jozzy4:okay, I see what you are doing now, selecting the post that favour your argument and leave the KEY WORD. Man only saw the EMBODIMENT of God and NOT the true nature of GOD. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jehovah Witness! After Admitting This, Why Do You Still Claim Jesus Isn't God? by malvisguy212: 5:47pm On Aug 13, 2015 |
Jozzy4:men only saw God (Jesus , the word ) when he made his dwellings in the flesh, the bible clearly say God is a spirit , NO man has ever seen the true nature of God. In the old testament, Jesus appear to the prophet either as the word of God or son of man: Daniel 7:13 "In my VISION at night I looked, and there before me was one like a SON OF MAN ,coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. Here in Daniel vision, he saw the son of man. Jeremiah1:4 ( NIV) The WORD of the LORD came to me, saying. Jeremiah 1:2 To whom the WORD of the LORD came in the days of Josiah the son of … Ezekiel 1:3 The WORD of the LORD came expressly to Ezekiel the priest, the son … Here, the word of they Lord came to this prophet, this prophet did not see this word because its has NO Flesh and in the book of john 1:1 its was this "word" which became FLASH and dwell among us, that was when men began to see the word (Jesus) |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jehovah Witness! After Admitting This, Why Do You Still Claim Jesus Isn't God? by malvisguy212: 2:11pm On Aug 13, 2015 |
Jozzy4:listen, NO man has ever seen God in His true image,men only saw Jesus ( the word) when he BECAME FLESH and made His dwellings AMONG US. In his letter to the church at Philippi, the apostle Paul mentioned that Christ, Who had existed in heaven “in the form of God”, “made Himself of no reputation,” and TOOK ON THE LIKENESS OF MEN ” (Philippians 2:6-7). Men saw an EMBODIMENT OF GOD as Jesus dwelt here in a fleshly form. Men saw “the Word” that “became flesh.” But no one has ever seen God’s true, complete image (as a spirit Being). |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jehovah Witness! After Admitting This, Why Do You Still Claim Jesus Isn't God? by malvisguy212: 1:45pm On Aug 13, 2015 |
Rilwayne001:sound mind ?would you accept my explanation ? |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 (of 366 pages)