₦airaland Forum

My apology goes to the growing population of all  those I have debated with on this religious forum, who have felt offended by the tone of my posts and have referenced them to mean attacks/insults from me. . . . , I cant help but say sorry.

Its ok to disagree . . . . . . .Thats just my way of expressing my point of view, no ulterior motives or attacks or pun was intended.



Copy: mazaje, banom,huxley, KAG, bawomolo, Abuzola, Fellis, Olabowale, Babs767, tudor, pastor AIO, wirinet, manmustwac, toneyb, purist, Deepsight, duduspace, Ogaga4luv, the NL islamic community and all others who have at one time or the other felt offended by the TONE of my posts.

Deep Sight:
Noetic -

My deepest instinct tells me that in your heart of hearts, you already see the point, and you know very well the truth regarding this matter.

I verily fear that your dogma (and also your pride) may not permit you to accede.

Thus, rather than engage you in long-spiralled desertations, i will now change tactics.

I shall, for the next few posts, only give you little morsels for thought. . . FROM YOUR OWN BIBLE.

The first morsel has already been given in the quote by KunleOshob above -

Although its pretty obvious what the text above indicates, you felt so done-in by it that you chose to evade explaining it. Yes, i know you will try, but believe me, your explanation would not resonate within your own soul.

1. The above seems to be the ranting of a little boy denied some sweets. We were never debating. . . . .this is supposed to be an interview.
You have NOT at any time told me why and where u DISAGREE with my posts. . .yet u ascribe my posts to dogma, pride and a subject of ur own instincts. I find this intriguing. . . . .no pun intended.

2. I have answered kunleOshob by refering him to Jesus sending out the 72 disciples in the book of Luke. Cos he has simply refused to offer any analyses.
I honestly dont understand. Do u disagree with my understanding of the way to heaven? . . .  , can u tell me why?

P:S  I am not evading any of ur questions. . . . I just want to have an understanding of ur position.

But here's the second morsel for thought:

Acts 10:34 - 35: "Of a truth i perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. . ."

Go on Noetic, knock yourself out coming up with an explanation for this one.

I would have naturally loved to ask u to define the fear of the Lord? . . . . . and to define righteousness? but I just remembered that anytime I do this, u tend to assume that I am evading ur question. So I will define these terms before answering ur question.

The bible has 2 definition for righteousness:  DEU 6:24-25  24And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day. 25[b]And it shall be our righteousness[/b], if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

The second definition can be deduced from Romans 6:14-23
14[b]For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.[/b]
15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


The bible also defines the fear of the Lord. . . . . .Deuteronomy 10:32
12And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,

From the above biblical definitions. . . .and based on the assumption that u are implying that salvation in Jesus is not the ticket to Jesus heaven. . .I would say that true to the verse u quoted, God is no respecter of persons, thats why Christ went to the grave to save those who lived before Him and never knew of Him.

However, I have not seen anything in the bible that suggests that people who WILLINGLY rejected the gospel/salvation of Christ would inherit eternity. . . . , they would partake in eternal damnation called HELL.

wirinet:
Deep Sight,

Since you are the only person who have the temperment  and patient to go the distance with Noetic, I want you to add this to your question;

Since no person from the East or west Knew of people living on the African Coast until Portuguese explorers were able to sail beyond " the sea of Darkness" which is present day Cape Verde", around1440 AD, How do you think the natives who had never seen or heard of a white man, accept the white man's saviour as his own? How can you expect him to accept a white man such as Abraham, Jacob and Isaac as his ancestors?.

I have NO reason to believe that Abraham, Jacob and Isaac are my biological ancestors. . .  . . .but by a revelation of faith, I claim the blessings of abraham and I am as such a descendant of Abraham. no African has any reason to believe that he/she is a direct descendant of abraham (I dont know how possible or impossible that is) . . . .but abraham is relevant to the Christian faith cos he walked with God, inherited a covenant and we (christians) are part of that covenant by FAITH.

The same applies to the Americas, as the Western Men did not even know that a continent almost 20 times larger than their own existed until Columbus sailed in 1492. Before then the American natives did not know white men exists, so how do you expect them to agree that white men were their ancestors and saviour,
instead of the Gods that have served them for hundreds if not thousands of years.

[b]Then would it be fair or sensible for God to sent the Natives to hell for refusing the saviour of white men [/b]who came to steal and plunder their lands and kill of their people. Would that not be a very cruel, partial and unjust God.

Neither Jesus nor Abraham was either an European or Gentile. They were Jews by human language. . .  .this has no relation to salvation even though many Europeans and Gentiles have accepted the gospel and the salvation of Christ.
whatever ur reasons for rejecting the salvation of Christ. . .be ready to face the consequences.

KunleOshob:
@Noetic
My answer can be found in James 1:27 which says : Pure and undefiled religion [worship] in the sight of God is to take care of widows and orphans in their affliction and to keep your self from being corrupted by the world.

Now let's have your answer and stop answering questions with questions.

1. I am surprised u ignored all my posers. whats stopping u from opening a new thread to educate me on christianity? . . . . . I hate thinking I am uninformed. . .can u help me?
Brother, I think u are the one with a dogma here, no offence intended. U see Jesus as a good man and not as a saviour and u expect that anyone who is good without readily acknowledging Jesus as a saviour will inherit eternity. . . . .thats NOT what Jesus taught.

2. ur answer above is NOT an answer. I expected an analyses from u. . . . . but if thats all u have to offer then I will offer u something similar. . . have u read Luke 10:1-12 and put particular emphasis on the last three verses, . . . .thats also my answer to ur poser. Jesus has stated what awaits those who reject the gospel, regardless of their good works.

3. You accuse me of being religious yet James 1:27 which u quoted speaks of an acceptable religion. . . , .not worship.
u accuse me of being dogmatic. . . , but have not proffered how wrong my dogmas are. the ONLY way to defeat or eradicate a dogma is to bring in knowledge.

Pastor AIO:
Illiterate in this and every context is the same, the inability to read and write.  I can accept that you simply don't want to answer the question, perhaps because you're simply unable to without compromising your dogma.

On the contrary. .  I dont have the habit of evading questions. . ,   I asked simply because I wanted to understand ur perception of "illiteracy".
I am puzzled as to how an illeterate got to make the "choice" of accepting Jesus in the first place as his/her Lord and saviour.

In light of ur definition. . . ,   .I'd expect the illiterate to pray and rely on God's spirit to discover the truth that lies within them. . . . .The spirit does not lie, neither does it mislead. I hope that answers ur question?.

I got that from reading your post, as that seemed to be what you are doing.

You are so very wrong. How have I offered theological arguments as a platform for understanding the gospel? All I have done is simply to present these analyses as they are.
All u have done is to TWIST the gospel to suit ur preconceived notions that DIFFER completely from the message of the gospel.

Let me answer this in your style.  What do you understand by pastor?  What do you understand by deist and how are the two mutually exclusive?  I'm not even going to go into why you would say that I'm a deist.

1. A pastor is one who shepherds the flock of God in the message of the gospel of Jesus. A pastor serves in a capacity within the church of God. A pastor proclaims the message of God to the lost sheep whom the chief shepherd (Jesus) came to save,  . . . . . .do u fit this description?

2. A deist is a person who believes God created the world but has abandoned it. A deist does not conform to spiritual beliefs or revelations.

3. A deist and pastor are mutually exclusive simply because . . . .a pastor is expected to be led by the spirit as an ambassador of God, A deist does not conform to spiritual influence.
A deist acknowledges the indifference of God to the world. . . .this is a contradiction to the entire purpose of the coming of Jesus. He came that we may know that heaven is concerned about our well being in this world and the one to come.
As such a deist CANNOT be a pastor. . . . . .unless u mean a pastor of a satanic/demonic or unGodly gathering.

I've got a feeling that this is becoming an organised collision indeed.  I am colliding into you, watch it.

please do so. . . . . .I would love my ignorance, hypocrisy, false doctrines and lies to be exposed.

mazaje:
Your delusion knows no bounds. . . . kent hovind has never claimed to be a geologist. . . . so i wonder what you are talking about are you drunk?

what?

mazaje:
How are their observatıons not scientific? Nova Scotia was the direct result of rapid subsidence, caused by salt tectonics within an already subsiding pull-apart basin, and resulting rapid accumulation of sediments. Contrary to the claims of creationists, these sedimentary basins are considerably smaller than the state of Texas. The specific layers containing polystrate fossils occupy only a very limited fraction of the total area of any of these basins

How is this observation not scientific?. . . . remember that you are yet to provide one geologist that agrees that polyatrate fossils were formed as a result of a global flood. . . . . . .
tell me why polystrate fossils found have no root?"

do u know the meaning of the word "observation"? . , what? who observed the above in red? when? where? and how?

That was not a mistake. . .if he had not shown you that you were wrong you would not have admitted you made a mistake. . . . .Its very clear from your previous post that you did not know that some polystrate fossis had roots because your repeated your fallacy twice on this thread. . . . . You repeated this lie twice on this thread alone. . . . ''Do u mind educating me on how else the polystrate fossils got to their present locations since they have no roots?''. . . . . .you twice said that polystrate fossils found had no roots but quickly change your positon when you were shown that some were found with their roots ıntact. . . . keep on deluding yourself is all I have to tell you. . . .

Its very clear from your debate with toneyb that you will hang on to anything no matter what the evidence against your positions are. You have not presented any scientific peer reviwed paper that says ALL the polystrate papers found in nova scotia have no roots. . . . where is your scientific peer reviwed papers that says all the polystrate papers found there have no roots?  Name one geologıst that agress that they were formed as a result of a global flood. . . . .

Toneyb has asked a question and you refused to answer. . . .If you claim that polystrate fossils are evidence for your global flood then why does their ages vary greatly  . . . they should all be of the same age if they were truly formed by a global flood no?

1. must u always degenerate all arguments to ur folly?

2. why are the polystrate fossils found in Nova Scotia with no root?

3. The mechanism that was used to detect the ages of the polystrate fossils. , .is it porous when the elements in question are in water?

KunleOshob:
Just as i thought typical of Noetic to be answering questions with even more questions And whilst you are at it could you kindly show us from scriptures were Jesus said we should study the bible as i happen to be aware the bible was not compiled until almost 300 years after his ressurection.

is this all u could come up with?

KunleOshob:
@Noetic
Kindly answer this question: How do you show love to God whom you can't see? And whilst you are it kindly meditate over the passage below which deepsight spoke off earlier. Please read it in proper context. What does it really say?

Matthew 25:31-40:

The Final Judgment
31 “But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit upon his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered in his presence, and he will separate the people as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will place the sheep at his right hand and the goats at his left.
34 “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 creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. 36 I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’
37 “Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? 39 When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’
40 “And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’

Start by telling me what ur position on the above is. . . . .this is not a one-way traffic.

KunleOshob:
My brother i honestly do appreciate your passion and zeal for the christian religion [I use the word religion cause i am not sure you understand what the christian faith is]. However it would just be in vain if you don't have a deep sitted understanding of the true gospel of our lord Jesus christ. If you truly read the bible with understanding devoid of indoctrination and a very open mind you would begin to see a bigger picture.

This is the same old story u and others have repeated on several threads on nairaland. what does the christian faith consist of? do u know what it means to be a christian? what is christianity centred around? . . . . , Dont come up with postulations u cannot support.

If you think that christianity is just about believing Jesus Christ is the son of God and accepting him as lord over your life, you would be having a very shallow understanding of his Gospel. True christianity is about living a christ like life which is exemplified by LOVE. And not religious dogmatism. Belief in Jesus means belief in his teachings and is not limited to believing he is the son of God. Actually this topic is very deep and justice can not be done to it on the pages of the internet, that apart it is a personal journey one must take to have true knowledge and understanding of his gospel.

This is disturbing. . . .simply because u are yrt to tell us what u understand by christianity and what part of my posts u disagree with. Take the bull by the horn and state what part of my analysis u disagree with. . . cos I dont even know ur position on these issues. . . .why dont u profer ur "deep" insight and analyses on the subject of christianity?

1. How can u live a life of Christ without knowing Christ? how can u have the love of Christ without loving God?
I have never defined Christianity to simply involve giving ones life to Christ. It is important a person is saved but becoming the Son of God is a very continuos process which involves the SPIRIT of God.
a. how can u have the spirit of God, . without the knowledge of Christ salvation?
b. what does religious dogmatism entail? can a person be saved even if such rejects the gospel of Jesus Christ? how? . . .and where did u get that from?

2. I would like u to open a new thread to educate me on how shallow my understanding of christianity is.

Your decision to stay out of the thread i reffered you to[b] suggests that you are not very sure of your beleifs but would rather hold on dogmatically to it[/b]. As such you would rather avoid a thread that would make you question your beliefs. The truth is that God's is not deceived and dogma doesn't do it for God. You have to earnestly seek him, understand his message and live by it before you can truely claim to be a beleiver.

1. why do u enjoy making ridiculous assertions? . . . .first u claimed that deepSight has provoked my thoughts. . .I asked u to tell me of any insightful message in his post I missed, .u declined. Now u are asserting that I stayed out ur thread cos of dogmatism. . . .this is

. u asked that all beliefs be checked. . . . .by what yardstick?
by what yard stick did u come to the conclusion that trinity is unbiblical? . . . . . .ur penchant claim that all others are not true Christians except u is ridiculous. are u a treu christian?. . .do u know that the word "christian" is composed from the word "Christ"?. . .how can anyone deny the salvation of the lamb and then claim to follow him?. . . this is a STRANGE gospel.

mazaje:
Do you know what you are saying?  . Kent Hovind is not a geologist at all but a biologist. . . . he is a convicted criminal presently doing time for fraud. He is a very well known lair for jesus. . . . .You really need to feel sick if convicted criminals who are serving time for fraud are the people you refer to as geologist. . . . . .

u make my belly ache . . . . , do u loose ur qualification when convicted?

mazaje:
Pls stop lying for jesus. You have attempted to defend or rationalize so much of the violence in the OT. . .that is what you have been doing most of the time, you even go to extreme lengths and provided explanations that are not even written in the bible. Example, yahweh instructs his men to stone to death their disobeient children and your own out of the world explanation for it was to equate disobedience to parents with treason even though the bible says no such thing. You have said so many times that the god of the OT is not evil even when the OT god himself says that he is evil and agrees that he uses evil to acheive some of his goals something that you outrightly deny despite the fact that the bible says that the OT god did evil and apologised for the evil he did.

You accuse moslems of following an evil god that tells them to kill unbelievers but when we show you that your own god once commanded people to kill all the unbelievers they can lay their hand on, you bring up excuses like god has the right to kill unbelivers, if your god has the right to tell people to kill unbeliever in the past what makes allah not to have the right to tell his people not to kill unbelievers?

ur only problem is that u feel very hurt when u hear a divergent opinion or ur ignorance is exposed.

Pastor AIO:
what about such christians as are illiterate?  Without being able to read the bible how do they discover this 'unique truth of the gospel of Christ themselves'.    Not to mention those that may be able to read but haven't the intellectual capacity to grasp theological arguments or points of doctrine.

1. how did the illiterate accept the gospel?. . . . .did he understand what he was accepting?.
My point is . . . . what does it mean to be an "illiterate" in this context?. . . . . I honestly dont understand. . . . .why dont u help me?

2. when did theological arguments become the basis of deciphering the truth of the gospel? . .  .where did u get that from?
study your bible and pray. . . . . .and He will continue to teach and guide u through His spirit. . .  . . . .that was all Jesus said.

3. and why do u, a deist, call urself a pastor? . . . is that not FRAUD?

KunleOshob:
@Pastor
Nice questions, let's see noetic wriggle his way out of this one.

what is this? . .  .is this an organised collision or what?. . . .I expected better from u.

toneyb:
It seems that you are more interested in embarrasing yourself, geologist observed it, John W. F. Waldron and Michael C. Rygel have said that the rapid burial and preservation of polystrate fossil trees found at Joggins, Nova Scotia was the direct result of rapid subsidence, caused by salt tectonics within an already subsiding pull-apart basin, and resulting rapid accumulation of sediments. Contrary to the claims of creationists, these sedimentary basins are considerably smaller than the state of Texas. The specific layers containing polystrate fossils occupy only a very limited fraction of the total area of any of these basins.If you have any other scientific evidence to show that the mythical flood did it then you can bring your own scientific findings, you have to fist of all present Just ONE geologist that agrees with your lying position. Please name just ONE geologist.

will u stop fooling urself.

Waldron and Michael made "claims" about Nova Scotia . .  . .I asked for scientific OBSERVATION . . . . . .what then is the meaning of the above?

Why do you keep lying and exposing yourself? . This is what you initially said "tell me why polystrate fossils found have no root?" After I did show you that some were found with roots you are now changing tone and singing another new song. What a dishonest person. There are other polystrate fossils that have roots so that destroys your shameless arguments that they were caused by a mythical global flood that happened only in the pages of the bible. The fact that tree trunks vary greatly in age and strata is enough to show that they were formed at different times and by very different processes. Arguing with people that delibrately choose to mislead themselves is a waste of time. I know that you need to keep deluding yourself that there is some evidence for the mythical flood even though there isn't one. Even christian geologist agree that there is NO evidence for a global flood at all. hydrodynamic sorting which remains the greatest evidence against the global flood was pointed out by a christian geologist. As for the polystrate fossils found in Nova Scotia scientist have said that it was the direct result of rapid subsidence, caused by salt tectonics within an already subsiding pull-apart basin.

Actually that was a mistake on my part. . and I do apologise.

My question was and still remains. . .why do the polystrate fossils in Nova Scotia have no root?. . . . . .why could they not have been transported by a flood?

mazaje:
How so? Kent hovind is not a geologist, what explanations has he given for all these claims?

mazaje:
Why are you giving me a reference to the writting of a person(Kent Hovind) who is a convicted fraud and who is presently serving a 10 year jail term in a federal prison in the USA? If you want to have any credibility then provide links to the works of real geologist not kent hovind who is not a geologist but a convicted criminal who is presently in prison for fraud. . . are these the people you rely on for scientific evidence of a global flood? Ken Ham a person that is not even a geologist and the convicted criminal kent hovind who is presently in jail and also not a geologist? I laugh in Aramiac. . .

HYPOCRITES like u make my belly ache.

I intentionally refused to be drawn into the geologist argument simply for known reasons. . . . and after a geologist was stated, the above was all u could come up with.
u make me feel sick.

KunleOshob:
Maybe you are beginning to shake his belief system, hence he runs away less he looses his faith.

@Noetic
[b]I am sure you would agree with me that deepsight has been able to provoke your thoughts and stimulated you to ask questions that your rigid belief sytem cannot answer. [/b]Christianity is not that rigid neither is it dogmatic, you only need to open your mind and he truth would be revealed to you. It was for such reasons i opened this thread : https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-327616.0.html to provoke people to seek a better understanding of what they believe in.

I willingly obliged this "interview" cos I saw his post like an enquiry form a point of quandary. . . . . .that opinion has not changed and he has not asked or said anything to provoke thoughts.

If however u think there is an underlying importance or message in his post that I am missing. . . .please feel free to post such here and educate my ignorance.
As for the thread u linked here. . .I had rather stay out of it.

Purist:
@noetic15

Sorry, I just realised I was wrong.  The "heaven" in that verse, in greek translation, actually refers to the sky, clouds, planets, etc.  My previous assertion was as a result of reading that Elijah story on Bible.cc, where I was referred to Jesus' ascension in Mark 16 - to show some kind of correlation.  Nonetheless, this has created even more questions.

and ur questions are?

I read your initial post.  So you mean they went to search for Elijah to ensure he was safe?  Didn't they receive a vision from GOD that he was going to be taken?  Were they doubtful of God's words?  Or they didn't understand the vision they saw?  Did they really think God would take Elijah, only to endanger him (or why did they feel the need to ensure his safety)? Didn't the sons of the prophets trust God? Oh well, they were SONS of the prophets, not prophets themselves.  Besides, it's not like the whirlwind just came and blew him off just like that.  He was taken up in a Chariot of Fire (certainly not something ordinary, if you ask me), and so they should have been wise enough to know they didn't need to search for him, unless they really were IGNORANT.  Elisha knew better, and that was why he told them not to bother themselves, even though they still insisted.

what did elisha know? . . . . maybe I can make sense of ur post if u can tell me.

Sorry, but I didn't seem to get your "connection" well.  Maybe I should rather present my argument in form of a question then.

King Jehoshaphat of JUDAH had a SON who took over after his death.  This son was King Jehoram of JUDAH.  (1 Kings 22:50)

King Ahaziah of ISRAEL had a BROTHER who took over, because Ahaziah himself had no son.  This BROTHER was King Jehoram of ISRAEL. (2 Kings 1:17).  Both of them were sons of King Ahab who was murdered in a battle.

Elijah was still very much on earth at this period.  Proof?

In 2 Kings 1:16, Elijah had stated that Ahaziah would die, then he died.  In the next verse, we're told Jehoram, his brother, ascended the throne, which was also IN the second year of the reign of the other Jehoram, the son of the late Jehoshaphat, king of JUDAH. (Jehoram was already king of JUDAH for TWO YEARS even while Ahaziah was still king of ISRAEL, and obviously, Elijah hadn't ascended by then). So if Jehoram of JUDAH ruled while Elijah was still on earth, and while Jehoshaphat was LONG GONE, which Jehoshaphat ruled in Elisha's time?  Did he re-incarnate?

Note: The incidence in 2 Chronicles 21 was about the Jehoram of JUDAH, and it has already been established in 2 Kings 1:16-17 that Elijah was still very much around at this time of his reign.

I will disregard the above rhetoric.

But even if Jehoram had received that letter years after Elijah's ascension, how did the letter get to him if Elijah was in some sky, space, or some other planet? Remember, the Bible clearly states that he was taken up into "heaven" which has already been defined by you, contrary to claims that he was taken to another part of the earth.

Do u read and think upside down?

My first post states about Elijah states that he did not ascend to my primordial definition of heaven. . . .which is the abode of God. And I gave subsequent reasons.
So where is the above rants coming from?

You really do have some harsh words to throw about, don't you?  Which is really shameless?  You plagiarizing someone else's words, taking full credit for it in the process, and subsequently playing ignorant when exposed, OR I, who presented a post which adequately, yet succinctly, addressed all I could ever have written on the subject matter, and actually went on to acknowledge the source?  Besides, the post was self-explanatory.  Which further analyses did you need again?

ur points (if any) are noted.

Deep Sight:
@ Noetic -

Thank you for your responses. However i need you to be clear on a few things.

  1. You have made it clear that those who never hear of Christ will be judged based on their morality or "holiness".

  2. You made it clear that those who hear of Christ must unconditionally accept him.

I dont remember mentioning the bolded anywhere in my post. Accepting/rejecting the gospel is at the discretion of the listener. This debate has not in any way addressed that rationality of the gospel. . . . . .I will disregard the above as a helpless rant.

Might i ask you this: Consider two morally upright men, living in different parts of the world.

Would you not agree that the one who does not hear the gospel will have a HUGE advantage over the one who hears it (according to your analyses). Because the one who hears it is suddenly caught between the devil and the deep blue sea: he must unconditionally accept it (whether it makes sense to him or not), along with the burden of dogma. Failure to do so will, according to you, lead to the torment of eternal hell fire. You have made it clear also that it is absolutely irrelevant that he happens to be a very good person, sincere, kind, generous, charitable and humble. In fact, according to you it is irrelevant if, in addittion to all these things, he actually has a conception of the Almighty Creator (Olodumare, Chineke etc) and actually worships and prays to God.

All of these things (goodness, kindness, love of fellow man & worshipping God) will earn him hell-fire, so long as someone tells him about Jesus, and he does not accept Jesus.

Does this not seem absurd to you? How do you marry this with your vision of a just and merciful God?

Do you really think that Jesus would have reasoned in this fashion?

Is it lost on you that Jesus clearly states that he will welcome people to heaven who did not even know that they were his followers? Yes, people who did good all their lives. . .

By contrast, the man who never heard the gospel, according to you, is free from the burden of dogma, and can live according to his conscience and yet be confident of Salvation. If this is the case, is it not safer for all men of good conscience to avoid ever hearing the gospel, as it will thrust upon them a terrible dogmatic weight, failure to accept which, will result in eternal torment in hell fire. I ask you in all good conscience, Noetic, does this sort of reasoning make sense to you?

1. Before we proceed we need to have a substantial and acceptable definition of what it means to be morally upright? ,  . . . . . dont use vague words, they are very misleading considering ur dogmas. . . let me give u a simple definition, if u disagree with mine, dont bother to tell me why, just define urs.

moral uprightness refers to . . . ,  . , abiding by Godly principles instigated by convictions in the form of one's conscience regardless of any religion.
I will answer ur concerns based on the above definition.

2. This gospel is a message and the recipient has two simple options, either to receive or reject it. The basis of the recipient receiving it is irrelevant, but if we must debate it, it necessarily does not have to be in form of a dogma. . . . .it varies from person to person. It is simply a matter of choice to believe or disbelieve. . . . the liberty for enquiries (physical or spiritual) remains the prerogative of the recipient of the message of the gospel.

In ur analyses above the guy who never heard of the gospel . . .did not get to hear of it simply because there were no available vessels to transport the gospel to him. The definition of morality as above places him on the same pedestal before the throne of Judgement with anyone who knows Christ . . . . .the only difference is that he never had the opportunity to have the knowledge of Christ while here on earth.
By the above definition, his only exemption was the knowledge of Christ he never had. . . .As a JUST man by the works of his hands, he is considered righteous. he was NOT aware of the existence of eternity, the manifestation of the Son of God or the offer of salvation. . . . he is judged simply based on the knowledge of morality as depicted in his conscience/convictions.

The man who hears of the gospel. . .simply made a choice. He excercised his choice and chose to disbelieve the gospel. Every responsible man should learn to live by the consequences of his inactions. why would a man who rejected Jesus want to go to the heaven of Jesus?. . . . .is such a man not an hypocrite.

3. God's mercy is depicted in His ability to save a man who had no knowledge of Jesus on earth from eternal damnation.
God's judgement is depicted in ensuring that the man who rejected Jesus faces the consequences of his inactions. . . . . .this is not rocket science. . . .or is it? 

4. would Jesus have reasoned in this fashion? . . . .Jesus did not have to reason. . that was the essential purpose He came.
the 10 commandments states that we LOVE God and have none before him. . . .then love our neighbours as ourselves. . . Jesus also said that these are the greatest commandments.
Bear in mind that Jesus also asserted that He is the ONLY WAY to eternity.

In light of the above, it is pertinent to state that loving God is paramount before loving ur neighbour. can u love God without knowing God? Jesus said He is God's manifestation in human form, can u then be a buddhist, satanist, deist, muslim or atheist ,  . .who has rejected the divinity of Jesus and then claim to love God or have love in them? . . .  .sounds like HYPOCRISY and IGNORANCE to me.

I understand that u might have a completely different understanding of LOVE. . . . .but the xtian love is centred around Jesus.

It may be lost on you why i used the particular story in the intro. I wanted to exemplify the fact that many many people in the world today are so different from we who were by colonialism born into christianity, that they cannot by any means understand it. Imagine the old Monk in my example, he has been good and kindhearted all his life, honest and humble. Within your analysis, he is saved already untill he hears of the "gospel"! After he hears it, he becomes damned, because he cannot understand it! What a laugh, Noetic - think about this - the fact that your analysis clearly indicates that morally upright men who have not heard the gospel are saved, but that they may become damned once they hear the gospel! How interesting!

1. The man in ur example, died before the essentials of the gospel were read out to him. He also did not get to either reject or accept Jesus before he died. . .so ur assumptions here are largely unfounded.

2. His place in eternity has been covered on this thread . .  .have u been reading at all? 

3. when a man hears the gospel. . .he makes a choice. . . .he subsequently faces the consequences of that choice.

Let me ask you. Do you have any idea how bizzare and absurd the "gospel" would sound to many strangers of far - off cultures. A Jewish man is God. He is also the Son of God. He is killed. That death erases sins. We must accept him as "Lord" or face hell-fire.

It's actually comical, Noetic. Importantly, to the Buddhist monk, it will just sound like another foreign folk myth. For this, the otherwise righteous man will now be sent to hell.

Stop using ambiguous and imported words to support an assertion u are yet to state. . . .tell me. . . . .what does it mean to be righteous outside christianity?

My final question on this post is this:

If at all we agree that all persons must "accept" Jesus to be saved. Let me ask you, what does it take to "accept" Him? Is it by screaming in Church "Jesus is Lord"! Or is it by obeying the commandment of Love? Do you not recognise that obeying that commandment amounts "accepting" him?? Because he stated: "If you loved me, you would do my commandments!" He also stated that many who call "his name" would be turned back at the pearly gates.

What could be the reason for that, i wonder, since they have already "accepted" him as lord? Is it not clear that that "acceptance" was not required, but that a good life led by a pure conscience and love for fellow-man, is what was required?

ur concerns have been addressed in post #26

u have made this a debate and not an interview. . .so in ur next post dont ask me blanket questions. ,    .present analyses to support whatever ur claims are.

Pastor AIO:
It is not the shareholder part that is doing me, it is the front row seat. How come the front row is only reserved for Buddhists and Atheists and muslims? Why them?

You didn't even include Satanists. I don't think Ogaga4luv would be content to sit at the back.

Pastor AIO:
I originally thought Noetic only reserved that kind of language for atheists and muslims. I didn't know he addressed other christians like that too. I guess that as long as you so much as ask a question about his inventions you are going to feel the scathing force of his rhetoric.

1. what language are u talking about? . . . . .ur initial post was sarcastic, I guess the folly bounced back on u. If u found my tone offensive. . . . I do sincerely apologise. But I cannot apologise or compromise the message it encompasses.

2. which of my inventions are being scathed? u have not offered any meaningful analyses on this thread and u dare talk about scathing?. . . . I think u have an exerggerated opinion of urself.

3. why not open a thread to educate me on how reconcilable IFA is to christianity?

Deep Sight:
Noetic, are you running away?

I find the above very very offensive. why would I run away? from what? why did u not respond to my posts as soon as u saw them? . . , , .I am just seeing ur posts and would reply soon. . . .u have not said anything to warrant fresh analyses or thought provoking thinking. . . .all u have said are a pitiable repetition which I will take my time to re-emphasise in my next post.

Pastor AIO:
I'm surprised that Ifa practitioners don't have a front seat in hell too. Why are they in the back row? It seems that even in the afterworld as in this world all things african must just dey for back sha. Why now? It's not fair.

depends on what u mean by ifa priests.

1. If u refer to the HYPOCRITES/FRAUDS who hide under the banner of Christianity to import alien and FALSE doctrines into the church. . . .they are called Anti-Christs. And I believe u know what awaits them. . . .as a matter of fact, they are shareholders in hell fire.

2. if u refer to those born into the IFA culture. . . . .then my previous posts apply to them. If they have come to the knowledge of the salvation of Jesus. . .what they make of this knowledge (accepting or rejecting the gospel) determines what awaits them.

so what do u think and how do u feel. . . knowing that u are a FALSE "pastor" deceiving the body of Christ. has ur shares in hell increased?

toneyb:
The process is scientific, geologist have explained that there are different geological explanations for the different types of tree trunks(polystrate fossils ) we see around for example the in case of the polystrate trees of the Yellowstone petrified forest, which occur buried within the lahars and other volcanic deposits comprising the Lamar River Formation, the periods of rapid sedimentation are regarded by them to be the result of explosive volcanism.This type of volcanism generates and deposits large quantities of loose volcanic material as a blanket over the slope of a volcano as happened during the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Both during and for years after a period of volcanism occurs, lahars and normal stream activity wash this loose volcanic material downslope. These processes result in the rapid burial of large areas of the surrounding countryside beneath several meters of sediment as directly observed during the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. As is the case of modern lahar deposits, the sedimentary layers containing polystrate trees of the Yellowstone petrified forest and the individual forests, which these polystrate trees comprise, are discontinuous and very limited in their areal extent.

can u tender the evidences or notes taken after the formation of these polystrate fossils were formed in Nova Scotia? . . . .u claimed it is a scientific process, as such it must have been observed.
who observed it? when? where and how?

First of all you have to name just ONE geologist that agrees that tree trunks(polystrate fossils) were caused by a global flood. There are polystrate fossils that are forming outside Anchorage Alaska in the USA where the earthquake that occured in the 60s sank that section of forest into salt water. Trees are still standing, and they are being buried in layers of sediment as they stand presently. Please NAME JUST ONE geologist that agrees with your position and stop crying all over the place. The explanations for the numerous locations of the polystrate fossils is because some were cause by volcanoes(volcanic deposits), others were caused by Holocene, and others were caused by local floods that is why the polystrate are of DIFFERENT ages and lay in different sediments and strata if they were caused by a global flood they would all be of the same age and lay in the same strata.

Again you keep displaying your ignorance because tree trunks (polystarte fossils) have been discovered with roots. Geologists who have studied polystrate fossils found in sedimentary rocks exposed in various outcrops for the last 30 years have described polystrate fossil trees as being deeply rooted in place and typically rooted in recognizable paleosols. This is in sharp contrast to the claims made by creationists such as Harold Coffin and N. A. Rupke. Geologists, such as Falcon and Rygel have published detailed field sketches and pictures of polystrate tree fossils with intact root systems, which are rooted within recognizable paleosols. [/b]In case of polystrate fossil trees of the Yellowstone petrified forests, geologists, —again in sharp disagreement with creationists like Harold Coffin— found that the polystrate fossil trees, except for relatively short stumps, are rooted in place within the underlying sediments. Typically, the sediments within which polystrate trees are rooted have paleosols developed within them Either pictures or diagrams of the [b]Yellowstone polystrate fossil trees having intact root systems developed within paleosols found within these strata have been published in Retallack (1981, 1997)


You first have to tell me how my assertions are ridiculous, trying away and crying at the same time will do you no good. Geologist are the ONLY scientist that are experts in this field, Name ONE geologist that agrees with your illiterate and shameful position and assertions.

When will this empty head learn to answer simple questions . . ,
I am particularly interested in the polystrate fossils found in Nova Scotia. how come they have no roots? how did they get there? could they not have been transported by a global flood? why not? . . , . . .

wirinet:
Senseless arguments,

This thread is not about how plant came into existence but about the possibility of the Noah's story being true. If the story did not make provision for plants that exists today, that is an evidence that the story is not true.

Yes rain water does not contain salt and yes saltless water will kill most plants, so what is your argument. What do you mean by plants growing sporadically, you mean they spring up from nothing? Please explain.

Furthermore where did the extra water that flooded the whole earth a few thousand meters above see level come from? The amount of water that is on earth is constant, and what happens in terms of rain is that water is evaporated from the oceans and deposited on land as rain. To increase the sea level by that account to cover mountains would require water from outer space. And then the increased water will never return but change our sea level for ever unless it was pumped back into space.

As was mentioned earlier, it would have been easier and more cost effective for God to just have decreed everything but Noah and family out of existence and recreated them again a day after. Afterall he created the universe and all that it contained in 6 days by decrees.

Ridiculous rhetoric.

The bible asserts that all living creatures died after a flood of 40 days that took 150 days to dry off. the plants were not intended to survive.
The question is . . .how did this plants come into existence in the first place?

KunleOshob:
Has it ever occured to you that the the over 2 billion adherents of popular christianity world wide cannot possibly be on that narrow road only very few would find? As it occured to you that even this very few[the very elect] are also in grave danger of being deceived? As it occured to you that there is a great deal of deception and mis-representaion being circulated in churches today? As it even occured to you that there are some deeper truths in the bible being obscured by main stream christianity today. I am sorry my brther but popular christianity [i.e pentecostal movement and other denominations] cannot possibly be on that narrow road.

1. I have never said that popular Christianity is the narrow road. Every christian is on a unique personal journey/relationship. Why would any bible-reading/ holy spirit filled christian take the word of his pastor as the ABSOLUTE truth? , . .I dont see why. every one needs to discover the unique truth of the gospel of Christ themselves. . . . .thats where a personal study of the bible comes in.

2. that narrow road is however EXCLUSIVE to genuine christiandom. No matter the degree of good works of a person, once they have not accepted the saving grace of Jesus as preached constantly to them. . . . then they are NOT partakers of eternity.

Category E: Those who heard and rejected the gospel.

What does it mean to reject the gospel?. . ,  . . To reject the gospel is to reject the salvation offered by Jesus at the cross of Calvary and the essentially the reigning of God's kingdom. (Luke 10: 1-13). To reject the gospel is to disbelieve in the divinity, message and purpose of Jesus and also attempt to worship the father through another means thereby relegating the words of Jesus that no one gets to the father except through the son. (John 14:1-6)

who are those that have rejected the gospel?
A. Muslims.
The bible states clearly in Gal1:8-9 that . . . . if we hear another gospel that differs to the one we have been preached to, that differs to the crux of our salvation and redemption. . , whoever preaches such is accursed. Islam preaches a different gospel with several claims including:
a. the denial of the divinity of Jesus
b. the denial of the death and ressurection of Jesus. . . . .subsequently His salvation and redemption which is what His mission was all about.
c. The denial of the spiritual reconciliation Christ came to establish between man and God. islam claims that all muslims are servants and not sons as Jesus would have believers.
d. The diversion from  the core message of God. allah has proffered a distinct message from the gospel we know of.
e. allah is a local arabian moon-god.

Subsequently all muslims have rejected the true gospel of Jesus,  . . .

B. Atheists, Buddhists and "morally upright", Deists. . . .
atheists come across as logical people with illogical, dogmatic, irrational and faith infested belief system. atheist believes that there is no God. they have no proof for such neither can they offer proficient analyses. The bible calls this group of people . . ,  FOOLS (psalm 14:1)

The buddhists attempt to attain eternity (place with the father) other than through the Son (Jesus). . .but the bible is clear and certain about this. . . . (John 14:6). .  . .No one gets to the father except through the Son.

All men who have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ and were offered the choice of being saved who rejected this gospel. . . . . . .have no other HOPE of redemption. This is regardless how morally upright they are, or the good works they have done. All men have sinned (Romans 3:23). ,   .except they are forgiven (since they have heard of the gospel of redemption). . . they will receive judgement (hebrews 9:27). Buddhists are not saved. . . .Buddhism is a gospel OTHER than the one Jesus offered us for a place in eternity.

The same applies to deists. If u dont acknowledge the gift of salvation. . .there is no hope of redemption.

The above group of people have a front seat in HELL.

Deep Sight:
NOETIC -

Yes, please carry on. . . i strongly appreciate your categorization of the different groups. . .

But if you don't mind, i would like you address youR category (e) in three groups -

 1. Those who heard, understood, and rejected it and

 2. Those who heard, but could not understand on account of belonging to a foreign culture or belief system

  3. The nation of Jews, still practicing Judaism and still awaiting the Messiah even today

I am listening.

1. the fate that awaits those who rejected the gospel has been outlined above.

2. A belief system requires faith. The gospel is preached and a choice is made. the word understanding here is ambiguous. . . .cos to reject the gospel is a product of some understanding of that gospel and simply choosing to discard it. Regardless of the culture or belief system in question. . . .the gospel is preached to all for them to make a choice.
the choice is either to continue in their old ways or choose the gift of salvation.

3. The jews know who Jesus is. They RATIONALLY chose to reject Him. They are relying on the OT promise. the OT does not promise eternity to those who obey the laws of moses. . . eternity is the EXCLUSIVE gift to the saved and those who remain saved.

Purist:
Wow. . . noetic15 getting defensive?  That's funny.  I expected you to present a superior argument, not this ad hominem rebuttal.

Honestly, I have no idea what you mean when you say "pre-conceived notions".  What exactly does that mean and how does it apply to this discourse?

I'm really sorry for making unfounded assumptions about your post, though I believe anyone would easily commit the same error, considering the striking similarity between your post and the article - words almost verbatim, points presented almost in the same manner, scriptural references almost the same throughout.  Once again, I apologize.

I'm really sorry, but I cannot help you.  Last time I checked, Google was still free.

Good you mentioned that.  So since they already knew that Elijah was going to be taken, why then did a whole FIFTY of them decide to still go search for him for THREE whole days?

Come on, noetic!  Don't be lazy.  You can easily verify all these by yourself.  Oh, and by the way, I didn't claim you insinuated anything.  I was actually hoping you weren't.
[center][/center]
       
With this response, you just convinced me that you didn't bother to check the scriptural references presented to buttress the FACT that there are TWO Jehorams in the Bible.

Okay.  Point taken.

1. You FALSELY claimed that the word "heaven" in that verse refered to the abode of God. . . .  , yet u fail to contextually explore the meaning of that word in greek or hebrew like u claimed. . . . .what does that tell?

2. the 50 men as prophets still went to search for Elijah simply for the same reasons I stated in my initial post. . .did u bother to read it?  

3. u fixed a date to the era of Elijah but could not fix a date to the events of 2 chronicles. . . . . .what EXACTLY is ur point?  

4. Yes there are two jehorams. . . . .  .did i not connect the jehoram in question to Elijah?. . . . .did u read my post at all?

Purist:
@noetic15

You just added this. Why did you modify your post?

I added it on examining the link u presented. I am honest enough to admit my err. . .I dont appreciate u shamelessly copying from websites, providing sources but not proffering analyses. . . . .am I debating with a website?

Purist:
Hi noetic15,

Your submissions, so far, have been quite interesting.  However, I have some reservations.  Obviously, you got most of your points about the Elijah-Heaven explanation HERE.  That's not a problem at all, save that you didn't take enough time to cross-check some of the writer's points properly.

Do me a favour, when ever u want to debate with me or address any issue I raise. . . always drop your pre-conceived notions. This is the second and last time I will tell u this.
I did not get my points from the link in question and I do not expect that u would falsely assert that.  ,  . ,  . though I do concede that I have read some of their (gnmagazine) books in the past.

2 Kings does NOT allude to Elijah being "taken up" into another place, as you imply.  2 Kings 2:11 clearly states that he went up by a whirlwind into heaven. Check the usage of the word "heaven" in a greek or hebrew translation, and you'll realise it actually refers to God's abode in this context.  Those who were searching for Elijah, according to that passage, were obviously ignorant of Elijah's "divine journey", especially as they thought the whirlwind had literally blown him off to some mountain (2 Kings 2:16), hence their offer to help search for him.  Come to think of it, if the sons of the prophets really believed that Elijah was taken up into another kind of heaven, as opposed to God's abode, and as you and the writer would like to make us believe, then why would they have bothered to organize a manhunt for Elijah?  Were they dumb?  Or are you, or the writer in anyway implying that the "mountain" or "valley" talked about in the passage, would pass for some other definition of heaven too?  In fact, the folly of this ridiculous assertion is further made evident by the fact that Elisha - who actually knew better - had told the 50 men to save their breath.  In another situation, we read of Jesus ascension into heaven too (Mark 19:16).  The composition of this statement, in the original hebrew or greek translation, is actually the same as that of the Elijah situation as well, only that this time, Jesus's sitting position in His new abode was emphasized.

1. Can u help me with the usage of the "heaven" word in greek and hebrew? what was the word used in this context. . .  , and how was it refering to the abode of God?

2. 2 kings 2:5 tells that the 50 men who eventually went to look for Elijah were prophets, who had received revelations from God about the "ascension" of Elijah. they told Elisha that Elijah was to be taken up. were they ignorant of Elijah's future? since they had heard from God, why would they go to seek for Elijah again when Elisha came back?
do u read the bible upside down?   

I hope you are not of the erroneous belief that the books of the Bible are arranged in a sequential chronoligical order?

For starters, the book of 2 Chronicles is a RECORD of events between the beginning of Solomon's reign (970 B.C.) and the beginning of Babylonian captivity (586 B.C.).  Interestingly, Elijah is described to have lived in the 9th century B.C. in the Kingdom of Israel during the reign of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel, who ruled either between 869 B.C. and 850 B.C. or between 874 B.C and 853 B.C., depending on which scholarly historical analysis one follows.  Therefore, it is very wrong of you to assume that the events in 2 Chronicles, including Chapter 21, took place "many years" after Elijah's ascension.

where did I insinuate this?  can u fit a date to the events of 2 chronicles? . . .  .this would be appreciated.

There is no indication that Elijah went up to heaven before he sent the letter to King Jehoram of Judah. We read at 1 Kings 22:50 and 2 Kings 1:17 that Jehoram became King of Judah two years before a different King Jehoram became king of Israel. It wasn't until the NEXT chapter at 2 Kings 2:11 (during the reign of this other King Jehoram of Israel) that we read of Elijah's ascension into heaven.

It is important to note that nowhere does the Bible give a specific year for Elijah's translation into heaven. We only know that it happened sometime during the reign of King Jehoram of Israel. Since King Jehoram of Judah (who received the letter from Elijah) had already been reigning two years by the time King Jehoram of Israel took the throne, Elijah could have easily sent his letter to King Jehoram of Judah before his ascension into heaven at 2 Kings 2:11.

2 Chronicles 21:19 notes that Jehoram of Judah began to experience the effects of the condemning words in Elijah's letter two years before he died in the eighth year of his reign, so it is reasonable to conclude that Elijah's letter and his subsequent translation to heaven occurred sometime between Jehoram of Judah's second to sixth year of reign.

Source: http://www.4witness.org/jwscripture/jw_2chron21_12.php#f2b

Busted.

The rubbish above requires simple common sense and not rocket science.

1. do u know who king Jehosaphat is? was Elijah around during his reign?
If he wasnt. . ,  .how could he have been around during the reign of his son? did elijah and elisha experience prophethood at the same season?

its ok if u reply my posts. . . but try to think ur points through before pressing the reply button. . . .  , thank u.

wirinet:
The same old Noetic we know, spewing ignorance, insults, one liners and anything his fingers can type, just to defend his untenable dogmatic position.

So you do not know that majority, (over 90%) of the water on earth is Salt water, and that salt water covers about 70% of the earth's surface. So if the surface of the whole earth should be covered by water, you expect it to be fresh water?

Please always think before you hit the reply button

Same old wirinet. . . . .always running round in circles.

1. u still have not told me how the plants came into existence? . . , .if u can answer this, then we can assume that all plants died during the flood and then find out how come we have plants today.

2. does ALL rain water contain salt? . . . . NO. . . . .could a saltless water/flood have killed the plants? . . .yes. . , . do plants grow sporadically?. . . . , YES YES YES

why dont YOU watch the video and then ask questions. . . . .to educate ur ignorance and concerns.

huxley:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp6KKg1MVtA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw0P0H9jcQA&feature=video_response

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWt2Hxj3D60&feature=video_response

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvP4qiswy3E&feature=video_response

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2XV-gv6A1w&feature=video_response

when are we going to discuss the evolution of man? why are we not evolving?. . . .why are humans reproducing?. . . . .

wirinet:
Can somebody tell me how the Plant kingdom survived the floods. Plant could not have survived the salt water as a result of a global flood. Noah would have needed to take the seed of every seeding plant and a sample of every seedless plant.

Or maybe God recreated all the plants.

a. how did the plants come into existence in the first place?

b. does ALL rain water contain salt?

toneyb:



You are a VERY dishonest person, once your ignorance and dishonesty has been exposed you come up with your meaningless one liners that only show how dishonest you are. Here it is  once again. [b]Scientist(geologist) have provided so many explanations for their existence. In geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation. Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors. For example, geologists such as John W. F. Waldron and Michael C. Rygel have argued that the rapid burial and preservation of polystrate fossil trees found at Joggins, Nova Scotia was the direct result of rapid subsidence, caused by salt tectonics within an already subsiding pull-apart basin, and resulting rapid accumulation of sediments.
[/b]

How has it not been proven? Has your own ridicolous lies been proven? you are yet to name ONE geologist that agrees with your ignorant and lying position, Can you name just ONE geologist that agrees with your position that polystrate fossils were formed as a result of a global flood? Geologist were only responding to the creationist lies that polystrate fossils came about as a reslut of global flood. Let me repeat what I have written before can you explain to me why the "Polystrate fossils" aren't all the same age and why they aren't in the same layer which is what one would expect if they were caused by a single worldwide event. Please go and do some learning before coming here to embarrass yourself please. In addition to what I have written there are "Polystrate fossils" that are forming outside Anchorage Alaska in the USA where the earthquake that occured in the 60s sank that section of forest into salt water. Trees are still standing, and they are being buried in layers of sediment as they stand presently.

Must you keep disgracing yourself? In geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation. Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors.

Are you putting your tail inbetween your legs

Can anyone read and make sense of what this deluded goon is saying? 

1. what evidence supports the ridiculous claims u foolishly stated above as arguments from Rydel and Waldron? who buried this fossils? how were they buried? when?
The process involved in the formation of this fossils as u claim. . .was it scientific? . . . . , does this EMPTY head understand simple english? 

2. Can this deluded Ignorant hunchback show any evidence or research material to suggest that polystrate fossils in Nova Scotia developed where they are without having roots?
can he tell us why it is impossible for this polystrate fossils to have been transported by a global flood? what explanation does the IGNORAMUS have on the numerous locations of the flood?
does this guy have a brain at all? 

3. can this empty head in very simple words . . .for the third time in asking. . .tell me why polystrate fossils found have no root? . ,  . .does your last post make any sense?  does it give any scientific insight on the rootless nature of polystrate fossils found in Nova Scotia? are u sick? 

4. how does the support of a geologist support ur ridiculous assertions?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=335826.msg4733352#msg4733352 date=1255540889]ha ha ha ha. . . . .Na today you start to dey craze? [/quote]suit urself

Category D:

Refers to those who hear the gospel, receive and remain saved. .  ,  . i.e they died as God's children whose name are in the book of life.
I have already analysed what it means to hear and receive the gospel. I also stated the basis of salvation and being a child of God,  . ,  . ,  to remain saved and die saved leads to all the rewards Christ promised notably is the God-like ability to live and dwell in eternity without any limitations.

What awaits this group of people?. .  . .The bible is very clear that what these people will inherit from God is beyond human imagination (1 corth2:9). . . .but the bible also telle us that they get. . , Eternal life, a crown of glory, a crown of righteousness, the privilege of seeing God,  the incorruptible crown, crown of rejoicing, crown of life, inheritance with God. .  . .an eternity at peace. (1 thes2:19, 2Tim4:8, 1peter5:4, 1Corth9:25, James1:12, revelation2:10 and several other verse)

Conclusively: this group of people inherit a place with God in eternity.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=335826.msg4733199#msg4733199 date=1255539413]Even though I've been quite busy shuttling around coz of work, i've been following this thread and i must say i respect pastor's convictions on god. If all religionists were like him honestly the world would be such a happy place. . .we'd be kissing one another here on the religion section instead of the usual fighting. . . One love pastor.[/quote]A diluted version of the gospel is appealing to a helpless atheist . . . . , its a narrow road and only FEW find it. . . .Jesus said so and not me.