mazaje:
That is all you guys say when caught lying. . .You are a liar. . .Post scientific papers that support the claim you made or admit that you lied simple. . .

Bros, I told you already, there's no way I'm gonna glorify your obvious lack of scientific knowledge with a citation. I state here again and categorically: the opinion in the scientific community is that whatever the cause of the bid b.ang, it must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial, in other words, it transcends the observable universe, which is precisely how the bible's been describing God and his works(miracles). You better do some actual research before you continue to tumble yourself in the mud of ignorance. If you(or anybody for that matter. I see @logicboy hiding under the table ) really think my assertions are wrong, then provide an authoritative citation to the contrary. Demonstrate to us that you actually know some science. The only reason you oppose me is because I carry the label "christian!!" rather than because I'd made a false claim. Your anti-christian perversions has caused you attack the same science you claim is your bible. Now breeze don blow and we don see fowl nyash.... You'd been pretending to have knowledge, now your ignorance is made plain.

mazaje:
What are you on about. . .You said that god is unobservable in material terms, but the bible does not support that since according to the bible this god was all over the place, people today still claim to speak to god, hear him, see him appear to them etc . . .so what exactly are you talking about?. . .

Again, you attempt to refute my christian assertions but yet unable to provide any bible reference to contradict me.

mazaje:
Which of the scientific fields of science does christianity agree with?. . .Cosmology, evolution, astronomy, physics, chemistry etc. . .Science is purely naturalistic. . .Christianity involves the supernatural so how do they agree?. . .

Bros, I'm actually tired of saying "You are ignorant...". You just keep entangling yourself more and more. You seem to require me to divide science into acceptable and non-acceptable segments. Please tell us how cosmology is a different(or more) science than physics, or chemistry, or whatever field of science. Why do you feel the need to ask me which of them christianity supports?? What part of "I support science don't you understand??" The fact that your are dividing them as if some are "more science" than others..., mehn!! I don tire, it's obvious I'm wasting my time, unless you come up with some proper method to challenge me.

Jakeattah: Guy homosexua.lity is a SIN. (FULLSTOP)

Bros, homose.xuality is not the sin itself. Sin has to be willed action rather than a disposition which homse.xuality is. Homose.xuality rather is a symptom of sin, both of the sin-nature and of refusing sound doctrine.

mazaje:

Can you provide the scientific paper that states this?. . . When will you guys stop telling lies for Jesus?. . .

What is it with you atheist evangelist?? You are so consumed with dismantling christianity that you'd cut off your nose to spite your face. This obsession has made you take leave of sound logic that you'd oppose a well accepted scientific opinion, as long as it puts you in opposition to christianity. SMH!!

I watched darwkins some time ago do something similar(and the atheist audience were actually applauding him) by saying that it'd be better to be se.xually abused as a child than to be raised in a religious home.

I'm not even gonna entertain your challenge because it'd be dignifying willful ignorance. Better still, you should cite any scientific opinion contrary to what I claimed.

mazaje:
Where does the bible state this?. . .According to the bible god was all over the place fighting along side humans, appearing to some of them and showing them his body parts, addressing his chosen people through public speech, fighting along side them, performing magnificent miracles, even indulging with competiotion with other gods to prove himself etc. . . .Again where is it written that god is not observable in material tems in the bible?. . .Pls try and know what the science is and what it is saying. . .Stop telling lies for Jesus. . .

Again, willful ignorance at play here. You obviously don't know anything about bible accounts, else you wouldn't be here fighting what is quite basic doctrines.

mazaje:
I thought you said science agrees with christianity, now that you have been asked to show it you are going around chasing your long tail as always. . .

Bros, I don tire for you oo. Everything you said so far is nothing but a projection of your willful bias and imaginary enemies. I said "christianity agrees with science", not "science agrees with christianity". If you cannot differentiate between these two sentences, then you have no business engaging in philosophical debates.

Logicboy03:
You? And someone like you is one of the endowed few?

Yes nah!!

Logicboy03:
Tell me how the creation story found in genesis is compatible with science

Or how a dead man can come back to life in 3 days.......is that compatible with science?

In your effort to exercise smugness, you display your ignorance(again, no fault of yours because that's majority thinking...). So let me address creation because I think you might be able to relate with it:

Science states it's observation that all of space, time and matter originated from the BIG BA.NG. The same science observes that whatever caused the big-bang must be outside the realms of matter, space and time. In other words: all of the universe came out of nothing. They simply refused to call it God because they cannot observe and test God. This is exactly the version of the bible: That God is unobservable in material terms, and that God created the universe out of nothing.

I could tell you about the resurrection but it'd be foolishness to you because science has not yet observed it.

Logicboy03: Science is incompatible with abrahamic religions

There might be other religions that science is compatible with.............

Rubbish!!! You are just as ignorant(no offense) as the majority. But it's no fault of yours though. True understanding of christian doctrine is a privilege endowed on the few...

mosesthedark: I just want to know your opinion. Do you accept science or religion or both?
Personally, i like science and religion and the two work together for me. But there are people who tend to side with one but not the other.
Which one do you side with?

There's no such thing as science vs religion(christianity). People who think so are just ignorant of what true christian doctrine is. Christianity acknowledges science 100-percent, only that it goes further beyond the realm of what is empirically testable. simples!!

coolshegs10: FP tins... Abeg,wic one u wan say..'homosexual is a sin' or 'homosexual is not a sin'?

Sin has to be an act you actually commit(in conscience or in action). Ultimately, it is a doctrine you subject yourself to, which leads to the act.

So, it is not finding yourself to be gay that is the sin, rather it is pushing homos.exuality to take the place of God(heterosexuality), In other words: making it the doctrine.

But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin "--(Mark 3:29)

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?--(1 Corinthians 6:19)

Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.--(1 Corinthians 6:18)

So the bible says that the sin against the holy spirit is unforgivable. But what is this sin??

Firstly, spirit means: doctrine or mindset or value-system. So holy spirit is the doctrine of God, because that is the only what to recognize him, not by his person but by his doctrine. To be Holy simply means: separated, reserved, exclusively unto God. So where the bible states that our bodies are the temple of the holy spirit, it follows that we have to behave/express the attitudes of the holy spirit. We are the carriers of the true doctrines(spirit) of God.

So what is the sin against the holy spirit that is unforgivable? This sin is against the body, and it has to be against doctrine, a behaviour that is not tolerable, whatsoever in christian doctrine. It is not a sin of what you eat, nor drink, nor what you wear, nor what tattoos you have. It is a se.xual sin and ultimately, it is homos.exuality. This is the only sin that CANNOT be excused in any manner. It has no gray areas. It has no conditions under which it is permissible. It is expressly against God's design and is the final destination of subjecting oneself to the law. The natural use of the body is for se.xual purposes. Food, drink, clothes, tattoos, jewelries, etc only serve for the of nourishing and decorating the body, but ultimately the use of the body is se.xual, as the book of Romans points out:

and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another....(Romans 1:27)

The purpose of the gospel is to reconcile us to everything that God has created so that there is no longer any conscience of sin when we do what comes to us naturally. Thus the saying that: All things are permissible...(1 Corinthians 6:12, 10:23, Titus 1:15) But homos.exuality is the one behaviour that cannot be found anywhere in design, rather it is a product/symptom of the sin-nature and of us refusing what is natural, leading to our natures/brain-patterns getting rewired and finding deviant paths to express it's se.xuality.

I am not saying the being homose.xual is the unforgivable sin, rather the act of justifying homose.xuality, incorporating and celebrating homse.xuality as christian doctrine is the blasphemy against the holy spirit and is unforgivable. Harmless as it seems(secularly), It is the spirit(doctrine) of the anti-christ and the head of all rebellions.

Pastor Kun:
So what would you say about most tithers who are faithful yet they have nothing to show for their faithful tithing.

Well, you cannot judge a person's faithfulness from outside observation. The problem is that humans tend to act in bandwagons/herds(hence falling to fraud) rather than out of a personal conviction/calling. faith is meant to be of a clear personal calling, not because it's the popular culture. Unfortunately, religion is more culture than faith.

ajayikayod:

Bros, good evening.

I struggling to get ur stand.
Is it dt u dont tithe but believ in tithe as a doctrine for d church or u dont tithe and dont believ in it as a doctrine for d church.

And also, i hardly talk on issu of tithe because its too rampant here but i find it hard to be quiet whn u bring in FAITH to TITHE. It has no root in d scriptures. Giving (either tithing/offering) to believer must b seen as honoring God not a trade to receive.

I don't tithe because it is not in my level of christianity, it doesn't apply to me. Yes, there are different levels of doctrine/christianity. It's all a matter of what one's level of inspiration/understanding/conviction. People whose conscience are tied to tithes, then their spiritual financial circumstances will be affected by it, but not so for people who don't believe in tithing. Tithing is a covenant(contract) principle, each person is held to account and rewarded according to how faithful(fulfills) he is to his tithing commitment.

Again, I don't tithe because it is no where to be found in my doctrines, but I do recognize it forms a great part of the doctrines of quite a number of people, so it is for them to be held accountable to what they belief. And believe you me, I have seen tithers whose lives has been transformed by tithing.

plaetton: @okeyxyz
The bible passage you quoted above actually supports my argument and repudiates yours.

You Christians are a funny lot. You are so used to claiming things, that you even hastily claim a passage that clearly contradict your warped views.

Well, why don't you reveal this your alternative argument that contradicts living a prosperous christian life...

rationalmind: ^ ^ ^ what is this one saying?

Perhaps your brain is not developed enough to grasp my point, that one's doctrine is supposed to enable him to live a profitable/prosperous life. Sorry, I can't remake you to be smart, wish I could but meh..

plaetton:
Ahaa! It has been finally confessed.
Religion and religious doctrines are for profit, or, as you put it, expected to yield material profits.
Thanks for your honesty.
It seems that we had Been deceived in Sunday school that religion was about the salvation of our souls.

Pope Leo V said it well when he said " This myth of Christ has served us most PROFITABLY".

Obviously, you have no idea whatsoever about this christianity you so readily criticize and ridicule. In your purporting to be smart, you expose your ignorance. Even @logicboy who claims he used to be a christian, now we know he was just pretending to be christian, cos he has no knowledge of it's principles . I give you just one passage, though there are many:

31“Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ 32“For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33“But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you(matthew 6:31-33).

It's funny that you guys think it's somehow shameful to make a living from practicing one's doctrines. Duh!!! You are supposed to profit from exercising your doctrines/beliefs. How else do you prove it's truth to yourself, let alone to others

I'd normally remove myself from conversations regarding tithes. Why?? Because it's not literally relevant to my doctrine, so I don't tithe at all. But regardless, the question of tithes is a matter of doctrine as each person is convinced in his heart and faith as to what is binding on him.

So the question is: Does tithing work or is this whole tithe gospel a fraud? Absolutely yes!! tithing works to them that are convinced and faithful to it. Tithing is a spiritual operation just as thousands of other spiritual operations. However, it is not given unto every person to accept a doctrine of tithes, just as it is not given unto every person to accept the gospel of grace, whether partial or absolute grace(that'd be moi ).

So how does tithing work? Like all spiritual operations of faith, tithing is an evidence/substance that the believer must fulfill in order to validate/prove his belief in the promise. Note that to belief is not the same as to exercise faith. You can believe anything you want but if you don't exercise/fulfill/trigger that belief through some evidence(faith), then it's impossible to actualize it's promises. So, the process of exercising(faith) your belief must cost you something of value with the hope that you'd receive a greater value in return for your faith(cost, loss). Every demonstration of faith must cost you something of value, either by way of money(tithes), food/drink(literal fasting), giving up a lifestyle, even blood sacrifice!! it's the same principle. This cost must be something you give up completely without the hope of reusing it, else it wouldn't work. This is why blood is the ultimate sacrifice, and this is understood by all occult practices. Blood sacrifice was the trigger for all promises in the old testament, and blood sacrifice represents an irrecoverable loss/sacrifice(exercise of faith), likewise the sacrifice of christ was the trigger for christianity.

I don't think the issue here is about denying anybody their rights. Rather it is a question of re-defining marriage. In this case, secular matters are subject to redefinitions at all times, so if marriage is redefined to mean the legal union of two or more adults regardless of sexuality, then that would be the marriage that the law recognizes. I stress that this is a legal marriage, not a christian(I speak as a christian) marriage, so let it not be that somebody goes to court to try and force the honoring/celebration of homosexual marriages in churches or any activity pertaining to church doctrine. A church of course being the voluntary association of believers of the christian doctrine in this case.

thehomer:

You must be seeing things. I clearly oppose heterosexuality?

I said you oppose a preference for heterosexuality. Perhaps you don't see properly

thehomer:
It looks to me like you're the one who is unable to defend their opinions that opposing homosexuality infringes on people's rights. If you're going to compare homosexuality to incest or anything else, you'll have to be willing to do the same for heterosexuality. That is my point.

I only oppose homosexuality in the context of christian doctrine(of course for christians only), not a secular/legal opposition. My involvement in this thread is in pointing out the hypocrisy of the proponents of homosexuality. They love to argue that homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality, yet these same people want to suppress bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, in.cest, etc, not regarding that they are se.xual orientations just as naturally valid as they claim homosexuality to be. At least I am honest enough to categorize them together as se.xual phenomena/orientations. How about you??

thehomer:
I can defend my support for the homosexual orientation in various ways starting from the fact that adults have their rights to the fact that it is between consenting adults.

Speaking of consent, why is it that when you guys copy western cultures and arguments you don't challenge their hypocrisy?? The same people who use consent as an reason to promote homosexuality, yet they condemn and criminalize polygamy even though it's perfectly consensual.

thehomer:

That is not an argument I'm interested in making.
Why do you give heterosexuality special treatment?

Bros, you are cunning, but not cunning enough and I'm not falling for your ploys. First you declare that you don't want to debate, then you challenge me make my arguments in support of a preference for heterosexuality which you clearly oppose. Why would I want to do that when you'd already declared that you are not willing to engage?? You are just afraid that you cannot defend your support for a homosexual culture, so you are looking for flaws in my own position rather than building your own case.

Try again

striktlymi:

You miss the point by a mile.

We are talking about rights of a people with respect to Homosexuality and not the Christian values. In this case the point of reference should be the constitution (i.e what should be or not be in it) as against Sacred scriptures.

Bros you better learn to be consistent when you debate. A few posts ago you were trying to make us see how homosexuality is not a sin according to some christian churches. Now I'm asking you to demonstrate this POV from christian doctrine, only for you to abandon the very same line of reasoning which you asserted, telling us this is not a christian issue. Well, if it's not a christian issue then why were you earlier trying to prove that homosexuality is no sin and that it is right for christian churches to celebrate it with their gay marriages? If you had established that you were making a secular argument in the first place, I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to point you in the proper context of @Joshthefirst's points being that gay marriages should not be celebrated in church.

But you were fully aware of this christian context when you argued for gay marriages in christian churches. But unfortunately you cannot find support for this in any doctrine. Now you are trying to escape from this doctrinal hole you dug yourself into.

thehomer:

Why is heterosexuality acceptable but incest, bestiality and paedophilia aren't acceptable?

So Homose.xuality, inc.est, bestiality, ped.ophilia, nec.rophilia are perfectly natural and acceptable se.xual behavior then?? Just like heterose.xuality? That's the argument I wanted you to make instead of giving homose.xuality special treatment. So, go ahead and make the case.

Obi1kenobi:
There are some interesting points there, but still far from perfect analogies.
Domesticating and castrating animals doesn't necessarily reduce their quality of life. There's a reason domesticated livetock, even left to roam free, still return to their "prison". Centuries and millenia of breeding has made them adaptable to the conditions. We're omnivores and our ancestors from time immemorial were meat eaters and the same animals we eat are preyed on in the wild. I wouldn't say feeding on animals violates their rights. Except we're expected to feed on each other. There is legislation though against cruelty against animals, inhumane living conditions and inhumane killing of animals. Naturally, we hold our welfare as humans higher than that of animals and this sadly does put us in conflict with their interests, such as destroying their natural habitats so we could build homes.

Having sex with animals though is a completely unjustifiable act against creatures incapable of reasoned consent. Dogs being trained to enjoy sex with women doesn't justify consent anymore than an 8-year-old boy being trained to do the same. They are dogs for goodness sake! How on earth is that comparable to 2 consenting adult men or women having an attraction for each other?

#What?? So You believe that animals love to be enslaved by us, abused, slaughtered for food, castrated and deprived of dignity and freedom to find their natural identity but somehow they object to us having sex with them?? Do you not see how you defeat yourself with this turnaround??

striktlymi:
That point is very weak because some Churches do not see homosexuality as sinful. Depriving those Churches from wedding their Gay folks would be you guilty of not letting them practice their beliefs.

I'm talking about christianity here. Now any church which believes itself to be christian, yet celebrates homosexuality would have to demonstrate to me how this is based on christian doctrine. You obviously seem to be in this class of people. So please explain to us how homosexuality is godly.

Logicboy03:
Really? Then let me educate you. But know this, it is inevitable that people like me will always be condescending to people like you (christian conservatives and fundamentalists) when you guys keep using faith instead of logic to discuss laws that affect human beings.

I know people who start-off an argument like this. They don't believe in the strength of their argument and know that it is likely to be disarmed, so they sound-off first to get under the skin of the opponent, thereby distracting from the main issue which they(the proponents) are unable to make a credible case. So, nice try, but fail!!!

logiboy03:
1) Bestiality is illegal because of consent. Animals cant give consent. Sex between two parties needs consent or it is RA.PE!

Oh what a shallow logic. Just answer these simple questions:

Do we seek consent before we slaughter animals and use them for food??
Do we seek consent before we imprison and domesticate animals and make it our slave? depriving them of dignity to exist as nature has endowed them to exist??
Do we seek consent before we castrate pets, depriving them of rights to love and procreate just as we humans confer the same rights to ourselves??
Do we seek consent before we destroy forests which are the natural and most conducive habitats for these animals??
etc etc

But now we want to have s.ex with them and you come screaming "consent!! consent!!!" Somebody please define hypocricy for me again

Obviously you don't know anything about bestiality. Go to any porn site and look through the bestiality sections, it would look pretty obvious that the dogs and horses are enjoying themselves.

logicboy03:
2) Inc.est is a gray area. It is frowned upon because of the inherent tendencies for im.becilic/retar.ded/deformed children as a result of offsprings from such marriage. It is also frowned upon because of the inherent tendency for child abuse. Age of consent is 16 or low as 14....now imagine inces.tuous marriages are accepted in the society and a father grooms his daughter from the age of 10 for future sex at 14/16. That danger is there

Another silly argument. You are outlawing a practice because of the risks you perceive in such practice, No?? Do we now ban driving because people die everyday from motor accidents? Do we ban anal sex because you are more likely to contact STDs through it than through vaginal sex? Do we ban guns because criminals use it as a tool for crime? Do we ban sexy dressing by women because they provoke rape?? I could go on and on to expose the utter illogicality of this line of thinking, but I believe the message is clear enough for anybody who calls himself a "wise man".

striktlymi:
I do not agree with the bold. A law against Gay marriages, necessarily infringes on individual rights, imo.

You fail to grasp the guy's points. you are jumping off a tangent, responding out of context. This is the guy's context below:

Joshthefirst: No one should have a right to get married publicly by the church with another person of the same sex...

He clearly declares his position in line with christian doctrine and context, while you (choose to) ignore it. Now do people not have a right to practice their religion?? Are you redefining christian doctrine?? If you are, then please state so, so we know how to argue with you, context by by context...

Logicboy03:
Yawn.

I see I have shut you up rigorously. So when you can't summon a counter argument you take a humor-shot and dodge.

Bye bye to you too

Ihedinobi:
Exactly my problem with Piers's response. Neither of you can say what is morally acceptable about homosexuality that fails to apply to incest and bestiality. So you call others silly to cover up your ignorance and confusion. That's the dishonesty that I referred to.

Logicboy03:

If a dictionary cant tell you the difference, why should I waste my time?

Please, I'm very allergic to willful ignorance.

Typical liberal response . Speak of "willful ignorance"

You can't handle and argue logic methodically, so resort to dictionaries and references. The issues here are not the definitions of these sexualities, rather is why one se.xual condition is actively promoted while others are suppressed. So Mr "Gay rights", why are there no rights for other categories of sexuality?? Are we not talking about equality here? Why is a homos.exual more human(and more rightful) than a person of other sexualities.

Logicboy03:
Is it me or is it that christians can not see the difference between
-Homosexuality
-In.cest
-beast.iality

Please do explain to us. Why is homose.xuality an acceptable se.xuality and inc.est, bestiality and pedophilia is not. How is homos.exuality such a natural se.xual behaviour and the rest are not?? Do you mean to make the case that bestiality, inc.est, pedophilia are well within the control of the people experiencing these se.xual orientations and that it is a behavior they choose for themselves rather than a biology they find themselves to be made-up of??

Why is the OT God wrathful and the NT God merciful??

Simple!! God changed. He changed from a God of the Law to a God of liberty. I know people like to quote "God is the same yesterday, today and forever more. He does not change...", but obviously people don't understand what that statement means. Where the scripture says God does not change, it means that God will surely fulfill his word/promise/covenant that he has declared and that he cannot deviate from it until it is accomplished(Isaiah 55:11). So as far as that covenant remains unfulfilled, then God would not deviate from it. But after this covenant is fulfilled, then God is at liberty(in fact he must) to change to a new/better covenant because the old is fulfilled and no longer required. It is like paying-off a debt, after which you will no longer be a debtor. So you have changed from a debtor to a non-debtor.

So yes!! God has changed and is no longer the God of the old testament(The law of Moses) because christ has fulfilled/paid it. Therefore, since God is free from this debt of the law, we(believers, Gods, sons of God) are also free and not required to keep the same law(debt) that has been paid-off.

The truth is that a lot of church dictates regarding sexual relationships today has nothing to do with the original christian doctrines. Most of what we have today(definitions of fornication, prohibition of polygamy, etc) are derived from traditions, through the roman catholic institutions after it officially absorbed christianity.

No where does the original; christian doctrine say that sex without marriage was a sin. It does stipulate faithfulness in marriage for people who choose to marry. Regarding those who choose not to marry, why should they be bound by the marriage law?? The choice not to marry does not in any way translate to the choice not to have sex. Celibacy has absolutely nothing to do with christianity, it is a pagan practice perpetuated by the roman catholic institution under the guise of christianity.

Fornication simply means: either unnatural sex or unlawful(without consent) sex. Simples!! No more, no less.

Oyinprince: op,u didnt c dis wen studied ur bible or u jst ignord?