₦airaland Forum

Bastage:
I'm not daft. You are. Or do you now think that Islam is not an Abrahamic religion?
Let me remind you of what you said:

Really? Islam not an Abrahamic religion then? What's the point in even arguing with you when you don't know the basics?

can u read to comprehend at all?

while differentiating the Abrahamic religions on the basis of BELIEFS . . . .I specifically avoided mentioning or referring to Islam. Simply because the islamic concept of "God" contains many fraudulent claims that are not intended to be discussed on this thread.
Why is that so hard for u to understand?  

No. You are confused. I've already explained how gods are given attributes by their followers. I've already explained how when you pile a different attribute on top of something time and time again, it comes to be something else. Something unrecognisable from the original. Maybe you're just too dumb to understand? Want me to repeat myself?

No, the primary cos of disagreement remains your ignorantly driven fraudulent assertion that Yahweh is a desert God.
. . . . IF the beliefs of two theists on an ontological attribute of a creator differ . . . .does that mean they are talking of different deities? . .
Dude, admit your ignorance.

This is basically the same drivel as your last quote. Yet here you actually use the words "muslim god". Would this be the same Abrahamic god as Yaweh or a different one? If it's the same one, why not just call it God? But you can't can you?

Do I have to educate u on every simple sub-subject?  The muslims have a different deity simply because its(koran allah) ontological attributes differ on a large scale to that of Yahweh/Jehovah/El. If u were ignorant of this assertion, how then would u understand the ontological similarities between the Biblical names of God u attribute to imaginary different deities?

You've just totally contradicted your whole argument with those two words. If there is a Muslim god and a Christian god it cannot be the same god. You would not need to use the words Muslim, Christian or Jew. It would just be God!!!

will u SHUT UP?  

1. This thread discusses the presumed different ontological attributes of Yahweh, El and Elohim. how EXACTLY did the muslim god come in? . . .  .it came in, due to your fraudulent attempt to discredit the universal ontological attributes of God as proclaimed in the bible . . . .thus u claimed the existence of a universal God via Abrahamic religions.

2. I refused to be drawn into such "debate" since it was clearly obvious that the ontological attributes of the muslim god (allah) and Yahweh/El are completely DIFFERENT based on scriptural accounts.

3. Since this thread does not attempt to discuss the existence of a "universal God" that reconciles islam with Christianity. . . . .how then am I supposed to have contradicted my argument by mentioning a muslim god?  

So now you're too inept to type "History of religions" into Google? How many of the 2 million three hundred and ten thousand pages that are returned would you like me to quote?

This is lazy, dumb, ridiculous, unintelligent, . . . . . of u. Your inability to construct a meaningful argument and provide substantial proofs to back up your ridiculous assertion about Yahweh (but instead refer me to google) makes my tummy ache.

My god!! Am I really going to have to explain it to you again? Once the Hebrews became urbanised, the nature of their god changed. So much so that some continued changing it, eventually leading to the creation of Christianity.

You can do better. how EXACTLY did a desert God transform ontologically, the moment the israelites reached the promised land?
The least expected of u is to construct a meaningful analyses like an educated person would.

Baseless?

"The earliest Yahwistic traditions reveal that Yahweh was a bedouin war god from the deserts of Edom and of the surrounding regions. His essentially warlike characteristics are demonstated by his name, by cultic celebrations of his mighty deeds, and by his ark."

http://www.biblicalheritage.org/God/el-goi.htm

I am too disappointed.

who were the edomites? they are the sons/descendants of Esau. Esau was the brother of Jacob, the sons of Isaac. Isaac was the promised child of Abraham. Abraham was the friend of El. Yahweh introduced Himself as the God of Abraham.

Since Esau served Yahweh like His father did, why is it not obvious to you that the Edomites were serving the LIVING God like the Israelites were? Also remember (I am assuming u knew) that Yahweh asked the Children of Israel NOT to ever war against the Edomites.

And there


No. That's just pathetic - resorting to semantics because you have no other argument. But read my post again. Even there you are wrong.
Let me quote what I wrote:Now go back to school and learn some grammar. Maybe it will tell you what the apostophes around "has stated" mean.

Do u have selective amnesia or what? ,  . . this was what u said

Quite simply, he didn't. Men said that. And because men reinforced that statement through warfare, corruption and brain-washing, idiots like you continue propogating the lie.

You display your intellectual emptiness (when your ignorance is exposed)by attributing the words of God to men . .  . , and later twist to ridicule God (when allowed to display your folly) by claiming that those same words are God's.

m_nwankwo:
Hi Noetic. The information I stated in my post is not from the bible. What I said is what I am permitted to spirtually draw from the laws of God. The laws of God record every happening in creation and sometimes I am permitted to look into these records. Now I intentionally did not say the name because it is a name most christians are familiar with and it will raise more questions and will lead into step by step revelation of identity of Elijah in his various incarnations on earth. I do not consider the revelation of his identity to be of spirtual benefit. Besides, I am also not permitted to reveal the identity of this specially called servant of God. But that does not mean that others cannot not come to such knowledge. It lies in the omniscience of God to reveal such to any seeker who need it for his own clarification. Stay blessed.

may I ask, what religion u practise?

Bastage:
How blind.
So you worship the same god as the Muslims? If so, you're about the first literalist that I've heard admit it.

Are u so daft?  did I mention islam in any of my posts? . . . I limited my assertions to judaism and Christianity. how did u miss that?

At least you admit that there are different beliefs so 'll put it in simple terms for you - gods are defined by their believers - wether that be Allah, Jehovah, Yaweh or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. The believers define the god's attributes so that others can follow.

Says who? what happened to their (God) ontologies?. . .  , Two theists whose difference in opinion is the need for the worship of God. One believes that God ought to be worshipped and the other says No . . . .how EXACTLY does that define two different deities?
Dude, get real, u are confused.

Muslims don't have a problem with putting to death apostates because their god has stated that it's required. Yet the Christian god does not ask for the same punishment does he? What do you think? That there's a god who's got one rule for one lot of followers and then another rule for the next lot? There are thousands of other differences that are attributed to the god and force the different followers to follow different rules. Don't be so ignorant.

is the apostate killing not an ontological attribute/injunction of the muslim god? ,  . . why would u define the muslim god by its ontology, but the Xtian God by His followers? . .  . .do u think at all? 

Do you honestly think I've got the time to present the millions of pieces of evidence that depict religious and theistic evolution? Ridiculous. Go hit Google and look for yourself. I'm literally speechless that you would ask for evidence when it is everywhere.

what a joker 
U dont have the time to prove ur RIDICULOUSLY UN-FOUND assertions, but u do have the time to post repeatedly. . . . .does this dude think he is addressing a bunch of skool kids? 
The onus is on you to PROVE ANY of ur assertions using historical and theological evidences like u boasted.

Again, you show absolutely and utterly no understanding of the subject whatsoever. A god's ontology isn't affected by where he sprang up? That statement totally disregards the contents of the very book that you profess to follow. Have you even bother reading Exodus or Deutoronomy? A nomadic people wandering through the desert with their god directing them and specifying actions that are specific to their environment. How can ontology do anything but be defined by the geographical and cultural origins of the god?

You just confirmed my worst fears . .  .u are plainly ignorant of the subject matter.
IF the geographic location defined Yahweh in the desert as a desert God . . . .what does it define Yahweh as the moment they got to the promised land?
The point is u made a baseless assertion to state that Yahweh was a desert God. .  .simply because that does not put into cognizance His other ontological attributes. If u choose to define Him by location. . .was HE served only in the desert?

Quite simply, he didn't. Men said that. And because men reinforced that statement through warfare, corruption and brain-washing, idiots like you continue propogating the lie.

At ur convenience u claim "Men said . ,  ." and at ur inconvenience u claim "Yahweh said . . , " Dude, get real and stop running around in circles.

Paul's disciples put the bible together, and they made sure his teachings constituted most of the NT. Even the Gospels weren't spared. Mark and Luke never met Christ. They were companions of Paul's. The Acts of the Apostles chiefly concerned itself with Paul. Scholars tell you Peter never wrote 1st and 2nd Peter but Paul's people did. There are many stylistic giveaways. They didn't want to include the Gospel of John, but finally did so after much editing of the text. Most of the original apostles wrote gospels and eye-witness accounts, as did many others who personally knew Christ, like Joseph of Arimathea, Madgalene, Nicodemus.etc. They don't get featured in the bible Pauliners composed and shoved down the throat of the rest of humanity. Of course they'd insist it was holy and infallible. and must never be questioned Afterall their authority rested on it. If people started asking questions they were done for. Like, Who is Paul that his teachings should usurp Christ's? Where did he get his doctrines since he refused to learn from the apostles? Why be so insecure as to insist his personal opinions is God talking, falsely borrowing authority, a tactic of many religious charlatans? He's zealous, but zealous for which Christ exactly; one he invented or the genuine Christ? [/b[b]]If it's the real Christ why do their teachings differ in many respects? That 'holy' and 'infallible' doctrine survived, mostly by indoctrinating people early, as children. It's the most powerful and never departs from you. Of course the same people who say the bible is infallible soon started insisting a man, the 'Pope', is holy and infallible too. Give it as much time as the bible has had, hundreds of years, and no one will question that either.

how does Paul's teachings differ from that of Christ?

justcool:
I agree with m_nwankwo on the issue of John the baptist being Elijah. John the baptist is not Elijah; however people always point to the fact that the bible reported Jesus as saying that John the baptise was Elijah.

I believe that the solution to this bible verse lies in the correct understanding of the language, and the context in which the expression was made. (If Jesus actually said that).

One should consider that sometimes in every language a person's name is used to represent something, especially something that person was known for. For example I could say that my brother is a Maradona. Even a child can deduce that what I meant was that my brother is a good footballer or dribbler, not that he is actually maradona. Thus the name Maradona, in this context, represent a very good footballer.

It is my perception that the name Elijah in that biblical context represents a forerunner. Elijah was a forerunner; his life impacted the Jews so much that his name became synonymous with a forerunner, a person sent from God to warn or to awaken the people, a powerful and fiery prophet. 

Thus when Malachi wrote: "See, I am sending you Elijah the prophet before the day of the Lord comes, that great day, greatly to be feared."(Malachi 5:4)

This could mean: "I will send you an Elijah the prophet," Thus one who will come to warn and to prepere you for the day of the lord, just like Elijah did warn and prepare the people.

And consequently, when mathew reported Jesus as having said, "And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come."[New international Version 1984](Mathew 11:14)

I believe that here(If Jesus actually said that), He was comfirming that John the baptist was the forerunner which was promised to you, thus the forerunner which Malachi wrote about. Thus John the baptist was an Elijah; or the Elijah which Malachi wrote about. In other words, John the baptise came on a similar mission as Elijah did; to warn and prepare the people.

Elijah came to warn and prepare the people; he was a forerunner for the Truth. John the baptist also came to prepare the people for the message of Christ; thus he was a forerunner too.

In another translation of the bible we read, "If you are willing to accept their message, John is the Elijah who was to come." [Gods word Transaltion 1995](Mathew 11:14).
By putting "the" before the name Elijah, this translation confirms that the name Elijah was used as a figure of speech and not necessarily that John the baptist was Elijah.

I will give an example. If we receive a prophesy that a Maradona will be sent to Nigeria before the end of this century. This does not necessarily mean that that particular Argentine footballer called Maradona will be sent to Nigeria. In this context the name 'Maradona' is used as a figure of speech. Thus the prophesy simply means that a great footballer will be sent to Nigeria.

Consequently when a great footballer rises in Nigeria, a knowing one could say that this is the Maradona promised to us. This does not mean the knowing one meant that the great footballer is a reincarnate of the Argentine Maradona.

Another example: If one receives a prophesy that an Abacha will win the next presidential election in Nigeria. This prophesy does not mean that the next president will be the reincarnate of Abacha; rather it means that the next president will do the same thing that Abacha did.

This is my perception of the issue. I am sure that John the baptist was not Elijah reincarnated.

Thanks.

Nope. On the contrary, Christ never meant [i]"THE" [/i]Elijah. . . , he simply meant Elijah as a person. Christ conversation on this subject is written in at least 4 places of the NT bible . . . .just read again.

Bastage:
Are you being serious? It seems to me that you must be joking by asking those questions.
Otherwise how do you explain the 3 different Abrahamic religions?
If there were no difference, there would be one universal religion.
Please man, try to take things seriously. The answer is so huge and yet you can't see it!!!

is this not dumb? The abrahamic religions are divided on the basis of beliefs. The jews (judaism) are still expecting a messaih, the xtians believe He has already come. . . , how EXACTLY does that show 3 different deities?. . . .  .quite evasive and silly.

No. Through a thorough study of history and theology and not by taking the Bible literally. The latter would be totally illogical.

What historical and theological analysis did u profer?   where is your logical rationale presented from history?  

Again, a crazy question. Organised religion sets the standards and tells you what you must believe. People tell you what God is about. For a literalist to dispute this fact is utterly ridiculous - their god is more defined by other people than any other sector.

This is plain stupid.

You called Yahweh a desert God . . . .why should a God's ontology be defined by the place of worship? was Yahweh not worshipped in the promised land? is HE not being worshipped in cities all over the world today? are u this dumb?  

They sure did. But El wasn't Yaweh. He was the Canaanite god El. The Bible even tells you that Abraham was a Canaanite.

Idiot.

Why then did Yahweh call Himself the God of Abraham? and why did Abraham's descendants accept Him to be so?

m_nwankwo:
Elijah is not John the Baptist. Jesus never said that Elijah is John the Baptist. It is true that Elijah was around when the son of God was on earth but he is not John the Baptist as most people seem to suggest. Elijah in his new physical body (will not mention his name at that time) was a close follower of Jesus. In addition the story of killing the baal prophets is a legend woven around his name. Elijah did not kill anybody although he did confront the prophets worshiping false gods. Elijah faithfully fulfilled his mission and on his earthly death, his soul returned to the kingdom of God where he was prepared for his future mission as a close associate of Jesus, the son of God when he walked the earth 2000 years ago. John the Baptist is a forerunner to the Truth and whenever their will be a physical incarnation of Truth (God), John the Baptist will be sent to clear the way for a son of God. Thus the beheading of John the Baptist has no relation to Elijah. John the Baptist was beheaded because of the evil volition of humans, a consequence of hatred by the darkness to everything that is of the Light.

I had like u to shed more light . . , and whats the source of the assertions above? Cos Jesus states clearly in the 4 gospel books that Elijah was John the baptist, and Madmax's analyses tends to make loads of sense.

Bastage:
I agree with PastorAIO. Your assertion does not take into account evolutionary factors within religion. The God of Abraham in the OT is of a different personality to that of Moses'. Take it further down the line and he's totally different from the god in the NT. The god evolved and morphed into another as his followers developed and expounded on their religion. There are many, many instances where religion has evolved and the nature of god has changed with them. Judeo/Vhristianity is no different and there is no logical reason why that should not be so.

You have NOT said anything new or factual.
A. how did this God/Gods evolve?
B. whats the over-whelming difference in their ontologies?
C. why should ur assertions be regarded as factual?

I'd have to also disagree that the god of the early OT and that of later pages is of the same personality and ontology. Although there are some similarites, this would only be natural. But take a look further down the line to the NT and you can see that there is a clear difference - we go from warrior desert god to universal loving god - the two couldn't be further apart in character.

1. The above is just a mere opinion influenced by anti-Bible sentiments

2. Why would u define a god/God by the people who worship Him? why call Yahweh a desert God? was He not served in the promised land? is He not the same God being served today?

3. Perhaps u dont understand the concept of a universal loving God. The same Yahweh who called a desert God, is the same universal loving God, with the same ontological will . . . . .His inability to withstand sin.

Similarites do not point to El/Jehovah being the same god. it's like saying that a banana is the same as an apple because they are both fruits when clearly they are two separate organisms with different attributes. As for using the name as evidence of an identical god? Let's not forget that the Christian god also had many others. And we can't read anything into the names El or Elohim as they predate Judaism [/b]and were just general terms for the name "god".

Of course they pre-date Judaism . . . . Abraham, enoch, Isaac, Jacob, Noah NEVER practised judaism but knew El/ Elohim.

I too have read the Karen Armstrong book. Once cannot place ridicule at her doorstep as she is only repeating what many theologians have stated for years -[b] there are many gods in the bible.

where is your ontological proof?

God is a belief. A theory. Non-believers often point that out yet totally ignore the facts that theories always evolve - even in such dogmatic practices as religion.

another unfortunate display of ignorance.

Pastor AIO:
I cannot explain what I cannot see. Please show me the reconcilable ontologies. (Why the need to reconcile if they are the same, even). The Elohim are in fact plural. Were you aware of that?

I laugh in tongues.

1. I dont have to show u anything. u claimed that they are separate persons on the basis of ontology. . . . .several holes have been picked in ur ridiculous assertions. . . . .its left to u to throw up jejune points. . , . . .I am tempted to give up on u, but I wont, cos I know how deep ur folly runs.

2. I specifically avoided the name "Elohim" simply because of ur idolatry assertions. what would u make of Elohim? . . . .a bunch of cannanite idols or what?

Pastor AIO:
The educated thing to do here is to show some documentation demonstrating what you said, or at least produce an argument to support your assertion.  But alas, you lack education, don't you?

what are u talking about? . . . .  u claimed that Yahweh differs from El . . . .your innuendos were rubbished for lack of substance and u dare demand proof from me?. . .proof of what?
1. Yahweh described Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob  . . . .is that not reconcilable to El.
2. Like El did, Yahweh builds a relationship with the Jews and chooses to be their King. . . . .just like El chose to be the friend of Abraham.
3. The israelietes would later believe Moses because Yahweh was able to provide (through miraculous works) . . . . . an exclusive preserve of Eli.

. . . .  ,  what part of this ontology do u not understand?

Awww . . . pele.  Don't let it pain you too much.

honestly, It does pain me but not too much.  I am sure whoever your congregation is . . . . I pray that your satanic yoke be broken from their neck. Your congregation would hence-forth be in my prayers.

I thought that relationship that Jesus came to re-establish was the one broken by Adam in the garden of Eden.  Perhaps you can teach me more about this part of your 'christianity'.

This is what u get when u "debate" with empty-heads    . . . , did God have a rel with Abraham, Enoch and Moses?

Pastor AIO:
I did say that El was a Canaanite God and nothing you've said above has refuted that. I DID NOT say that El was a loving God, I said that he interacted with his followers on more familiar terms than Yahweh did.
All your points from a to d are totally and utterly irrelevant.

dude in contrast to Eli u claimed that Yahweh was an angry, jealous God not properly introduced to the jews? . . .what other meaning did u connote other than the one pre-stated? . . . .The least u could have done is to admit ur folly

lagerwhenindoubt:
very few doubt the historical events of a global flood and scientist have retrospectively drawn conclusions that the world was at a time covered (at least 90%) with water.

So finding Noah's ark is a logical possibility

This same scientific findings/facts have been largely misinterpreted by mazaje, toneyb, tudor et all . . . . .all in effort to ignorantly proclaim that God does not exist.

whata thread!!!

whaooo. what would happen to the ignorance of Toneyb, mazaje and other theists if and when this claims are substantiated?

Pastor AIO:
@Inesqor, let me address this because if I don't then I know that I'm in serious hot pepper soup.  

I am currently reading a book by Karen Armstrong called A History Of God.  Now, while I don't agree with a lot that she says, she brought up some interesting points.  First of all the radically different nature of El to Yahweh (or jehovah).  
El, the canaanite God which Abramham, Isaac, and Jacob worshipped was a more approachable figure.  You could sit down and have a meal with El.  In fact El came visiting Abraham with 2 other fellows of his.  Abraham welcomed them and entertained them before they then left.  His grandson Jacob even had a wrestling bout with El.  This is a very interesting ontology of El.  
And before the Muslims come jumping in and saying that it is because of corruptions in the bible let me hasten to add that this is in keeping with the way the Canaanites saw their Gods.  So it is not only the bible.  In that part of the world at that time it was possible to eat with God and even wrestle with him.  In fact in the bible there is an incident where Paul and Silas go to a Greek city and get mistaken for deities.  That could only happen if people expect to be able to see deities in physical forms.  The Hindus call them Avatars, I believe.wikipedia

I knew u were going to shoot yourself in the foot and reveal inevitable traces of ignorance.

1. The same El whom u address as a cananite and loving God who interacted with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was the same God, who
a. banished adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.
b. placed a mark/curse on Cain for killing Abel.
c. destroyed the world with flood and saved just Noah and his family.
d. destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with stones of fire.

El was always the same person as Yahweh/Jehovah, with the SAME ontology and personality. The problem is u never took time to study the bible.

2. It pains me to see u address urself as a "pastor" . . . I wonder what u teach your flock.
The same relationship El had with Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the same relationship Jesus came to re-establish with believers. If u dont believe in the sacrifice of JC. . . . .how then do u partake in this special relationship?

So these stories are not a corruption but rather in perfect harmony with the way the people of that part of the world at that time thought of their deities.

This is rather dogmatic and shows a preconceived belief that Yahweh, El, Jehovah and Elohim are different persons. This belief is erroneous as how then do u explain the reconcilable ontology of these names?

But then comes an apparently new figure.  A terrifying awe inspiring, jealous being.  A deity unheard of in Canaan.  El was a Canaanite deity.  El Elyon was the Ruler of the Gods, the Elohim, in ancient canaanite religion.  How this new deity was first encountered, not in canaan, but in Midian.  He tells Moses not to approach but to take of his shoes.  Already this is quite different from El.  El walked through paradise in the evening calling out to Adam.  Yahweh is telling man to keep a distance.

1. whats the difference between El who banished adam and Eve because of sin . . . .and the Yahweh who would not tolerate any form of sin?

2. whats the difference between the El who cursed Cain, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and the entire earth with flood . . . . .and Yahweh who brought plagues to Egypt for defying Him and asked that all idolatry nations be destroyed?

Karen Armstrong suggests that there was conflict with the introduction of Yahweh to the Israelite community, and that the Israelites didn't first accept him because they didn't know him.  I find that all highly speculative.  I have no opinion on that matter but without a doubt and by Yahweh's own admission the reason why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not know him was because he used a different name with them.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)

Karen has a preconceived agenda and you "pastor" AIO is confusingly ignorant of biblical teachings.
What other introduction could Yahweh have given His people . . . , other than[i] I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.[/i] For God's sake these are the patriarchs who the whole of Israel look up to and from whom the 12 tribes are descendants of.

Wiki continues:
Yet Yahweh seems soooo different from El in so many ontological aspects.  Not just El as he was generally understood and worshipped in Ancient Canaan, but also the El that revealed himself to Abraham in the bible.

I laugh at your ignorance in ibibio  

I'm not going to go through the entire thing right now, but the above should just be a start to whet your appetite to look deeper.
One day, if I ever get out of my present financial mess and I make a lot of money I will commission a bible to be translated that left all names intact in their original language.  So Yahweh will always be called Yahweh instead of 'The Lord' and El will always be called El instead of God along with a myriad of other names.  The Elohim will also remain strictly the Elohim ( a plural word), rather than the sons of God, or the council of God, or the Council of El even.

I think u should post it all now to educate my ignorance . . . , but why would u commission the translation  of the bible since u believe it is filled with errors?

InesQor:
By the way, I hope you have seen what I was requiring of Pastor AIO. Its not that I did not I did not understand him, like you insinuated. Rather, i returned expecting him to continue on the evolution claims since he said he would do so had he the time. And the OP also indicated interest. The post he made rather pales by far in respect of the interesting post I thought he made.

U are asking for too much, if u expect "pastor" AIO to honour his words or come up with an insightful "evolution" of Yahweh as promised, , .he normally absconds when placed on the searchlight.
I eagerly await the thread.

^^^

I have made over 4 attempts myself . . . . .try later.

mazaje:
Just give me the link pls, Mr prophet. . . . . .

just search , .I cant lay my hands on the link . . . .but the thread should be titled something . . . . .End-Time - Biblical -Prophecies.

why are u so bothered, disbeliever mazaje?

Mudley313:
so, is giving people green card the work of the christian god. cos i can bet people who are muslims, hindus, buddhist etc also end up among the winners too

contrary to ur folly . . . .the Christian God remains God over all creations regardless of their beliefs.

mazaje:
How come i have never seen ANY? . . , Pls list just one or two so that I can be aware of your prophecies. . . .Prophet noetic. . . .

search for an END-TIME PROPHETIC thread Jesoul started, . . . .there u will find some of prophet noetic's prophecies.

mazaje:
What are the prophecies that you have made prophet noetic?. . . . .Go ahead and list them let's get to know about them before the happen. . . .

they are all over nairaland.

Deep Sight:
I did not deduce anything. It is there in black and white. You stop lying. Or are you taking a cue from Yahweh?

ok.

YOUR worship of a discreditted, dishonest, genocidal and barbaric Jewish deity is reprehensible, comical and frankly embarrasing.

I laugh in spanish

Deep Sight:
^^^ Please make a coherent post jaare.

What personal vendetta is there in Pastor AIO's post? ? ? Listen - there is only ONE reason you left off and that is the fact that there is NOTHING you were able to say that made any sense in terms of defending the self-confessed lying jewish tribal deity that you worship.

If at all you read Pastor AIO's post, then you have failed to show that you were capable of understanding what he wrote.

In that case i will summarize it for you as follows -

Yahweh by his own admission has stated that he tells lies - he himself admitted that he[b] "sent lying spirits."[/b]

ur ignorance is appalling.

The dream u had in which u saw a friend asking u to hook up and it came to pass. . . , who was responsible for the dream? and what if on hooking up the friend in question had shot u in the leg . . . .who is responsible for his inactions?

Noetic is a person who has stated severally that he hears personally from God. This may be true, but Pastor's question is simply - when you hear from God, how do you know that he is not sending a lying spirit to lie to you? After-all he has done so in the past. Simple.

I hope you can see the reason Pastor selected Noetic for that comment. Its based on noetic's visions and personal revelations.

So its nothing to do with any "personal vendetta" as you comically asserted.

I think it is disgraceful, considering ur level of education that u can deduce from that passage that Jehovah lies.

Pastor AIO:
Of course the really fascinating thing here, which it seems that no one has hit upon yet, is the fact that these people were invoking Yahweh.  Do you get it?  These were his prophets calling on him to give them a message.  And indeed, a spirit sent from him came down, and it lied to them.

What are the implications of this? 

Noetic is a man that claims to talk to God often, in his dreams.  If we allow for the fact that his claims are authentic that leaves one more hurdle.  Can he trust that the revelation that he receives is the truth?  If he can, what I'd like to know are, what are his criteria for knowing whether or not God is lying to him? 

Is he arrogant enough to claim that God can never deceive him, perhaps because he is smarter than God and can see right through God when God tries to lie to him?  Or did God promise him that he wouldn't be lied to?  Well how can he be sure that that wasn't a lie. 

In fact perhaps all his hopes for Heaven in the hereafter are founded on a lie and the jokes on him.  Come judgement day, huxley and mazaje will be there on the right hand of yahweh busting their guts and rolling on the floor laughing at him as he gets thrown into a lake of fire.  Buuuuaahhahahahahahahahahahh.!!!

I am just seeing this . . .and I can only but laugh in arabic  

1. its quite obvious to anyone that the 400 prophets lied from time to time and the consistency of prophet Michaiah was testified to by king Ahab himself. That the lying spirits had the consent of Jehovah fulfils my understanding that nothing happens outside of the knowledge of God. But never-the-less we saw Jehovah send His word through His prophet.

2. Jeremiah 29:11 best explains the thoughts of God towards me  . . . . .

3. Numbers 23:19 affirms that God would not lie.

4. One of the reasons why I refuse to permanently leave nairaland is because of resident atheists and unbelievers like you. The prophecies I have made will come to pass soon . . . . .and through their fulfilment, It is my heart-felt hope that u would realise that there is indeed a God who loves you and has paid the ultimate ransom for us all.

Zodiac61:
Selfishness and being self centred parading as piety.
Getting a green card is down to god!!!!
Do you have to be a believer to get that these days? 
Christianity has become about ME, ME, ME. as long as I get what I want, praise the Lord and screw the rest.
This so-called testimony is a disgrace.

did u make any sense?

^^ better

Mudley313:
mr. jesus. i'm happy u're finally here to speak 4 your self (*sarcasm*)

so. . . while u were here on earth. . .

1. why did u not ever mention about "the bible"?

Bible is a collection of scriptures. on more than 100 occasions Jesus quoted the scriptures, which we call bible today. are u so dumb u did not know this?

2. why did u not ever mention about christians n the religion "christianity"?

The word Christian is formed from the words . . . .Christ + believer/follower. Since it is impossible for anyone to believe that Christ had died for their sins, when Christ was alive . . . .there was as such no need for mentioning Christianity. Christ died and as many as believe in His sacrifice of redemption are called Christians.
u dont need special education to know the above

3. u are suppose to be god as well. why did u not write down "your word" while u were here in human form? or are u an illiterate god?

how do u think the OT was written? and why do u think the NT was written? You are better off doing a little bit of research before ejaculating ur ignorance on this forum.

4. while u were here on earth u were a practicing jew. why are your followers following sumthin different?

The jews have NOT performed a sacrifice since the demise of Jesus for nearly 2000 years. So the jewish religion has NOT been completely performed ever since Jesus rose from the dead.

That was not rocket science . . . .stop embarrassing urself, do a little research and get educated.

MyJoe:
^^^ I cannot dispute the above. I cannot. But as you may have noticed, I am here concerned about the usefulness of it all in our apprehension of the ultimate reality. Your abilities have not led you nearer to finding the definite truth about things, have they? You see, I recently attended a forum where the lecturer told someone: "You believe. We know." What makes him make that statement which I find presumptions? That is what I am going on about in this thread.

Why is there no single theme that runs through REVELATIONS which spiritual people hold up as coming from God to serve as "proof" that their way is right?

The last statement has IMO clarified this thread.

1. there are no universal theme for revelations that come from God, simply because many other spirits choose to impersonate God.

2. DS is not a believer, yet he has dreams that do attain reality . . . .this is testimony to any ignorant atheist, that there is a spiritual realm that strongly influences the physical.

Deep Sight:
All in my head? I don't know about that.

I was in Dar es Salam for a Managed Servces negotiation two weeks ago.

One night I woke up from a dream. In the dream a friend of mine who I had not seen or heard from for 16 years was sitting beside me. He simply said, Long, time, how have you been, we should hook up soon.

I last saw or thought of this fellow when we last saw back in secondary school. So I never think of him. He is entirely outside my worldview.

I got up because it was close to morning and I went online on my laptop.

The first message that fell into my mailbox was from that Friend I had just seen in the dream. It simply said, Long time, how hove you been, we should hook up soon.

I got back to Lagos and my brothers told me that he had visited my house that very day.

I know very well that it is not all in my head because since I was a child there is nothing significant that happens around me which I do not see in a dream some days or weeks in advance.

GBAM GBAM GBAM

where is mazaje and his ignorance? I laugh in somali

Deep Sight:
^^^ Absolutely spot on!

A God who is described as absolute truth and supposedly bearing such attributes as mercy[b] cannot also be responsible for repeated injunctions to senseless genocide and ethnic cleansing[/b]. . . this smacks of an egoistic pagan deity whose injunctions probably originated from the bedrooms of the human kings of the Jews.

and what happened to ur objectivity . . . . .since God called it JUDGEMENT? The same way u might receive judgement in HELL if u do not accept Him gift of mercy.

mazaje:
Did you bother to read the entire entry on the dark ages from wikipedia or did you just pick out what you wanted to see? . . .Here is it from wikipedia. . . .

Enlightenment

"During the 17th and 18th centuries, in the Age of Enlightenment, many critical thinkers saw religion as antithetical to reason. For them the Middle Ages, or "Age of Faith", was therefore the polar opposite of the Age of Reason.[22] Kant and Voltaire, among others, were vocal in attacking the religiously dominated Middle Ages as a period of social regress, while Gibbon in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire expressed contempt for the "rubbish of the Dark Ages""

This is both dishonest and dogmatic, mazaje.

1. There were many things that described the dark ages and the dark age was not singularly characterised by religious beliefs but largely by anti-roman-empire criticism. The highlights of the dark-age was NOT religion. . ,  .which is quite contrary to the impression u are attempting to create here.

2. Those who considered religion are antithetical to reason are called free-thinkers. who EXACTLY are free-thinkers? these are persons who analyse issues and bring reasons independent of any religious beliefs . ,   .these dudes are called ATHEISTS in this century. How objective is any reasoning that rules out a possibility? how objective is any attempt to analyse creation and rule out the possibility of a creator?. The goons who came up with the ridiculous assertion that the dark ages are littered with religion are simply atheists . . . . .and their submission was not totally accepted.

3. Religion has continued to influence this world in innumerable ways and is perhaps the most influential subject on the planet today. any attempt to state otherwise is simply dishonest and not objective.

YES the west has developed because it has DUMPED religion and has decided to use reason instead of blind religious mythical narratives and dogma as it source of guiding principle. . . .Which of the leaders of the developed world believes that we are in the end of days?. . .Which leader of the developed world through their actions tells you that he believes in any of the religions Africans believe in? Will president Obama spend or invest almost a trillion dollars into the American health care system if he believes that prayer cures diseases?. . . .Will the developed countries spend trillions of dollars in maintaining the defense apparatus if they believe that God alone protects them?. . . There is a COMPLETE separation of church and state in all developed countries. . . .Why do they allow evolution to be taught in their public schools and not religious studies?. . . . .Why are they spending billions on NASA and ESA trying to find out evidence for the scientific origin of the universe or if intelligent life form exist in other parts of the universe if they truly believe that god created the universe and is only concerned with earth as written in all religious mythical books?

dude, just name ONE western (first world developed nation) leader who is not a theist . . .  .you cannot name any.

1. is the American health care system independent of the knowledge of God? would we have the cures to diseases today without the help  and inspiration of God?. . . , No we definitely would not. I for one, consider it both unfortunate and misinformed for anyone to assume or believe that the scientific community is independent of God. Lets put aside ur hatred and disbelief in God. . . . .if a God indeed created the world, would He be ignorant of the scientific creations of His creations (man)? . . . .I dont think so.

2. The separation of church from state is NOT anti-religion but largely liberalism and a tolerance for the non-religious. has liberalism brought more scientific development to the west than religion has?

3. Evolution is taught in schools because of the liberalism and NOT anti-religion posture of the powers that be. Do not misinterpret liberalism for anti-religion. allowing minority views and opinions a breathing space is not the same as victory for the anti-religion? otherwise, how do u explain the schools who also refuse to teach evolution? or the many holes in evolution?

4. please stop mixing the facts. NASA was primarily set up in 1958 to counter the soveit intelligence in aeronautics and not to proof ur imaginary doctrine that God does not exist.

The belief that the world will end is not a world wide belief. . .It is a belief held by people that subscribe to the Abrahamic faiths. . . .The people of the middle east believe that islam will conquer the world first before it comes to an end. They are more interested in that, hence the need for them to develop themselves and make sure they aid that process and make his happen according to their beliefs. . .Majority of them do not believe that the earth will come to an end during their life times. . . .

EXACTLY the point.

All people around the world believe that the world would end . .  . .and that includes budhists, atheists, hindus and many others.
As such it is ridiculous on the part of anyone to state that this belief is responsible for the poor state of Africa.

No, but a survey was conducted on Africans no?. . . .

why dont u convey a study on Arabs then and find out.

They are openly theist but they have learn to drop their theistic beliefs when matters of the state are concerned. . . .The COMPLETE separation of church and state is what has made them to develop. . . .

how do they drop their theist beliefs when matters of state are concerned? I think u have an exaggerated opinion of atheism.
Strategy, common sense, intelligence and intellectual superiority have ALWAYS been part of the Christian faith . . .perhaps u need to study the lives of Daniel, David, Saul, Esther, Deborah et all to have a gasp on biblical/ Godly intelligence.

The ONLY thing stopping africa from developing is out silly and ridiculous beliefs in absolute NONSENSE. . . .Its not just the imported religions and their gods that we too much believe in but also our traditional belief and mentality. . . .African in this age and time still believe that sacrificing the head of an albino to some imaginary indigenous gods will make them rich. . . .There was an Aljazeera documentary that ran last year on this phenomenon in Mali. . . .These ridiculous and obsolete beliefs are prevalent all over Africa. . . How do you expect to build fortune 500 companies when the people truly believe that sacrificing human heads to imaginary gods or demons will make them super rich?. . . .Its always on mythical believe or another from mammy water, to evil spirits to demons etc. . . . .

I laugh in japanese 

1. when Christianity was brought into Africa, Africans were NOT developed, that explains why they were used as slaves. Those who brought Christianity to Africa were far more deveoped than Africa, that explains why they had a need for slaves.

2. Africa is not developed because it lacks leaders with foresight and not because of religion.

How do you expect people to have foresight when they believe in various kind of nonsense. . . .Why research on cure to disease when so many people truly believe that some disease are caused by witches and demons and can only be cured by offering prayers to gods or babalawo?. . . .I repeat why spend time fighting corruption when half the people believe that the world is going to end during their life time and they are going to go to an imaginary better place and enjoy forever?. . . . . .

1. what u are talking about here is NOT religion but illiteracy. The people are illiterates and as such cannot think objectively.

2. is the research for the cure of diseases independent of religion? how then do u explain the fact that there are many theist scientists?

MyJoe:
Noetic16, There are orthodox Jews, Hasids and other sects who still see themselves as God's chosen people.

if so, why then did u make your primordial statement, about an anti-religion jewish state?

There are moderate Jews who don't care much. There are atheist Jews. But the Prime Minister of Israel does not take instructions from a prophet or priest, like King David allegedly did.

says who? how do u know this for a fact? are u a member of the PM's family?

The Constitution of the State of Israel spells out a democracy modeled on the Western ideals of the Rule of Law; it is not a faith document like the Torah or Quran.

your understanding of God is really really ignoble and largely misinformed. are western or eastern ideas independent of God's knowledge? and are these western states independent of faith beliefs and doctrines?

Israeli scientists do not recite the ten commandments in their laboratories. I hope you understand this. . .

Dude, again I am sadly disappointed. myjoe is science in parallel or opposite to God? 

Pele. Didn't mean to embarrass you. Your knowledge of Africans and understanding of how deferring to higher powers has impacted on them is impressive. Keep it up. 

Your assertions were/are ridiculous  . . . .(no intent to be offensive)

You erroneously create the impression that Africans expect God to come and do everything for them . . . .that explains my analogy that do I expect God to come and cultivate my farm for me. . .  simply because I believe in Him?
why not take time out to experience why people genuinely trust God.

Mudley313:
to the grave n rot away. just like anybody else

what an ignorant "FOOL" you are.