₦airaland Forum

Ranchhoddas:
Probably. That guy was an anti-apartheid campaigner, there is no way he can but seen as anything but supportive to a group that claims persecution.

Ranchhoddas:
I still stand by it. The archbishop and the pontiff do not take their positions by quoting the Bible. Do you have a video of either of this men preaching that the Bible supports homosexuality. Their positions are political.

Ranchhoddas:
What I mean by the last line is that you are doing what is called cherry-picking. Selecting a statement from people that suits you even when you might not agree with every other thing they say/do just to advance your position. That can't be right, especially if the discussion is a matter of religion.

Ranchhoddas:
Unless you want to show me a Bible portion supporting homosexuality, it won't. Every other thing sounds like sophistry. As far as I know, all biblical references to homosexuality are condemnatory.

budaatum:
You know me muttley, I just love testing things for myself. Soon as God turned its back, I'm having me some of that fruit, and I wouldn't be needing no serpent or Eve to tell me to. And when God starts telling me I'd work for my food and all and I didn't end up dying like was said I would, I'd be placing God under the Iiar column from thereon. About making me walk around naked!.

But all that wouldn't really have mattered since I'd have been kicked out of the Garden of Eden along with Satan long before that to be honest

Ranchhoddas:
Funny.

I hope you are familiar with the term "political correctness"?
That is what these men do. Has a gay wedding taken place in St Peter's Basilica?
I will take the pontiff seriously when he presides over a gay wedding.

Ranchhoddas:
In any case my question was to you. Have you convinced anyone in the light of scriptures?

Ranchhoddas:
Or do you want to tell me you agree with everything Bergoglio and Tutu stand for?

budaatum:
Simply not pointing it out might have made them less curious about it. Planting it where they couldn't see it might have made it less obvious. Making it a very tall tree might have made it's fruit unreachable. Making the fruit unedible is also an option along with creating Adam and Eve to go blind when looking in the general direction of said tree. Lots of options for a benevolent knowitall god, and not your God muttley, who the more you defend it the more it comes across as a "malevolent manipulator and not a loving god" at all!

budaatum:
250 Dutch Pastors Just Signed the Anti-LGBTQ “Nashville Statement”

TATIME:
The problem began when Adam and Eve chose to be TOTALLY independent of God.
The tree of knowledge of good and bad connotes interest in personal ideology on right and wrong that's driven by SELFISHNESS!
But the bone of contention is humans are prone to develop ZERO compliance to guidance. I'm sorry,that's the birth of ATHEISM!
Obedience is not about rules not understood but obedience is inevitable when there is NO experience, that's what led to all of these!

Godsfavour78:
Thank God we both agree their is a cure for homosexuality. Don't worry i will help you find the cure. You don't have to be mentally sick much longer.

Godsfavour78:
In fact i think supporting homosexuality is another mental disorder on its own. Its related to deliberately living in self denial.

Godsfavour78:
By the way i don't fear or hate gay people so am not homophobic. I just pity them and wish them good health.

XxSabrinaxX:
[s]Honestly, yes. At least "lol" isn't as crude and inferior as your version.

Try reading this part more than 10 times to yourself, and let me know IF or WHEN it makes sense

Muttley, I don't care who you are, and if you're reading this I still don't care.
You've gone on for multiple posts saying nothing of meaningful value, from here on i advise you to remain silent because whatever you say will probably be stupid anyway. Don't test me cause you might end up having nightmares of this thread
You've been warned[/s]

XxSabrinaxX:
[s]Seriously, debating this issue with you could be likened to explaining social media to a 70 year old. I mean, come on lol [/s]
As an omniscient being, can even God have free will if he knows everything? How would it be different? God knows you will be eating ice cream, so how did you really choose it if it was always going to be the case?

XxSabrinaxX:
I would argue that free will exists because YOU personally did not know the choice in advance. You might be a person who likes ice cream, but no one is forcing it down your throat. You at least have a choice when to eat it, or if you want to eat it at all. But if you knew for a fact that ice cream would be forced down your throat at a specific time, would it be a choice to eat that ice cream? No. That is God, being forced to do what he knew he would do. He is trapped by the knowledge of future events and an inability to prove that knowledge false. Freewill can never exist in this case, the contradiction here can not be denied
If God knows everything then the choices are all already made, or just don't exist. Omniscient God can never gain new knowledge. I can see how this could be an uncomfortable idea to people, it makes God seem like a very static and not active. But that's just how it is.

XxSabrinaxX:
You're just taking us round in circles, and its not benefitting any of us.
[s]If you need some more salt for your salt, let me know honey [/s]

XxSabrinaxX:
Is this boy joking? You asked me where I got the idea of hell being eternal from and I showed you multiple examples from the bible. How are you still asking me this question lol?
[s]Honestly, If you were any dumber, someone would have to water you twice a week [/s]

XxSabrinaxX:
That was so cringe, with all due respect I really hope you don't talk like that in public lol

XxSabrinaxX:
Did you just write that? LOL! What's the damn point, lol?

XxSabrinaxX:
Surely an omnibenevolent god won't subject mankind to such pain and suffering in the first place. This "grand scheme" logic of yours still fails ultimately because God himself INITIATED the loop! What was God trying to prove? Sin would not have come into existence if Adam and Eve hadn't eaten from the tree. You're doing nothing but proving my point that God is a malevolent manipulator and not a loving god.

XxSabrinaxX:
Come on, muttley . You're supposed to be smarter than this. Its not a matter of consistency and you know that very well. He knew the implications of Adam eating the fruit. Being the all loving, merciful god he is, he could have easily found a way to salvage the situation without subjecting mankind through all this torture. [s]I'm beginning to question your knowledge on this subject, muttley[/s].

XxSabrinaxX:
LoL, the facts are there for all those who aren't blinded by religious dogma to see. Your God is a scheming manipulator and that's all he is. How does it make any sense to punish a man for crime you not only knew will happen, but you could easily stop and spare everyone the pain of the result? You can't ignore this, muttley. Deep down you know it

XxSabrinaxX:
No, i didn't. If an omnipotent, omniscient creator god truly existed, and he was at the helm of affairs from the very beginning, then all my actions and choices were already written out long before I even came into existence. It beats me how you've still not understood this. It is impossible to "make your own decisions" in a universe where every event has been predetermined by a creator. Dancing around this all day doesn't make it less of a fact than it already is.
Omniscience and Freewill are mutually exclusive concepts and they constantly contradict each other. They always do. However, if you're still uncomfortable with this, you can start by explaining to me how they're both compatible with each other cos that's the only way you'll change my mind.

XxSabrinaxX:
I don't get why you're so emotional about that comment. I never intended it as an insult, at least that's not what i had in mind. Going back and forth on this all day is just petty and is helping neither of us.

XxSabrinaxX:
When you saw me quoting those verses, wasn't it so obvious that my answer to that question was the bible? Come on, now. Your common sense surely should have made that known to you.

TheArranger:
I'm not even going to bother and answer to this cos @XxSabrinaxX has already covered it.
Good luck trying to explain how a supposedly all loving God could inadvertently make his "precious creation" to sin, and then condemn them to pain and suffering.

XxSabrinaxX:
You've basically admitted that God initiated the sin loop that man is being subjected to now.

XxSabrinaxX:
God is omniscient and so he knew Adam and Eve would eat of the fruit, so why didn't he stop them? Isn't he benevolent? Or better yet, if he's so merciful, why didn't he just get rid of the serpent and let Adam and Eve eat from the tree of life?
How do you justify this?

XxSabrinaxX:
Ok

XxSabrinaxX:
In his omnipotence, he has the power to affect all of these little influences such that every "free will" outcome is possible and every type of universe is possible. If not, then he is not omnipotent. But if you agree that he did have the power based solely on the specific design of each detail of the universe, then the details he chose mean that he necessarily chose this specific outcome, which includes the exact universe we have now and will have til the end of time. TL;DR, the answer is yes.

XxSabrinaxX:
This is basically your first question. Check out my answer to it

XxSabrinaxX:
LoL . Why so butthurt all of a sudden? You implied that you don't want to overload me with information and i simply called you out on your claim. You're calling me a bitch when I actually haven't dissed you in any way so relax and don't get your knickers in a twist.

XxSabrinaxX:
Hell is implied in many parts of the bible to be eternal.
1. Isaiah 66:22-24

22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.
24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

2. Daniel 12:1-2
At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

3. Matthew 25:31-46
When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” . . . Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. . . . And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

4. Revelation 14:9-11
If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.

5. Revelation 20:10, 14-15
And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. . . . Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
There's more where that came from, but let's leave it at 5 bible verses.

TheArranger:
This post is dumb, no offense @MuttleyLaff. If God is an omnipotent, omniscient being, then he's responsible for man's damnation because he knows the thoughts of man. If God was truly good and he didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of good and evil, he could have just cancelled the tree from existence. Why didn't he just do that?

XxSabrinaxX:
Didn't catch this statement lol. Do go on, I really want to hear what you have to say, unless you're just mouthing off.

XxSabrinaxX:
Let's try this again, and i'll make it more brief this time
This comes back to the problem of omniscience and free will: I believe that God does not exist. I did not choose to. If that prevents me from going to Heaven, it is God’s fault that I am damned and not my own. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then I really don't have a 0p hi Fiona yeah yeah yeah yeah choice here because he knows exactly what i'm going to do, and exactly what will happen to me if I do so.

XxSabrinaxX:
Here's the thing,
Free will is the ability to choose between a set of possible actions. If the only possible action is already known, there is no choice. No choice is what happens when you are falling, for example. You dont choose to keep falling, unless you have an option not to fall, which would be a parachute or superpower. If you dont have a choice about it, you are not choosing to fall. You simply will fall because that is the only possible option.

This problem is very easy to understand in basic steps:

* At any given moment in time (A), God knows everything, including what he will do in given moment of time (B).

* At time (B) God must do what he knew he would do in moment of time (A) because if he does not, then God´s knowledge of what he would do at moment (B) was false when he used his omniscience at moment (A) to predict his action.

* God can not possibly have a false knowledge of what he would do at moment (B) because it would mean he was wrong.

* God can not be wrong.

So we can conclude, that from any moment of time, even before the creation of the universe, God knew exactly what he would be doing at every point of time after that point.

This is especially problematic when you add in the fact that God is stated as also having always existed. This is to say, that there was no moment in which he did not exist, and no moment that he did not already have knowledge of every action he would take in the future.

There is no point in which he could possibly make a decision about what he would do, because there was no moment in which he did not already know. No ¨First moment¨ to think about a course of action before knowing what that course of action would be.

Why is this a problem? Because it implies that God is nothing more than a property of existence. No free will to speak of, just a powerful mechanic that drives the creation of the universe and all the things that happen in that universe, but can not choose to do anything else. Basically God would be a bit like Gravity. Massively influencial in how the universe works, but not considered a free agent. Gravity must pull things together, God must do the things he must do. There is no free will where there are no choices.

At this point you might thinking, well, just because he does know everything, doesnt mean he couldnt choose to do something else. But any step he takes to invalidate his knowledge of future events would end up proving that he was wrong. And an infallible God cant be wrong. He could not have false knowledge about what would happen, and that is what he would need to do in order to ¨change¨ his predetermined future. So where would free will fit in?
People tend to reach for multiple worlds as a possible solution. The general thinking is a bit like this:

In the beginning, God created an infinite number of universes, each with what you could call a definitive list of actions God takes in a specific chronological order. So God doesnt really have to choose anything, he has already chosen everything. All possible God actions at any point in time will happen.

But if infinite multiple universes exist with all possible actions taken, there isnt really ever a choice because God does in fact do all things. You have to select between a list of possible actions in order to choose. Doing everything at once is just a more complicated version of the original problem. Because if you know what every single possible action is and every single possible outcome would be, and then do all those possible things, you still know what those infinite possible things are, and they will all happen, and God never has any choice.

Or if you want to keep things linear, you could define omniscience as knowing all possible futures and then declare that God chooses between possible futures, so the logic would look like this:

* At point (A) God knows that at point (B) an infinite number of possible universes exist that contain all possible actions God could take.

* At point (B) God could choose which potential universe will come to exist, and which will not.

* Choosing which possible universe will manifest is a choice, therefore God has free will.

The problem with this solution is that it simply takes the problem back a step. Because God has to know ahead of time which possible universe he will manifest. He would simply know a bunch of useless bits of information. He would know what would happen if he did anything but the thing he would know he would actually do. This basically means that God knows what happens if he doesnt stick to his own mandated script, but the script would stay the same, and no free will would be added by the extra knowledge of universes that will never happen. Because God has to already know which possible universe will end up being the real universe.

But since God already knows which choice he will make, he is not really choosing anything. Because all actions are mandatory and can not be anything other than what he already Knows will happen.

Godsfavour78:
guy where do you expect me to find time to answer all this now. And you asked in a way that the answers have to be long. Anyway when the world is ready to accept it for what it is. I will be among those finding the cure.

TheArranger:
Just to clarify, I am not debating free will in general, as that is a completely different topic.

God's plan, put simply, is that we would be tested on Earth, and those of us who were good would go to heaven. I have always been told that this includes us having free will. However, God is said to be omnipotent. If God can see the future, than it is predetermined, and therefore, we can't have free will. If we don't have free will, God is knowingly sending people towards damnation, is he not?

In my opinion God's omnipotence contradicts the requirement for free will in God's plan.

Godsfavour78:
no homosexuality is the mental defect. It can be remedied. But the world has to first accept it is a mental defect.

budaatum:
Don't mind him. He thinks he can tell me what to do!

budaatum:
If I want to, I will. But considering it's sub 5^o where I am, I'd rather not at the moment, thanks.

frosbel2:
oh look - here comes the RELIGIOUS MALE CHAUVINIST

frosbel2:
You are truly confused - what was homophobic in my statement anyway ??

frosbel2:
I am sorry, but we do not have to be politically correct on this forum; leave that PC bullsh1t where it belongs.

MuttleyLaff:
The ''church fathers''' theology(ies) influenced their individual translation of the Bible (i.e. NT and all)

Ranchhoddas:
Fair enough.

Ranchhoddas:
He was using metaphors.

Ranchhoddas:
Why you think this is a suitable analogy is beyond me. It's exactly the same thing as your "god of Nairaland" example; just terrible in the context. And this is what Jesus meant? Gosh. Remember He cursed the fig tree before he said that. What rule did he obey then. With what rule did he raise the dead?

Ranchhoddas:
He could turn water to wine. Did he go through the steps with which breweries turn water to wine today. If Jesus said that, then I'll take Him at His word. When he needed money, he commanded people to get a coin from the belly of a fish. Which rule did he obey then?

Ranchhoddas:
I'll take Him at his word. If you cut off your hand to escape hell assuming that the place is all it's cracked up to be, then it wouldn't be too much of a sacrifice would it?

Ranchhoddas:
The words of Jesus should be taken literally. He multiplied food literally. How do you decide which is hyperbole and which is not. If you were present when he wanted to turn five loaves and two fish to food for thousands, you would have claimed it was exaggeration then wouldn't you?

Ranchhoddas:
The Bible is not my creed for all the reverence I have for it. I expect straight answers from people when I ask questions, not assignments.

Ranchhoddas:
Have you been able to convince anyone that homosexuality is approved in the Bible?

Ranchhoddas:
You must be the only person on the planet with this view.

Ranchhoddas:
Kikikikikiki. You are a strange fella...

Michellekabod1:
You can imagine how i slapped my thighs in laughter as i read your post.
You made a post that gave me the impression that you believed the bible is errant...i made a post about your "perceived view" of the bible accuracy.
You saw it, flared up and started querying and throwing tantrums. A simple "i have never made such claim" will have halted it. Would it be hard for me to comprehend you didnt imply the bible was inerrant and then modify my post?

I have known you theists to be hungry for unnecessary feuds and arguments that will lead no where but rather cause enmity. You value discord more than peace. I foresaw an argument sprouting from our conversatiin thus i shooed off the discussion for peace to reign, you started your nagging and trying to force words of my mouth. I told you to focus on a discussion more relevant than that of ours. You kept on hitting and pouting and i still made an attempt to avert a quarrel by sidelining an issue that i knew would herald an arguement. Then you pushed further, i even told you that it was while i was using my previous account you made a statement relating to the bible been inerrant and then you mistook it for me saying it was while using my previous account that i made claims of you saying the bible is inerrant and proceeded to accusing me of lying in a jiffy. You still were blood thirsty to castigation and hurling blames so you went on to conceive a new argument of me using my previous account versus old account. I sensed the mix up and sent you a screen shot of the post. You were dire hard on the notion that i am wrong and shielding myself.
I called you a nag because you dragged over an issue that would profit neither of us and then you wrote four or five allegations about me (i am saying four or five because if i say four and it is five you will call me a liar and starting pouncing on me and if i say five and its four you will attack me with all ferrociousness like a wild beast attacking its prey).
You are more interested in painting someone black and vehemently wanting the person to see how black the person is as you see him/her than yielding a fruitful conversation with them.
The fact i have no energy for epic clap backs and e-wars and a roller coaster of arguments for peace sake doesnt mean that i have nothing to say or am shielding from blame. For peace sake i'd rather sideline or sweep some conversations under the carpet but people like you will accuse me of dodging the blame imposed by the almighty muttleylaff.
Please you never told me to modify the post, that wasnt important to you as to paint and prove me black as the devil.
I am an attention seeker? I will let that pass; would not start querying and pouting like you.

You are definitely jubilating around a bonfire as your aim of quarreling is achieved.
I have got 99 problems? Wow prophet muttleylaff now knows what is bugging me...lols
Muttley,you are right, you are a saint and would make heaven , i am a sinner and would go to hell...satisfied??

Michellekabod1:
You can imagine how i slapped my thighs in laughter as i read your post.
You made a post that gave me the impression that you believed the bible is errant...i made a post about your "perceived view" of the bible accuracy.
You saw it,flared up and started querying and throwing tantrums. A simple "i have never made such claim" will have halted it. Would it be hard for me to comprehend you didnt imply the bible was inerrant and then modify my post?
I have known you theists to be hungry for unnecessary feuds and arguments that will lead no where but rather cause enmity . You value discord more than peace. I foresaw an argument sprouting from our conversatiin thus i shooed off the discussion for peace to reign, you started your nagging and trying to force words of my mouth. I told you to focus on a discussion more relevant than that of ours. You kept on hitting and pouting and i still made an attempt to avert a quarrel by sidelining an issue that i knew would herald an arguement. Then you pushed further, i even told you that it was while i was using my previous account you made a statement relating to the bible been inerrant and then you mistook it for me saying it was while using my previous account that i made claims of you saying the bible is inerrant and proceeded to accusing me of lying in a jiffy. You still were blood thirsty to castigation and hurling blames so you went on to conceive a new argument of me using my previous account versus old account. I sensed the mix up and sent you a screen shot of the post. You were dire hard on the notion that i am wrong and shielding myself.
I called you a nag because you dragged over an issue that would profit neither of us and then you wrote four or five allegations about me (i am saying four or five because if i say four and it is five you will call me a liar and starting pouncing on me and if i say five and its four you will attack me with all ferrociousness like a wild beast attacking its prey).
You are more interested in painting someone black and vehemently wanting the person to see how black the person is as you see him/her than yielding a fruitful conversation with them.
The fact i have no energy for epic clap backs and e-wars and a roller coaster of arguments for peace sake doesnt mean that i have nothing to say or am shielding from blame. For peace sake i'd rather sideline or sweep some conversations under the carpet but people like you will accuse me of dodging the blame imposed by the almighty muttleylaff.
Please you never told me to modify the post,that wasnt important to you as to paint and prove me black as the devil.
I am an attention seeker? I will let that pass; would not start querying and pouting like you.

You are definitely jubilating around a bonfire as your aim of quarreling is achieved.
I have got 99 problems? Wow prophet muttleylaff now knows what is bugging me...lols
Muttley,you are right, you are a saint and would make heaven , i am a sinner and would go to hell...satisfied??

alBHAGDADI:
It's on front page already.

Michellekabod1:
Shut your bouche jor. ..hurl blames and castigation without comprehension of any other perspective than yours...the fact I refuse to keep up arguments with you for peace sake will make me someone trying to dodge or run because of my alleged mistake . . too bad I once thought you were different from the mainstream...spits