₦airaland Forum

basra: Hi faggott

Na wa o! Is this what the cultural section is like?

Hey Outcast, I remember I promised to come back and make a response. I'll start by quoting myself from another thread here:

https://www.nairaland.com/1310138/dear-atheist-feel-need-thankful/5#16064958

To be born again means to be born of God, to walk according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh (i.e to be dead to sin). One does not earn a born again status by doing good things. One becomes born again when he completely submits to the Lordship of Christ and is transformed by Him. The Spirit of God now dwells in him, changing his desires such that he now wants the things of God and not things patterned after his selfish lusts.

Now why is it that Christians have been known to fall into sin atimes? I think the following passage explains it best:

Rom 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
Rom 7:16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.
Rom 7:17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.
Rom 7:19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
Rom 7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self,
Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.
Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
Rom 8:4 in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot;
Rom 8:8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you.
Rom 8:12 So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh--
Rom 8:13 for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live.
Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
Rom 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, "Abba! Father!"
Rom 8:16 it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
Rom 8:17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Now what was I trying to point out with that passage? I was showing that as long as we live on earth our renewed spirit which is born of God will contend with the flesh. But when the Lord gives us a new body at His coming, when we inherit God's kingdom, we will not have the lusts of our flesh to contend with anymore but we would have been transformed in Spirit and now also in body and our desires will be in tune with God's therefore it will be impossible for us to sin in heaven.

You can follow my argument on that thread as it addresses the same questions and if you are still interested, let us proceed . . . .or am I late and your questions have already been answered?

Deep Sight: ^^^ Ok, can we have a rigorous go at the issue of the divinity of christ verse by verse?

I will have to open a special thread for that, one, as I want it to be a special academic case, one verse at a time, on everything that scripture says on the matter?

Yep. Let us do that

thehomer: As usual, you once again skirt a direct question to answer one you've set for yourself. Neither space, time nor matter are physical laws. You're starting to bore me again.

Lol, So asking you to clarify yourself is now the same as skirting around the question abi? You amuse me.

Let us recap. You asked whether it is physically possible for physical laws that define the universe to be different. I asked what you meant by "physically possible". You said "having to do with the material world". What I know to be the material world is space, time and matter. If you know something else that is the material world but has nothing to do with space time or matter, then please come out with.

Physical laws simply describe how space time and matter behave. Is it possible for space time and matter to behave differently? The answer is YES. If your question means something else, then be prepared to explain what it means. . .or perhaps your question might just be a logically incoherent one judging by how hard it is for you to clarify it so far.

Good. Now how do you know that this "being" is a person and not e.g energy?

Energy does not cause anything. It is only an attribute of matter: a description of matter in motion. Energy does not exist without matter and hence cannot cause matter to begin to exist.

Good. So you're accepting that pretty much all things are designed except fundamental particles.

You've already deduced design at the level of the bricks. Where did that previous design go? Secondly, the pile of bricks does have a specific complex pattern. You just don't live in it.

This is you missing the point of what design is. Design is deduced from the relationship of constituent parts and not the nature of constituent parts themselves. It is very possible for a city to be undesigned but the houses within it are designed. You are committing the fallacy of composition again.

Time began with the universe and your references were to the universe. How can one make a decision in a state of timelessness?

Perhaps you should ask how can time begin?

Then read through your post. Your post was talking about a will hanging out there not being from a body. You can clarify by telling me which comes first the person or the will?

I pointed to you that the special selection of an alternatives points to the ability of choice which in turn points to the presence of a will and ultimately to the presence of a person. I do not hold that a person necessarily must exist in a material body. If you think a person is defined by the presence of a body, please show how this is true because I have never seen your material body yet I have deduced that I am communicating with a person because you are constantly making specific choices in your responses to me. Am I wrong in my deduction?

The requirements include time and a body.

And the remaining requirements are what? because time and a body is shared by every peice of matter in the universe. What distinguishes a person from every other material object in the universe.

This is just absurdly ridiculous. You can determine this by finding out whether or not Mr anony refers to a specific person and not a metaphor.

How would you go about doing this? I'll make it even tougher for you. How do you know that Socrates, Julius Ceasar, Don Quixote, Oliver Twist, Attila the Hun and Napoleon Bonaparte were indeed persons and not metaphors used to describe events?

pleep: I just love watching logic melt your tiny brains!

Na wa for these people. Can you believe I went out of my way to provide this woman with Official US Department of Labour Statistics but she just ignored them as if they were nothing.

Logicboy03: haha thanks.


Please read the lill ledbetter case and you wil see that Anony is talking nonsense

-she won the court in the district court case on the decision that she was unfairly evaluated due to her gender.
-the company then took it to a higher court to win on a technicslity that the time limit for a discrimination case had passed

-The president signed an act removing the time limit.....lilly ledbetter act

SMH. Here is a post you might be interested in:

https://www.nairaland.com/1126410/believe-gender-equality-yes-no/16#16238532

fellis: Sorry


They excluded women with less qualification and less work hours from their research work because they knew these things could explain the wage gap, your post from the labour union findings stuff showed that some women work less hours and have less qualifications so that explains why those women are paid less. However, those women were not part of the AAUW findings

Really? Here's some good reading for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

Ok. First you say there are probably cases of discrimination against women in the work place.
Then you say there are definitely cases of discrimination against men in the work place and you show me such cases. Are you serious? If there can definitely be discrimination against men in the work place then there can also definitely be discrimination against women. You're just unwilling to accept it.
Also, I didn't say discrimination is the norm in any part of this thread. I said it happens. I don't support any type of discrimination anyway, be it against men or women.

The point you missed in your excitement is that gender discrimination is no longer an issue. You may find a few isolated cases here and there but to claim that women are treated unfairly in a general sort of way is simply false

fellis: That's not my point. My point is that you said AAUW blamed lower wages entirely on women's choices about negotiating while you ignored the part that said gender discrimination also plays a role in it.

Erhm fellis, I didn't say that. The AAUW by default will see gender discrimination in nearly everything

How won't you notice bias when you don't like the research findings? You have been talking about this bias since yesterday so nothing new here.

It's not that I don't like the research findings, I simply don't trust the AAUW to have unbiased findings as regards gender in the same way I won't trust MASSOB if they come up with research findings that prove that Igbos are marginalized.

That your department of labour stuff does nothing at all to negate the point I have been trying to make since.

And what point is that?

By the way, I hope you do realize that it is not "My department of labour". It is the official US department of labour report. I am curious as to why you would reject the official report in favour of that of an organization that clearly has an agenda.

Deep Sight: He claims to be the first and last, obviously within creation - In fact, the the very terms "first and last" connote something that is finite, so that hammers you. God is infinite, uncreated, timeless and eternal, and would this neither be first nor last.

First of all I do not agree that first and last connotes something within creation at least not according to the bible. The title "First and Last" is used to show that God is all-encompassing and outside God there is nothing. This fits very well with God's infinite magnitude.

Now let me show you something interesting:

Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Isaiah 44:6

Even the quran ascribes these to Jesus (Isa) and yet says that he certainly is not God!

The muslims are wrong about Jesus. They actually think that Mary the mother of Christ is the same as Maryam sister of Moses and Aaron.

This would tie up with the whole idea of Jesus being the monogenes - "only begotten" - of God, and as such, the firstborn of creation. That is the greek word used to describe Jesus in the NT - "monogenes".

And I agree that Jesus is God's only begotten firstborn. But in what sense? In the sense that He was born as a man. (Read John 1:1-18 and Colosians 1:11-22)

This is exactly the true and correct answer to your "first and last, alpha and omega" business. God could not be any of these because he is eternal; this only clearly shows that Jesus is a creation and exists within creation.

Answered above

And no, I play no trick on you, can you tell me how else Mk 10.18 is to be read? The man was very clear - "Why callest thou me good, only Gd is Good." How n earth do you want to force a strange meaning into this clear rebuke?

I am not forcing any meaning into that verse I am only saying that the verse is in no way Christ denying deity. If you want I can show you verses where He promises to personally answer prayer, personally forgives sins, accepts worship, claims to have existed in Heaven from the beginning "Before Abraham was I AM" e.t.c.

And he said same several times, just to show that your forced reading is wrong. He said the Father is greater than I. He said he has a God and Father. He said that Gd is his God and Father in the same way as God is ours. He prayed to God. He despaired about the decision of God both in Gethsemane and on the Cross. The thing is glaring, and on this issue, you can only resort to continuously side-stepping the simple questions, just as you have side-stepped the issue of the dichotomy of wills by making a non-existent distinction between a "person" and a "being".

And I say yes and Amen to all of those, they are true. But did you miss the part in Philipians 2 where he gave up His God privileges and took on the form of a man?
I can also show you a verse of Scripture where God the Father calls Jesus Christ God (Read Hebrews chapter 1 emphasis on verse
You can also read Isaiah 9:6-7 where the coming of Jesus Christ is prophesied and tell me who you think is coming.

Besides, did you miss the part where I offered to explain to you the phrase "3 persons, 1 being"? Did you watch the video I provided? Please don't accuse me of side-stepping a question when it is you who shows no interest in my answer.

I won't press you on this though, cos I know you are as locked-in and dogmatic against the obvious on this matter, as the atheists are on the existence of God.

That's nonsense, you cannot legitimately say this when I have invited you to examine my "dogma" and you have refused.

Yes indeed, I blackmail you not sir: you do in fact by your words proclaim Jesus to be a sophisticated and dubious liar.

Lol, my dear friend Deep Sight,the verse exactly what it says. Your interpretation is exactly what it is. Jesus is not a liar for not meaning what you want Him to mean

Boomark: That is what am trying to get. And stop dodging the question. Cos it is very obvious you seems not to know what to say.

So are you saying that
1 the Father as a person is not God
2 Jesus as a person is not God
3 the Holy spirit as a person is not God.
Like you said, the 3 persons are not 3 Gods. Don't tell me am not understanding it or run away. Just Answer me so i can get it.

Read the OP again. I made myself quite clear there

Boomark: where are we going to insert the will of Jesus and that of the holy spirit in the bible? Let the church fathers decide so that Pentecostals will adopt.

Men and their doctrine. SMH!!!

I know not of what you speak

Boomark: And those doing greater works than Jesus are indeed God or equal to God? Smh. Don't you also know the we too are in God? Does that make Him my equal? Smh!!!

It is not wrong to ask Jesus any thing. "Jesus, thou Son of God please heal me" and he healed them to the glory of God the Father. A way of reconciling us back to his God. Read Hebrew and Revelation to know the one that receives your prayer from the High priest.

Read Jn 16:23-28 and see who you pray to. See this "I came forth from God(how many persons?), I came from the Father(1 person), v27,28. By this we know that you came forth from God(how many persons?)," v30. Smh!!!

And so you have now agreed that it is not wrong to pray directly to Jesus Christ, in fact, praying directly to Christ glorifies God. My point has been made.

truthislight: The almighty ^ is not of the "root of david".
The almighty is not the "morning star"


You know that place is talking about two persons, the first person is Yahweh, the father then Jesus christ.

see:


"And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done. Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book. And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. " (Revelation 22:6-13).
..........:..........
That ^ is talking about Yahweh that sends His angel.

After Yahweh sends his Angel, then Jesus sends his angel in subsequent vers 16 below:

"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." (Revelation 22:16-17).
..................

The almighty is not of the root of David.

Yahweh is not a morning star.

Lololol, this is one of the weirdest ways to read that passage

truthislight: Is the one in the op the only one there is ?

If there are other variance, whose should we take to be the right one ?

Dont forget, you had said the variant that frosbel posted on this thread is not the right one.

The definition in the op is the one I am defending

truthislight: Absurdity!

How can three (3) "persons" be one God ?

This thing some times wants to make me to shade tears. Smh.

This is exactly the question I want us to ponder.

Are you interested in pondering over it at all?

frosbel: no you didn't , you confused the hell out of me

Aww too bad.

truthislight: Very funny.

See:

"After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. " (Matthew 6:9).




^
that is why we end prayer "in Jesus name", Amen.

Jesus is the mediator, you go to the father via Jesus name.

You of all person should know this.

(trinity has a way of blocking peoples perception)

So when you pray in Jesus name, you are asking Jesus to answer your prayers? I see I see.

Deep Sight: Absolutely not: Gd is anyhow too transcendent to interact directly with humanity and works through lesser created beings in many forms, who would of course have various powers.

The bible does not teach this idea of yours my friend

Deep Sight: Verbatim, it reads - "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."

If you read this any strange way, such as saying that he was God, since he was called good, or such as saying that it does not question the act of calling him good, since he attributes goodness only to God, then you will essentially be calling Jesus a sophist, con-artist and deceiver with words.

Lololol, interesting how in order not to expressly admit that you read your own interpretation into the verse, you try to throw a bit of mud out there in the hope that I'll try to "protect" Jesus' reputation.
Basically all you've really done is play the trick of "if you don't agree with me you are calling Jesus a liar. You had better agree with me if you want to keep Him honest."

The verse still remains exactly what it is. Jesus never denied His deity rather He affirmed it.

Here's a verse for you to ponder.

"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.
Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.
"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star." - Revelations 22:12-16

Till tomorrow, i still wonder how any Christian can read the above and still say that Jesus Christ never claimed to be God.

frosbel: 3 Persons = 1 God

3 Persons each with a will, intellect and 'emotion' is one Person God with one will, intellect and 'emotion'

There fixed it for you.

truthislight: what and who defines what the Trinity Is then, since it is that the word is not found in the bible and the adherents are giving us divers definitions of what trinity is.

We have more than two explanations of trinity flying around in this forum.

Why should your own version be the right one ?

Honestly, I don't really know what it is you are talking about. If you want a definition of Trinity, it is right there in the OP

Deep Sight: "Do not call me good, for only God is Good."

Erhm DeepSight, Jesus didn't say that. Go and read your bible again. The verse you seek is Mark 10:18

Boomark: Are you saying the 3 persons are not Gods. As in the Father is not God, Jesus is not God and the spirit is not God? The day you answer this well you will understand how men have synchronized your thinking with mens doctrine.

Godhead nko, are you afraid to try that one? Smh!!!

I am saying that the 3 persons are 1 God NOT "Gods". Try to get it right first.

Deep Sight: Its simple. If the three wills are eternally unified, you could never have a statement like ' Father if it be possible, let this cup pass over my head. Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt'

This shows a dichotomy of wills, where one has a different will, but must subject it to the will of the other.

Have you read Philipians 2:5-10? It clearly tells us about Christ giving up His God privileges to take the form of a man and hence He submits His will to that of the Father

It's simple really. But in this matter I cannot expect your lens not to be colored.

By the way, what the difference between a person and a being. I strongly suggest to you, that, in seeking to make a distinction there, you are engaging in meaningless grammatical play only for the purpose of defending the incongruous..

The bold is a very good question and I'm happy to address it but first of all I must ask if you watched the video I presented because it will be much easier for me to build my answer upon it.

frosbel: anony will always find a way around difficult questions , even if it means playing with words and the truth

Basically you have just admitted that I will always answer difficult questions. The same cannot really be said for you. It appears you just ignore difficult questions and hope the asker forgets.

If your theology is sound, you should be willing to tackle any questions thrown at you.

Deep Sight: Well, I see you are not interested in answering the question: Is it possible for there t be a dichotomy of wills between the same divine being.

No wahala. I don't think you will really address yourself to this.

I would have thought that by explaining the fact that God is indeed 3 persons, the point becomes clear that there are 3 different wills at play. However, the meaning of Trinity is that these 3 wills are eternally unified. I don't know what else you want.

frosbel: Did you intentionally miss out this :

"The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."

Interesting. Now this is all I will ask you to do. Imagine I said these as a child of God: Tell me which of the following statements amounts to blasphemy.

1. The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is God, living in me, who is doing his work.
2. Believe me when I say that I am in God and God is in me
3. whoever believes in ME will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to God
4. And I will do whatever you ask in MY NAME, so that God may be glorified in ME
5. You may ask ME for anything in MY NAME, and I will do it.

If you are honest, you probably won't have a problem with statement 1 & 2, You may start getting concerned at statement 3. And you will definitely stone me for blasphemy by statement 4 & 5. Only God has the power to make those statements. It is either Christ is indeed God or He is the worst blasphemer that ever lived. He doesn't leave you any other option.

Boomark: You answered well but there are lots of anomalies in what you said.

I hope you saw other forms of worship i posted. Check your dictionary and compare or contrast them to the one Christ said we should give to God.

I will always bow to my Lord, my Christ. Did they teach you that you pray to Jesus? That sounds like what they use to teach us then. Please go and read Jn 14:13 again and tell us if he said pray to me or that we should ask in his name. See v16, even in heaven Jesus prayed to the Father to send us the Holy spirit. You pray to the FATHER through Christ.

While reading, think of Christ as the High priest to God, our mediator and our advocate with the Father and not what men taught you to believe which is found nowhere in the scriptures.

John 14:13 And whatever you may ask in My name, that I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
John 14:14 If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.

It looks to me like Jesus is promising to answer the prayers personally.

Kevsman: pleace this is 69 intake and not 70 intake, is dere any way i can change it? Am sori

My guy, nobody really cares if they are 69, 70, 10, or 1000.

But if you are really concerned about changing it, just click the "modify" on that post

fellis: All this makes no difference.

What?? After all my extensive research this morning?

When AAUW did their research, they didn't say that there were no women working fewer hours or no women with less experience. Infact, they acknowledged that such women were present in the working place and they excluded these women from their research work.

Please show where the AAUW made this acknowledgement

They used the findings gotten from women doing the same work as men and with the same qualification.
Fine, there are cases where women are paid less because of their labour hours and experience but there are also cases where women are paid less even when they have the same qualification and put in the same amount of work.

You'll really have to prove this by showing a research study where all factors have been adequately accounted for.


By the way I am not going to say that there aren't such cases, there probably are but I'll argue that such cases are not the norm. In fact i can also produce cases of gender discrimination against men.

Deep Sight: Thanks, but I did not ask how three can be one. There are all sorts of concoctions that can easily answer that.

I asked a very specific question about the possibility of dichotomy of wills between the father and the son, if indeed they are one.

"Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt". . . . . . . . ?

Exactly the reason why we say the Trinity is 3 Persons yet 1 Being.

frosbel: anony you dissapoint me, I used to respect you , now you are looking for extra-bible ways of explaining a supposedly biblical concept ?

What else ? sun , moon and stars ? or maybe me , you and them

Mr frosbel, when talking to DeepSight, I don't need to use the bible. When talking to you on the other hand, I do.

And all you have been doing is evading my questions only to sneak back from time to time and try to deliver cheap shots from the sidelines.

My question is still waiting for you here