Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,148,352 members, 7,800,698 topics. Date: Thursday, 18 April 2024 at 12:43 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Okeyxyz's Profile / Okeyxyz's Posts
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (of 57 pages)
Religion / Re: Are Female Pastors Antichrist ? by okeyxyz(m): 7:10am On Nov 10, 2013 |
Agishon: acts 18:26 Priscilla. and Aquila explained the Scripture to Apollos who was a man. this might help us. clip: Some interpret this passage to mean that women should never teach in the assembled church. However,others commentators say that Paul's word "I suffer not"( I never let) can be more literally translated"I am not allowing" Paul did not forbid women from ever teaching men. Paul' s commended co-worker, Prisilla,thought Apollos,the great preacher ( Act 18:24-26). In addition,Paul frequently mentioned other women who held positions of responsibility in the church. Phebe worked in the church ( Romans 16:1) Mary,Tryphena were the Lord's workers (Romans 16:6,12) as were Euodias and syntyche (Philippians 4:2) Paul was here prohibiting the Ephesians women, but not all women from teaching. The fact that one is a worker in church or that he/she introduced someone to christianity or relayed a doctrine does not make such a person an authority. A person of authority is one who creates doctrine for the church. It is malpractice to go about conferring authority on women(or anybody for that matter) just because they were workers, servants and disseminators of the christian doctrine. 3 Likes |
Religion / Re: Is There Truly A Curse On First Born by okeyxyz(m): 6:10pm On Nov 08, 2013 |
Gboyee4fun: Jacob showered curses on his first born (Ruben) in d bible and just because of that many xtains believe that there is a curse upon every firstborn. Wats ur view on dat? Where did you get this silly doctrine from?? |
Religion / Re: The Possibility Of Natural Intelligence. by okeyxyz(m): 5:59pm On Nov 08, 2013 |
plaetton: Perhaps O should ask Okexyz if he thinks that a microscopic virus is conscious? Intelligent? Self-Aware? Ambitious? Is driven by self-preservation? Of course yes!! A virus is self aware to know when an environment is favorable for it's survival. If environment is good, then it feeds, grows and propagates(replicates itself to produce new generations). A virus can sense adverse environment that leads it to adaptive behaviours like forming cysts(goes into hibernation) in order to survive until the environment turns favourable. All these are attributes of self awareness, which every living organism has. The mechanisms may not be as complex as we observe in mammals, reptiles, birds, etc but it is the same influence of self-awareness and ultimate objectives of self-preservation. 1 Like |
Religion / Re: The Possibility Of Natural Intelligence. by okeyxyz(m): 3:20am On Nov 08, 2013 |
NativeBoy: Precisely. |
Religion / Re: The Possibility Of Natural Intelligence. by okeyxyz(m): 6:27am On Nov 07, 2013 |
Kay 17: I thought about that also, yet a theist's view will be entertained. You mis-thought, just like @plaetton. Consciousness has always been, still is, and will always be divine. Life has never been demonstrated to emerge from any non-life material in any lab or in any scientific theory. |
Religion / Re: The Possibility Of Natural Intelligence. by okeyxyz(m): 6:22am On Nov 07, 2013 |
plaetton: Proof?? Really?? I laugh in dothraki There's no such thing as artificial consciousness. You rush too quickly and naively to declare the above. The only proof here is your lack of understanding of the world of computing and programming. What the robot in the OP does is simply captures data, identifies/determines patterns in the data and organizes such data to simulate learning(it's actually a trick in it's algorithm, rather than actual learning). Like I said before, there's no such thing as artificial or computer borne consciousness. Consciousness entails self-awareness, self-identity, self-determination(eg: ambition) and self-preservation. How can a computer be any of these. Does this program ever ask itself why it is doing what it is doing? It can't because it is not self-conscious. A conscious entity would be aware that it acts in certain ways either out of pleasure, or the will to survive or dominate in it's environment, etc, in other words self-interest. So what is the self-interest of this program? None!! It's just a robot, just processing what it's programmed to process in order to simulate learning. 5 Likes |
Religion / Re: Science And The "God" Idea by okeyxyz(m): 5:35pm On Nov 04, 2013 |
nwuyag: Science claims that the big-bang produced the universe out of nothing. Tell me: How's this different from christian claim that God created the universe out of nothing?? |
Religion / Re: Science And The "God" Idea by okeyxyz(m): 5:30pm On Nov 04, 2013 |
Christianity is like a track and field hurdles race where athletes run and jump over hurdles. The hurdles is like the scientific challenge to limit or obstruct the progress of an athlete, but he musters efforts to jump over these hurdles. The fact that he jumps means that he acknowledges and validates the presence and effectiveness(as an obstacle/limit) of these barriers, but he is also able to jump above(transcend) them instead of just ramming through them(which will be a disregard/opposition for their presence). |
Religion / Re: Science And The "God" Idea by okeyxyz(m): 4:56pm On Nov 04, 2013 |
@OP makes a good attempt to analyze and present some critical views on the points of view of atheism vs christian doctrine. But @OP fails to grasp truths of christian doctrine(not blaming you though, almost all christians fail this insight too) and ultimately this writeup is a huge fail!! The failure is very basic, and if someone fails the basics of any theory or principle, then such a person cannot get to a correct conclusion. The OP's mistake is to pit christian doctrine against science. There is no such position in christian claims. Christianity does not oppose science, rather it acknowledges and validates it. Christianity only goes further to transcend science. Note the difference between oppose and transcend. Christianity claims the miraculous, not anti-science. For a christian with true understanding, he knows that science is of/from God, he uses scientific observation to validate(witness) spiritual principles and vice versa. Looking at the new testament, anywhere Paul talks about wisdom of man is a reference to scientific wisdom. Nowhere does he preach an opposition to it, rather he preaches a wisdom(of God) that transcends(goes beyond) the wisdom of man. So for you to transcend a matter means that you acknowledge and validate that matter first before you move beyond it. Every christian who believes that science is against God or vice versa is just simply silly and has no understanding of God's/spiritual principles. If you are conversant with the bible, you will observe that anywhere unbelievable claims are made comes with the caveats like: "With (the wisdom of)man, it is impossible.., but with (the wisdom of)God all things are possible...". Which clearly shows an acknowledgment and agreement with scientific wisdom. So, Christian doctrine cannot possibly be against science. The christian God himself claims he is the founder of science. |
Religion / Re: People Argue that Moses Saw God. How True Is This? by okeyxyz(m): 2:15pm On Oct 25, 2013 |
jayriginal: What exactly is your problem bros |
Religion / Re: Why Could Jesus Easily Keep The Law, But We Can't by okeyxyz(m): 1:33pm On Oct 25, 2013 |
jdilight: @ okeyxyz: Who told you that you are not meant to be like christ? when he said, " it is necessary that a servant be like his master". what then do you think of the friends or brother of the master? MostHigh: Jesus was speaking into the future(ie: prophetic). The master he was referring to was not himself pre-crucifixion but himself post-crucifixion. The pre-crucifixion christ was the Law in flesh, the post-crucifixion christ was the spirit(liberty from the law) in flesh. Though the same physical entity, they are different personalities. Just like you going to school, then graduation and moving on to professional life: You are the same physical entity but different personalities, different experiences, different expectations. |
Religion / Re: Why Could Jesus Easily Keep The Law, But We Can't by okeyxyz(m): 1:29pm On Oct 25, 2013 |
Kay 17: Yes, the law was chains tying us down. Now those chains are removed, granting us personal freedom to go as we please, as we have a right to use everything the law forbade us from. What orders man is to know truly himself, you know what is good for you and what is harmful to you. You live by truth(of your nature and liberty) and your conscience. There is no sin in whatever I am endowed with, no sin in food, drink, music, knowledge, etc. This was the way it was intended in the beginning in eden. |
Religion / Re: Why Could Jesus Easily Keep The Law, But We Can't by okeyxyz(m): 1:22pm On Oct 25, 2013 |
Joshthefirst: Who told you we can't keep the law? We are not meant to keep the laws. Fulfilling the law was a debt owed and Jesus paid(fulfilled) it for us. Why do you want to continue to pay a debt you no longer owe?? |
Religion / Re: Why Could Jesus Easily Keep The Law, But We Can't by okeyxyz(m): 1:18pm On Oct 25, 2013 |
Goshen360: Who told you Jesus did not break the law? Jesus broke the law yet, he did not sin. Jesus did not break the law. He had perfect understanding of it, lived and died as the law. Those who thought he broke the law didn't have his understanding in the first place. If they did, then there'd be no need for jesus to come because people who could fulfill it (because they understood it) were already on ground. |
Religion / Re: People Argue that Moses Saw God. How True Is This? by okeyxyz(m): 12:56pm On Oct 25, 2013 |
noblefada: Interesting topic @OP. First let me say this the Bible is not a literal material and therefore the Holy Spirit is essential is knowing and understanding it contents and of course the believer must be diligent in studying. The issue u guys had was simply due to not understanding the concept of dispensations in the Bible. Moses did not see God, but was actually communicating with angels who represented God as recorded in Gal 3, the law was a shadow and did not represent the perfect desire and will of God. But let me say this I'm a bit "envious" of Moses, because no other man in the IT enjoyed and experienced the gifts of the HS like Moses did. Thank you ma brother. You have sparks of wisdom in knowing about dispensations. I know that God cannot appear and be seen under that era of the Law. It takes wisdom to know this, not just reading and following the literalness of the words writing in old testament scripture. Moses(and the prophets and patriachs) honestly thought he was speaking with "The God Almighty", but as a son of grace, I know better, I should be the one judging the correctness of the context and accounts of the law dispensation rather than that dispensation judging the correctness of my interpretations. |
Religion / Re: People Argue that Moses Saw God. How True Is This? by okeyxyz(m): 12:45pm On Oct 25, 2013 |
MEILYN: God cannot be understood? Hmmmm, can you prove all these with scriptures please? lanrexlan: You forgot to read this. I said before: Moses saw and spoke with what he understood to be God in that dispensation of the Law. But in reality it was not God but entities/angels carrying out the mandate of God(again in the dispensation of the law). But the law is gone now(to them that believe) and angels no longer have the mandate to speak in the place God. No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him(John 1:18). Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father(John 6:46). |
Religion / Re: Why Is African Traditional Religion Seen As Demonic? by okeyxyz(m): 1:37pm On Oct 24, 2013 |
Christianity is not the problem(I speak as a christian), rather it is our low self esteem and racism on the part of the world leaders/elites that has reduced us to this level of self hate. If you are deprived a lot in terms of good education, economic empowerment, cultural identity, ownership and pride, then it's only natural that you end up hating yourself and trying to identify more with the white man than with your own attributes. This inferiority complex is what led to the misuse of christianity, besides the misunderstanding of it. The same misunderstanding and misuse of religion you guys are doing here by attacking the shadow(christianity) instead of the substance. One very typical example: Put a picture of a black girl besides a picture of a white girl, at least 95 percent of black men will say the white girl is more beautiful. Even on occasions where we might agree that a black girls is beautiful, then all here features must be white and only her color is black. What has this got to do with christianty? Nothing. Rather it is our low self esteem has made us hate anything resembling us. Our music artists now feature white girls in their videos and majority of us praise them for making beautiful, "world class" videos, we tell ourselves the lie that it is because we want a global appeal and that is why we feature white girls. Only i.di.ots who don't think(which happens to be about 80 percent of people) believe this line. 3 Likes |
Religion / Re: Why Could Jesus Easily Keep The Law, But We Can't by okeyxyz(m): 11:29am On Oct 24, 2013 |
Firstly, you are not meant to be like Jesus. Jesus was able to keep the laws perfectly because he was the physical incarnation of the law itself. He had perfect understanding of it, lived as the law and died as the law, thereby fulfilling it. After this fulfillment, then paves the way for the abolishing of the law, so no christian is expected to meet the obligations of the law anymore. It is abolished and you are free. So the Jesus you should follow is not the one who lived as the law of Moses, but the one who rose from the dead and lives as the law of liberty through the true spirit of God. They are not the same christ: The one who kept the law died, another rose from the dead. (2 Corinthians 5:16) |
Religion / Re: People Argue that Moses Saw God. How True Is This? by okeyxyz(m): 6:44pm On Oct 23, 2013 |
Moses saw what he understood to be God in that dispensation of the law. But the true God of christ, nobody ever saw before the death and resurrection of christ. The true God of Christ was always hidden. What the people of old saw was a shadow(imitation) of him, being that the Law of moses was the standing system of righteousness and under that system, God cannot be seen nor understood. |
Religion / Re: Jesus - What Kind Of Sacrifice Are You Talking About? by okeyxyz(m): 6:12pm On Oct 22, 2013 |
plaetton: How can you confidently make the assertion that only Jesus understood the law? It's simple. They were given the law without the understanding to go with it. The law itself is a shadow(misrepresentation) of spiritual principles. It was absolutely symbolic but the jews took them literally, just like you yourself take them literal. Their meanings are hidden(symbolic) from all men, until revealed to some. |
Religion / Re: Jesus - What Kind Of Sacrifice Are You Talking About? by okeyxyz(m): 5:55pm On Oct 22, 2013 |
plaetton: The problem with logics like yours is that you take words at literal value rather than considering the principles underlying them. What's the difference between sacrifice, exchange, trade, transaction? While they are different words indicating different contexts but it is one principle underlying them all: exchange!! Give up one thing and recieve another Sacrifice involves the giving up something of personal value for nothing, or for something of less value to oneself. This is a lie. There is no such operation/occurrence anywhere in the universe. I challenge you give us one instance where people(or any entity) throws away something of value for nothing, or for something of a lesser value. It is even against Darwinian evolution that you guys purport to preach. This is the most interesting and revealing part. Correct!! The law of Moses was the problem. The law of Moses was the sin itself. Adam became a sinner by choosing to subject himself to be ruled by the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. This Tree of good and evil was actually the law of Moses, in it's origin. It defined evil/sin. Prior to that God defined everything as Good and fit for use by man. So Adam choosing the tree began to perceive evil in creation that was originally defined as good, sin became his conscience and his corruption, leading to corruption of nature in general and ultimately leading to death. But sir, this proposition of yours has many many problems. I believe I already addressed this: https://www.nairaland.com/1488548/jesus-what-kind-sacrifice-talking#19012858 2. If the law of Moses was the problem with world, does it not imply that god and his prophet Moses were wrong and should be rightfully blamed? Adam signed a contract that would subject him(and his descendants) to be ruled by the Law of Moses(Tree of the knowledge of good and evil). The contract had to be fulfilled, but since nobody had an understanding of this law, how could they fulfill it then? Then enters Jesus Christ... The law of Moses was binding on Adam and his descendants. It became human nature, alive in our consciences, giving us some sense of right and wrong. This is why every human society has moral codes derived from this law, whether Jews or not. The jews were unique in that they were chosen as a case sample to legally demonstrate the law and bring the messiah through them. But once the contract of the law is fulfilled by Jesus Christ, then it is fulfilled for all men, just like it was binding on all men through Adam. |
Religion / Re: Jesus - What Kind Of Sacrifice Are You Talking About? by okeyxyz(m): 5:10pm On Oct 22, 2013 |
aManFromMars: The bolded is precisely what Jesus accomplished(fulfill). I also helped you highlight the concluding part of the context of the message(in red). Jesus alone had the perfect understanding of the Law(people then just feared and kept the law without an understanding of it). He lived as the physical and spiritual person of the law, with ultimate authority of it, thus fulfilling it. Until jesus, nobody could fulfill the law because nobody had the understanding of the law. So the understanding, practice and dying as the law is it's fulfillment. Since it is dead, it is therefore abolished. This is the trick God played on the devil, to abolish his tool of sin and death(1 Corinthians 2:8). |
Religion / Re: Jesus - What Kind Of Sacrifice Are You Talking About? by okeyxyz(m): 4:49pm On Oct 22, 2013 |
@OP has had a very wrong information and interpretation of christianity. You guys don't understand the true principles of sacrifice. Making a sacrifice is not about throwing away a thing of value for no reason. Rather it is the giving up of one thing of value, in exchange for another thing of more needed/useful/greater value. Jesus became the personification of the law of Moses, meaning: his life was absolutely dedicated to the Law of Moses(I suspect these things I write don't make sense to you, but I'm writing them anyway ), so his death signifies the death(sacrifice) of/to the law, and God raising him back to life means he is now alive to God but dead to the law. So this is the sacrifice: Giving up a life of the law, in exchange for a new life of the Spirit(of God). Oya, make una clap for me nah |
Religion / Re: The First Christian! by okeyxyz(m): 4:55pm On Oct 21, 2013 |
OLAADEGBU: Christianity was not revealed until after christ's death and resurrection. There has been preachings before christ even appeared on earth, so whatever the disciples were sent out to preach then was definitely not christian doctrine. There cannot be christian doctrine while christ himself was not crucified yet. |
Religion / Re: The First Christian! by okeyxyz(m): 4:50pm On Oct 21, 2013 |
OLAADEGBU: If you are really asking these questions and expect me to provide you with the particular texts, then I can safely conclude that you are not conversant with scripture and that's the only reason you'd continue in this line of opposition. These are fairly common knowledge texts. @chukwudi reminded you of these texts because he assumed you'd be conversant with them, and this assumption stemming from the fact that you are a more than regular poster on this religion section. Does it mean you don't have scriptural basis for the volume of your posts? Have you merely been posting materials that are not yours? Tell me you are truly unaware of such texts and contexts. |
Religion / Re: Is There Anything Like "Pauline" Gospel? by okeyxyz(m): 12:04pm On Oct 20, 2013 |
Jesus taught the law, not the Gospel. The difference between the law and gospel is that: one was preached in codes/symbols while the other is in plain understandable language. Jesus taught in parables, the understanding of his teachings were not revealed until after his resurrection, so his message could not be gospel if we did not understand them. We did not know that the law was abolished until after christ's death and resurrection, and the abolishment of the law is the core basis of gospel and without which there can be no gospel. So, the letters of Paul, which happens to be the most exhaustive teachings on christian doctrine available to us, has been labeled "Pauline gospel", it reveals the true significance of christ's coming, death and resurrection. It brings proper understanding of christ's parables and the commandments in the law of Moses, hence we no longer follow the same interpretations we used to of christ and of the law. Ultimately, you cannot understand the true message of christ if you reject or do not understand the teachings of Paul. |
Religion / Re: The First Christian! by okeyxyz(m): 2:56am On Oct 20, 2013 |
chukwudi44: This makes sense, probably right. |
Religion / Re: The First Christian! by okeyxyz(m): 2:39am On Oct 20, 2013 |
Regarding the OP and contributions so far, John the Baptist cannot be the first christian, neither was Mary Magdalene. It cannot be John because Jesus had not died yet and there cannot be christianity without Jesus dying first. Even after Jesus's death and resurrection, you cannot be christian without the understanding of the essence of his death and resurrection, an clearly Mary Magdalene could not have understood that. All she knew was that jesus has risen, in other words: a miracle has happened, but miracles is not proof of christianty. To be a christian, you must have been preached to and made to understand the significance of Christ's death and resurrection, that he died to put sin(The Law) to death and that his resurrection signifies a new era, a new message of salvation that is besides the old testament(again, The Law). All we know is that Jesus told her to go tell the others that he is risen from the dead. Afterwards, he appeared to them several times, and it was at occasions that he could have taught them the secret and significance of his death and resurrection to them. They did not know these things before Jesus's death, when he(Jesus) preached and taught in Israel and they were his disciples. |
Religion / Re: The First Christian! by okeyxyz(m): 2:24am On Oct 20, 2013 |
smh @olaa's absolute failure to grasp context in the posts he has made on this thread, both in the OP and in his exchanges with @chukwudi. How can @olaa just argue without using common sense and critical reasoning?? @chukwudi just pointed out several instances in which scriptures where used by jesus and the apostles, scriptures that are no where to be found in conventional, canonical old testament that we have today, yet @olaa is here disputing these references? Are you(@olaa) disputing these events because it is @chukwudi pointing them out or you have some other valid basis to dispute his observations?? Did you even bother to check out the texts he is referring to?? Do they exist? If they exist, is there an alternative context you think @chukwudi is failing to consider and of which you can put him right? My guess is NO!! you are just determined to oppose everything he says because he is catholic and nothing good can come out of a catholic person?? This comes across as the typical "holier than thou" attitude that blinds the proud from seeing any good in someone or something else without his own approved label. |
Religion / Re: Pls I Need A True Bornagain Christian To Tell Me What Lev:19:19b Means by okeyxyz(m): 4:05pm On Oct 18, 2013 |
@OP, Firstly, the whole law of Moses has been absolutely abolished. There's no remaining "still valid moral law" and an "abolished ceremonial law" as some people like to put it. All of it is done away with because the law was given without a true interpretation to go with it. So everything you see in this law is nothing but symbolism, not literal as people read them. This literalness is abolished. So I explain them to you by using principles: lev:19:19 do not wear a cloth made with different kind of materials Your doctrines must be pure. You must teach and practice doctrines as is fully validated by the spirit, don't not mix with other doctrines that do not agree or are not yours. also lev19:27 do not trim the edge of your hair or your beard You must not subtract from these doctrines, teach and practice them to the full, not just ones that are in your comfort zones, or because you want to be "cool" with contrary beliefs. |
Religion / Re: Born Again Vs Born Of Water And Spirit by okeyxyz(m): 11:07am On Oct 18, 2013 |
italo: The spirit teaches me all things. |
Religion / Re: Born Again Vs Born Of Water And Spirit by okeyxyz(m): 11:06am On Oct 18, 2013 |
Syncan: Gbam!!!! See my explanation above for further understanding. |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (of 57 pages)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 106 |