₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight:
Now Noetic this is what I meant by my statement that you are not being honest.

Can you honestly assert as you do that “Se.x is not an ingredient necessary for human survival.”

This statement is capitally FALSE in all its ramifications.

Indeed i hardly need to elucidate. The human race is sustained, and has been sustained till date by reproduction based on sexual activities.

I hope you do not need me to explain the relationship between group survival and individual instincts? When there are processes that ensure the survival of a group or species, then the instincts that drive such processes are hardwired into the individuals that make up the group.

Thus the sexual process which guarantees the survival of the species is hardwired as an instinct into each individual. That is the elementary connection, Noetic.

1. SE.X is not in any ramification a need for human survival. there are eunuchs who have willingly castrated themselves and lost every means and need for sexual pleasure. These persons do survive and have NO need for se.xual pleasure . . . . .check www.eunuchinfo.com for further details.

2. The existence of self-castrated persons annuls every innuendo u are attempting to establish as a fact. NO SIR, SE.X IS NOT AN INGREDIENT NECESSARY FOR HUMAN SURVIVAL.

3. If however u argue that intimacy is necessary for reproduction as ordained by the creator. . . . then u must be willing to conform to the restrictions and boundaries he set for se.x which includes fornication.

I cannot see the difference, in context of this discussion.

The table should look simply something like this –

Food                            Se.x                               Scratching my body

^                                   ^                                           ^
Hunger                       Sexual Desire                     An itch

^                                    ^                                          ^
Survival                          Survival                          Survival

All of these are different elements necessary for our survival and the body is programmed to develop an instinctive need for the element required though a stimulus such as hunger, for example.

The table above is a FRAUD.

1. If a man does not eat . . he dies . . . .so food is neccesary for human survival.

2. If a man does not have se.x or gets castrated. . ,  .he lives and does well too. . . . se.x is therefore NOT necessary for human survival.

3. If a man without hands (an amputee) gets an itchy feeling . . . what does he do. . .Nothing. . . .yet he does not die. scratching is definitely NOT essential to human survival.

It makes absolutely no sense to suggest that the human body would have a particular and regular instinct which nature intended to be suppresed for years. That is a Fascist, Oppresive and bizzare proposition in the extreme.

1. how then do u explain castration? . . .your attempt to defend your promiscuous life is ridiculous. . . . .it cannot be hidden under the thread of nature. Jesus and Apostle Paul did NOT condemn eunuchs. . . . implying that the creator has also given humans the ability to supress and control such desire.

2. You are now speaking from both sides of your mouth . . . . .first u acknowledge that man as higher animal has the ability to control his instincts unlike lower animals . . .  .but now u submit that a regular instinct is beyond the control of man . . . .sounds like u are confused IMO 

I challenge you to show me just one instinct that you may say ANY creature has, which may be said to be intended to be supprssed at length.

There are several.

A. human instincts to revenge in any form and challenge any form of minor oppression is suppressed as soon as u give your life to Christ
Especially when the condition for release is obtaining a piece of paper called a marriage certificate.

B. The instinct to LIE in the face of superior adversity,  . . .

C. The instinct to cry in the face of adversity . . . .and many more.

why have u outgrown your childish instincts. . . . . .why dont u still play with sand and toys?
your submissions are rather LAME.

Tell me, do either nature or spirituality recognise such sheets of paper? ? ?

I am disappointed. 

Does marriage necessarily have to be established by paper . . . .how do u then explain ancient cultures that had marriages when there was no paper in existence?

I am mildly surprised if you do not know what a stimulus is.

Maybe you never heard the term s.ex.ua.l stimulation?

What arouses sexual interest, Noetic? Something stimulates it, no?

I believe that your argument is irrelevant in lieu of those who are castrated and as such have no sexual feelings.

Now have a look at the way you have delivered a terrible and shocking contradiction here -
If you accept that conscience is influenced by beliefs, then you have made good ground for my earlier assertion that the OP is affected by his religious beliefs. Thus his feelings of guilt arise from those mistaken beliefs and nothing else.

Have u established that his beliefs are mistaken? how are they mistaken?

Ujujoan:
And encourage his paranoia  

Quite silly

Marriages dont break up because partners cheat . . . .they break up because trust ceases to exist.
why should a married woman spend endless hours chatting with a random bloke in the name of learning forex?

Deep Sight:
Nah, am reviewing a bulky and complex agreement @ work now. . .

I will revert.

I am not happy with your reversions. You are not being honest.

please dont cast an aspersion on my person. That I disagree with u, does not make me dishonest.
And why would I state an opinion dishonestly. . .when such an opinion is intended to inform others?

KunleOshob:
The greek word porneia used is definitely not consistent with with your above definition as your definition as been strecthed to include some things not in the greek definition. I have not stated my opinion on this subject matter, i just want you show us clear biblical basis for your stand as i am quite aware that quite a lot of issues in christianity are not properly understood yet we make doctrines out of it even when they are inconsistent with certain facts in the bible. i.e would you say Abraham was a fornicator? Was moses an adulterer? Was Jacob an Adulterer? Why were there laws instructing how to treat wives equally in the old testamen if a man had more than one wife. Why did God allow his prophet Jacob to have two wives and three concubines. As christians we love love explaining complicated issues away that goes against our perceived doctrines, i would like to have some answers to this posers before i ask some more questions?

1. what are the things not in the greek definition of the word that I have included? unless u want to make a case for homosexuality
And before u proceed why not state ur position/opinion on the matter . . . . .that would be healthy and one would understand ur point of view.

2. The church is NOT wrong on its interpretation of fornication. fornication is simply as the church puts it.

3. Abraham and Jacob did NOT live under the laws of moses or the era of the NT. They are not adulterers. Abraham is a father of faith simply because he obeyed every instruction God gave him . . . . .If God had told him not to fornicate, would he have? Dont forget that when Abraham had intercourse with Haggai . . . .Abraham thought he was doing so in fulfilment of God's prophecy to him that he would have a son.

4. please do ask more questions but before u do so . . . . . .state ur opinion.

PS: I am not an advocate for polygamy, adultery or fornication but i suspect that church teachings on this topic are not bibically sound nor incontrovertible hence i rasie the posers, maybe our brethen here on this forum would be able to throw more light to the issue.

The teachings on this subject are sound in every aspect . . . .the question should be, do we necessarily understand these teachings?

@Noetic
I am still expecting a proper bible concordance definition of fornication and not an english dictionary one which you posted earleir.

Thats my biblically deduced definition of fornication . . . . .I have nothing to add.

You could as well state a different definition when presenting ur oipnion.

So DeepSight ran away , , . .thats bad.

KunleOshob:
Just as i thought you would evade the question! given previous interactions with you on NL i am sure you are aware that there are other relibale sources apart from google such as Bible concordances were you can get a good translation from the the original hebrew/ greek texts. I am quite certain you are aware of this and you have verified the true definition [which doesn't favour your argument] hence the hubris you wrote up there in trying to avoid the honest answer to the question. The list of se.xual sins in leviticus 18 you mentioned is also quite instructive as to what the bible actually considers as fornication.  

1. did u not see this in the same post . . ,  . . .
I understand the greek word is porneia and it appears 26 times in the NT. however, the greek definition of the word encompasses my above definition of fornication.

So what are u driving at?. The greek word used was porneia and its definition in greek are cognisant with my primordial definition. .  . .so what question did I evade?

2. I have constructed NO argument so far. . . . I have only answered questions. [s]Are u programmed to disagree with me or what?[/s]  

3. [s]please dont tell me u are an ardent fornicator?[/s]. . . . .or rather do u subscribe to non-marital se.x? . .  . .why do u think that this act is not sinful?

Deep Sight:
Your questions -

You asked -

"why are religious notions with regards to fornication MISCONCEPTIONS? how do they constitute misconceptions?"

I respond -

They are misconceptions because the run counter to the specific natural program of the human body as clearly ordained by the creator.

You asked -

The creator programmed humans to use se.x to REPRODUCE and He also placed limitations of on the use of se.x. . .implying that only married persons should indulge in such.

The human body has se.xual components designed for use only during marriage. the human hands are not designed to pick up a knife to hijack a plane for terorrist reasons. This implies that the human body was designed for survival,  . . .the abuse of these human components has NO trace to the will and purpose of the creator.

Submisively. . . . .your assertions above are both wrong and ridiculous.

"That explains why billions of people from millions of different cultures have the same abominations. It is not a coincidence, it is a testament to the universality of the human conscience.

How do you explain the cultures above?"

I respond -

Have you not noticed that there is the same universal tendency to criminalize all things which are intensely pleasurable?

This is a universal psycological knee-jerk reaction to intense pleasure - It is a mechanism by which man resiles from that which he knows he could easily become a slave to, or that which given its intensity must per-force be controlled. This is only natural again. There are many psycological dimensions to it, and I will try to provide you with some scholastic papers in this respect.

your response is both evasive and irrelevant.

There are humans of ancient cultures scattered all over the planet, that share the same beliefs. They are not religious and have no religion. . .but they despise lies, stealing, non-marital intimacy, cheating and other vices. . . . .these ancient cultures also have no means of communicating, hence we would have said that they were probably coordinated by a universal control mechanism.

These cultures held the same taboos. . . . .this singular fact attests to the universality of the human conscience. it shows that regardless of human location, beliefs or ideology, the conscience remains universally intact.

You asked -

"what is the culture of nature? what is nature's identity?"

I respond -

The culture of nature is that which is in consonance with the natural instincts which the creator has placed within us - and the human bodily make-up affirms the fact that nature intended se.x for humans to be a fairly routine and regular action.

Any more questions? Satisfied? Now deal with my posers.

Absolute rubbish.

How do u place the same laws the creator gave (to guide sexual lives) in the context of your submission above?

Deep Sight:
Noetic –

I am not sure you are reading me carefully.

I stated that  - “it is incongruous to imagine conscience acting in direct opposition to natural urges springing forth from the core of the human nature and indeed the metaphysical principle of duality which is the spiritual anchor for the necessity of sexual relations in existence.” –

Thus implying –

yes I saw that.

1. Conscience cannot militate against natural instincts given for survival

This is both false and ridiculous. In the context of the thread. . . .how is S.EX necessary for survival? and is S.EX on its own a taboo?
Se.x is not an ingridient necessary for human survival. . .se.x is also not a taboo but sex.ual relations that violate the conscience code, which includes fornication et all.

2. Conscience thus cannot militate against eating food, for example

is food the same as sex?  

3. Conscience cannot militate against response to stimuli – as this is natural

are u confused?   u mentioned earlier that humans as higher animals have the ability to control their urges. . .how then doesse.x constitute a stimuli?

4. Se.xu.al intercourse is a function of response to stimuli as well as a natural instinct which ensures the propagation of the species

what species are we talking about?. . .humans or animals?

5. Conscience can therefore not militate against seksual intercourse

Stop celebrating ignorance.
Start by defining conscience . . . . .u have listed imaginary xterics of conscience without neccesarily defining or understanding the term. when I said that the human conscience was independent of the human system. . . . .I was attempting to construct a definition for u.
So start by defining the conscience.

The foregoing is iron-cast and I challenge you to dispute it.

Sorry, but that was very LAME.

Secondly I hold that the principle of duality inherent in existence is pivotal to se.xu.ality, and renders it inescapable – an absolutely ineluctable and involuntary aspect of our nature which we cannot repudiate.

Don’t you think the reverse is the case - namely conscience which is influenced by beliefs?

Have you not noticed that there is the same universal tendency to criminalize all things which are intensely pleasurable?

Anyway, lets not be distracted – define fornication and then we proceed.

This is meaningless in light of the debate.

1. The conscience is influenced by beliefs. The islamic beliefs makes a muslim not feel guilty or remorse for indulging in a terrorist act.

2. Beliefs are influenced by the Conscience: The fact that millions of people in different but anti-deluvian societies find themselves upholding the same taboos in enough reason to sustain this position.

noetic16:
Your assertions are very misplaced and wrong.

1. The dude considers his fornication a PROBLEM and seeks solution to it. . . that simply infers that he feels guilty. The source of his guilt cannot be traced to religion but to beliefs which are influenced by the conscience.

2. The conscience remains an independent part of the human existence. That explains why billions of people from millions of different cultures have the same abominations. It is not a coincidence, it is a testament to the universality of the human conscience.

why are religious notions with regards to fornication MISCONCEPTIONS? how do they constitute misconceptions?
The scope of morality transcends the scope of religion. . . , , your fraudulent notion called "nature" is also a misguided religious dogma.

ok.

If u ignore my questions. . . .dont expect me to jump at urs.

@ Depsight. . . . .u need to answer my questions . . . . .else this is meaningless.

noetic16:
ok.

That readily paints a picture of where your heart lies. . . . .and where did u deduce this principle from?

The dude personally feels guilty. . . . why? cos he has a conscience that says his inactions are wrong.

why fight imaginary enemies? . . . , who has condemned him?

1. Your conclusion that his sexual life is healthy is influenced by your own debauched life style. There are millions of cultures outside of religion that FORBIDS intimacy outside marriage.

2. how do u explain these cultures mentioned above? and what is anti-s.ex dogma?

3. If u are a xtian. . . . live like one. . . that means do not sin. . . . .lust or fornication. . . . .

The same lie u keep repeating endlessly. .  .what is the culture of nature? what is nature's identity?

KunleOshob:
I sense deepsight is about to take noetic to the cleaners again!

I laugh in hebrews

two hypocrites who never answer questions and ALWAYS run with their tails behind their legs.

@Deepsight
I doubt if noetic would be able to give an honest answer to your question.

what question? what honesty? . . . . .abeg go siddon

Deep Sight:
Hi Noetic -

Can you kindly provide for me a working understanding of the term "fornication."

Fornication includes . . . . .  , the act of sex between
a. two unmarried persons
b. two married persons or a married person and an unmarried person (adultery)
c. Any form of idolatry.
d. lust
e. prostitution and other se.xual professional services.
f. homosexuality

In doing so please consider the biblical etymology of the words translated as "fornication."

unfortunately, I am not a hebrew or greek linguist and would not trust google for translation and opinion  

I understand the greek word is porneia and it appears 26 times in the NT. however, the greek definition of the word encompasses my above definition of fornication.

I will also appreciate a spiriritual discourse on exactly why such a natural instinct is clasified as sinful within the Judaic religious worldviews (Judaism, Christianity and Islam).

1. Judaism and Christianity do not have a case against se.x. Cos sex is the modus operandi through which God intends to fulfil His decree that we be fruitful and multiply. But this blessing is intended to be channelled through the right path i.e twas not designed to be abused.

God designed sex for man's pleasure and for reproduction but chose to forbid man from abusing this gift. Leviticus 18 tells of every one we are forbidden to have sex with.

2. Christianity differs with Judaism cos Jesus would later state that LUST is now as guilty as the full act fornication (mathew 5:28)

Fornication is like any other sin. .  . .it is simply a DISOBEDIENCE to the command of God.

3. Islam does not practically discourage lust/fornication. the islamic allah actually had a wife called allat and together they had three daughters. mohammed also married 11 wives as against 4 which allah commanded . . . , because he could not keep his d.ick in his pants. . , the haddiths actually describe mohammed with an animal-like sex.ual appetite.

the koran's allah also continuously encourages eternal se.x by promising terorists 72 virgins in an imaginary paradise. thereby millions of muslim faithfuls are lustfully serving allah with the hope of receiving 72 virgins.

Deep Sight:
I positively assert that his guilt does not arise from his conscience as it is incongruous to imagine conscience acting in direct opposition to natural urges springing forth from the core of the human nature and indeed the metaphysical principle of duality which is the spiritual anchor for the necessity of sexual relations in existence.

Your assertions are very misplaced and wrong.

1. The dude considers his fornication a PROBLEM and seeks solution to it. . . that simply infers that he feels guilty. The source of his guilt cannot be traced to religion but to beliefs which are influenced by the conscience.

2. The conscience remains an independent part of the human existence. That explains why billions of people from millions of different cultures have the same abominations. It is not a coincidence, it is a testament to the universality of the human conscience.

I place it to you that the said feelings of guilt arise only from the misconceptions forced on the OPs mind by misguided notions of morality driven by ancient and achaiac religions.

why are religious notions with regards to fornication MISCONCEPTIONS? how do they constitute misconceptions?
The scope of morality transcends the scope of religion. . . , , your fraudulent notion called "nature" is also a misguided religious dogma.

But I would rather you deal with my request concerning the meaning of the word "fornication" before we proceed.

ok.

Deep Sight:
Hi Noetic -

Can you kindly provide for me a working understanding of the term "fornication."

In doing so please consider the biblical etymology of the words translated as "fornication."

I will also appreciate a spiriritual discourse on exactly why such a natural instinct is clasified as sinful within the Judaic religious worldviews (Judaism, Christianity and Islam).

If you have the energy, that is.

Thanks.

I go try small. , , .brb

Deep Sight:
Se.x is a perfectly natural instinct.

It is no different from hunger or thirst.

These instincts are given by the Creator for the propagation and survival of species.

Yes, Man being an advanced creature is entitled to deploy discretion in the excercise of his instincts.

ok.

And in terms of such discretion[b] i can conceive of no higher principle[/b] than that which you are already applying: to wit - limiting your se.xual life to one person who you love deeply.

That readily paints a picture of where ur heart lies. . . . .and where did u deduce this principle from?

Any person who attempts to make you feel guilty for this simply has no understanding of existence, creation and nature.

The dude personally feels guilty. . . . why? cos he has a conscience that says his inactions are wrong.

Indeed such persons are a danger to all reason and commonsense.

The reality is that such persons have been indoctrinated by a bizzarre and most unnatural anti-se.x dogma which has its origins in misguided notions of morality deriving from religion and culture.

why fight imaginary enemies? . . . , who has condemned him?

1. Your conclusion that his sexual life is healthy is influenced by your own debauched life style. There are millions of cultures outside of religion that FORBIDS sex outside marriage.

2. how do u explain these cultures mentioned above? and what is anti-s.ex dogma?

3. If u are a xtian. . . . live like one. . . that means do not sin. . . . .lust or fornication. . . . .

The only culture you should be beholden to is the culture of nature.

Examine it.

The same lie u keep repeating endlessly. .  .what is the culture of nature? what is nature's identity?

Spyker:
Poster, i find myself in this dilemma, it's not easy.I keep falling into the same sin which i confessed and vow not to go back. I was advised by a Priest to get married hence that would help me avoid the temptation. I am seriously searching for a life partner and my present gf who is a serious Christian understands me well. If thing works out well, i may settle down this year by God's grace. All the same, know that you are not the only one facing this type of religious crisis (that's what i call it).Thanks for your advise, i pretty much try that because that is what we preach and hear in church everytime. But, how can you avoid intimacy with someone you really like and want to marry?

I hope u dont regret getting married because of se.x

Lacrissa:
I really hope God forgives me. I just wish intimacy with your loved one not every tom, dic*k and harry, just your loved one wasn't bad. God knows I love him, though I still fornicate as in have intimacy with my loved one. Help

Your problem is not fornication but LUST. If u can change ur perception, pray for grace and see through the eyes of God (while acknowledging ur imperfection). . .I believe u will overcome LUST.
You can only overcome fornication if u overcome lust.

save your marriage . . . . , dump the "online chat"

I am surprised Tudor is not yet on this thread to discuss his uncle oyedepo

@Post.

I am surprised a lot of people are disappointed in oyedepo's inactions.

Purist:
Well, I'm not sure I'm willing to drag myself into any debate right now.  But as I said before, I haven't even defined my belief system yet, I instead label myself, a seeker.  But put simply, I'll just say that I've come to realise that when you subscribe to religion, you're in a "box", you're confined.  Your reasoning ability is limited, and your thinking faculty gradually becomes eroded - no matter how educated you are - because you're now expected to hold on to dogma; just have faith - blind faith.  You're expected to believe everything in your religion, hook, line and sinker - no questioning!  Suspend common sense!  Dismiss logic!  Even when it's clearly nonsense, you cook up so many bizarre, unthinkable nonsense to further explain the nonsense.  The moment you begin to think outside of this box, and you express these thoughts, you're labeled a heretic - a backslider.  All these, I'm afraid, I've got a problem with.

purist, I would like to say a few things without in any way antagonising ur position or debating.

1. Christianity is not and was not intended to be a religion. Its IMO more of a relationship with God. I can confidently stand by my faith simply because I have seen things showed to me in the spirit realm by God that enlightens me and makes real my faith and beliefs. For example, one of the things I hated the most in xtianity was the attitude of prayer. . .I mean why do we have to pray and ask the same things incessantly over and over again to a caring God?. . . . .I used to praise God rather than pray but was faithful to my beliefs, held my faith and stayed away from all forms of sin. . . .until GOD taught me how to pray I was also shown the holy hill of God that was described in psalm 24. . , I saw several things that I cannot mention/describe.

You Cannot enjoy xtianity if u dont experience God. And to experience God u must believe that Him for who He says He is (faith) and live a holy life. In essence holiness and faith are the secrets of seeing God.

2. The best way to identify false prophets is to see those who make a religion or sect out of xtianity. They are all over the place, pastors who end every sermon with a demand for seed. . . .pastors who equate God's blessings to material po-cessions. . . .pastors who preach love but do not act with love. , . .pastors who preach themselves and not JC . . . .

They are all over town attempting to make a religion out of a relationship. The perfect example of a religion is islam. It does not in any way prepare u for an encounter with God, all it does is encourages u to do things to please an invisible God.

P.S.  I saw the thread where toneyb declared he'd be leaving Nairaland due to personal reasons, perhaps, he perceived his posts were having negative effects on fragile minds here.  I don't think that would be solid enough a reason to quit, if that's actually why @toneyb.  Personally, my change of belief started some 3 years ago, and it wasn't entirely triggered by the atheists' posts here, though I won't deny they had quite an impact.  I've always been very skeptical and inquisitive, even as a kid. . . "God" made me that way .  The atheists here probably just made me bolder in my skepticism.  I've seen so many threads here where atheists engaged theists in debates, and theists could only offer ridiculous explanations for what they believe in.  Even as a Christian then myself, I found the logic of the non-religious really biting, and the theists (Christian) responses only just begged many of their questions.

1. Toneyb is simply exaggerating his influence on this forum. His posts could NOT have had a negative influence on anyone. They were simply opinions which were usually countered by opinions. No one on nairaland presents facts and when facts are rarely presented, there are divergent interpretations. I for one DO NOT believe that toneyb's post had a negative influence on anyone.

2. Scepticism is Good. but whats the use if it does not lead us to the truth? can anyone produce a scientifically plausible evidence that God does not exist, if they can, I will question my beliefs.

Most recent very good example I can remember is that of DeepSight's "The Noetic Interview. . .".

How did this thread have a negative influence on you?. . . .For all I know, I answered every question directed at me, until u made an attack on my person. And after going through that thread, I dont see anything raised there that was not clarified. . unless u are refering to Deepsight and kunleoshob's fraudulent attempt to smuggle disbelievers into heaven

It was of course difficult for me to accept that there are loopholes in what I've been brought up to believe.  But I refused to allow some nonsense dogma overshadow reason.  It was really depressing facing some harsh realities, like knowing that the basic characteristics (omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient etc) we humans have attributed to God (which are logical by the way) can barely be reconciled with the whole concept of freewill, and worse still, predestination.  Funny enough, there are pointers to these discrepancies even in the bible, but somehow, we choose to overlook them, or pretend that they're inconsequential, even though we're usually quick to capitalise on them when they suit us.

I would like to open a new thread to in the very least attempt to explain the concept of freewill and predestination from God's perspective (with regards to my understanding) . . . .and would like u to also highlight any posers/discrepiances that u might find disturbing in the bible.

Know for sure that I do not have all the answers. . . . but I strongly believe that ur posers are within the confines of my understanding. . . .please let me know if u want me to proceed with thread.

Again, just to make myself clear, I do not shape my belief with the compelling logic of atheists/agnostics/etc here on Nairaland.  I only just seem to find a reinforcement of many of my personal, innate beliefs from these guys.  You'll probably come here now to tell me that I was never a true Christian and similar stuffs.  But really, I was genuine, at heart.  I still honestly want these things to be real.  You know, like having some "Jesus", "Holy Spirit", etc that I can constantly commune with; like dying now and be so sure I'll literally be spending eternity in some utopia.  The world is so insecure after all, so who wouldn't relish the thought and reality of having some supreme, benevolent spiritual aid?  But then, I realise they're things that I've been brought up to believe, and somewhere in my subconscious, I'd created that "sense of reality" that made everything so real to me.  Right now, somehow, all these things do not just add up anymore.

1. on the contrary, I do not think that u were/are not a true xtian. I think that u have just exposed some of the weakness of the church as we have it today. . .such that those growing up in faith have no elders to look up to for real-sight understanding of theological and spiritual matters.

I fall into the same category with u, with regards to the above. . . .when I started hearing God speak to me, it was strange. there was no one who could understand what I was going through. . . .the people I was supposed to look up to as spiritual leaders have never spoken to or heard from God in such detailed manner. The only thing that made me survive, was the prophecy that was foretold of my encounter with God (and my God ordained destiny) many years ago.

2. I attest to the fact that the Holy spirit does speak, guide and direct like we read in the bible . . . .I am a living testimony to that. . .but I have no evidence to give to u.

3. with regards to spiritual aid . . . many times this aid comes, but we are so locked up in our preconceived beliefs that we hardly see God's miracle. Take for instance many belief that miracles must naturally involve angels. . .but millions of miracles happen every day without angels.

JeSoul:
Noetic, and I am sad that you would jump to conclusions.

I deleted several posts from tudor today that were insultive and I posted the reason why above - that is why I deleted them not because of anything else. Inesqor has openly admitted to be mavenbox several times so I'm not sure what the issue is.

I made no conclusions. All I did was to interpret what I read on the thread.

Your job involves giving bitter pills (deleting posts and recommending people for ban) but the least u can do is to carry the victims (in this case tudor) along. I dont think Tudor would have complained if he had been forewarned.

And looking at the post (on this thread) in question, I dont think to insinuate that mavenbox is inesquor constitutes an insult.

Tudór:
Oh I see, you've bee made moderator. . . Yes indeed.

Who did I attack personally? I asked you a question where were you when mavenbox was using multiple id's and you called it personal attack. Coz i didnt agree with u and kiss your backside u deleted my post?

I attacked no one, i merely asked a question, expressed my views and called out what i see as disgusting hypocrisy and you had better restore my post.

Where is davidylan and noetic to come see this. So its not only muslims that are guilty of e-terrorism.

I can only but feel SAD. The lesson is never trust ANYONE with power . . .christian or muslim.

Tudór:
What is this rubbish?
When your 'radical' mavenbox was parading herself as the much more 'radical' InesQor (having two active i.d's at once) where were you to come and rant about ''motive'' and ''incarnation''??

Rather both of you were all-over the forum forming 'brother', 'sister', 'oh, she knows me too well' BS.

Then all of a sudden a MUSLIM appears on the forum you're here raving like ******** ostensibly to ask 'questions' and seek 'truth'.

Abeg carry your sanctimonious. . . . and dump it for dustbin make we breathe fresh air. We are not fooled.

There it is, i've asked my question, let me see how this will be regarded as 'accusation' and 'personal attack'

I am amazed as to why people would like to have a multiple ID on an anonymous forum. Their life must be really miserable. . . . . .but whats ur proof that inesquor is mavenbox?

one of the threads that makes DeepSight . . .Deepsight

Ogaga4Luv:
[size=13pt]I have always known you're a nuisances !! . so far , you keep attacking me whenever i drop a true word and your only plan is too get me angry but i won't .

You're wrong and have been misunderstanding my post and didn't even care to ask me . i have always shared how God was created in the first day to deceive the world~~ God exist in the imaginary but does not and can never exist in the physical . hope you understand something now you dump backside-clicker.

Hopefully, we shall be remembered as the people who brought an end to Christianity, [/size]

what a confused empty head

if God exists only in the imaginary . . . . , how come u have seen ur father satan? . . . , u are such a sick thing

nuclearboy:
I support this call for intra-christian debates. Tithes have been over flogged but I'm sure there are other stuff we can educate ourselves on. I personally keep coming across acolytes who say pastors are too busy to have time to do other work - how come Jesus, Peter and definitely Paul had other "worldly" work yet are the bencchmark for us today.

Can someone start off threads based on such or like "ideas"?

that would make a rich discourse too . . . . .we could even debate about (a) how to walk with God? . . . . (b) the limitations of biblical revelations to our present reality. . .and many more.

Ogaga4Luv:
[size=13pt]Man is wicked because God started it all at first. . . . The world is wicked and evil because we have an evil God pretending to be Good God.[/size]

How could God (who u claim does not exist) have started anything? . , . .are u both dumb and confused?

davidylan:
which is why i joined the clamor for a christian-only section. There are some interesting topics i have to discuss.

U could as well post them on this same board. . .will make an interesting discourse.

jesus.:
David u re right.I dnt think theres anything new that havent been discussed.
Now is the time for christians to battle it out among themselves on some biblical issues that can over heat this section&make it lively

Rather, I think that atheists have finally realised that xtians are probably more intelligent and knowledgeable. When I started posting on this board, it was practically an atheist board. . . . .with all manner of innuendos and lies passing out as facts. but as xtians started standing up to them and exposing their ignorance. . . .they started questioning their beliefs and stopped having fun.

where is theoretina or huxley who used to dominate the religion section with his blasphemous posts? where is mazaje, toneyb, tudor, bawomolo, wirinet, KAG, . . . . . ? where are they all? . . , . .u need to see what the religion section homepage looked like some 2 years ago.

C. If Christianity is nearly two thousand years old and Islam more than fourteen hundred years old, why were these discussions not held centuries ago?

M. For the last three to four centuries, many Asian and African countries that had been ruled by Muslims were colonized by Britain France, Holland, Belgium, Spain, and Portugal. Many Christian missionary and religious colonists tried to convert as many
Muslims as they could by whatever means they had: giving medical treatment clothes, food, and jobs to the poor. However, only a few converted. A small part of the elite was
converted to Christianity because of its belief that Christianity brought civilization and
progress. They adopted this mistaken idea because they believed that western-style
progress was attained after the separation of church and state in Europe.
After the Second World War, many Muslims from Asian and African countries emigrated
to the West as workers and professionals. This brought them into much closer contact with
Christians. Also, students were active in introducing Islam.

how did islam get to these asian and afircan countries in the first place?. . .was it not through the spread of blood. people were killed for their beliefs in order to worship the islamic idol called allah. Thank God for civilisation. . . .we would have been beheaded in broad day light for not being muslims.

on a lighter note. . . . the entire assertions in ur OP are just a ridiculous attempt at propaganda. Go and tell the victims of islamic terrorist attacks that islam is a religion of peace.

suleiman16:
you slowpoke how there you talk to our noble prophet like. philosophers and world leading christian leader have commented him their is one book call "the list of 100 most successful men in the world" Muhammad is rank as number one. this book is written by a christian and someone that is more intelligent than you. you better watch what you say so that the wrath of God will not descend on you

yes of course. mohammed is number one is sleeping with under-age girls. . . . , he is also the most successful in living a life of contradiction.
allah asks the dude to marry 4 wives. . . he married 11

Mudley313:
but u just described your inconceivable god's thoughts n motives  in detail ealier on

um, i thot they were one n the same person. see confusion

try and make sense . . , start by answering the posers I raised.

manmustwac:
@Cyberfreak
if you want revenge try the culture section coz here {in religion} we peach love and forgiveness. If you want me to move your topic to that section pls let me know.

really? . . .so our atheists now love and forgive?. . . . .thats nice

and her name is amigoz