₦airaland Forum

Chrisbenogor:
Just try and be subtle in your responses, its just the way you come across really.

Okay, that's great - I'll try.

Chrisbenogor:
Errrrrmmmmm ya I agree the atheist sees his position as rational and maybe I am biased at this point but I think that is true, personally when faith is added to the mix rationalism goes out the window ( na so I see am if you like write edo dictionary because of this one )

That's fine as well. Me on the other hand, I'm learning to be far removed from being polarised and look more at what's being said than who's saying it - primarily, my inferences are not (or should not be) drawn on the assumption that just because someone happens to be self-identified as an 'atheist' I could not take the time to see reason with him/her.

Chrisbenogor:
No worry I specialise for wor-wor girls of all flavours, whether na ó-wor-wor, dí-wor-wor my personal oyokrometer go detect and tell me wetin to do

Lol, na dat one dey make me shy so tay I don delay showing ma face! 'Specialists' like you na de reason why I dey count my steps!

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072510#msg4072510 date=1245716650]Oh so I'm the idiot and close minded person because I'm the Catholic. You didn't even realise that Pilgrim confused me and Omenuko. She didn't even know who she was replying to, something she should've replied to Omenuko she replied to me. I was talking about one thing she was talking about the other and I'm the close minded person because I'm the Catholic.[/quote]There again - does it hurt you badly to calm down and discuss? I'm wondering, because as far as No2Atheism addressed you, I don't see where he referred to you as an idiot. What has necessitated this?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072510#msg4072510 date=1245716650]And for your information I wasn't born into the Catholic faith I converted after reading my Bible and actually agreed to allow God to show me what is in the Bible and what he's actually saying. Instead of forcing what makes sense to me in the Bible. Yes that's right I was one of you.[/quote]Aww, puhleease! We've been asking Catholics for ages to address questions on Catholicism from the Bible and it takes forever for them to do so - not to even mention how Catholics today are not so sure who's actually following the faith and who's the heretic in Catholicism. One of us indeed.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072510#msg4072510 date=1245716650]For all I'm concerned you guys are the ones with the blinded faith and many converts to Catholicism will tell you that.[/quote]It doesn't matter what 'many' Catholics say about others. Catholic history is rife with testimonies of how strongly they've made their point by murdering non-Catholics.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072510#msg4072510 date=1245716650]Do yourself a favour look up Dr. Scott Hahn, he was a protestant theologian, he taught in seminaries until he decided to read his Bible well. Today he is one of the defenders of the Catholic faith.[/quote]Would you also be willing to consider the testimonies of those who were once staunch Catholics - like Richard Bennett and Mary Ann Collins? These, among many others, have also read their Bibles well and are not interesting in defending any "system" or "-isms".

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072510#msg4072510 date=1245716650]Have you actually taken your time to study the Catholic faith, to try to understand why we believe what we believe and then checked it with the Bible, and actually see of our beliefs are more compatible with the Bible than yours? Have you actually done that, or do you just go off of what someone said to you who also heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone and on and on.[/quote]I can speak for myself - my discussions are not based on hearsays, which is why in many instances I often go back to well articulated Catholic sources.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072510#msg4072510 date=1245716650]No she is actually doing the devil's work by speaking against Christ's church. Or can you prove that the Church Christ founded isn't the Catholic church. I would like you to provide support for this and please make sense out of it. Simply saying that the Catholic church is of the devil doesn't make it true. Prove it.[/quote]Thank you, anyone who points out anything about Catholicism must by default be doing the devil's work. I hear. I guess when another Catholic on Nairaland blistered your brand of Catholicism, he must have been doing a more serious work for the devil by not referring to Vatican type of Catholicism as "Christ's church", eh? 

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072510#msg4072510 date=1245716650]Muslims claim that the quran is the Word of God and we know that isn't true. Simply stating that something is something doesn't actually make it so. If you cannot back up your claims stop leading other people's souls into perdition.[/quote]Good advice highlighted up there, but do you take it yourself?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072510#msg4072510 date=1245716650]So Jesus left us a manual or better yet, before the Bible was written and put together what was the manual the early christians used or did they not make it heaven because they didn't have the manual?[/quote]No church programme will save any soul - that was his point.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072510#msg4072510 date=1245716650]There is a central church, if there was no central church, Paul couldn't send his greetings from another church to the other. If the Church's had no connection to each other, the council of Jerusalem in Acts would be false. Seriously your logic makes no sense, prove that the other churches in the Bible were not aware of each other, and that they did not share the same beliefs, and that they weren't in communion with each other.[/quote]There was no "central church" and sending greeting from one church to another does not establish the idea of a "central church". Yes, the churches had a fellowship among themselves but the council in Jerusalem does not establish the idea of a "central church" either. In Acts 15 it is clear that the one reason why the apostles went to Jerusalem was because those who were teaching error had come from that same place - "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls" (v. 24).

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072510#msg4072510 date=1245716650]Where does Christ say those Churches were separate independent churches not under the control of any other church?[/quote]Did Christ say anywhere that any Church was under the control of another church? How about you try Revelation 2 and 3 where He addressed the seven churches in Asia - did He make one church to be in control of another church in any verse of those chapters?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072510#msg4072510 date=1245716650]Apparently you don't know what Catholic means.[/quote]Please tell us what it means. . . and by extension, show us how 'Catholic' meant that Roman Catholicism had authority over all churches.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072510#msg4072510 date=1245716650]Just as we have the Roman Church, the Armenian Church, the Jerusalem Church, the Egyptian church, the Ethipian church, and so on. All you just did was prove the Catholic church. Or is it that you do not know what Catholic means? _{I am stating this in hopes that you would be smart enough to look up the definition of Catholic}[/quote]Show us what the term Catholic means na. . or should we ask that same question in another language?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072510#msg4072510 date=1245716650]Actually it is very clear that Peter was a Pope and the very first Pope for that matter. Afterall he was the only one who received the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 16:16-19), and he's the only one whose shadows heal (Acts 5:15), he's also the one who gave the final say at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:12), and he's also the only one Christ prayed for for his faith to never fail (Luke 22:31-32), he's also the only one who received the charge to "feed my sheep" by Christ. He's also the only one told by Christ to strengthen his brethren, he's also the only one that the whole church prayed for when he was imprisoned. Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel (Acts 2:14).
Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority (Acts 5:3).

So you see dear there is overwhelming evidence in the Bible that Peter was the leader of the apostles, check with biblical scholars and they will tell you that. Since he's the leader of the apostles, it means he's the first Pope.[/quote]That was no "overwhelming" evidence to make Peter the leader of the apostles. First, the reference you quoted (Acts 15:12) said that the multitude kept silent so as to listen to Barnabas and Paul, not that the verse made Peter leader of the apostles. Infact, it was not even Peter who presided at the Jerusalem council - it was the apostle James, marked by his statements:

       "James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me" (Acts 15:13)

       "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them" (Acts 15:19)

Peter did not preside over that meeting. . . nada. However, even Paul himself did not place Peter as first in those he mentioned as "pillars" in Galatians 2:9 - he rather mentioned JAMES before Peter and John; and he made clear that he was speaking of all three of them, and not just about one person when he used the term "pillar[b]s[/b]".

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072510#msg4072510 date=1245716650]However all you guys do is make claims upon claims upon claims and throw your own opinion in there as if your opinion is perfect on the matters of faith[/quote]Sorry if that bothers you, but we don't try to make our opinions or anybody's "perfect" on matters of faith - neither is yours. The point in all this is simple: Catholics make assertions, have not been able to show them from the Bible, some who try yet do not come even close to proving their point, and we are still waiting for answers to be forthcoming. The claims made by many Catholics for Catholicism are erroneous, and that is why people still ask questions and offer their own pointers.

@~Lady~,

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072354#msg4072354 date=1245713195]Please stop reading into my posts what isn't there. I don't stress my point as you do doesn't make me unreasonable. I am completely reasonable, I have very low tolerance for those who refuse to use logic in discussions and those who claim to be open minded but are extrememly close minded. Making assertions about the Catholic church without doing your research and checking every angle is actually very illogical and proves the lack of open mindedness.[/quote]How does your hasty illogical ranting address your own claim? Reading what the quotes say precisely is one thing, trying to bend it to be Catholic by default is quite another thing. I haven't seen the dots connected in yours and it would be of great help to yourself to bring it forth.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072354#msg4072354 date=1245713195]So please do not come and tell me to be open minded when you yourself are not being open minded. If you were being open minded we wouldn't be having this discussion today.[/quote]I was open minded, sad you closed your mind and tried to bend everything you read back to catholicism. Being open minded is the reason why people engage in a discussion, not the other way round as you supposed.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072354#msg4072354 date=1245713195]You stated that the writers of the Bible are not catholic, I said they are.[/quote]That's okay - and up until now NO CATHOLIC has come forward to show anywhere that the writers of the Bible were Catholics. NONE. Even Catholic sources do not make such an otiose claim.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072354#msg4072354 date=1245713195]I also replied to tpiah when he stated that the egyptian copts, armenians, and greek orthodox were not catholic.[/quote]That's not my problem - we were all having a fine discussion until you came in with your noise.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072354#msg4072354 date=1245713195]You came in to MY reply (not omenuko's reply) and said that they are not a part of the Catholic church, I proceeded to list the churches that comprise the catholic church.[/quote]I appreciate your listing them out; yet it still does not establish the basic claim that all churches were "part of" the Catholic Church until the schisms. Even here again in your reply, you're driving that assertion and bending everything back t catholicism as if it made any difference anyhow whether it was tpiah or omenuko that you were addressing.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072354#msg4072354 date=1245713195]Then you came up to ME and replied to ME (not Omenuko) about the Assyrian church. I was not in the conversation with you and Omenuko, I was talking about what you were replying to me, not what you and omenuko were replying to each other.[/quote]I saw all that - which was reason why I repeatedly called your attention to the fact that the claim by Catholics that ALL CHURCHES were part of Catholicism (of 'Catholic Church') is false. If the problem was about criss-crosses in replies between you, myself, tpiah and omenuko, what difference does it make who was making that same claim anyhow?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072354#msg4072354 date=1245713195]That does not concern me. As far as I was concerned I was talking about the Egyptian Copts, Greek orthodox, and Armenians, and you were talking about the Assyrians. If you have a conversation with Omenuko about the assyrian church you should've replied that post to him, and not to me.[/quote]Okay, my apologies.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072354#msg4072354 date=1245713195]Lady, you got yourself confused, because I wasn't talking about ALL CHURCHES being Catholic before the schism, even though that is true. I was talking about the Egyptian Copts, the Armenians, and the Greek Orthodox, so I was very surprised when you showed up with Assyrian church. I stayed on the specifics that tpiah was talking about. So maybe you should go back and read and see that I didn't even reply to anything you said to Omenuko. I was not in that convo, you dragged me in it. Maybe YOU should take the time to clear your head and make sure that you're replying to the right person.[/quote]My thinking was clear enough - yours still misses its screws somewhere and I'm wondering how else you could be helped beyond this point. Now let's observe yet again the basic assumption of Catholic minds (if you will):

[list][quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072354#msg4072354 date=1245713195]because I wasn't talking about ALL CHURCHES being Catholic before the schism, even though that is true.[/quote][/list]

That's where the problem actually is, and the same thing that has brought us thus far - the claim that "ALL CHURCHES were Catholic before the schism" is unfounded and patently false. Several sources I referenced pointed this out, such as the BBC in brief - and you came back dismissing them for not reading the default false assertion you had hoped they would! Anything that does not read "Catholic" or catholicism to you is illogical, whereas we haven't seen any clues about how strong your 'logic' is to bend those references to say what they do not say.

For this reason, I left a couple of questions to help sort this issue out for Catholics on Nairaland, viz:

   1. What exactly in your understanding was the 'Catholic Church'?

   2. What do you mean by 'they were part of one church (aka the Catholic Church)' ?

   3. Where's the papacy in all these churches?

   4. which church among them had jurisdiction over them, since they were all 'one church'?

WHY are Catholics on this forum shying away from these questions? Where do we find "Catholicism" in ALL CHURCHES from the very start?

If you may, please offer some answers or pointers and let's discuss - it doesn't matter what logic you claim, just address them and let's sort these misadventures out for many Catholics on this forum.

Cheers.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=284000.msg4072521#msg4072521 date=1245716869]Rome is not a requirement for the Pope, If Peter were to have been Bishop in Nigeria and died there, Nigeria would be the location of the Pope's office. Location has nothing to do with whether or not Peter was the Pope. The power lies in the person not the location. Jesus gave Peter authority not Rome. When the Pope is in the U.S. he is still the Pope, if he decides to reside in Kaduna he will still be the Pope. Location has nothing to do with it. Peter does not have to be in Rome for him to be Pope.
And even at that, do you mind telling me where 1&2 Peter was written. Peter wrote them, where was he writing from?[/quote]Does the location of where he was writing from make him a pope? You're arguing away from location having anything to do with the papacy, and then asking about the same thing on location as if that has anything to do with being a pope.

Chrisbenogor:
Lol me I don't know oh maybe its the way you deliver your punches, iron fist in a velvet glove, you can never resist the urge to show how foolish a person is can you?

Chris, this is where you're misreading issues. You've been on this same ideology far too long and should move on. Often times when I try to reason with people, it's not about punches or making anyone look foolish. Yes, we all react sometimes - and I've shown appreciation for other people's posts, regardless whether they are theists or atheists. When some atheists seek to engage in discussions, they often seek to parade themselves as the "rational" discussants with a spleen on the chip of their shoulders to make others look foolish. This recurrent attitude does not help the atheist, nor infact anybody at all regardless their worldview. If someone would like to put their views across, they could do so - just because others may not agree with them does not warrant a default resort to invectives.

Chrisbenogor:
You too dey blow grammer na small matter dey for ground you go far far japan go bring mojito abi moshito to chook head inside the matter

No vex - at least I explain the grammar wey I use na. .
If that one no do sef, I still come back to explain for the bobo say wetin he dey vex for no dey brun person for im backyard, abi?

Chrisbenogor:
Seriously though can you explain the logic the OP is trying to get across to us, as you be the logic police now

I no be any 'police'. As for the logic, you sef for tunr to the prevo page and see how me sef tanda. But after they explained, and then KAG delivered a classic response, I breathe easy for where I sidon.

Chrisbenogor:
Ehen where that your pishure na, I don dey wait since oh

Oooh, U sef. . . I go report olopa for you o!
I don tell you bifor: I wo-wo (abi na 'wor-wor')

I no wan continue to make excuses, but one day I go post am.

toneyb:
Who were those that gave the names of some of the "Authors of the bible"? Who were those that said Matthew wrote the book of Matthew? The Catholic bishops. You know exactly what I am saying but you just want to keep running around. The fact still remains that the bible as you know it came into existence because of the Catholics, they brought it into existence as a part of their tradition. You can not say that the catholic tradition is unchristain and yet accept one of the product of their unchristian traditions.(66 or what ever books you have as your bible)

I'm definitely not on the same page with you, toneyb. I don't confuse "WROTE" for what you're trying to force it to mean. You have not persuaded me that those who WROTE the books of the Bible were Catholics; and as long as you are unable to do that, there's no reason why I should just nod my head and swallow what you're arguing. I really don't have ANY problems whatsoever about your effort to persuade yourself about what you're arguing - if it helps you, that's fine. Yet, it has no shred of value to establish that the authors of those documents (whoever they were) could be plastered with "Catholic". That is what you have not been able to bring forth, and that's just fine with me.

Cheers.

Chrisbenogor:
Pilgrim are you bored?

Maybe. Just wonder why people just like to tease themselves on assumptions that are untrue and then try to attribute them to pilgrim.1 - what's all that about?

toneyb:
The christian bible is not mark, matthew, luke, genesis, leveticus all these are books that were included in the christian bible, the bible is the combination of those books, all these books were in existence long before the bible was put together, the book of matthew was in existence for about 300 years but there was ever a bible. So yes the romans wrote(brought about) the bible. If they didn't put it together as a part of their traditions it wouldn't have come into existence. If the catholics had not decided to choose which was the word of god and which wasn'tthrough their traditions how would YOU have known which was?

Tease me more, I'm enjoying this drama. This is classic - to confuse "writer" for your effort is quite enjoyable. Sorry, the authors of the Bible were NOT Catholics. I know you still are at pains to convince (confuse, no?) yourself otherwise and force them to be "Catholics" - even Catholics on Nairaland would be too embarrassed at this piece of drama, but it's good entertainment. Enjoy.

noetic2:
welcome to Toneyb's world

Na today?

noetic2:
Deep in your heart u know this is false.

He couldn't do any better - we understand.

toneyb:
Pilgirim1 is an interesting person and I have learnt a lot from here unlike you who makes an assertion and runs away when people tell you to come and defend what you have said.

Lol, thanks for the accolade; it would have been saved for your drama, toneyb.

toneyb:
, I should be the one to tell you that the hallow carping of your theistic logic is more than comedy that comes before it. Well done all the same too.  

Oh thanks - I never knew mine was "hallow". I just don't do pink flowers as you tried to deceive yourself with; perhaps you need to re-read your acting scripts.

toneyb:
The bible is not writings but a collection of books. Which they put together, so YES they wrote the bible.

I'm sorry, but that's cheap talk. I actually didn't expect anything else to come forth from your argument, other than to confuse WRITER for your mistaken idea. Let's clap for you: this is the first time we have heard that Catholics wrote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus. . . Malachi, Matthew, Mark. . . Revelation. Good - they WROTE all those documents, yes?

It's a pity when you beggar intelligence to such low levels.

toneyb:
Pilgirm 1 is a very interesting person, If you ask her to tell you why she believes in a god that is invisible, she will go off tangent and will begin to tell you that the Mongolians found and invisible pink flower orbiting the moon, and the North Koreans also experienced the same thing, The Chineses were the first to have a clue about the invisibe flower and the Japanese were also worshipping the invisible pink flower. So the fact that you don't see the invisible pink flower does not mean that others haven't seen it hence her god is not invisible.

You can't beat that can you?

If you only learn to tell yourself the truth, it won't hurt you. Have I ever argued any 'pink flower' with you? The hollow carping of your atheistic logic is more than the comedy that comes before it. But well done all the same.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=284043.msg4071763#msg4071763 date=1245704943]I wonder if you read my post at all. Sometimes i think you're alittle over-eager for your own good.

No where in my post did i deny my existence or ''non-existence of self nature'' as you put it.
Rather i pointed out OTHERS could doubt my existence based on the non-physical revelation of myself.
There's a BIG difference between ''OTHERS'' and ''SELF''.
So all you wrote above is just a waste of bits and bytes worth of space.
The real essense of life is in the simple things,you didn't have to go digging for your old japanese dictionary only to come mis-quote me.
Therefore you can take your mojito or mushû whatever and stuff it neatly in your bible.[/quote]And just what have you tried to say at the very least up there?  

We don't need any Japanese dictionary to explain anything - at least I explained the terms I used. You, on the other hand, were very eager to flap your wings about existence and non-existence; afterall, who was it that bent back over with this quip:

[list][quote author=Tudór link=topic=284043.msg4070665#msg4070665 date=1245690160]If you wan't to reveal yourself do so in PERSON or people would be absolutely right in doubting your existence.[/quote][/list]??

If you have problems arguing about "existence" as the essential bit of your worries, you can do so in an intelligent persuasive manner. But to come back defeating your own argument and yet growing all the more restless only further defeats your cause. I'm quite happy to be entertained by your comedy all the same.

toneyb:
What is the bible? The bible is a combination of jewish and christian scriptures put together by catholic bishops. It was edited by them and redacted by them. They did not write all of it but they made it what it is. You can not say that the catholic tradition is unchristian and still accept one of the product of their tradition which is the bible.

Did they WRITE the Bible?
I don't know why you're so bent on arguing what you don't find in my posts.
Did the Catholics WRITE the Bible?

toneyb:
[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=284000.msg4070948#msg4070948 date=1245693201]The Catholic historians did not write the Bible - so what is this argument about turning to the koran? If that is what you're left with, don't try to recommend it to others who have not argued what you're suggesting.


The simple thing to have done is answer his questions. That was all. It is up to anyone who reads to absorb your answers or express further concerns for clarification. To be reactive and yet duck the questions is highly suggestive that something is terribly wrong somewhere in your own arguments.

Catholics made the bible, How did you know that they did not write any part of it? The bible you have today are based on copies of copies of copies, not the original. So do you know if they did not add to some of it? I am not saying that they did but it is very possible they did. Without them there would have been no bible because the bible(compilation of books) itself is a part of the catholic tradition, there would have been endless letters floating all over the place if they had not decided to compile the books that agreed with their theology together .

They made the bible because based on their traditions(apostolic tradition) they gave names to most of the books of the new testament whose authors were unknown. The writer of the gospel of John for example never said that he was John the disciple of Jesus in fact the writer of Matthew never said any where that he has ever meet Jesus and never said who his name was, Catholics bishops gave the gospel its tittle using their traditions and concluded that the writer was Matthew the disciple of Jesus. If they had decided to name the gospel of Matthew gospel of Peter, you would have accepted the gospel of Matthew as the gospel of Peter.

The Catholics made the bible, without them there would have been no bible.[/quote]@toneyb,

Thanks for your comments. However, I was hoping you'd shed more light to show that what you quoted from my earlier reply was patently untrue. Two things are before us here:

(a) Catholic historians did not write the Bible

(b) The Catholics made the bible

Are these two things the same? After sharing your thoughts, I wonder where you have demonstrated the direct opposite of what I stated - did Catholics WRITE the Bible, for crying out loud?

I understand you're at pains to convince yourself that Catholics wrote the Bible; hence, anytime you read anyone saying the direct opposite it seems to raise an excitement in you to argue otherwise - and yet, at the end of the day, you don't seem to be able to bring forth any persuasion to show that Catholics actually WROTE the Bible.

Are we missing something in your persuasions, toneyb?

chukwudi44:
Am sorry to disapoint you compulsory tithing (10% )is not int he cathechism of the catholic church .It is you hypocrite who say christians must pay tithes to your pastors.When it comes to praying ,you must pray straight to Jesus but when tithes or seed sowing are involved you can go through your pas tors to Jesus .Bloody Hypocrites!!

Em, it's not worth yapping with your tail chained between your legs. I didn't have to read your cathechism before I got to know that many Catholic Churches actually preach tithes to their members. This has nothing to do with any other pastor outside catholicism, so what's biting you to yap endlessly about this issue?

chukwudi44:
Your stupidity would soon assume legendary status

Typically the weapon of a weakling - when you can't discuss any issue, turn round and yap vitriol at other discussants. I hope your medications are still up to date?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=284043.msg4071143#msg4071143 date=1245695637]You know pilgrim i expected better from you
for someone who mentions the word 'intelligence' or 'intellect' every time they post it wouldn't kill you to demonstrate a little. . . .[/quote]My apologies. Maybe you could take the lead and show some - won't hurt, no?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=284043.msg4071143#msg4071143 date=1245695637]Anybody has the right to doubt my existence given that i've not personally revealed myself with evidence to show who i am. For all we know i could be yar'adua masquerading as an ordinary nigerian to spy on the forum or i could be seun the site admin using 'tudor' to hide my true identity.
In both cases the person 'tudor' as an ordinary atheist nigerian does not EXIST its just a cover for the REAL ME which i've decided to hide. And you or anyone else can rightfully doubt.[/quote]Aww, you're so dashingly brilliant - NOT!
Okay, here-here, my dear connoisseur.

There are a few things you should take to heart:

(a) what you're trying ever so hard to describe is your "non-existence of self nature". . . something very akin to the Japanese "mujishô" (i.e., a denial of self as a real entity). The denial of self in itself does not constitute 'non-existence' as far as ontology is concerned; rather, it actually presupposes one's existence inspite of whatever else may be speculated upon. Therefore, to have employed such pointers as

       ♥ 'i could be'

       ♥ 'hide my true identity'

       ♥ ''tudor' as an ordinary atheist nigerian'

       ♥ 'the REAL ME'

All these are merely "mujishô" and do not constitute doubts for existence - in the first place, there would be no you at all trying to describe your own non-existence. What you've done is actually presupposed your own existence by those qualifiers, so that it becomes meaningless to quip that you've "decided to hide"; how could a non-existent entity "decide" anything at all?

(b) Upon the basis of your "mujishô", one would not even have expected to read anything from you as a reply to my earlier reponse. The fact that you actually make that reply, fill in the gaps for us, lead us to structure our inferences around what you are pleased to hide or reveal - all these are pointers to your existence and not the other way round.

Don't you see how you've actually said A LOT about your very EXISTENCE? 

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=284043.msg4071143#msg4071143 date=1245695637]I'm quite sure you see my argument but you instead choose to play dumb for jesus. Quite a shame really. . .[/quote]Okay, my apologies again - it was just a bit comical to read "your argument" and then "doubt" your very existence. It's actually comedy at its very best! Well done!

@chukwudi44,

chukwudi44:
are you sure you really read my post ?

I'm not sure you considered his questions - tpiah asked you to explain how you concluded the people mentioned were his cousins: please explain it, not just state it and leave it there. But even if we re-read your post, it still does not favour your assertion that those mentioned were his cousins. Let's see:

chukwudi44:
Sorry to disapoint you Mary never had anyother children besides Jesus .

How would you know?

chukwudi44:
Let us carefully examine these Bible passages to find out who these supposed brothers of Jesus where

Matt 13:55-56
Isn't he the Carpenter's son,isn,t mary his mother and aren,t JAMES,JOSEPH,SIMON AND JUDAS his brothers aren't all his sisters living here

matt27:56
Among the women were mary magdalene,MARY the mother of JAMES AND JOSEPH and the wife of zebedee

Mark 6:3
Isn't he the carpenter ,the son of mary and brother of JAMES,JOSEPH,JUDAS AND SIMON? Aren't his sisters living
here?

mark15:40
Some women wre there looking from a distance .Among them weremary magdalene,MARY the mother of JAMES THE YOUNGER AND JOSEPH AND salome

John 19:25
standing close to Jesus cross were his mother,his mothers sister MARY the wife of cleopas and mary magdalene

That's fine.

chukwudi44:
so from the above passagesyou could so clearly see this JAMES,JOSEPH,JUDAS AND SIMON WERE CHILDREN OF jESUS'S MOTHERS SISTER MARY THE WIFE OF CLEOPAS .

This is where you've confused issues for yourself.

Please go back and study those references again - carefully. It is clear that Jesus siblings - brothers and sisters of the same mother, Mary. Although the names of His sisters are not given in those references, those of His brothers were mentioned: James, Joses (or Joseph as in some other versions), Simon, and Judas. These are not to be confused for other people by the same names - for there were indeed some others who had those same names even within close relatives. However, as regards the difference, this is what we should keep in mind:

(a) James the brother of Jesus was known and almost always addressed as such, so that no one was to confuse him for another James. See Galatians 1:19 ('James the Lord's brother' - this was not the other James that was not His brother).

(b) There were more than one 'James' -

          ♥  James the son of Zebedee (John's brother) - Matt. 4.21 and Mark 3:17

          ♥  James the son of Alphaeus (Judas' brother) - Mark 3:18 and Acts 1:13

These two Jameses are not the same person, and both of them were mentioned separately in such verses as Acts 1:13. To further clarify this, we find that James the brother of John was put to death by Herod in Acts 12:2; while years later we read of the other James (the brother of Judas) presiding over the meeting of the apostles in Jerusalem Acts 15:13.

(c) The fact that there were close relatives who bore similar names is clear in such verses as Luke 1:59-63. When John the Baptist was to be named after birth, he was first called 'Zacharias, after the name of his father' (v. 59). However, when his mother objected and desired the name 'John', they marvelled and remarked that "There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name." This should not surprise us, because the custom of the people was to name relatives after their families and lineage, so that in a particular lineage we may find several close relatives bearing identical names. The same thing here is what has confused many people between the identities of --

         ♥  James the son of Mary the wife of Zebedee
            (she is also called the mother of James the less - Mark 15:40)

         ♥  James the son of Mary the mother of Jesus - Matt. 13.55-56

Once you sought these two out for yourself, the rest is easy to see.

chukwudi44:
They were actually his cousins not half brothers .

I don't know if anyone was referring to them as "half brothers"; and No - they were definitely not His cousins! There is a different Greek word for "cousin" (συγγενής - suggenēs), if that was what was meant. Example: "behold, thy cousin [συγγενής] Elisabeth" - Luke 1:36. The verses are clear enough to show that those mentioned as His brothers [ἀδελφός - adelphos] were actually Jesus' brothers, His very siblings.

chukwudi44:
besidesin the gospel of luke 3:41-51 Jesus at theageof 12 is mentioned as the only child of his parents.

Nope, Luke 3:41-51 does not teach that Jesus was mentioned as the only child of His parents - you're reading that idea into the verses. Luke 3 gives us the genealogy of Jesus, not the mentioning of His being the only child of anybody.

chukwudi44:
Mindyou JAMES was an influential christian leader of the first century,he was the first bishop of jerusalem and author of the epistle of james.he was the james who spoke at the councilof jeruasalem in acts 15.
for more about James seethe link below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

The James you describing above is the actual brother of Jesus - Galatians 1:19. He is a different 'James' from the other one known as the brother of John, son of Zebedee, who was put to death by Herod in Acts 12:2. Please study these carefully and see where you getting issues mixed up.

Shalom.

chukwudi44:
am sure you dont ask your pastors to pray for you since Jesus is the only one we can pray to? .
If you want to contribute to the gowth of christianity go and start preaching against tithes and prosperity preaching because that is the greatest heresy ravaging christianity today .Pentecostal pastors have been fleecing their members of their hard earned money by telling them that thier finances will be affected if they don't pay tithes.

I wonder that if tithes is the greatest heresy ravaging the church, then perhaps you might do better in campaigning against the Catholic Church instead of trying to defend it - especially because we know for a fact that the Catholic Church also encourages tithes. Should we then take it that you're a member of the church with the greatest heresy going on the planet?

You see, this is why I've often wondered that you guys don't ever take the time to reason issues through before you post just about anything that jumps into your mind.

chukwudi44:
WHEN YOU REMOVE THIS LOG OF MONEY WORSHIPING IN PROTESTANT CHURCHES YOU WILL SEE MORE CLEARY THE SO -CALLED IDOL WORSHIP IN CATHOLIC CHURCHES

.

Ah, I see. A nice way to admit that there perhaps is idol worship in Catholic Church - only that we still have log in our eyes to see it. Thanks for the advice, but we're not here concerned with such accusations back and forth. There's only one thing we should examine which has brought us thus far: the claim by Catholics that all churches were part of the Catholic Church before the schisms. Leave out these inuendos: they are merely distractions to the kernel of our discussions. Cheers.

@chukwudi44,

I wonder why you're being polarised and acting as if your responses have anything to do with what No2Atheism has posted. Let's see:

chukwudi44:
Unfortunately for you the bible is part of the catholic traditions ,go on and reject it .

He did not argue to reject the Bible, so what are you arguing? Catholic traditions are not the Bible - otherwise you would have been able to show them from the Bible itself.

chukwudi44:
These so called lying catholic historians gave us the bible,If the are liars maybe the bible itself might just be part of their lies.

Nor did he argue that the Bible itself was part of the lies of Catholic historians - so, what are you inferring again? Is it that this is the best you can do - turn to attack the Bible - when you can't address anything someone replies to you?

chukwudi44:
The entire gospelsand the book of acts has no names of their authors ,it was these same so called lying catholic historians who told us who wrote the Bible maybe it's high time we switch to the koran ,since these catholic historians deceived us.

The Catholic historians did not write the Bible - so what is this argument about turning to the koran? If that is what you're left with, don't try to recommend it to others who have not argued what you're suggesting.


The simple thing to have done is answer his questions. That was all. It is up to anyone who reads to absorb your answers or express further concerns for clarification. To be reactive and yet duck the questions is highly suggestive that something is terribly wrong somewhere in your own arguments.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=284043.msg4070665#msg4070665 date=1245690160]What the HELL are you talking about ?
You're just tripping all over and confusing yourself.

Let me make it simple for ya using your logic- Charles dickens wrote the story oliver twist. . .the story contains everything from the experience,thoughts to nature and character of the young boy oliver. THAT IN ITSELF DOES NOT MEAN THAT OLIVER TWIST ACTUALLY DOES EXIST.

Your god has not REVEALED himself,all we have are a couple of writings by deluded men who for all we know might be lying about their experiences.
If you wan't to reveal yourself do so in PERSON or people would be absolutely right in doubting your existence.[/quote]Hallo Tudór,

To be quite frank with you, that lot up there is absolute bunkum. You have just demonstrated yet again that you have no clue about the issues you seek to argue and are just yapping. Take this line for instance:

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=284043.msg4070665#msg4070665 date=1245690160]If you wan't to reveal yourself do so in PERSON or people would be absolutely right in doubting your existence.[/quote]Have you revealed yourself in PERSON, Tudór? And seeing you have not done so, is that reason enough to doubt your existence?

I think you should learn to reason in the intelligent manner that people like KAG does. You sometimes are quite unware that your own arguments just quite simply deflate your whole premise.

____________________________________

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=284043.msg4058780#msg4058780 date=1245441758]I find this topic illogical.
How can i prove your ontology when i don't know who the hell you are. You first reveal yourself maybe orally or through a memior,blog or diary then we can study and know if you're being dishonest.
You can't for example claim to be loving or holy then we see in your diary that you steal, loot murder and full of jealousy. Its just not possible.[/quote]Lol, funny. If you have to consult any diary one way or another, it does not disprove his existence - rather, you're making a case for his actual dasein and would wind up defeating your own argument.

@Backslider,

You're wasting your time. I already said 'Enough of the excuses, please' - and also that 'you won't read from me again until you make more sense'. So far, just to let you know: you have NOT made any sense. You're still scuttling round in circles and still unable to show any place where your own works redeem your soul. Where does the Bible teach that "the basis of redemption" was any of those 3 things you mentioned? You have not shown this, nor do you understand your own error. You're throwing around so many words - love, justice, work, faith, etc., etc., etc., - and yet, you have not shown ANYWHERE the Bible teaches your error.

You could as well fill this thread with another dozen replies excuses that still say absolutely nothing of the sort of propaganda you're emitting; so please stop wasting your time defending your error with excuses.

@SirJohn,

SirJohn:
@pilgrim1,
like I said earlier, the paranormals is way off my grasp for now and neither you nor myself can claim knowledge of this very abstract phenomenon.

True; and although neither of us could claim knowledge of this phenomena, my position is different from that of the 'skeptic' whose underlying assumption is to deny any existence or reality of such phenomena.

SirJohn:
Yes Mr Randi may not be able to explain everything and yes there may be real psychics out there but one may begin to wonder why these guys dont win lotteries and stuff.

I don't know why they don't win lotteries and stuff - at best, I could conjecture that such activities are not the reason for anyone being a 'psychic'. Winning lotteries or any such in itself proves nothing - they do not authenticate or validate the reality of psychic paranormal phenomena.

SirJohn:
Do you know about James Hydrik or Uri Geller?

Yes, but I didn't pay that much attention to them. For one, even before I came across info about Hydrik's fraud confession to investigative journalist Dan Korem, it seemed 'something' was just missing in his acts. Such fellows are give-aways to Randi's style of debunking.

As regards Uri Geller, please see this link where I posted something about this. One thing I often watch out for in such 'claims vs counter-claims' propaganda is that the essential gist is lost somewhere in the excitement of the surrounding controversies.

@Backslider,

Backslider:
So that we dont go into error Let us go to the books of books

Matthew 25:31-46 (King James Version)

If i am wrong I will Repent on this matter now.

There is no building of Church in the passage i just quoted

I doubt your repentance campaign - it seems to be what you often say and never follow through to do as you say. There is no word on 'redemption' in Matthew 25:31-46 that you quoted. If there was, please show the verse alone and highlight the word.

Backslider:
The point I was making is that the Church had missed the WORK ASPECT or our calling.

People are not redeemed by their own works. The point you're making is no point at all.

Backslider:
We dont live in the past we are redeemed every day truely not by our works alone but by the blood of the precious lamb of God. Yet the bible says that we should bring forth fruit that meet for repentance?

Please show us where God's Word teaches that we're redeemed by our own works - at least, we know that we're redeemed by the Blood of Christ. Bearing fruit is quite another thing from being redeemed by Christ. I am yet to see where Matthew 25:31-46 mentions redemption; nor have you shown how those 3 things you listed earlier can redeem ANYBODY anywhere in all your replies.

It's useless trying to defend your error with excuses; and it may help to take a few steps back from your adventures of just accusing people anyhow as you've been doing. Many times you don't even know you're damning your own self in the process. None of those "Holy men of God" you mentioned will ever teach the sort of error you're forcing yourself to defend, so why are you even trying? Enough of the excuses, please. But, of course, you're entitled to continue to defend what you can't defend - you won't read from me again until you make more sense.

Backslider:
@pilgrim

You did not get what I meant. I was talking about the Church not the individual. The topic is talking about the Church

Church, individual, collective population or nothing in the square, it is still "error" to claim that "the basis of redemption" are any of those 3 things you listed. Go it easy on yourself and stop circulating what is false.

@Backslider,

It's well known you have issues with many and any Christian group that do not cut into your idea of Christianity. But another well-known thing about you is that you often make a worse case in your defence than those you try to 'correct'. Here's an example:

Backslider:
The building of temples is not what Jesus emphasized on before he left if you study Jesus and you go to the New testament you will discover that the basis of redemption is

1) Housing the poor
2) feeding the poor
3)Clothing the Poor

Do you realize that you're making a serious error in your quote there? I'm sure that none of those you identified as 'Holy men of God' will agree with you that the 'basis of redemption' are any of those 3 things you listed! None of those things can redeem anybody - NONE! Redemption is found ONLY in what Christ has done for us on the Cross -

    ●  In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,
        according to the riches of his grace ~~ [Ephesians 1:7]

    ●  In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins
        ~~ [Colossians 1:14]

    ●  Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in
        once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
        ~~ [Hebrews 9:12]

When pointing fingers at others, please be careful: many times you just are unaware that you're damning your own self!

@SirJohn,

SirJohn:
@pilgrim1, I studied automotive engineering and I'm presently a telecoms engineer; psychology, metaphysics, esoterics and all that is way off my field. However, having watched several videos of James Randi in an open contest with world renowned psychics, they've never been able to reproduce their 'power'; besides none have been able to claim his $10,00 cheque.

If I were you, I would not place my bet on James Randi - he's as much a fraud as he accuses others, and he's been confirmed to lie on several occasions. When this point is mentioned, those who are devoted to or fawn over his style of debunking go red in the face with anger. Although there are indeed psychic frauds, Randi has been openly challenged several times by several claimants to genuine paranormal phenomena. The funny thing is that he (Randi) has never faced up to those challenges - what's he scared off, that someone might indeed claim his $1million and end his career? Examples of these challenges to Randi have been discussed in another thread - 'Why I Am Not An Atheist':

         Montague Keen:
         scroll down to 'The challenge to Mr. Randi and friends'
         see also 20 spelt out 'cases from which Mr. Randi may wish to select a handful to answer'

         Victor Zammit:
         there are a few outlines reposted and highlighted about Zammit's challenge
         to Randi et al - see here, here, and here.


An earlier example I gave (although not a challenge to Randi nor was it posted as a psychic phenomena) was about John Safran in his encounter with Bob Larson. It is significant that while the former was well known as a die-hard skeptic about anything tending to the paranormal or supernatural, he could not deny the reality of what happened to him in his encounter with the latter.

bindex:
If you watch the videos to the end the guy was only using some trick because they tried it on a skeptic who believes it was false and it failed. All the other performances were explained through natural means. If there is anything that the whole documentary shows is that psychics are frauds. They are only good in making people believe in falsehoods.

For one, the whole documentary was not about 'psychics', so how could it be pushing your idea that it shows 'psychics are frauds'? It's alright to believe what you may, but it's disturbing in itself to read issues into the documentary that are not there in the first place. Look again at what I wrote:

[list][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=286002.msg4058108#msg4058108 date=1245433760]Again, I don't know how the term 'psychic' may apply to such phenomena as bending a spoon with one's mind or pushing an object without touching them.[/quote][/list]

The point was that, while some researchers use the term 'psychic' to describe the demonstrations in italics (as suggested by SirJohn), I don't see that as necessarily a sound inference - thus, my comment: "I don't know how the term 'psychic' may apply to such phenomena".

As an asides, more on synaesthesia: fancy a combination of chicken, ice-cream and sauce? Just as you might be wondering about how that might taste in your mouth, perhaps for the synaesthete it is a 'perfect' dish - he's tasting a different kind of 'flavour' than most of y'all are used to. Enjoy:

[flash=340,285]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvwTSEwVBfc&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

Chrisbenogor:
Haba Pastor e never reach like that oh, lol I sure say she go fine for real life sha ,

I don tell you before: lose hope, because I wo-wo!

SirJohn:
Come to think of it pilgrim1, who is a psychic? Is it someone who claims he can bend a spoon with his mind or push an object without touching them or make a cup of cofee boil without external heat? I think such people only exist in hollywood. Except of course you've seen one.

No, I cannot claim to have seen one myself - except, of course, it depends on what is meant by 'psychic' in context.

There are different levels of paranormal phenomena to which that term 'psychic' is applied. Ordinarily, it has come to mean both a noun and an adjective as pertaining to what are 'apparently sensitive to things beyond the natural range of perception'. It is in this sense that I hinted about the 'different levels' to which the word is applied, so that it should not surprise us that some researchers also include such things as clairvoyance, ESP, telepathy, etc. as tending to 'psychic' phenomena.

Again, I don't know how the term 'psychic' may apply to such phenomena as bending a spoon with one's mind or pushing an object without touching them. I think in some other instances, there are demonstrations of pushing objects without having 'touched' them directly. See vids below as to what I mean ('martial arts masters who apparently knock people out without having touched them'):

[flash=340,285]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HXyJTXGTOk&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]


On the other hand, there are also phenomena that have to do being 'apparently sensitive to things beyond the natural range of perception' - in this case, "synaesthesia" may fit the description of what is beyond the natural range of perception (since it is not common to many people), although I'm not comfortable classifying that as 'psychic'. Synaesthesia is more properly defined as a psychological phenomenon whereby a particular sensory stimulus triggers a second kind of sensation. An example is where the sound of musical notes may trigger the visual sensation of the various colours in the mind or the eye of the synaesthete. Please see again below for this category:

[flash=340,285]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R_A4tUMOtI&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]


So, who then is a 'psychic' in the context that you and I are seeking to clarify? I guess it more properly refers to someone who exhibits demonstrations of the power of the mind in paranormal activity or beyond the natural range of perception. Perhaps you have somewhat a different view - it would be great to read yours.

@JaguaNana,

I don't have any problem with people discussing - and even when you desire so much to project Christ into other people, do have the grace to first demonstrate it in yourself so you don't fall victim of your own complaints. No, I bear no hard feelings either way, which is why I'd leave you to complain as much as you want.