₦airaland Forum

mazaje: @ Anony do you believe in a god that interacts in the world, example do you believe in a god answers prayers?. . .

Yes I believe He does

thehomer: The Christian God since you're a Christian.

Well I reject your definition because I see no reason to think the universe was created.

What then do you define God as? Since you have rejected the very definition of God which Christians believe in. perhaps you may want to define the God you had in mind.

This of course depends on what you mean by "begins to exist" and "cause".

I'm sure you have access to a dictionary

How do you know that the laws are arbitrary? Have you checked against any other universe?

The fact that there are possible worlds where things such as the speed of light, gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces can be different from what they are here tells me that the laws of this universe are not necessary laws.

Actually, you've not demonstrated anything since your God could also "by definition" or fiat have created a universe without a specific pattern i.e one in utter chaos. Saying your God does it all really says nothing at all.

Interestingly this proves my point. The fact that the universe works according to a specific pattern tells us that there is an intelligence behind it. If you disagree, you are welcome to tell me how you would have gone about detecting an intelligence from utter chaos.
In a funny way, you have conceded that the universe is not necessarily ordered but could just as easily have been utterly chaotic and therefore the physical laws that define it cannot be necessary laws

It is nice that God had to retreat from earth to the very beginning of the universe but, the "light" from the beginning of the universe would still have been detected even if your God didn't actually create it. Just as water would still be wet even if your God wasn't there to create it.

I don't know what you are on about here. God by definition is the creator of the universe. You demanded for things we can detect that will tell us that the universe had a creator, I have shown you. If you think the universe didn't have a creator, then you are welcome to explain how something can begin to exist and work according to a specific pattern and yet be uncreated.

And with this, you show that you don't understand the argument. Saying "everything proves God" is saying nothing about God. Since we sometimes observe tsunamis and sometimes don't, does it mean God both wants tsunamis and doesn't want them?

And this shows you haven't understood my argument. I didn't merely say "everything proves God". I have given you the characteristics of the universe by which we know it has a creator. Once again, if you think the universe didn't have a creator, then you are welcome to explain how something can begin to exist and work according to a specific pattern and yet be uncreated.

Yet the universe also has chaos inbuilt. Is he in support of chaos and at the same time against it?

.....and by "chaos inbuilt the universe" you mean? Specifics please.

jayriginal: A non detectable god is for all intents and purposes a non existent god.

Succinct.

thehomer: Exactly.

Very true but just so you lot don't make the magic jump to the conclusion "therefore God does not exist" I'll make a parody argument.

In the land of the blind, a blind man once said:

1. Light either exists or it doesn't exist.
2. If it does exist, then either it interacts with the universe in a detectable manner or it doesn't.
3. If it does, then we should be able to detect it.
4. If it doesn't, then it's existence is indistinguishable from it's non-existence.
5. If we cannot tell that it does exist, then we cannot know about any other properties it could have.

To which a man one man replied: "But it is because of light that our plants grow. Surely we can detect our plants growing"

but the blind men rejected his explanation and unanimously shouted him down. "Light for all intents and purposes does not exist" they said.

thehomer: 1. God either exists or he doesn't exist.
2. If he does exist, then either he interacts with the universe in a detectable manner or he doesn't.
3. If he does, then we should be able to detect it.
4. If he doesn't, then his existence is indistinguishable from his non-existence.
5. If we cannot tell that he does exist, then we cannot know about any other properties it could have.

While addressing this argument, please tell us the God you have in mind.

You might also have to tell us the God you have in mind.

The God I have in mind is by definition the creator of the universe.

If everything that begins to exist has a cause and the universe began to exist then it must have a cause.

If a thing has interconnected parts and functions according to a specific pattern such that one can predict with accuracy how it ought to behave, it can be said that the thing is designed. If the universe is made up of multiple interconnected parts acting according to certain arbitrary laws such that one can accurately predict how it ought to behave, then the universe is designed.

If the universe both began to exist and works according to a specific pattern instead of utter chaos, then it was not merely caused but intelligently and deliberately created and hence God must exist.

Now on to your argument.

1. God either exists or he doesn't exist.

ok

2. If he does exist, then either he interacts with the universe in a detectable manner or he doesn't.

Such as a detectable begining of the universe (light from the big bang) and a detectable order to the universe that permits man to do science (arbitrary physical laws governing the universe)?

3. If he does, then we should be able to detect it.

We have detected it by looking at nature.

4. If he doesn't, then his existence is indistinguishable from his non-existence.

Apparently he does

5. If we cannot tell that he does exist, then we cannot know about any other properties it could have.

We can know that He is highly intelligent and powerful from looking at the physically ordered universe that He created

striktlymi: Will it be okay if Anony gives you a link to a website in response to any of your questions?

Abeg help me ask him oh.

Perhaps when next someone asks me to show that I know something, I'll just post a link and then ask him to show that he knows what he is asking me, I'll even go on to accuse him of being evasive for not answering the question he asked me. The ojoro this guy wants to get away with is just too much.



By the way bros, I haven't forgotten that I owe you a response on your thread

thehomer: Met and surpassed here.

Just so you know, people actually do gain knowledge from reading. I wonder why you people are so scared about that.

After I had answered your question, like clockwork you then tried to raise even more questions when you hadn't even said whether or not you agreed with what I said or presented what you actually thought.

Once I answered your question, I met my burden of demonstrating knowledge. You on the other hand are yet to demonstrate your own knowledge. Keep in mind the fact that you're yet to even say whether or not agree with the Wikipedia article and you've not actually provided what you think it lacks in depth.

These are some of the reasons why you're such a terrible apologist. Apologists generally answer questions but you're one unable to even show you know what you claim to know.

If you're unable to answer with your next response, then I'll know that you're either ignorant of what you were asking me for and trying to hide it, or you don't know how to have a serious discussion using reason. Either way, I'll just leave you to wallow in your myths on this thread.

Mtscheew, when you said you had met and surpassed it. I jumped to the link only to see that it was the same wiki article.

Your attempts to shift your burden are futile. So is your talk on apologetics. You made a knowledge claim, show us that you know it and didn't merely copypaste wikipedia.

All you have to do is

Explain using bible references:
what one is born from and what he/she is born into.
what salvation is and why it is necessary
why those who are born again will make heaven while those who reject Christ will go to hell,
whether or not a person who is born again can lose the status of being born again
what exactly does a relationship with Christ entail.

Do this and I will know you have a good biblical grasp of what you are talking about and then we can begin to discuss.

musKeeto: We all know how it will end up. If you could fault his wikipedia posts, I don't see any reason why his answers to those questions up there won't suffer the same fate..

So why not save us time and answer the question yourself..

This is how it all went down.....

1. He claimed he knows what it means to be born again.
2. I asked him to demonstrate this knowledge using the bible
3. Instead of using the bible, he posted a wikipedia link and claimed he agreed with wikipedia.
4. This prompted me to ask him further questions so as to find out whether he truly knows the subject or merely posted wikipedia

If he knows what it means to be born again, those questions should be very easy for him to answer. I won't do his work for him. If he cannot demonstrate that he has the knowledge he claims to have then his claim is simply false.

So far he is still dancing.


I didn't fault his wikipedia posts all I asked is that he demonstrate a level of knowledge beyond copy and paste, anybody can post wikipedia.
For instance I can claim to a hindu that I understand the caste system and then post wikipedia but that won't be proof that I actually understand what the caste system is all about. Get my drift?

musKeeto: And how do you know this?

Lol, I know you enough to know that you know that the challenge I set before him is very simple. All I want him to do is to demonstrate that he actually knows what he is talking about and not merely posting a wikipedia link

musKeeto: Questions that will lead to more questions. At the end, he'll tell you you don't know what it means to be born again. Then the thread will end.

Later on, probably two weeks from now, you'll open the thread and go through it.. and wonder how the OP relates to the posts that come after Anony entered the thread..

At that time, he'll be repeating the same tactics on another thread. The same accusations will be leveled against him..

The story goes on...

interesting. Have you regained your memory now?

You know you can help them out. Surely I know that you know that those questions are as easy as moi-moi for anyone who knows what it means to be born-again

Logicboy03: Everyone reading this thread can see that you are a tool. A dubious tool.


Seriously, being born again is not a sceintific theory or deeply philosophical issue. It is simply having a spiritual rebirth in which you become a true follower of christ.

The above definition is a very general one that can be agreed with by most christains. Other than that, it becomes a denominational difference in doctrine. For instance a catholic born again is simply one who is abptised and confirmed as a full catholic and lives a holy life- which you yourself are ignorant about.

So, asking someone to define born again with all those questions there is nothing short of nonsense.

You know you can take pity on him and help him meet his burden if you like him too much. Calling it nonsense has no effect here. If he can't demonstrate that he knows what he is talking about, he simply doesn't know what he is talking about. Merely pasting links is not evidence of knowledge

thehomer: The article expands on what it means to be born-again. With references from the Bible too so I have actually answered your direct question. You then decided to shift the goalposts into questions about atonement, fruits of the spirit, doctrinal issues on Calvinism and what not. If I presented you with articles addressing Christian beliefs on those issues, will you finally answer your question?

Rather than you shifting the goal posts, present your own answer, concise or verbose to your initial question on the meaning of being born-again. When you've done that, then we can assess whether or not you know what you're talking about. Shifting the goalposts is a poor tactic you know.

The burden shifted to you once I answered the question so your prediction is not needed since I have already answered the question. Since you feel unsatisfied with it, present the answer you'll be satisfied with for analysis.

And your record for evasions keeps on climbing.

Probability of 98.78% of Mr anony not answering his own questions in the next response.

My prediction was right. He tried to shift the burden again.

So once again here they are:

Explain using bible references:
what one is born from and what he/she is born into.
what salvation is and why it is necessary
why those who are born again will make heaven while those who reject Christ will go to hell,
whether or not a person who is born again can lose the status of being born again
what exactly does a relationship with Christ entail.

I have not shifted any goalposts, I am giving you an opportunity to demonstrate your biblical knowledge. If you know what to be born again means, you should easily answer the above. They are all about what it means to be born again. Pick them one by one using the bible.

I predict 99.5% thehomer will dance some more

thehomer: Met and surpassed. It is up to you to show whether or not you're up to scratch.

lololol, met and surpassed where? Please be serious for once

mazaje: I get your drift. . .

OK. . .I get. . .

Ok cool

But God as presented in the bible is a genie, he magically heals people and raises them from the dead in some cases. . .

No He is not. A genie is a tool. It has no will, no purpose, nothing. You just pull it out and make your wish. God in the bible is the ultimate creator having a grand plan and a purpose for His creations which we are. Prayer is not an act ordering God rather it is one of humility and relationship with a divine person and because prayer is relationship based, the approach to testing it's efficacy can't be empirical in much the same way that you won't be successful if you chose to empirically test if your wife loves you. For this reason, you cannot define for God how and when he ought to answer prayers.

LOL. . .Why should they deserve to be poor?. . .Again i ask must they do anything to deserve a good life, why not have a good life because its good to have a good life as opposed to havibg a bad life?

Since you are arguing that they don't have to do anything to deserve a life of health and wealth, I can just as easily argue that they don't have to do anything to deserve a life of poverty and sickness.

thehomer: Are you sad about that?

Nah just amused

Yes I was. But unlike you, I actually took the time to probe what I was supposed to believe. That is why I'm able to recognize accurate information from Wikipedia but you're unable to recognize it so you try to evade rather than answer the direct questions.

If you once were born again as you claim, then my demands should be really easy for you to meet.

So once again here they are:

Explain using bible references:
what one is born from and what he/she is born into.
what salvation is and why it is necessary
why those who are born again will make heaven while those who reject Christ will go to hell,
whether or not a person who is born again can lose the status of being born again
what exactly does a relationship with Christ entail.

Prove to us that you are not merely posting a link but that you really know what you are talking about.

thehomer: The Wikipedia article shows what I agree with. I cannot upload the information in my brain to you, neither do I see the need to type out entire articles when the work has already been done. Remember that if I gave you a concise summary, you'll start whining. Hell you were whining when I gave you an entire article. I have easily answered your questions but for some reason, you're unable to answer them yourself and that leads me to conclude that you don't know what you're talking about.



I'm being evasive by directly answering your questions? If that is what it means to be evasive, then please answer the direct questions I posed and answer your own question about knowledge to the degree you see fit.

You are being evasive. The evidence lies in the fact that you're unable to answer the simple questions both mine and yours. Yet another reason why you're a bad apologist.

Hey Logicboy03 is an independent attacker. If you're sad about being bruised from his comments, simply tell him. I'm sure he'll consider your statement.

All I asked was that you expand on your "concise statement" That's the only way you can prove that you know what you are talking about. merely pasting a link and saying that you agree with it doesn't prove that you have any knowledge especially when the article barely scratches the surface.

Since you claim you know what it means to be born again, my demands should be very easy for you to meet. Why you keep dancing amuses me.

So once again here they are:

Explain using bible references:
what one is born from and what he/she is born into.
what salvation is and why it is necessary
why those who are born again will make heaven while those who reject Christ will go to hell,
whether or not a person who is born again can lose the status of being born again
what exactly does a relationship with Christ entail.

The above will demonstrate to me that you actually know what it means to be born again. Since you also claim to have once been born again, these should be all the more easier for you.

I'll predict that 99% probability that you will not tackle the above but will try to shift the burden to me.

Logicboy03: What further questions? The wikipedia article is enough to know everything about being born again...so how could it be possible that The Homer wouldnt be able to answer your question

Lolol interesting. this is what happens when you chat with village atheists. Wikipedia is the be all and end all of any subject brought up.

Keep in mind that TheHomer was a christian before (if I am not mistaken)

Lol really, was he now?

thehomer: Yawn. No need to dance around and fail at it. It is clear that you don't know what it means to be born again. Try to avoid shifting your burden of proof by showing you know what it means to be born-again. Begin by answering your own questions any way you see fit while including your new goal posts. I've done my part already and can easily do more. There are other Wikipedia articles addressing the Christian concepts of atonement, salvation, fruits of the spirit etc but your ignorance of Christian ideas shows when you wonder about whether or not people can lose their status.

Either you can explain yourself biblically or you cannot.

It is amusing how you claim someone is ignorant when you don't have any understanding of the questions you were asking.

And your record for being evasive continues.
When you're ready to show that you even know the Christianity you claim to believe, just let me know. Your ignorance about the fate of children after their deaths has been noted so your reticence in laying out more ideas you claim to know is understandable but a tad embarrassing.

It looks like I'm quite good at predicting your tactics in your attempt at being evasive.

Yawn. I don't see how posting a wikipedia link shows that you have knowledge of anything. All I did was ask you further questions which if you know your stuff, you should be able to answer easily instead you started trying to shift the burden to me. Beyond linking wikipedia, you really said nothing.

Your failed tactics are so plain to see. keep on dancing. I see your main man logicboy has started playing his drum for you. You keep trying and failing at evading questions by calling me evasive. What a poor tactic.

Logicboy03: The Wikipedia article is well written. You are just writing nonsense.


1) The wikipedia lists and explains the bible verses talking about being born again






2) The wikipedia article gives the different definitions/interpretations of "born again" from different denominations of christianit

a) The catholic definition (Which by the way, I know you are ignorant about because we have had a discussion about this- "who is a christian"


3)The wikidpedia article clearly gives a great general definition of "born again" which you can never give




So, f4ck off. I dont know how The Homer tolerates your lies. What even pains me was that I even believed you at first that the wikipedia article was not sufficient for explaining born again.

yawn. I don't see how posting a wikipedia link shows that he has knowledge of anything. All I did was ask him further questions which if he knows his stuff, he should be able to answer easily instead he started trying to shift the burden to me. Beyond wikipedia, thehomer has really said nothing.

Logicboy03: Of course, you like Anonyism.....


Anonyism; redefining already defined words to meet your argument...

Nah anonyism is any argument logicboy doesn't like

by the way, what words did Alfa redefine exactly?

thehomer: I wasn't claiming it, I was telling you that I did. Are you lying when you claim to believe in Christianity?



It is nothing like that. Besides, an authoritarian government cannot allow the people to choose their leaders or they will no longer be authoritarian. And with that, you avoid yet another direct question. You're really going for a record here.



That is an answer but not to the question I asked. Which means you didn't answer the question I asked.



There are links on Wikipedia addressing them all but I think it is time for you to answer your own question as a sign of your own knowledge.



The burden has already been shifted to you once I answered with that link. You tried to avoid bearing your own burden by shifting the goal posts but that won't work. Since you feel that your addition is necessary and you didn't say so initially, then you now answer the question the way you see fit and then we can examine them to see whether or not you're right.



Hey, that's what your Bible and your Jesus say.



Its already yours baby.



I never said there is no sickness on earth either so you're the one trying to make a strawman argument. So, answer the question. Still going for a record.



Oh but you are evading your own questions. Mr anony isn't the final arbiter of what "True Christianity" is so you do have to show that you know what you're talking about and so far, you're failing miserably.



But you're the one introducing red-herrings and avoiding direct questions. The burdens are already yours to meet since I met mine already.

Do you remember when you were making claims about what the pro-choice position was, if you go back and check, you'll notice that after you asked me for what they believed, you still had to say what you thought they believed after I had answered in order for us to be sure you knew what you were talking about. Now why this sudden double standard Mr anony?

I'm 97.5% sure that Mr anony will try to be evasive by
1. Not answering the questions he posed,
2. Not answering my question on the outward expressions of Christianity
3. Not actually addressing so-called the lack of depth of the Wikipedia entry on being born-again.

Yawn, no need to dance around. It is clear that you don't know what it means to be born again. feel free to keep evading the question by accusing me. You have not demonstrated any understanding of what it means to be born again. All you have done is link a wikipedia article and then when asked to expand beyond it you started dancing. Here is what your wikipedia article does not explain.

It tells us nothing about what you were born from and what you are born into,
It tells us nothing of salvation and why it is necessary,
It tells us nothing about the characteristics of one who is born again
It tells us nothing about why those who are born again will make heaven.
It tells us nothing about why those who reject Christ will go to hell
It tells us nothing about whether a person who is born again can lose his/her status
it tells us nothing about what a relationship with Christ entails.

Either you can explain it biblically or you can't.

It is really amusing how you claim someone is evading your question when you don't have any understanding of the question you are asking.

mazaje: It is the same natural world. . .After all accroding to the story it is the same world was only that it was cursed. . .A world without dieases isn't a supernatural one. . .

perhaps we should talk about what we mean by supernatural. Supernatural to us is something that transcends nature's laws as we know them. For instance in this world, people don't get raised from the dead. Someone getting raised from the dead would rightly be a supernatural event. A world where people did not die would not be a natural world but a supernatural one.
I'll however grant you that we use natural and supernatural as place holders and that's why we usually have confusion. For instance if everyone died and rose from the dead from tomorrow, we will immediately start calling it a natural thing. But from where we stand today, such a world is still supernatural. Get my drift?

Provide doctors?. . .God does not provide doctors anywhere. . .Is taking their lives the only way to end pain?. . .I don't think babies born with dieases make it own their own without human help of any kind. . .

interesting

Heal them without human help. . .The way magically heals people in the bible for example. . .If a baby is born with some form of illness, all god needs to do is heal the child once the parents of the child pray for the child. . .No hospital, no doctors, nothing, the way the bible talks about it. . .Pray and the child will be healed instantly. . .That will be what i will consider as help. . .

God is not a genie.

Purpose is subjective, my computer;s main purpose might be for browsing, while that of my friend might be for data storage , another friend's computer's purpose might be for playing music. Man's existence is also subjective. For some it is to be happy and enjoy their stay here on earth. . .For others it is to worship their deities and for some its to achieve nirvanah. . .All purposes are subjective. . .

The point still remains that you cannot talk about something being helpful or harmful to your computer without first granting that it has a purpose subject to the owner/designer of the computer.

Must they do anything to deserve it?. . .

What? Do you know what it means to deserve something? You might as well say that they deserve to be poor and diseased and they don't have to do anything to deserve that.

thehomer: Word salad? Which word or phrase did you find confusing? How do you determine whether or not a claim is true? How do you determine whether or not someone believes that they agree with something they've said they agree with?

Were you lying when you claimed to agree with wikipedia?

What outward works can a Christian perform that cannot be performed by a non-Christian? This shows your ignorance of what reasonable evidence is.

This is like saying what outward works can a democratic government do for it's people that an authoritarian government can't do? point being that Christianity is not merely internal and it is also not merely works

False. You did not answer it. In fact, this is what you said.

And that is not an answer for you?

Not disagreeing doesn't necessarily mean that you agree with all that is in the article. If you agree, simply say so. You claimed that it was lacking in depth but you never did expatiate on what was lacking.

The article does not show enough depth for me to claim full agreement. I have listed what is missing and that is the burden you'll have to meet to prove that you really understand what you are talking about

If you wanted those included in a long treatise, then simply answer your very own question including what you're looking for and I'll tell you whether or not I agree with it. Let me see you answer your own question.

What I have listed is what I am looking for. Don't shift your burden onto me. I won't do your work for you. If you can't answer biblically, I'll take it that you don't know what you are talking about

From hell.

lol.

I've answered all that is necessary. If you think I haven't, then you answer the question and let's see if you're actually right.

Still trying to shift the burden

You claimed that there was no sickness in heaven by definition. There was no sickness on earth but there is sickness now. How do you know that the state in heaven hasn't changed?

Strawman! I said that there is no sickness in heaven by definition. I never said that there is no sickness on earth by definition. Your question is moot.

I see you're trying to be evasive now by sending me on a wild goose chase. So far, you've not been able to answer your own questions that you've been posing. It looks like you don't know what it means to be born-again because if you did, there would be no need for such attempted evasions.

Lol, so after I have answered your questions, I should also answer mine. Lololol. I like how you try to evade questions by claiming that I am evading your questions. Now you have switched to accusing me of evading even my own questions. You are such a funny character.

As I said you are only frustrated that I am not chasing your red herrings. Now you are frustrated that I have refused to carry your burdens.

Alfa Seltzer: No. Suicide is voluntary.

For euthanasia, someone else has to do the killing.

i quite like this post

mazaje: It is still the same world with the same things if we are to agree with the story. . .same land, ame water, oceans etc. . .As you said, god cursed the land. . .The land before wasn't a supernatural land was it?. . .Remember you said that i was talking about a supernatural world that transcends natural phenomena such as chemistry. Was there no natural chemistry in the garden of eden?. . .How did the plants grow for example if not through natural chemistry?. . .A world without diseases doe not mean any suprnatural world. . .

If in a natural world as we have now, there are diseases, then surely a world where there are no diseases cannot be natural in the same sense.

Stubbornly, eh?. . .LOL!!




How did he help them?. . .Don't tell me that he helped them by providing doctors and their parents etc. . .What about those babies in rural african societies that don't have acess to doctors and came into this world already sick and in pains?. . .How did your god help those ones and in what ways, since basic drugs and doctors are not even there. . .As for the ones that have acess to doctors and drugs, how did your god help them as well?. . .

As I said you have set up shop to blame God which ever way this goes.
1. If He provides doctors, He didn't help them
2. If He ends the pain by allowing them to die, He didn't help them
3. If He heals them by allowing them to survive with no human help, It was coincidence and He still didn't help them.

What exactly should God do for you to consider it help?

i don't believe in any god as such i don't blame and can never blame any god for anything. . .I just wanted to counter your claim of god being responsible for people's lives and having a role in it. . .If god is credited for all the god things, then why do people run away and credit the devil or other things for the bad things?. . .

How do you even know that something is good or bad without presupposing a purpose? To make my point a bit clearer, let me use an analogous question:

How can you know your computer is working properly or that something will help or harm it without presupposing that your computer has a purpose?
Similarly how can you know that something will harm or help man without presupposing that man's existence has a purpose?

How does design plan presuppose anything?. . .I fail to see that. . .

too bad

I believe that every body is supposed to be rich, happy and healthy because every body deserves to be happy and lead a stable life as opposed to being sad, poor and sick. . .

Why? what did they do to deserve it?

thehomer: That will be a lucky break. He might even begin by asking what God's commandments are, how you know he (Mr anony) violates them then he'll complete the questions by wondering if you know what it means to be born-again. Despite the fact that its meaning is of little relevance to answering the simple questions.

Isn't it interesting that you lot like to ask questions but hate to justify them.

mazaje: Does being born again stop people from violating god's laws and commandements?. . .the answer is no.

Show from scripture

. .Does anony sometimes violates his god's laws despite him being born again?. . .the answer is YES

ad hominem. Proof please

. . .So how does being born again and having free will stop any body from violating god's laws in heaven?. . .if satan can do it, why not humans?. . .

was Satan born-again?

thehomer: Aww. Still whining I see.

Ofcourse in thehomerverse

I see that your problem with the language runs quite deep. You are making an assertion that is demonstrable with external information so you're supposed to support your assertion. Stating a belief which is internal to you isn't construed as a claim, otherwise, you're simply claiming to be a Christian but maybe you don't actually believe that you're a Christian.

Whatever this word salad is supposed to be, I know not. The only thing important to a claim is whether it is true or not.
Besides, Chrstianity is not merely an internal assertion, it can be evidenced by outward works. This further shows your ignorance of what it means to be born again. If you are interested in educating yourself, study James chapter 2

Wow. And the usual sidestep continues. I'll just keep asking you the same question. Do you agree with the Wikipedia article or not? If not, why? If it isn't detailed enough, please say what is missing.

asked and answered here
https://www.nairaland.com/1310138/dear-atheist-feel-need-thankful/3#16050543

Now what is missing? Let's see.
It tells us nothing about what you were born from and what you are born into,
It tells us nothing of salvation and why it is necessary,
It tells us nothing about the characteristics of one who is born again
It tells us nothing about why those who are born again will make heaven.
It tells us nothing about why those who reject Christ will go to hell
It tells us nothing about whether a person who is born again can lose his/her status
it tells us nothing about what a relationship with Christ entails.

If you cannot demonstrate that you have a good bible-based understanding of these things, then your claim to know what it means to be born-again is false

To state it even more plainly, they are supposed to go because they're saved.



They're not saved.

Saved from what?

Your turn now. Please answer those same questions so we know that your answer is actually different from what I've said.

I'm afraid you haven't answered anything.

For me to answer, you need to first answer this question. The very first question which I posed. You never answered it. In fact so far, you've only answered one pertinent question while I've answered all of yours except this. You should rectify that.

Or are you scared of being hoisted once again with your answers as I've done several times already? Don't be afraid, lets have a discussion based on answering direct questions when they're asked.

your original question was about sickness in heaven. I answered here
https://www.nairaland.com/1310138/dear-atheist-feel-need-thankful/3#16044442

mazaje: Did the bible not say that god created and saw that everything was good?. . .According to christian theology sin, disease and death only came into the world after the fall of man. . .Do you deny that?. . .

I do not deny that, what I disagree with is the notion that it was this same world because the world obviously changed when Man fell. In Genesis chapter 3, God cursed the land for man's sin, in Revelations chapter 21, God promises us a new earth. The disease-free earth you are asking for is not this one. It is the new one which God will provide.

I still don't see how your assumptions presupposes a designer in any way. . .It just shows that there are bad chemical reactions that humans want to get rid of because they affect them negatively. . .

Since you have stubbornly refused to see it. I can't help you.

Going by what you are trying to claim, i can also say that your god allowed babies to be infected and be born wih diseases, suffer excruciating pains, live for a year or few months in pains and die without helpin them in any way to ease their suffering?. . .Interesting. . .

I agree that God has allowed babies to feel pain and suffer diseases but I disagree with the notion that He didn't help them in any way.

Interestingly you have set up your shop in such a way that you would blame God for everything.
1. if you are expecting, you don't think God had anything to do with it but if the baby are miscarried, you blame God
2. if the children are still-born you still blame God
3. If they are born with a sickness, you blame God
4. if they are born healthy, you don't think God had anything to do with it
5. if the children die at any point, you blame God
6. If you are rich and successful, God had nothing to do with it. Once you fall on bad times you blame God for allowing you fall on bad times etc etc.

The problem with your worldview is that you believe that everybody ought to be rich, healthy and happy and my question is why? especially if there is no design plan. How do you know anything is supposed to be a certain way if you don't presuppose a purpose?
If you don't believe everyone ought to be rich healthy and happy, then a world of poverty, disease and suffering shouldn't bother you at all.

thehomer: Let's see. You said I wasn't a mind reader but what do you do below? You go on to show that I was correct.

If asking you to explain yourself is classed as whining in thehomerverse then ofcourse you are correct.

Is English too difficult for you? They are in fact quite different. Since I know what my own beliefs are, I'm the one in the position to tell you what I agree with. You claiming about me being dishonest means you actually have to present some evidence in support of that claim.

Is English too difficult for you? They are in fact quite different. I didn't claim you were dishonest I only told you that you were. Why are you lying against me by saying that I claimed that you are dishonest?

I didn't ask whether or not you didn't disagree with it, I asked whether you agreed with it. Obviously you seem to but because you want to try to be evasive, you again try to avoid answering a direct question and you go on to claim the article shows no depth of understanding. If you think it doesn't show any depth, then please tell me what is lacking.

I think I asked you a question that was meant to show if you know what you have any depth of understanding of the topic. let's see how you did....

Being born-again is supposed to be the pre-requisite for going to heaven according to your God. In fact, it is right there in the article I directed you to.



Then there's this part about what it means in Protestant denominations.



You really should have read that article. You can follow the Bible verses quoted in the response.



Now can you tell me what it means to be born-again, tell me why born-again people go to heaven while others go to hell. Please back up your answers with scripture, reason and evidence. I need you to demonstrate that you know what Christians believe and whether or not it makes any sense.

The article did not answer the question I asked you, it seems you run out of steam pretty fast when you are asked anything that goes beyond the depth of wikipedia. As usual you evaded the question and tried to shift it to me. Until you answer that question we cannot move forward. You were the one claiming that you know what you are talking about. Let us test your knowledge. Citing scriptural references, complete the following sentences.

1.People who are born again go to heaven because........
2. People who reject Christ go to hell because........

According to your Bible, everything. Don't forget to address the clear questions raised above and please tell me whether or not Jeffrey Dahmer would be in heaven if he was born-again.

You'll need to show me where in the bible you got that idea from. You question remains invalid until you can make that link between freewill and sickness. . .and yes if Jeffrey Dahmer was born again, he'll be in heaven, but then you also have not shown that you know what it means to be born again you've only claimed it. Please don't forget to answer questions 1 and 2 above.

thehomer: I expected you to start whining if I simply presented you with a short summary and a quote. You did such complaining here.

Asking for further clarification is now classed as whining to you? Wow.

I'm not claiming I agree with Wikipedia, I'm telling you that I agree with it.
Once again, you try to dodge a direct question I'll ask again. Do you agree with that Wikipedia article or not? If not, why?

Lol, you didn't claim that you agree with wikipedia, you only said you agree with wikipedia. Of course they are very different so much so that I won't claim that you are dishonest, I'll only say that you are dishonest to your face.
Do I agree with the wikipedia article? I don't disagree but then I don't think that the wikipedia article demonstrates any depth of understanding of what it means to be born again which is what I require of you to show.

I said that because that is what Christianity actually teaches. After all, if the idea of being born again is true, it would mean that someone like Jeffrey Dahmer is in Heaven while his victims who weren't born again would be in Hell.

Since you claim to know since you told me you know what it means to be born-again; Why do born again people go to heaven while those who reject Christ go to hell?
Please back up your answers with scripture. I need you to demonstrate that you actually know what you are talking about before I engage with you on it.

Then let's actually examine the Christian idea of Heaven shall we?

If God could create a world with human free-will and without human sickness, why didn't he do that on earth? Given that he cares about humans and wants the best for them?

What has human free-will got to do with human sickness?

mazaje: A world without disease doesn't mean a supernatural world, it is only means a world in which agents that cause diseases have been eradicated. . .Small pox and polio and examples of diseases that we have eradicated or trying to eradicate, malaria and other diseases can be eradicated as well. . .We can still have all the chemisty we want but take away those that are harmful to us and affect our lives negatively. . .according to the religious hypothesis your subscribed to, your god initially created the natural world without and diseases before adam and eve failed the test. . .It wasn't a supernatural world, it was this same world without dieases according to the story. . .So i really do not know what you are on about. . .

The above shows you have not thought of diseases deeply enough. As per the bold, please provide scriptural reference

I disagree, you are just begging the question. . .I don't see how saying that some thing is bad while another is good presupposes a designer in anyway. . .

Strawman! Here's what I said:

in order to call one chemical reaction bad and another good, you are really saying that some chemical reactions are supposed to happen while others aren't supposed to happen. This pressuposes that there is a purpose and a purpose presupposes a designer.

The parts in red are the parts you conveniently cut out

I should believe this only because you said so?. . .if this is true then it is your god that also created and infected those babies that were born with various diseases at birth and are suffering at the moment. . .Your god infected them with so much pains and sufferings even before they were born and made sure that the early stages of they lives are lived in excruciating pains and suffering, and most of them only get to live for some few months other for a year or two and died. . .So your god did that as well. . . .Nice. . .

Another strawman. I'm sure there's a difference between "allowed" and "infected"

mazaje: It will look good. . .Humans are trying to create a world without diseases by eradicting some, example there is no malaria here in Europe because it has been eradicated. . .Polio is out. . .Drugs to cure diseases are all man attempt to have a world without one or find cures to diseases. . .

Uhm... you are wrong about malaria but let's let that pass. Also you forgot that new diseases show up as old disease disappear.

Wouldn't you agree that a world without diseases would be a world without chemistry because when you really come down to it, diseases are just chemicals reacting with other chemicals and all we do when we make drugs is provide chemicals that will give us the reactions we want? Essentially, what you are really asking for is a supernatural world that transcends natural phenomena such as chemistry.

Secondly, in order to call one chemical reaction bad and another good, you are really saying that some chemical reactions are supposed to happen while others aren't supposed to happen. This pressuposes that there is a purpose and a purpose presupposes a designer. Wouldn't you agree?

So?. . .Even if he cheated it still has nothing to do with your god. . .

So it is your god's doing?. . .How?. . Is it your god that kept his lungs functioning or his lung cells?. . .Is it your god that made people like him or his gestures and the way he treated them?. . .Just show me how your god has anything to do with his life. . .You just keep jumping around asking and posing irrelevant questions. . .

The simple answer is yes God made him, allowed him to live and allowed him to attain whatever position he may be at today.

musKeeto: I sense butthurt.. Anony, surely you're above such...


What happened to your powers of comprehension? All Gods have a will.. it's simple.. I'm not going to argue with you about some abstract God. What God did you think we were talking about in the first place?

What God were you referring to here:

https://www.nairaland.com/1310138/dear-atheist-feel-need-thankful#16018312

You must have me confused for your asslicker Ihedinobi. He's well known for writing long essays, like the intelligence of a post is determined by the number of characters it has..

....and yet here you are with your long essay

This is what happens when you go into battle and pick a side, without realizing what the battle's over.



My reply


Later on that same thread, I made it clear that what's offensive to one might not be offensive to another. JeSoul's post agreed with this. I didn't find Logicboy's thread offensive is VERY DIFFERENT from saying Logicboy's thread's not offensive. That's my opinion.

And with the line in bold you have successfully dismantled whatever argument it was you were trying to build. try this for comparison:

Saying that I think you are an idiot is very different from me saying that you are an idiot. It is just my opinion that you are an idiot but I have not said so because saying that I think you are an idiot is not the same as saying that you are an idiot.

And I wasn't disputing if the thread was offensive or not. I was only making a case for fairness, that's why I brought up other threads.

Yeah of course you were not disputing that the thread was inoffensive you only gave your opinion that it was inoffensive then promptly denied having such an opinion. In fact you denied having any opinion at all because in muskeetoverse, stating what you think is not the same as stating your opinion.

There's nothing wrong with being neutral. People who are neutral have no hesitations speaking the truth no matter whose axe is gored. You and Ihedinobi feel there's a need to bend everyone into your narrow and myopic viewpoint. Anyone who doesn't speak the same language (Christians inclusive) has 'Chrisitian i.d card' revoked instantly. I hail una spiritual mopol.

There is a difference between being neutral because you really don't have an opinion and insisting that you are being neutral while at the same time shouting your opinion from the rooftops.

Ihedinobi made a mockery of himself on that thread. Of course, I don't expect you to see that. The cross blinds you from his flaws... To the rest of us, the hypocrisy and dishonesty he exhibits in his otiose posts is as visible as the sun.

In my opinion it was you who made a mockery of yourself. . . .But of course I am not saying that you made a mockery of yourself, I'm only saying that it is my opinion you made a mockery of yourself.