₦airaland Forum

LOL viaro you beat me to it!

Deep Sight, I am just seeing this now. Let me address it right away.

Deep Sight:
Now that very perfection of his word and will create serious problems for you Maven -

On the Adamic legend -

  1. If God was omniscient and perfect, he would know all things - including the future

  2. If he knew all things he would know the very result of his creation leading to sin

  3. If in spite of knowing such he could not devise a creation more perfect than that, then he can scarcely be said to be perfect

You must thus see that the Adamic idea of sin is inherently incompatible with the perfection of God, which you moot.

This deals with the Adamic legend.

When you say THE FUTURE, are you not in error? Let me ask you, Deep Sight, do you play chess? I'm actually an excellent (advanced) player of chess, and I know that there is no "FUTURE" in a game of chess. The future that will be obtained is consequential of EACH and EVERY move made by both players. At each turn, there are tens, hundreds, thousands and millions of possible endings and variations. A PERFECT chess grandmaster would know ALL the possible endings even before they are close to being played out. That is how God is. He is OMNISCIENT in that he KNOWS ALL FUTURES. There is no THE FUTURE anywhere!

God created a perfect man and gave him a simple instruction: a la the opening book of the game of chess (In a game of chess the game is not yet lost on the first two moves, but a really bad move on the 3rd move by Black may cause an immediate checkmate for white). If you do not know or like chess, consider a soccer game where the team members scored own goals in the first few seconds of the match, and then they get into a rough free-for-all fight and they are all given red cards and the game ends (Im not big on soccer, but I hope you get the idea).

God, the ultimate and perfect chessmaster, knew exactly what would happen IN ALL cases: Adam & Eve obeying, Adam & Eve disobeying, Adam refusing to sin along with Eve, Eve not listening to Satan, etc. Adam and Eve made the WRONG call. They decided to step out of line, and God knew what their future would be in that case, and in his JUSTICE to Satan and Adam and Eve, he carried out the sentence related to THAT future.

Deep Sight:
But on golgotha -

 1. If God is changeless, why would he change the requirements for salvation by introducing the spectre at Golgotha and requiring all men to believe it in order to be saved? This was a clear change from the previous state of Judgment based on law and conscience, no? I thought you said God is changeless? Aha!

You are wrong, Deep Sight. I think you should have listened more in Sunday School, if you ever attended. Then you will understand that nothing ever changed: the law is fulfilled when one truly lives for Christ, Conscience is no longer free to roam wildly but is now controlled by the Holy Spirit, and Christ's final sacrifice is like the periodical atonements recommended in Leveticus 4. God never changed, not once! It was an improvement to make things better. The OT is fulfilled in the NT, and not done away with, the same way your primary school education was upgraded by the secondary, and that by the university education you got roughly 10 years ago (as you said yourself).

Deep Sight:
2. If God is changeless, its really rich for you to insist that the prayer in Gethsemane was a script God himself had to follow. What do you make of the words - "Nevertheless not as i will but as thou wilt?" What do you make of the words - "If it is possible, let this cup pass over my head?" Remember that this is supposedly the almighty Deity who knows all things.

I have answered this before, and I will not start repeating my posts. Christ's life was a PATTERN for us to follow, and if he never approached the matter in that manner, how would MAVEN IBIDUN [surname redacted] understand what to do whenever her own will clashes with God's will? He asked the disciples to come along with him so they can learn for posterity, but instead they were sleeping (which is exactly what many people do nowadays when they are supposed to be placing God's will above theirs). It doesn't get simpler for one who ought to have Deep Sight.

Deep Sight:
3. Do you realize that your script analogy can only hold water if this world we live in is not real. I;e - It is virtual reality only, as once suggested by Rossike.

There is a problem with Rossike's theory because it says the physical is physically virtual. This is not true, but rather the physical is spiritually virtual, because it is malleable by the spiritual realms, the spiritual realms control it. The same way I can influence the position of a virtual image in a lens by adjusting the real image. So, this world is not virtual reality, it is real, but ONLY real to the physical realm, which in itself is the creation of an infinite and timeless God.

Deep Sight:
4. "Verily verily i say unto you, whatsoevr a man soweth, the same shall he reap" - what do you make of this statement? Is it not an affirmation of the law of Karma? And if the law of Karma holds true, do you not realize that the sacrifice on the cross is incompatible with it - because we are said to reap whatever we sow: thus - it will never be "washed away" by any sacrifice, but must unconditionally be reaped in the adamantine and perfect laws of God. Do you realize that you are thus suggesting that God put aside his perfect laws of Karma in order to "change the script" halfway? All this coming from a God that you your self have described as "unchangeable"? ? ? ?

Yes, Deep Sight, whatever a man sows he shall reap. Before Christ, men were sowing death and reaping death. Some few holy ones sowed life and reaped a form of life (a promise of life, like a title deed of a valuable property, by faith). When Christ came, he came to validate the title deed, to sign the blank cheque. The rule still holds: what a man sows he will reap. Christ came and did his own bit, he sowed ONE life, and he has reaped millions and millions. I am one of them. I also sowed my life into Christ, and I have reaped eternal life. Its easy! That's karma if it ever existed.

I must clarify, however, that God is not a "magician" so, it's very much like getting your wounds healed. There will be some few [i]scar[/i]s for a while, depending on how fatal the wound you allowed yourself to sustain by flirting with the devil is. For instance, a prostitu'te is apprehended by the Gospel and she comes back home to God through Christ. She will still have to deal with the societal stigma of prostitution, and she may still see some of her previous customers on the streets jeering and winking at her, and she may have to deal with her STDs. It doesn't change the fact that she now has an everlasting home in God. After all, it is better for one to enter into God's rest as a scrawny skeleton than not to enter at all. If you are looking for "karma", there is an example.

Deep Sight:
Maven? ? ?

Can I further help you?

@Viaro:

(1) Because eternity is also timelessness which in turn is simply infinite time.

I do not think timelessness is infinite time. Infinite time is eternity, but timelessness means entirely OUTSIDE of time. I hope you understand my point.

(2) But of course, 'zero' does not connote 'eternity' in so far as 'infinite time' is in view.

And that is MY POINT to DeepSight. I can say zero (nothingness) is to timelessness, what infinity is to eternity.

(3) Yet, there is an even greater problem in DeepSight's prose. How does he weave his thesis from 'nothingness' (|'0'|) through to 'eternity'? Just telling us to regard what he says as 'just-so' does not convey any understanding to anyone. There are questions to be asked; and one at this point is this: on what basis is one to assume that 'zero' = 'eternity'?

I was going to proceed along that line, but the fundamental statement that nothingness has eternal properties, is in itself, flawed, IMO!

Viaro, I suggest you take time to read my 2 previous posts (#73 and #75). Cheers.

ssumpta:
@ Poster. Thanks for spreading the good news.
Well done. Some pple think they know it all , but dey dont know nothing.
I have learned from this.

Thanks ssumpta. Im glad you found it useful All credits to Pastor Joshua Harris.

Deep Sight:
Please clarify what you mean here for me. Does that "initial oppurtunity" only apply to them when they convert to christianity?

The initial opportunity IS choosing Christ, the same way every criminal goes to prison and they can decide to let the correctional institute change them, or they can just "serve time" and exit the same way. Jesus' coming was like US going to prison, we can come out of prison a changed person, or we can ignore it all. Or like an option to become a vegetarian because you got credible information that all the forms of available meat has been poisoned by some nuclear radioactive mishap. The choice of adhering to the prison teachings OR believing the nuclear news, is available to everybody. What they do with the choice is an entirely definite matter.

Deep Sight:
Also another question: Were there not persons who were "saved" or "went to heaven" ever before Jesus walked the earth? What does that suggest about the necessity of his sacrifice - or about your claim that it is that sacrifice that "frees" mankind from the flesh?

There was nobody saved before Jesus Christ. They were not in heaven before Jesus came. In particular, the holy Jews were in a section of hell called "Abraham's bosom" where the throes of hell could not get to them (see the parable of Lazarus and the rich man). It can be likened to Goshen in Egypt during the 10 plagues in Egypt, they were there but they were holy i.e. untouchable.

I believe every "people" had such a special section, because there were just men like Enoch and Noah and Job who were not Jews.

But even then all of these "holy ones" still had to ACCEPT Christ's Gospel to enter into heaven when the Paradise project ended.

1Pe 4:6  For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

When Jesus died, he told the thief on the cross beside him "You will be with me in paradise today" and that was true because they both went to paradise that day. Three days in paradise, and Jesus overcame the devil and made a mockery of him IN HIS OWN DOMAIN. And then, whoever BELIEVED his gospel the same way YOU have a choice to believe the gospel today, went on into heaven.

There was no human agent in heaven before Christ rose.

The dead received their last opportunity when Christ was about to rise from the dead.

The paradise project is now and forever CLOSED.

All those AFTER Christ died have the same opportunity as those ones because God is Just.

1Pe 4:6  Listen to the Message. It was preached to those believers who are now dead, and yet even though they died (just as all people must), they will still get in on the life that God has given in Jesus.

But to escape the insufficiency of words, maybe i should let the issue rest at simply using a different word - let me say that timelessness connotes immutability. But in using this word, i would like you to note that beings within time are not and cannot be eternal in the same way as God is said to be. Because even if they may have an eternal future, they are not eternal in the past: because they had a beginning: God is absolutely eternal - in that he had no beginning and cannot have an end, like you said, he is. I believe that that is real eternity.

Here, I perfectly agree with you, it is also in line with what I said previously:

But an aspect of God's perfection is that he is changeless; he cannot change for the worse, and does not need to change for the better. He exists as a complete, entire unity, together. His existence is not spread out in time or in space, like the existence of material objects, but his existence is all at once. If God wants to put time on hold right now, would you then be like him, so to speak? Of course not!

But I still have some issues with the parts of your post above, as outlined in GREEN below:

We may proceed on the assumption that Zero = nothingness, and that nothingness is timeless.

Timelessness connotes immutability and eternity - as a timeless nature cannot be ever said to end or change.

The thing that cannot end, is by simple definition, eternal and immutable.

Thus "nothingness" is both eternal and immutable.

I agree that nothingness is immutable, because if it were otherwise, it would no longer be a "null", a "nothingness", it would have become a non-nothingness, which would connote the presence of a "something". And timelessness is also immutable, because the concept of time as we understand it, involves a continuous change in the traits of the universal. If nothing changes UNIVERSALLY, then we can say that "time stood still" for the universe. Timelessness exists outside this Universal watch-dog of change and variation in quantity, quality, nature, etc.Thus timelessness is immutable, as well as nothingness.

However, can we definitely say that a timeless nature cannot be said to end? Yes, because to "end" in itself, is not a trait of immutability. Timelessness is immutable, so it cannot "end". Nothingness is immutable, so it cannot "end" either. But what about eternity? Can it end, technically speaking? Yes, I believe so.

This is because eternity denotes the ENDLESS CHANGE that the universe experiences.

Consider, for instance, a special case where a timeless force upsets the "time scale" and makes the time-bound universe immutable, i.e. the time-bound agents in the universe no longer translate in time because the universe stops experiencing change. Would the eternit[/b]y not have come to an end in that case? Theologically, I mean if God puts an end to the time-project, eternity would end, but he, timeless as he is, would still BE.

To us time-based creatures, timelessness and eternity are similar; but NO they are not the same thing because one (eternity) is still in a large container called time, no matter how infinite the container's dimensions are.

[b]I stick with nothingness (or zero, so to speak) being immutable and timeless, but definitely not eternal.

TV01, you are so funny!!! I am laughing like a jennyass pronounced genius right here!

My point was that the topic you are addressing has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. It builds upon it, in truth, which was why I suggested you open a new thread for that. What? Don't tell me you are offended 'cos I have met you on threads like e.g. the "Christian Women Make-up" thread shortly after I joined NL and I saw your posts, you don't strike me that way (I'm good with usernames )

If you check out my posts, I always remind myself not to derail thread titles, and ask lovely people like JeSoul, Ancel and Nuclearboy to keep me in check so I don't go off tangent; and I open new threads to pursue the engendered topic, if necessary. So, saying the same to you is not a big deal IMO. But I apologize if you were offended. Sorry.

Have a great week ahead.

This was my question.

Pray tell, what exactly is this "Will of God"? How does it relate to his actions and overall activities?

and your answers are:

^^^ The word of God is the will of God.

- God is ONE

- ONENESS is perfect unity

- Perfect unity is the ultimate form of harmony

- God's will, therefore, is ultimate harmony in creation.

God is One. His innate unity means perfection and thus harmony. And this is also his unchangeable will for his creation.

which may be okay for the first part of my question, but leaves the other part of the question (outlined in red) hanging.

Which was why I asked you to clarify, I asked and you have skipped it artfully:

God's Will is ultimate harmony in creation?

This can be interpreted in two ways:
1. God, who made the creation, depends on creation's harmony to conduct his own actions. i.e. he keeps adjusting to fit creation's harmony, as creation deems fit.
2. God's actions are reflected on creation, and forces it into harmonious concordance. i.e. creation adjusts in continuous harmony with his actions and thoughts and intents.

Which of the two is it, then? If it is neither, can you please expatiate your post, because that means I don't understand?

Which leads me to the conclusion that you have seen my point about how God is bound by his own word and his own will in order to keep the harmony of creation and existentiality in check. 

So why, tell me, is it so hard to believe that God can write a script and feature himself in it, and be bound by the "limitations" required by the role into which he is cast BY HIMSELF? Even YOU can do that, and I used to do it back in my secondary school days when I was the theatre director. 

@Deep Sight: I see how you have artfully Dodged () my question. That's good, because as Imhotep once noted, it means you found your answer there already but you just want to continue arguing.

@DeepSight: Of course time is not progressive! The concept of time is understood by time-bound entities as they translate in time. The hymn-writer Isaac Watts was partially correct when he compared time to an ‘ever-rolling stream’ which ‘bears all its sons away’.

I repeat, timelessness does not connote eternity.

The English word ‘eternal’ comes from aeturnus in Latin, itself a derivation from aevum, an age or time. So ‘eternity’ means everlastingness.

Time is God's creation, and all of God's time-bound creations move by its compulsion.

So it is not that God has always existed, for as long as time has existed, and that he always will exist, but that God does not exist in time at all. He is apart from his creation, transcendent over it. Technically speaking, God is not "everlasting", (i.e. for any time T God exists then), but is "atemporal" or timeless, (i.e. whatever the time T is or is not, God IS). That was what he was expressing to Moses in Exodus 3:14.

Time involves a translation of occurrences that either denote a change for the better, or for the worse. There is no universal status quo. But an aspect of God's perfection is that he is changeless; he cannot change for the worse, and does not need to change for the better. He exists as a complete, entire unity, together. His existence is not spread out in time or in space, like the existence of material objects, but his existence is all at once. If God wants to put time on hold right now, would you then be like him, so to speak? Of course not!

Those in time, like you and I, are bound by it, in this sense, that they cannot stop the process of change and therefore of time. They are the subjects of time, not its masters. In a sense, they are more the masters of space than they are of time, for they can choose to remain at the same physical location for a time, but they cannot choose to remain at some particular time.

Eternity is like an "infinity" to time, you can technically not deal with it arithmetically. But what about timelessness? It's not even quantifiable in time!

Using your own words, you have "conceded defeat". See:

Time is still. We move within it.

When the object keeps on moving indefinitely ad infinitum, it has thus moved eternally. Is that not so, professor? 

So is that the same thing as an object that is not time-bound, but observes the time-bound object ushered forward on the unending conveyor-belt called the experience of time?

Ehn? 

Ehn?

Deep Sight:
I did not say YOU suggested that. I needed to warn against it because i see many many christian friends of mine (not on this forum) who have the "Jesus has done it all" attitude and i think it is a dangerous attitude for a seeker of truth to have.

In the future, I would appreciate clarity about such assertions.

On a discussion thread like this, any response NOT directed at any of the earlier respondents is taken as a point directed at the OP.

-------------------------------------------------------

Deep Sight:
Might i ask: do muslims and buddhists also have this "initial oppurtunity" you are talking about?

Everyone has the initial opportunity, as much as everyone can choose to be a vegetarian is they want, whether they were born into a vegetarian family or not.

Deep Sight:
What makes you think anybody is on any "owing" side? What substance can you deduce from the legend of Adamic sin?

I never mentioned Adamic sin, which I have known you to consider a myth. I mentioned an "owing side" because it is clear to me that human beings have a natural tendency to chaos and evil. If there were no human laws against murder, rap'e and other such stuff, mankind will not be the way we see it today. So you think there's no fundamental human debt that we are owing to the natural order? That's really rich. No wonder dodos are extinct.

Deep Sight:
What gives you the impression that an all-powerful God could not by an act of his WILL, cleanse man of sin? Why do you think he had to come to the world to be murdered for sin to be dealt with? And does it make any sense that he would complete that onerous task (and at some point during the task pray to himself to avert the task) and yet sin still persists: nay - is on the increase in the world today? Did he fail in his mission?

What gives you the impression that an all-powerful God cannot carry out his intents however he pleases, without facing incredible scrutiny from Deep Sight? What other suggestions do you have, what other means would you, if acting on God's behalf, have utilized? And when you have done them, how would you silence people such as Deep Sight who, in the future, think they have better methods than the one rationalized by the greatest mind ever, by the almighty God?

Deep Sight:
Particularly does it not strike you that the spiritual state of turning away from the flesh, is what was required of man before christ, and is STILL REQUIRED OF MAN TODAY? Thus what did Christ's coming change?

This is like saying that no one should be sent to a correctional institute (prisons, etc) after committing a crime because even after they leave the institute, they will still have to abide by the same state laws that they broke before the institute; so nothing will change. Saying that if they could keep the laws before getting busted, then there's no need to go to prison before returning to the same society?
Does that make ANY sense to you?

Deep Sight:
Maven, Nuclear -

Do you both really expect me to believe that the simple statement -

"God's will is harmony within creation" -

Requires further expatiation?

Ok, what would you say his will is - chaos?

Yes it does require your gracious expatiation sir, because when I say that P === Q then either Q is in a constant state of transformation to equate to P, control-systems-speaking, or vice versa. Can you help me out here?

And by the way, Nuclearboy has one additional question beyond mine: I think HE is wondering if the OOI has any non-mechanical, non-rigid traits.

Timelessness and eternity, as I said before, are akin to a point and a line!

God is timeless, and exists outside realms capturable by time. To us, who exist in time, he APPEARS eternal.

Timelessness and eternity are not the same thing!

A timeless force is not perforce eternal, it is observed as eternal ONLY by sentients that are bound in time.

I know that a point is not a line. The same way timelessness is not eternity. And you have claimed that timelessness == zero == eternity

Unless you are about to prove otherwise 

uc nduka:
@ mavenbox, u said my exact thoughts; I don't think a perfect man would need a woman as he is already perfect.

Thanks sis. THAT point usually goes over most of our sisters' minds!

@Deep Sight:
Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose,
-V for Vendetta (2005)

Numbers were so called because the more they change in size, the "numb[/b]er" you feel while trying to appreciate them (as Rudy Rucker wryly notes in his book Infinity and the Mind (Birkhäuser, 1982).  You may end up with [b]apeirophobia, fear of the infinite   

[color=#999900]I beg to differ: zero does NOT connote eternity.  [/color]

Zero connotes timelessness.

Eternity is infinite time.

[color=#000066]"If in the infinite you want to stride, just walk in the finite to every side" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe[/color]

One of the most interesting attempts to define eternity appears in Hendrik Willem Van Loon's 1921 children's classic The Story of Mankind:

High up in the North in the land called Svithjod, there stands a rock. It is 100 miles high and 100 miles wide. Once every thousand years a little bird comes to the rock to sharpen its beak. When the rock has thus been worn away, then a single day of eternity will have gone by.

All that for eternity, BUT Timelessness is the state of being unaffected by time.

I will illustrate my point.

For instance, a line is made up of infinitely many points (like eternity is made up of infinitely many units of time). Now, we are not considering the length of the line (as we may not bother evaluating the time-based length of eternity), but rather the fact that it has infinitely many points adding up to yield the line.

Please note how the gradual addition of things of one kind (points) yields something of another kind (line), which defies dimensionality! We have moved from an object of no dimension (point) to one with a real dimension (line), and by repeating our actions we can move from lines to surfaces. The question is: at what stage of the addition do you "get there" and change dimension? Will 2 points do? Or 2000? Or 2 asankhyeya (10¹⁴⁰, a Buddhist number)? Infinity is troublesome because it seems to imply that once you can add something up infinitely many times you can actually change something from one kind to a totally different kind. Infinity has this abstruse property of making things change dimension, so maybe you may want to relate that to the nature of divine Creation.

However, timelessness is not eternity. Timelessness in this case would be: keep adding points to the points and they never become a line, put lines together and they never become a surface. It stays a point still, no matter how (long) you keep adding points. THAT is the concept of zero.

You have attempted to pull the wool over our eyes with this subtle difference between eternity and timelessness, and I have not taken the bait. 

Deep Sight:
Well, i hoped to conclude the "Oneness of Infinity" thread with reflections on that, but since you press, let me only say very briefly that -

- God is ONE

- ONENESS is perfect unity

- Perfect unity is the ultimate form of harmony

- God's will, therefore, is ultimate harmony in creation.

Don't worry about the OOI thread because it is moving along much too slowly to converge (what would we expect from an infinity?). Let's continue our discussion, you may import ideas as you deem fit. The threads are after all, independent.

God's Will is ultimate harmony in creation?

This can be interpreted in two ways:
1. God, who made the creation, depends on creation's harmony to conduct his own actions. i.e. he keeps adjusting to fit creation's harmony, as creation deems fit.
2. God's actions are reflected on creation, and forces it into harmonious concordance. i.e. creation adjusts in continuous harmony with his actions and thoughts and intents.

Which of the two is it, then? If it is neither, can you please expatiate your post, because that means I don't understand?

This may be my last question (depending on your response) before I show how how the "script-theory", as I expressed it, is not absurd.

@Deep Sight:

I feel that No. 4 makes no sense at all.

The OP read Why Christians Still Find Themselves Continuously Sinning (illustrated). 

I do not see that embracing the cross can make any person, or has ever made any person free from fleshly desire.

I doubt altogether if it is really possible in this realm to be completely free from fleshly desire: given that our very hormones are designed by the Creator to crave certain things ad infinitum. But i digress.

The point i really want to make is this: freedom from the things of the world is an individual thing that every person must take a conscious inner spiritual decision on. This decision must be reinforced through meditation and a focus on the immaterial truths of existence.

In this way the puristic Buddhist monk is able to renounce "the flesh" more comprehensively than many a person looking to the Christian cross might ever conceive. A study of the ascetic lifestyle of some of these monks and their focus on spiritual as opposed to material development might make it abundantly clear that freedom from the material cycle does not, and cannot come from clinging to the memory of the execution of a radical jewish carpenter 2000 years ago. That seems to me to be entirely beside the point, aside from reeking extensively of a materialistic and ritualistic mentality that is entirely at odds with genuine spirituality.

The claim may long be made that the "freedom" of which you speak is a "spiritual" thing which can only be understood by "christians" who have the "holy spirit" - i will not counter that save to urge each and every person in his quiet moments to reflect within his soul what spirituality really means, and what it would take to free one's self from the grip of the materialist cycle.

Did you REALLY read this:

Mavenb0x:
3. Before Jesus saves us, this is how all of us relate to the flesh. The Bible say[/b]s that we are slaves to our sinful desires. Our flesh is boss. [b]If you're not a Christian, I'm not trying to offend you. I know this isn't a flattering picture of your current condition but it's true of all of us apart from God saving us.

And:

Deep Sight:
I dare add that whereas No. 7 is how most of us live our lives, all we need to do is adopt No. 6 - fight our desires - and we are sailing home.

This can be acheived by any person of any religious or cultural persuasion: and it is well advised not to be decieved into believing that the battle has been fought for you already as each man must gird his loins and take up his sword to face his fight.

All I said is that Christ gives you that initial opportunity before you can then resist the flesh on your own! He validates you for the opportunity by giving you a clean slate to start from, so that you won't begin on the "owing" side.

Just like a genius can gain admission to Harvard, it does not mean he will be the very best of researchers when he gets there: it will afford him a valid chance to use state-of-the-art technology as opposed to someone of the same intelligence who rigs up crude machinery in his backyard and tries to conduct advanced techno-experiments. 

Can anyone show me where I asserted that the battle has been fought for you and you don't need to gird your loins and defend yourself against the flesh? 

Deep Sight, are you seeing invisible posts on this thread? 

I repeat:-

@Deep Sight:

Deep Sight:
^^^ The word of God is the will of God.

Pray tell, what exactly is this "Will of God"? How does it relate to his actions and overall activities?

@TV01: The topic is why they find themselves sinning / feeding the flesh. I suggest you may create a new thread for growing in the Spirit

Thanks bro!

Good. This thread is moving forward now

Gabry, my name is not on the list because? I thought we were great friends

gabriel4u:
. . .
Phone ring: po rin po rin
. . .

That line cracked me up like mad!

The one who sleeps heavily but does not snore is better in bed

P.s. what's a cucursian?  

It was his 1st post on NL!

I think the OP really meant "Why is it that Beautiful Women never stay with me?". Take a self check, bro!

Thanks, Image123!

I thought Abuzola said he wanted to be a peacemaker?

@olabowale: Hi. How's family?

@Viaro: This guy!! You have no idea how much you're cracking me up, man!

@nuclearboy: You nailed it there: fully human, fully divine! Yes sir!!

@Deep Sight:

Deep Sight:
^^^ The word of God is the will of God.

Pray tell, what exactly is this "Will of God"? How does it relate to his actions and overall activities?

@bee444: Maven, he? Did u c d (f) beside my name? And did you read my post? I wasnt JUST quoting verses, I was using them to clarify my views. Goodluck finding your answers!

@viaro: Easy, bro. Sticks & Stones. . . Flesh & Blood. . .

@DeepSIGHT: I just visited this thread again. Its far easier with you than 1 of Nairaland's numerous atheists cos we at least av common ground: We believe God exists. Lets move on from there.

Tell me, sir, what do you understand (is meant) by / as The Word of God?

Please take time to respond, before I proceed logically to show you what engendered my rather odd views