₦airaland Forum

@babs787:

As I already explained to you, there was progressive revelation knowledge. The OT people could not have known about the term "trinity" but they definitely interacted with the Trinity e.g. Abraham and Sarai were visited by three "men" who turned out to be "like angels" but in their communication they delivered God's promises to him, and I ALREADY gave other examples in earlier posts above. Sorry I am quite busy now. Maybe i will come back and update this post. Cheers.

@Sisi_kill: Whoosh that was an interesting one! I feel for the guy sha. LOL.  

I wrote the OP (the poem) some months ago. I was wondering how I would feel if I was a male sailor lost at sea!  

@edoyad: Una don come again.

I tink we shud let our emotions stay out of d thread n focus on d question. If ure still a virgin,be proud of urself n if not,dnt hate on those who are

One of the most sensible posts on the entire thread. Kudos!

As I sail the seven seas on a ship carved from Burmese trees
My tongue's got no crease, it's smoother than a rich butterscotch candy kiss,
And loose like a Japanese chemise, smoothly & rapidly rhyming like Balinese.

Aujourd'hui, I sneeze in the breeze and freeze in the knees
Watching these fleas tease me with the red serum disease
But I neglect their sleaze, and release my expertise at Shakespearnese
For you, Honeypeas, who has and holds my heart's keys, Parti Pris.

You're overseas, my head agrees but You're always here,
My heart disagrees, going trapeze in reprise
Like some lucky escapees, Vietnamese returnees.

Your loving peace never does cease
To mold me like hand-made cheese
While my heart soars at diverse degrees
Like a game of Frisbees on the braes.

We're two peas in a pod, Two fairies in the seas,
Two skis in the pond, two bees in Cadiz.
Love guarantees that nothing ever goes amiss
when you hold my hand and yours I squeeze.
For without you I wheeze, very ill at ease.

To this poetic blitz, there are no two conferees
She's a single nominee from my heart's trustees

She's this,
My Lovely Miss
And My Utter Bliss.

@nuclearboy: Are some intermediate posts here missing or what? Nice questions by the way. I look forward to the answers.
[sits down, starts munching popcorn and sipping some soda]

@naijababe: if you read the progression carefully, you will see that I was posting in line with the thread (helping to clarify Noetic's point) before I started defending my points. I get it. I'm backing out of the thread now unless the OP (DeepSight) has something to say about the conversation I was having with him. Cheerio

@Everyone: Sorry you didn't understand in full.

I said

P.S. I wrote this long ago. And it achieved its purpose. I just thought I should share it!

I am a writer, and I wrote it for someone, for his wedding vows. In the above rendition, I have modified one line to make it feminine for myself.

all I am as a faithful, loving wife, companion, sister, mother, friend and lover

@Tudor: Not to worry, you will never get the type of letter. I am sure. This letter is only for those who can read it.

@abuzola: get a paying job.

@badlee/nuclearboy: My point about being a young woman does not mean I am single. It has to do with Nuclearboy calling me "Ma'am". I just thought I should set him straight, but then,

In summary, about this very note, everyone can read my signature, it's for you.

@bawomolo:

not all religions have a deity. Orthodox buddhism is an example of one without a deity. There is no deity in Scientology either.

So you say.

Your argument is null, void and trash. I found this on Wikipedia about Orthodox Buddhism (Theravada):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada

Theravadans believe that every individual is personally responsible for their own self-awakening and liberation, as they are the ones that were responsible for their own actions and consequences (Sanskrit: karma; Pali: kamma). Simply learning or believing in the true nature of reality as expounded by the Buddha is not enough, the awakening can only be achieved through direct experience and personal realization. An individual will have to follow and practice the Noble Eightfold Path as taught by the Buddha to discover the reality for themselves. In Theravada belief, Buddhas, [b]gods or deities are incapable of giving a human being the awakening or lifting them from the state of repeated cycle of birth, illness, aging and death (samsara). For Theravadans, Buddha is only a Teacher of the Noble Eightfold Path, while [size=13pt]gods or deities[/size] are still subject to anger, jealousy, hatred, vengeance, craving, greed, delusion, and death.[/b]

There is no deity in Scientology either.

I must assure you that the deity in Scientology is the Scientologist himself, who has simply "forgotten his/her divine nature". And on the other hand, Scientology is only a religion in SOME parts of the world, legally speaking. It has not yet won the overall view, so it cannot be called a religion, sorry.
I give you wikipedia again. It's too long to post here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Dispute_of_religion_status

then why call it God?

duh we say "God" because human expression is so poor, we NEED words to express our notions. Maybe you can fast forward into the age when man will have HIVE-MINDS and we wont need to use nouns or even words to express ourselves. O, I forgot, if that was the case, we won't have nairaland and we won't be having this conversation because everyone will know what everyone else knows.

i have another question though, how do you know God is a MALE? . funny how a male dominated society tends to define "God" as masculine.

Why masculine? In my hurry (was very busy at the time but I wanted to respond) to express my general view on divinity, I must have forgotten to make it politically correct. If you notice, I always use he/she/it whenever I speak about divinity in general. If I had used HER or IT, I would also hear hot-hell and burning sulphur from some other people on the thread, so please spare us the masculinity talk! Once again, its the lameness of human expression that ensures that words never really carry enough of the weight of our notions.

What makes man puny and insignificant? I would say a creature that can achieve things such as landing on the moon isn't so insignificant.

D'uh I meant it in perspective to the deity in concern. I do not see man as puny and insignificant. In fact, I believe that man comes next on the descending scales of power, RIGHT AFTER the most supreme Deity. Those are my own views. When I said it that way, it was for lyrical expression and emphasis on the actions of the deity on man.

As for the bolded, didn't the Christian God do this alot in the Old testament?

Of course He did! You have simply taken my quote out of perspective

@Jagunlabi: Trash and jabberwocky. None of those religions involved the death of the God/gods in order to save the puny insignificant man. Rather, they stand aloof and administer wrath or blessings due to the man's actions. You lie.

THAT WAS WHAT I SAID. In perspective, the OT God of the Jews really did all of that, but it is very clear that the same one who did that also created an alternative route! And that was what we were talking about.

Please endeavour to read my posts in perspective. I don't have so much time to spend editing posts on nairaland, and I have a way of building up my argument to a point of climax, so you really need to read the entire paragraph to get the gist of it. Or maybe you don't have to.

@Tudor:

Does Cold Exist?
No. Rather, it is the absence of heat that makes us experience cold, because science can study heat, and not cold.

Does Darkness exist?
No. Rather, it is the absence of light that makes us experience darkness, light can be measured, observed and studied and not darkness.

Does satan exist?
He exists in the hearts and minds of those who are given to him, and are all getting ready to perish at the end of time.

@nuclearboy:

Ma'am,

Reading you gives me to think your children will be lucky and husband blessed. I'm married so please no funny issues here. But I read your views on xtianity and if you are as true as what you write, people should count themselves lucky to know you

Nice one there

*deep blush* Thanks, nuclearboy!

*Hint, hint, hint: Point of correction, though, I am a very young woman! LOL

@Tudor: I have presented valid points, you have presented none. All that you have done is to attack what I have said. Argument-shop closed, thank you. Please hold on to your understanding.

@jagunlabi:

Let me remind you, as an aside, that jesus did not die because he did not stay dead.In order for the christian god to have been involved in death, he has to have died and stayed DEAD.But he did not, so your claim is already mute.

I assume you meant my claim is MOOT, not MUTE.
May I say then, that your great grandfather never lived? Because he did not stay alive? If he lived, he would have kept on living?

@marlbron: I believe reincarnation is not preached as true, with regards to the Bible.

In looking at the Bible, one gets the clear picture that humans die only once, and that their disembodied spirits go to a “realm of the dead” to wait for the final judgment. The idea of reincarnation does not derive from nor can it be sustained by, the Bible.

The only argument that people find, for reincarnation in the Old testament, is found in Job.

'He has redeemed my soul from going to the pit, And my life shall see the light.' Behold, God does all these oftentimes with men, To bring back his soul from the pit, That he may be enlightened with the light of life. (Job 33:28-30)

However, it's not true because it was spoken by Elihu, who was in error about the nature of God's judgment of Job. Never forget that they lived in the Eastern parts of the world, and other religions preaching reincarnation were in abundance.

The strongest argument against reincarnation in the New testament is

And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, (Hebrews 9:27)

This is because Jesus Christ was offered ONCE. So, man dies ONCE as well, because the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was substitutionary. If reincarnation occurs in an endless (or numerable count) loop, then the sacrifice of Christ would make no meaning / be of no effect, because the aim of reincarnation is to have another chance at getting things right.

OLD TESTAMENT REFUTATIONS OF REINCARNATION

"When a cloud vanishes, it is gone, So he who goes down to Sheol does not come up." He will not return again to his house, Nor will his place know him anymore. (Job 7:9-10)

While still growing and uncut, they wither more quickly than grass. Such is the destiny of all who forget God; so perishes the hope of the godless. (Job 8:12-13)

Before I go-- and I shall not return-- To the land of darkness and deep shadow; (Job 10:21)

But man dies and is laid low; he breathes his last and is no more. As water disappears from the sea or a riverbed becomes parched and dry, so man lies down and does not rise; till the heavens are no more, men will not awake or be roused from their sleep. (Job 14:10-12)

"For when a few years are past, I shall go the way of no return. (Job 16:22)

NEW TESTAMENT REFUTATIONS OF REINCARNATION
Jesus, in His teachings, indicated that people would have only one chance to obtain eternal life, otherwise suffer eternal punishment:

If your hand or your foot causes you to sin cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. (Matthew 18:8 )

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. (Matthew 25:41)

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:46)

"Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation." (Matthew 12:45)

" Then it goes and takes seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first." (Luke 11:26)

Other NT verses about death and reincarnation

And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, (2 Thessalonians 1:9)
Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. (Hebrews 6:1-2)
And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day. (Jude 1:6)
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7)

I hope my points are clear (I have heard that my posts are getting harder to comprehend). Cheers!

@Tudor: So does that mean that if I see a man eating, I can conclude that a man is any creature that eats? That is like saying because religion is an activity carried out by Christians, that means Christianity is a religion. The analogy is a little weak but I hope you get the point. But as I earlier said, it has been a hard teaching, from way back when Jesus was on earth and he said "I and my Father are ONE", in the contemporary expression, he was thus equating himself to the Father. It has always been a hard teaching, and very few can understand it. I can only try to make you understand it, like trying to convince a man who shut his eyes, that he is in an illuminated room. Until he opens his own eyes (or it is forced open by traction or shock), he will never agree with you.

@Jagunlabi: Trash and jabberwocky. None of those religions involved the death of the God/gods in order to save the puny insignificant man. Rather, they stand aloof and administer wrath or blessings due to the man's actions. You lie.

@Deepsight: I apologize, I seem to be derailing your thread. I was only trying to clarify noetic's point, as I understand it.

@Jagunlabi: Is that so? Can you please list at least 10 of these EVERY religions, and let me consider your conjecture expressly in just one post?

The very reason why it is called Christianity, is that the believers are "like Christ". In Christianity, Christ is understood to be God. Christianity is a description of Christ's life. i.e. God's life, expressed humanly.

____________ , God has prepared me for you. By the will of God and the choice of my Heart, I receive you, ____________ , with much joy, that we may be One. I appreciate the many fine qualities you will bring into our family. I will honour your goals, visions and dreams, and daily seek wisdom in ministering to your Spiritual, Sexual, Emotional, Physical, Romantic, Intellectual, Financial and Creative needs.

I promise you my deepest Love, my selfless devotion & commitment, and my tenderest care. Because God exists as the Creator and Ruler of all things, the Provider and Bestower of eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, He is the most important person in our family, and we will continue to seek His most perfect will, serving Him and praising Him together.

We teach our Children to always look unto Jesus who gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity and purify us unto Himself as a peculiar family that forever exists to the praise of God's Glory and the adoration of His Holy name. We are all entirely dedicated to the calling that has been specifically placed on our family, that vision, that calling, that purpose that our lineage will forever be known for throughout the rest of the Ages; every real family has one.

Our family is a light to the nations. Light never misses it way, we can never miss our way. I love you, ____________ . Through all, I will affirm you, encourage you and edify you. No matter what lies ahead of us, we know no fear but always rejoice while the Peace of God that passes all understanding keeps our heart & mind through Christ Jesus; as we move upward and forward in our glorious experiences of this Higher Life.

I pledge you my life and choose to be to you all I am as a faithful, loving wife, companion, sister, mother, friend and lover. No one can bring any charge against us, for God justifies us. Nothing can separate you from my love, in all things we are more than conquerors through Christ who loved us and brought us together. Neither can anything separate our family from the Love of God through Christ.

And this commitment I make to you, ____________ , for as long as both shall be here in this temporary place, waiting for Christ to return and take us to heaven in a twinkling, or till we go ahead to heaven and join him in his plans for that era when Time will make no more meaning. Amen.

Yours in Love,

Maven

P.S. I wrote this long ago. And it achieved its purpose. I just thought I should share it!

@candylips: as an aside, I see that you are in love with calculus. Can you integrate e^(x^2) i.e. e raised to x-squared, without any limits (indefinite integral)? It is a highly interesting integral if you may.

Easy on the replay, Tudor. One post was enough!

My point, simply put, is that there is an aspect of Christianity that involves religion, but that is not all. Christianity is "God-ness in human form". It is a kind of Life. Like humanity is a kind of life lived by humans. Just like felinity is a kind of cat-life. Christianity is the God-kind of life.

How many religions do you know about? Carry out some research and you will find out that none of them involves the god/gods/God trading places with mankind: becoming man and allowing man to become as the Deity (deities) is(are).

And that, among other things, is what sets Christians apart.

We're splitting hairs.

God does not need to be named as "God" by men in order to have "meaning" to us, or in order to carry out His intents and purposes.

@DeepSight:
It takes a lot of understanding to get what noetic is saying. "Christianity is not a religion". Why?
My personal definition of religion (open to criticism):

Religion is a strong belief in a supernatural power (i.e. Deity) or powers (i.e. Deities) who is (are) the personification(s) of (a) force(s) that control human destiny, some part of the world or some aspect of life.

In the light of my definition above, humans who believe in a religion or the other carry out relevant activities to ensure that they are in the right standing with that deity (or those deities) to prevent damnation and secure serenity and success either in this life, or in another (if they believe in a life after this one), or both. It is an ever-reaching attempt by man to reach and experience the divine.

When Jesus was on Earth, He was the Christ that man could tangibly relate to.
Christ is the Greek word Χριστός (khris-tos') which means the anointed one, functioning in His anointing. This name was given to him by His Father in Heaven in respect of the anointing of the Holy Spirit wherewith he was filled.

Now that He has completed his purposes on earth, I am Christ. Other real Believers are Christ, too. In essence, God looks at the earth and sees man in a kind of binary denotation (permit the expression), ones and zeros, nothing more. He sees Christ, and he sees Adam.

And that's why Christianity (I don't even really like that word) is not a religion: what religions seek to attain (a conformed unity of purpose between God or gods and man), has already been done in Christ. We are now a part of the fellowship of the Godhead.

Yes, I know it's a hard teaching. Very few can understand it.

@Ogaga: It makes as much sense as it is dangerous to handle, just like a high-power scientific tool in the hands of him who knows how to use it. If it doesn't make sense to you, it simply means you do not know how to use it. It's so easy.
P.S. It's the same Abuzola. He has been banned so many times for contempt and rile, and now he has to create new identities often (almost every day).

@Bountyxs: I never heard of the Qur'anic statement of imminent chaos with 2 gods. But, by the way, the Trinity talk is a complex thing, and I will only attempt a simple logical explanation.

The so-called "Trinity" is not THREE Gods. It is THREE People, that, together, like a jigsaw puzzle, make ONE God. Each of them may be referred to as God, but each one is GOD in conjunction with thee others. Let me illustrate. Eight men on the Olympic 200 metres, and three of them come in first AT THE SAME TIME, say 9.83 seconds. That is a simple perspective on the trinity. The Three persons of the "Father", the "Son" and the "Spirit" are God at once.

As I already said, I am learning not to argue on Nairaland. I'm just presenting my perspectives.

@webdezzi:
I did some little C++ in my sophomore year at the University, and I had to make do with some few C wrapper functions, so I dabbled into C too. Agreed, C and C++ are blazingly faster than C#, but C# is generally smoother at integrating with .NET (I am joining the .NET bandwagon) than C++ (you know there is C++.Net, right?).

There are other things I love about C# with respect to C++ (I can't really compare to C, but since C++ is an improvement over C, I believe that the problems with C++ were engendered way back in C)

1. Memory management: C++ developers have to bother about not only the algorithmic aspects of the code, but ALSO the memory aspects. They need to figure out who owns objects and who cleans them up, and how to clean up in the presence of error checking. With C#, the memory management is automated, just focus on your algorithmic coding. On the other hand, one may argue that C and C++ give you ABSOLUTE control over your memory to do as you will, and that is very true, too.

2. Exceptions and return codes: In C++, some functions return VOID, some return HRESULT, some return a bool, some return another set of status code, and some return a number and use an out-of-range value as an error indicator. The developer has to successfully convert back and forth between the various kinds of error handling, which can be very tedious and hard to manage.

3. "Coherent libraries": C++ is like a refuse heap when it comes to libraries. Some libraries are from C, others from C++, all with various levels and types of documentation, different philosophies in how you use them, how they're organized, how you handle errors, etc. With C# it's just the .NET and you're good to go!

4. Compilation model: Although C and C++ programs run faster than C#, the build time is by far slower. This is because they use the C compilation model, which was instituted in the early hey-days of programming against very tight machine constraints. The separate compilation of files, separate header and source files, and linking slow things down quite a bit. I have a friend, Robin, who is a C and C++ addict, and Bayo, a C# addict. They each wrote a similar program some weeks ago and Robin's program took 1 minute and 5 seconds (65 seconds) to compile and build, wheres Bayo's C# program took just 6 seconds! Imagine that!! Okay, of course, in execution, Robin's program ran roughly 2 or 3 times faster than Bayo's own.

I'm sure there are others, but I'm still a novice. I assure you, it is far simpler to code in C# than in C++ or C, at least for a beginner like me (not a beginner to programming, but a beginner to the entire C, C++, C# family). So, it just depends on what bakes your beans!

@Abuzola: I doubt that you really have a job as you have claimed! Even your own Muslim brethren have problems with you. You have been banned so many times on Nairaland and you keep coming back with different user IDs.

@Muhsin: but I did answer you, I said

@tiatma:
Quote
The Spirit of Truth doesnt contradict the word of God, no matter the revelation.
The Old Testament conceals the New Testament, and the New Testament reveals the Old Testament
They all compliment each other . . .
And that's the truth. Best regards!

@muhsin:
I repeated tiatma's words from the post above to respond to what you said about the abolished Mosaic laws and the Christian faith.

And please, can you tell me where you found "APOSTATE" in the OT? I explained logically to you that one cannot be an apostate of the Jewish faith (see posts above), according to Jewish customs and beliefs. It may be hard for an outsider (non-Jew) to understand, though.

You asked for my beliefs, and you got them. If what you want is an argument, no, you won't get it. Cheers!

@Marlbron:

You are allowed to divorce based on sexual unchastity by your spouse. However, if you divorce for other reasons, you have committed a sin which is forgiveable if you confess it. The forgiveness of sin does not absolve you from God's natural laws ("Karma", etc). Hope that helps?

Thanks! I love that, Marlbron. You effectively summarized my entire long gist into just three sentences!

@Tiatma/Wirinet:
I was asked what I BELIEVE and I answered. Whether you should believe it, too, is what you need to answer for yourself!

@Wirinet:
You mentioned Drug Abuse, MPD and sexual incompetency. Now, may I point out to you, that these reasons do not excuse one from that defined umbrella of "sin" by nature of divorce for other reasons than sexual unchastity? This is because the man/woman involved in each case you mentioned, I believe, made a mistake by marrying the wrong person (which is a "sin". Never forget that "sin" as a word originated from the ancient days of archery, sin was a word used to describe what happens when an archer shoots the arrow and misses the bulls' eye. So, as long as it was not God's intention for the guy to marry a drug abuser or MPD sufferer, then the guy "sinned" by marrying such a person.

This sin, like gas gangrene, will spread into one of two other sins: either the person lives with it and sins further everyday, or the person divorces the partner (which is also a sin, unless the partner gave him/her further reason for that e.g. adultery). Either way, the person sinned by marrying the wrong person, and the "karma" (permit the word) consequences will follow, leading into either divorce or spiritual, mental/emotional and physical frustration.

Is that fair, then? Judgment is what comes to people, by virtue of their actions. Just like, if I walk in a straight line from this study-desk, after a while, I will hit the wall. It just has to happen, with no man's help. The judgment upon someone who marries the wrong person (rather than consulting God in the first case and getting the right person) will certainly come upon them, and the person will probably enter into more sin.

Or what would you say about a teenager, a rich handsome guy, who sinned against his father by running away with the father's money, and then he got mixed up with drug abusers and cougars (female sexual predators) and then got HIV/AIDS? Agreed, he comes back home and is forgiven, the drug abuse is weaned off him and he is able to stay clean. What about the HIV/AIDS? It has no cure yet, but it can be managed. It is the judgment for the initial sin (mistake) of leaving home in the first case. If he never left home, he probably won't have fallen into the hands of cougars. true, he may still have gotten HIV/AIDS from a casual girlfriend, but it may not occur so certainly as it occurs in the wilds. This is just a similar case to that of someone who gets mixed up with the wrong person and has to divorce them later. It is a sin built upon the foundation of another sin.

[size=14pt]Remember, "sin" as I have indicated, refers to a mistake. With respect to God, it is a mistake that could have been avoided by receiving God's counsel and following it through.[/size]

@SeanT21: Thanks sis. I meant the most ACTIVE ones! Not just the visitors to the site.

@DeepSight: LOL thanks for the compliment on my pic!  

This is brilliant. You earn my deepest respect. I totally agree.

But what say you on this: No one can understand God: but is it not rationally possible to infer that such an entity must exist?

Going by my own convictions, I believe God exists. This is due to "tangible" experiential knowledge that may not be entirely explainable by logic.

However, an argument to say that God MUST exist rationally may not be sound as well (personally I think that God cannot be forced into a box of any dimensions, e.g. now we are trying to fit Him and His intents and purposes into a box of logical inference.

I will present to you, another analogy: Scientists claim that light is the fastest entity that man can come across. Imagine, say, that there was something faster than light. I will call it a Xynth, for lack of another word to use. When this Xynth rushes past your window of observation, the light rays that will leave your eyes will never get incident on the Xynth because it moves faster then light. So, technically, the Xynth will be there, right in front of your eyes, but you will never see it. I hope you understand. So, can one then say that light is the fastest entity that man can come across? No, a more correct statement would be that light is the fastest entity that man CAN detect (because the yardstick is the self-same light itself).

What I am saying in essence is that I believe that God, just like the Xynth I described above, may not be capturable by our human logic.

Of course, the Xynth may be capturable by the light rays if it decides to move in such a way that by the time the light rays reach it's presence, it has moved in many triangulations, going in a large circle in a sort of rigmarole just to ensure that the light rays catch it in the right position and it can be seen. The same way, God can decide to allow us to know some things about him, but it will be on his own terms. At his own pace. We cannot hurry him.

This is how I view these things.

Cheers.

In my opinion, the most active Nairalanders live in the USA, but I stand to be corrected by your polls.

What do you think?

P.S. You can't see the results until you vote.

@Deep Sight: Knowing fully well that I am not the one that you are asking these questions, I just want to say something about

Quote from: bawomolo on February 11, 2008, 04:54:57 PM

Thanks to the greek and egyptians, we know 1+1 = 2. what can be used to substantiate the existence of God??

and I will copy and paste a response that I gave to someone else on another thread some minutes ago.

One human fallacy, theologically speaking, is to think that one can reason out the nature and causes of everything, including the possibilities and/or purposes and wisdom of a divine God that yourself, or someone else, believes in. If you could do that, then you wouldn't be a human being. You would be one-kinda-god too. But even at that, there will still be a form of hierarchy and the god-that-you-are will have to defer in respect to another god or the other (if there was no such hierarchy, chaos would be the order of the day, Im sure you know that). Therefore, when there is hierarchy, someone has to be at the pinnacle of the gods. The most supreme, ensuring that things go according to THE PLAN.

Now, tell me, as a human being, can you, at once, see all the sides of a cube (not the net layout, but a solid form)? Since you cannot, would it indeed be wise/foolish for a human being to see some of a cube's sides (most probably three), and thus conclude that the cube has only three sides, and that whoever says it has six sides is definitely a liar? I do not deem such a judgment to be sound, rather it is inadmissible.

I have to say that in the case of unsure conclusions due to a perceived lack of completeness of evidence, good judgment would involve careful observation of all other possible perspectives.

Following your reasoning above, it is not apparent that you have considered all possible perspectives. However, I do not feel like arguing with you. I'm just expressing my views. Best Regards.

Over and out.

@bountyxs: One human fallacy, theologically speaking, is to think that one can reason out the nature and causes of everything, including the possibilities and/or purposes and wisdom of a divine God that yourself, or someone else, believes in. If you could do that, then you wouldn't be a human being. You would be one-kinda-god too. But even at that, there will still be a form of hierarchy and the god-that-you-are will have to defer in respect to another god or the other (if there was no such hierarchy, chaos would be the order of the day, Im sure you know that). Therefore, when there is hierarchy, someone has to be at the pinnacle of the gods. The most supreme, ensuring that things go according to THE PLAN.

Now, tell me, as a human being, can you, at once, see all the sides of a cube (not the net layout, but a solid form)? Since you cannot, would it indeed be wise/foolish for a human being to see some of a cube's sides (most probably three), and thus conclude that the cube has only three sides, and that whoever says it has six sides is definitely a liar? I do not deem such a judgment to be sound, rather it is inadmissible.

I have to say that in the case of unsure conclusions due to a perceived lack of completeness of evidence, good judgment would involve careful observation of all other possible perspectives.

Following your reasoning above, it is not apparent that you have considered all possible perspectives. However, I do not feel like arguing with you. I'm just expressing my views. Best Regards.

@tiatma:

It has appeared that someone on this thread has a severe case of Multiple Personality Disorder.

The one I was referring to, really, really does know him/herself. Now I didn't post that with @tiatma, did I? 

I am not your 65 year old Nairaland friend, but if I meet her here I will let you know, okay?

1. It's a simple question, which I answered by a simple logical answer:
--------

On which grounds is divorce acceptable for the children of light, feel free to provide scriptural references to back up with?

--------

1. As I said before, divorce is a sin (missing the mark of God's standard for marriage). There is no sin acceptable for the children of light, and neither is divorce. See Matthew 19:3-8 (Amplified Bible). But then, all sins are forgivable. So Christian divorcees are not damned or any such thing.

--------Divorce is a sin (see previous posts), and since SIN is not acceptable for the children of light, it should appear that DIVORCE cannot be acceptable to the children of light.

Some ninnyhammers on this thread had managed to exasperate me, so I was weary and I just assumed you would read between the lines.

2.

Are you sure Jesus made a minor exception to divorce?

>> A close question requiring a Yes or No - didnt get a Yes or No answer to that

If you want a cut-and-dried Yes/No canned response, it is YES I am sure.
Of course I am sure, that is why I call it my BELIEF. I assumed that anything you read on this thread will be taken as my entire belief, of which I am sure.

The Spirit of Truth doesnt contradict the word of God, no matter the revelation.
The Old Testament conceals the New Testament, and the New Testament reveals the Old Testament
They all compliment each other . . .

And that's the truth. Best regards!

@muhsin:
I repeated tiatma's words from the post above to respond to what you said about the abolished Mosaic laws and the Christian faith.

And please, can you tell me where you found "APOSTATE" in the OT? I explained logically to you that one cannot be an apostate of the Jewish faith (see posts above), according to Jewish customs and beliefs. It may be hard for an outsider (non-Jew) to understand, though.

You asked for my beliefs, and you got them. If what you want is an argument, no, you won't get it. Cheers!

@smartsoft: I was an interface-developer / designer for close to 5 years (2003 to 2008) using Photoshop, CSS, XHTML, Javascript (eventually jQuery) and I used to dabble into PHP once in a while. I also did some Joomla and Wordpress jobs. In 2009 I went full-scale into PHP and I hardly do any front-end development as such any more, I do much more of web application development (and as usual, I like dabbling into stuff, I am now dabbling into c# and .NET). I can still do front-end work, though, it's just more interesting to do web apps. Front-end development is no longer so exciting since you can get just about any front-end template online and tweak it to your own use, within the terms of agreement of the license with which it's supplied. Yeah.

@webdezzi: LOL. Very funny!

@Alex0026: No, Alex, I didn't see any question! I thought you were stating a summary of your own beliefs about the flood, and I accordingly took them as your own ideal perspectives and opinions, I did (and still do) not want to subject the opinions and beliefs to a debate since that is not the reason I created the thread. Thanks!
-Mavenbox

It has appeared that someone on this thread has a severe case of Multiple Personality Disorder.

@tiatma: I am sorry, but I am choosing not to go into details any longer on this thread.

1. As I said before, divorce is a sin (missing the mark of God's standard for marriage). There is no sin acceptable for the children of light, and neither is divorce. See Matthew 19:3-8 (Amplified Bible). But then, all sins are forgivable. So Christian divorcees are not damned or any such thing.

2. Where does Jesus make a minor "exception"?

Mat 19:9 I say to you: whoever dismisses (repudiates, divorces) his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Please note the boldened answer to 2b above.

I refer to it as a minor exception because as Jesus had CLEARLY explained before, no man was to put asunder what God had joined together (Matthew 19:6) and as such, divorce was NEVER really an option. But if the man felt he couldn't live with it, then he had the choice to divorce her (the fact that it mentions a man and an unfaithful wife, I believe, does not exclude the gender reversal as well). As much as this was not God's design, yet it was a minor window of escape because some people may not find it tolerable to live with one that they have found to be unfaithful, maybe even caught in the act.

I'm sorry I have no other verses to back up my beliefs, because it appears Jesus is the only one who talked about divorce in the New testament, and all that we have to go by in the OT was Moses' laws [Deut 24:1-4] which Jesus had to improve upon because of the wickedness of the Jews' hearts (I assume this to mean that maybe they had a habit of repudiating their wives consecutively in order to marry another one lawfully). Mere speculation, you may say, but this is the understanding I have, backing up my beliefs.

I believe as you well know, not everything that is SCRIPTURE for the New Man is found in words in the New Testament; sometimes we get direct revelation from the Spirit of God. What I have said above is what the Holy Spirit explained to me, and it is good enough for me. Best regards,

mattias

[Hey, don't I know you? ]

Of all the ninnyhammer you just said, the only thing I agree with is

why dont you want to agree the christian bible is dangerous to read and covering up

OF COURSE THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE IS DANGEROUS, AND THOSE WHO CAN'T STAND THE HEAT NEED TO STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN! OF COURSE I AGREE! I KNOW HOW DANGEROUS THE BIBLE IS, AND I PUT IT TO GOOD USE EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Lmao. Your statements are self-indicting.

I never asked you to read the Bible, I only hope you find the truth before doom befalls you.