₦airaland Forum

@seeklove,

seeklove:
@pilgrim
there you go looking for trouble again. You intimidate poeple in this forum but You will not intimidate the likes of me. I will not be like justcool who lets things go for the sake of peace. I will reply to all you post.

You're welcome to reply to any post - all my posts sef from start to finish since the first page of this thread. How you became "intimidated" after reading my post is what I need to understand. And if your effort is directly opposite to justcool's, then I am to understand that it is not "for the sake of peace", no?

seeklove:
You are not the only person in Nairaland who qualify as poeple, how come you are the only one to take offense? Guilty conscience?

Guilty conscience, for wetin naw?  Why should I be guilty for someone who quotes from John and refers that quote as "according to Matthew"? If I was not clear, I did ask him to point out who has been labelling Kunle as he alleged - there's no quarrel for him to have tried to simply show me the quotes - just as you quoted a few things I posted as regards Kunle's entries. What was wrong in asking him to show me what he alleged? What was so difficult in that request to have made him take offence?

seeklove:
the guy did not allege anything, peoeple has been attacking kunleOshob all along this thread.

"Attacking KunleOshob" - because his position was quite unstable and he could not present a clear case for his postulations? I see.

seeklove:
Did you not write this to kunleoshob

[quote author=pilgrim.1]You always cry the victim's song of people insulting you, but are very much at home to use such slobbers when you don't ever want to discuss. If there were issues, the sane and simple thing to do was point them out and request answers - not demand them and then cry the victim's song again. Thanks for the "typical" assumption, though

[quote author=pilgrim.1]Kunle,

Please go and study your heart. You really don't have a clue about these issues, and even if one has to take you up on simple matters in the Bible, you still don't even know the ABCs of that Book. If you are seeking to protect your predispositions, no worries: but you haven't seen anything yet until stuff begin to happen to you![/quote][quote author=pilgrim.1]There is a term which people have used to describe this kind of problem: syncretism.[/quote]

Now, the above is not to say that I direct syncretism as a malady to KunleOshob. . at best, it seems that is where he had begun to be inclined while still alleging that others are "ignorant". We are thankful. All the same, if one cannot trust the Bible and only believes that God's Word is written on our hearts, is it not hypocritical for such people to appeal to the same Bible when arguing a case?

[/quote]Yes, I wrote those as regards Kunle's entries as well some of them directly to him. The first thing I asked him on page one was whether or not his faith is a Biblical one - consequently, he answered that "my faith is not in the bible". Grateful. If that has been his drive, one really wonders why he has been busy trying to fight for some other doctrines in other threads by fastidiously quoting from the same Bible that he does not base his faith upon?

Second, since he considers others "ignorant" for querying his premise, I asked him to go and check his heart - I did not "attack" him; but if that is to be read as "attack", perhaps you guys should try and help him instead of giving him these false pious hopes. He does not consider it an insult or an attack to address others with "ignorance", but he takes umbrage at anyone who dares to bring up an issue from his quotes, no? When he opens another one of his responses with "Another glaring example of Loveless and selfish christianity", he does not consider it an attack or insult, no? I guess if anyone had written that line directly to him, you guys would have taken us to barbeach for firing squad, yes? Those who presume I was "bullying" him have been so patronizing as to have deliberately missed all that, yes?

Third, I knew where KunleOshob's postulations would eventually lead his readers - I knew it all from a mile off. Not that it fazed me in anyway, since I'm not the only person who has been calling his attention from early this year to be careful. That was why I made reference to three things: (a) he should carefully examine if he had a Biblical faith; (b) pointed out that his propositions are nothing more than syncretism, where I also defined what that term means; and (c) and showed him where his summations would logically direct the minds of so many people.

In (c) above, it was at post #68 I observed this: "Is that not where (it seems) Kunle's argument is directing us?" I already saw it early enough, and asking him to consider his presuppostions was wrongly misread as bullying, insulting, being malicious, or rude. Yet, even though that same observation in that #68 is the very thing KunleOshob has led some of his adulators to assume, he did not come back at any time to state that Chrisbenogor was wrong in drawing that assumptions. I asked him several times, and it seemed it was too difficult for Kunle to be man enough to state the obvious!

It is one thing for people to quickly react when they read pilgrim.1's posts - and some who fail to see what I point to, would very quickly allege all sorts against me, while deliberately excusing the same thing from those they applaud. I have apologised to them, just to help them calm down and look again at the real issue; but when they keep making all these excuses, it necessitated my call for them to stop whining the victim's cry and wake up! Now that Kunle's proposition had brought out what he does not want to acknowledge, has any one of his adulators helped him out of what I have constantly pointed out for his consideration? No, they did not - nor did he: at best, he came back and alleged I was being mischievious!

seeklove:
These are just a few quotes where you not only attacked the guy but insinuated that he sufferes from syncretism.

Excuse me, seeklove dear, syncretism is not a terminal ailment that people "suffer from" - it is a position one adopts which is self-contradictory.

seeklove:
You are the person always picking a fight and making false allegation. You have demonstreted this in all the threads that you posted on.

True? How come you're the only one making such an allegation? Where is justcool to come back and answer to the points I raised in his quotes - especially the false allegations he proposed? Did he address them?

seeklove:
Here again you insulting. Saying that he is making shakara.

Lol, that was mere shakara. Did he consider it an "insult" that I called his bluff (oops - 'bluff' again might be an "insult", I forgot). Please guys, just leave all these complaints and address the real concerns. What was the meaning of typing in bold that God fights for his servants? What kind of shakara was that, just because I asked him to smart up for his false allegations?

seeklove:
You say that he doent stand a solid ground, are you God?

I'm not God, never was, nor shall be. Dear justcool made false allegations which he could not address - so what is his solid ground for claiming that God would "fight" - fight, for who: him and his false allegations?

seeklove:
Believe me pilgrim there is nothing Christlike in you.

Thank you. That is even mild.

seeklove:
All you do is fight and fight and fight and fight against people. You are fighting him because he gave his own advice to KunleOshob, doent he have to right to contribut.

I don't "fight, fight, fight" - if anyone, it was justcool that started this song of "God will fight". Anyone is welcome to advice KunleOshob, as long as they don't allege a false presumption against others and then claim that God will fight for them.

seeklove:
He  didnt mention your name in his contribution, so why fight the guy??

Chill - he didn't need to mention any names when he makes false allegations.

seeklove:
You have forgoten!!! I thought you are god. does god forget? I thought you know the bible

Good that you forgot, so relax. I never implied anywhere that I was "god".

seeklove:
Even if you can't find where mathew said it, the fact remains that John said and it is in the bible.

Cop-out. I knew where John said that, but I'm still waiting for him to show me the exact quote from Matthew. Is that tooo hard for him (or even YOU) to simply show me? Just show me is all I ask - too amazingly difficult?

seeklove:
or is john not part of the bible? or is mathew not inagreement with john?

Where is the quote from Matthew? Please show me that same verse in Matthew, abi?

seeklove:
@justcool
I don't know why you let people like pilgrim 1 intimidate you. This is not the first post that you have had to ru away from because of her stupidity. I don't mean to insult you but knowing you personaly, I find it strange that you let the likes of pilgrim talk down on you.

Thank you, this is very "Christ-like" of you. Shalom.

@chessguru,

(1)

chessguru:
However since it was compiled by human it is bound to have errors, just like nature itself has got some errors,

(2)

chessguru:
AT BEST THE WORDS IN THE BIBLE ONLY COMES TO LIFE WHEN QUICKEND IN THE PRESENT BY GOD TURNING THOSE WORDS TO ZOE/LIFE AdDING TO WHAT THE LORD IS SAYING TO YOU AT PRESENT, the written words can contradict itself with all the errors in the world based on human errors,

What we need to understand from you guys is this: since the Bible is full of 300,000 errors, do they also "come to life" as well? Are the "errors" also quickened?

DavidDylan:
you actually thought he was ever a "thinker"?

Bros, wetin I for do naw? Since I no wan define any person before they do so for themselves, I thought he was actually a "thinker"!

DavidDylan:
thanks pilgrim.1, i doubt mazaje bothered to thoroughly digest his "pew research" statistic . . . he would rather argue blindly.

Bo, my bros. . I noted that he has become more of a campaigner than an objectively aware thinker. There are so many, many instances of these "overstated" demographics all over the net. But I was glad he mentioned the Pew Research - because I've been following the debates on that website and their forum for a while now.

One example where we find such overstated demography is (here). But sadly, those who quickly refer the the Pew Research fail to understand that the debate is still on, and honest thinkers argue that the "growth" (yes, there is a growth) has been "overstated" and it continues to happen. For one to make an honest assessment of any situation, the campaigning should give way to objective thinking - for which I appeal to mazaje to go back and read what those researchers are actually arguing!

@Image123,

Thanks you for these exhortations. I've been looking forward to them, and I'm delighted to see the one above. Blessings.

mazaje:
the number of athiest are growing in america according to the pew reserch group the number is about 50 million now and growing that number was about 25 million in the 70's. . . . so what the heck are you guys saying?

Save the 'heck'. . I've been following the Pew Research for a while now, and up until now what most researchers have concluded is that such a claim is overstated. First, because even atheists themselves are not agreed who exactly is an atheist, or how to define atheism itself. If you ask people like Michael Martin, he argues that Hinduism, Bahaism and Jainism are atheistic philosophies - whereas we know that is a classical example of an overstated paradigm. We know that those so-called atheistic philosophies are religions and not atheism, unless you guys would like to bring us up to speed with when religion has been hijacked into atheism.

Now, for the Pew Research inference about this on-going debate of the growth of atheists, while some have argued the growth on a number of parameters, the honest caution from some researchers is that such demographers should be careful to note that such a claim is overstated:

[list]The second is that the growth of secularists in the US. has definitely been overstated. We have seen an increase in the last few decades, but there are two reasons for that. One is that we have now just a larger cohort of people who are unmarried or haven’t had kids. We know that a lifecycle effect is that people kind of fall away from their religious tradition when they leave home, go to college, or enter the workforce. But then they go back when they have children because people still seem to feel that it’s important to raise their kids in a religious tradition.

That continues to happen. People are just waiting a little longer before they have kids so that group of people who are for now defined as secularists is much larger than it was in the past, but from everything we’ve seen, they continue, once they get married and have kids, to move back into an affiliation with a religious tradition. So it’s I don’t think accurate to classify them as people who want to see religion out of the public square. They may be temporarily disconnected from a religious tradition, but that’s very different from believing that there should be a sharp line there. I would add that we know that immigrants tend to be much more religious than your average voter. So whatever growth you’re seeing in the ranks of secular voters are outweighed a bit, I think, by religious immigrants.

source: Amy Sullivan, Pew Research.[/list]

Granted, there is some growth among atheists and secularists. But against what demographic statistical index are such growth-rates measured, mazaje?

mazaje:
the proportion is what you are supposed to look at compared to the population growth it has doubled but the population growth has'nt doubled. . . . .

Pardon me, could you make yourself clear there?

mazaje:
lets cut the bull the percentage of athiest has grown dramatically take it or leave it. . . .

That is relative - and you cannot divorce it from the demography of the country or region as a whole.

@justcool,

justcool:
@pilgrim 1
My post was directed to kunle and not you!
Why take offence over every issue.

I didn't take offence - and that appeal is not saying anything to my rejoinder. I saw the fact that your addressed your rejoinder to Kunle; but you also mentioned "people" several times, did you not? I asked who was saying the things you alleged - did you care to give any answers? If not, is that not saying something about the allegations being false?

justcool:
I stand by what I wrote to kunle. Let the reader read yours and mine and then they can clearly see who is who.

Okay, I hear. Let them read and see who's been making false allegations - when shown, you still stand by them, yes?

justcool:
About you asking me if I live a true Christian life. My answer is this:
"By their works you shall know them." Please examine my posts, see if they are Christ-like, then make up your mind. I will not glorify myself, but God never fails to fight for His servants. This, I guaranty you.

Lol, was that supposed to be a threat or what? Bros, relax. . if you want God to fight for His servants, you're defintely not on solid grounds to claim such a waver. I have asked questions, and making this shakara is not the same thing as addressing them. Where's the "fight" there?

justcool:
About the scripture that I quoted, Mathew said the same thing too. I presume that you know the Bible.

Oh broda!! Please show me O. . I may have forgotten! I beg you in the name of being "Christ-like", just show me gently. Thank you, dear sir.

justcool:
Thanks and I wish you well.

Same here.

JeSoul:
Pilgrim,
you try sef no be small answer that post. I saw it and just shook my head and moved on. When God was handing out patience I musta been standing at the back of the line and you in front! lol . . . keep it up.

lol, Jesoul. . gurl, you don't cease to amaze me! Who said I had the patinece and candour you have exhibited? I knew all along that Kunle was not aware he was driving at something that would be too huge for him to digest; and did it surprise me that somebody quoting from John and ascribing it to "according to Matthew" would be missing the mark.

Well, sis. . I still dey pray for myself and all them folks. Whatever the inference, e go better someday. God bless you o jare.

DavidDylan:
Mazaje you are making a huge mistake. Americans are not becoming dechristianized, what they have rather is a system that gives both the religious and the areligious equal rights to be who they are.

Leave mazaje alone. It seems he's a campaigner now, not an objectively aware person.

olabowale:
My darling Pilgrim.1: KunleOshob's question above, should be easy for you to answer. Please answer it and don't beg the question. He wants a direct answer from you. Your docking this question does not fit the quality of a religious pundit, like yourself.

If Mr Kunle has not seen my answers, he clearly would have said I didn't answer to his questions on the Bible and the history just as he had asked. I have answered those questions:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-190428.0.html#msg3052436

He raised the issue of what books are included in the Bible and referred to the "other thread" - I have also been to that thread.

If you are the only ignorant muslim on the forum, others have seen it so many times it is hardly necessary to prove the fact.

Tasma:
Well I do wish you good luck Mr. Kunle but I suspect many here would never admit that there might even be the slightest flaw in the Bible even if plenty evidence is placed right before their eyes.

Mr Kunle should be helped to understand his postulations have led to the logical conclusion that his arguments led to:

Chrisbenogor:
IS YOUR GOD NOT WICKED?

I have said it several times - that is what he is largely unware that his arguments will lead to. Call me mischievious, that does not negate the fact. What "evidence" Mr Kunle has presented before your eyes is what he needs to answer to.

@justcool,

justcool:
And please do not be discouraged by those who say that you are sick. There is nothing wrong with you. I wish you strength in your seeking.

Dear justcool, I may have missed it; but truth be told - who has said that KunleOshob is sick? I think you guys should be careful what you celebrate. If you are going to be honest friends to help him, don't mislead him with false hopes and deceptive backslapping - it is unhealthy and does not help those who make such exagerrated claims.

justcool:
You raised very important and honest concerns in your first post of this thread. I can see that you are an honest seeker of the Truth. I can also see that you have knowledge of History and you are not afraid to question indoctrination.
My advice to you is not to succumb to the spiritual highwaymen, they seek to indoctrinate everybody and make everybody religious.

Could you please mention the "spiritual highwaymen", so we know what exactly you're about? Besides, if Kunle is making claims that leaves his position more confused and people are asking questions, how does that translate into "indoctrination" and making everybody religious?

justcool:
The Truth is that religion, Bible and God are three different things. True Christianity is a way of life, and not a religion neither is it the practice of a book.

Dear justcool, do you practise or live by "true Christianity"? If you do not, what is the essence of this advice you're proposing?

justcool:
After all, Christ founded no religion, and Christ did not right any book. The True worshipers of God, worship Him in Truth and in Spirit. The worship of God is not dependant on any religion, neither is it dependant on any book. Consider, that True Christianity existed before the compiled book which we call the Bible.

Let me be honest with you, justcool. If you actually believe that the worship of God does not require any book, please do just one thing as honestly as you can: burn the Grail Message and consign it to the trash bin.

It is easy and very convenient to take a seat to speak down on the Bible. That's okay - we know that Grail Messengers do not believe anything in the Bible. We've been through that episode before - and here is the challenge I have often left the GMs - when you proffer a convenient advice for those who are groping about the Bible, you can say anything you feel like about it: but please be prepared to do thevery same with your own book. If you shudder at that recommendation, don't you think it is rather hypocritical to recommend what you will never do with your enslavement to the Grail Message?

The Biblical faith has never troubled you - you don't need to speak down on it. You have quoted several times from the same Bible; and just because your ideas have not been established, does not mean now you can show yourself for what you really are!

justcool:
During the creation of man, God gave man the breath of life. This breath of life in man, which is from God, is the spirit in man. This spirit has the ability to recognise the Truth. It admonishes us through our conscience. This is the spirit that we should use to seek God and worship God with. Whatever this spirit in us does not agree with, we must not be forced or indoctrinated to accept that for it will lead us no way. Therefore don't give in to their attacks, and hold on to what your spirit tells you. Perhaps the spirit in you is still alive, and thats why you questions certain things.

I'm really sorry on your behalf to read these recommendations, justcool. It is sad to recommend something to someone based on probability in this situation - hence your "Perhaps". . . which does not say anything about his spirit being alive for a fact. No, I did not make the recommendation, so the "perhaps" is not my worry. Second, nobody is "attacking" him. I believe that on fair ground, if he has any substance to his worries, he would not be finding it difficult to clearly discuss the same. Since his faith is not in the Bible, there's nothing to worry about - no attacks, no "perhaps": he should just be as honest to his heart as possibly could be managed and not doodle between these two positions.

justcool:
Being scripturally knowlegable does not mean being close to God. Consider that according to scriptures, even the devil quoted to scripture and tried to use it to tempt Christ.

You don't need the Scripture here, justcool. Since Christ never wrote any Books, nor does worship to God depend on any book, you really don't need to speak about any "scripture".

justcool:
The Truth is that so many people have succumbed to this temptation and have condescended to the worship of the scriptures.The scriptures were written to bear witness to the Truth. One should never put the scriptures before God or the spirit of Christ in him, for such will be worship of the scriptures.

This is what I keep challenging: this fausse patte of alleging what nobosy is saying. Please justcool, please point out as honestly as you could: who have been doing the very things you are supposing as highlighted there? Who has been worshipping the Scriptures? Or who has been putting the Scriptures before God or Christ? Just who has been doing so? Why do people like you just jump in and assume these vacant allegations as if that is what you read here? Just who has been doing what you presume in that quote?

secondly, if the Scriptures were written to bear witness to the truth, why has it been so difficult for followers of the Grail Message to recognize that same fact?

justcool:
The scriptures do not give salvation, which comes only from obedience to God. According to the gospel writers, the Jew fought against Christ with the scriptures. Hence according to mathew Jesus said to them:

"You examine the Scriptures carefully because you suppose that in them you have eternal life. Yet they testify about me. But you are not willing to come to me to have life." (John 5:39-40)(International standard version Bible)

hehe. .  Somebody help us now!  You are quoting John and referring that quote from Matthew, abi?

Okay, no worries. Please when you are done, turn over to that same John and read where Jesus said that "SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE BROKEN" (John 10:35).

justcool:
You see how the worship of the scriptures can hold people back from going to Jesus or accepting the eternal Truth which gives life.

Dear justcool, have YOU accepted Jesus Christ? Have you followed Him closely? have you taken in His Word where that faith is said to be founded upon the scriptures? "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said" (John 7:38) - that is what Jesus said. The Scriptures do not prevent anyone from accepting Jesus or going to him; and nobody has been worshipping Scripture. You make these allegations because you really are not seeking to be honest with what you read on this thread, are you? If otherwise, please show us who have been worshipping the Scriptures.

justcool:
Also remember that the events and sayings on the scriptures may not be accurate since they may not have been correctly passed down. So all the sayings attributed to Jesus in the scriptures may not be correct. He may not have actually said it exactly the way it was written. And what was written may have been tampered with. Therefore the errors found in the scriptures should not be attributed to Jesus. We need to use the spirit in us in-order to be able to separate the Truth from the false.

I knew your campaign would not be done until that epitaph had been appended. nothing new - you quote from John, ascribe that quote to Matthew - and now you speak of "errors"?  Just where do you guys really stand in your religion sef?

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
pilgrim
Nice of you to quote me the way you did about God not being just and fair, you missed the parts that came before it, talk about taking things out of context. How did you also miss the part he said we agree on a thing or two? Na wa.

Now Chris, whose quote are you really worried about here - yours or his?

If I was taking your quote out of context, I hope you saw I did not misquote yours? When I first quoted you, this was the part I quoted:[list]

Chrisbenogor:
Now this is a more polite way to carry on a conversation, simple put because most people do not really believe that it is in the nature of God to be Wicked and I think that is the real hinge of all these issues, if you can show kunle that God can be very Wicked, malicious and not to forget  mischevious then he might just be able to see that the OT killings and immoral behaviours are justified and that Moses was not acting on his own, which would make him believe those parts as the words and instructions of God( Kunle if I am wrong abeg tell me).

[/list]

I don't think I omitted anything there or took you out of context. Besides, I already knew that is what so many people will draw as inferences from what Kunle was arguing, although he was largely unaware of this - until you posted such. I also noted that you said at the bottom of that quote: "Kunle if I am wrong abeg tell me" - and that was the reason why I called his attention to it several times until he said something to that effect. He was laregly unaware of what his musings were making a lot of people to draw in conclusion - and you had been led to assume such.

To come back and allege that I was taking your quote out of context or missing out anything is beyond me. That was why after his response, I called your attention thereto and summised that it was not my assertion but his. I even went one step further to show that he might have made a typo, thus the edit in mine ("does not depict". Please tell me, in what way have I misrepresented your quote - and in what way should my responses be read as being "mischevious" (according to Kunle)?

Now, if you still feel I had taken your quote out of context, inspite of Kunle's response, is it any different now from what you posted to Jesoul? Here -

Chrisbenogor:
I really want to indulge you on standards, but that might derail this thread completely, we are trying to ascertain if God is Wicked, so we can plug it back to the old testament
Jesoul, is the God you serve Wicked?

Edit:

Even when we take a close look at what you have been pointing to, I was wondering if there was anything different from the main gist you have been proposing. Though you later asked Kunle to tell you if you were wrong; and although he didn't say whether or not you were wrong, I wondered if it was different from this:
[list]

Chrisbenogor:
Jesoul they were other pressing issues on that thread, one thing you should have noticed in that pilgrims defence is that giving mirror images do not solve issues at hand, we are saying is God WICKED CRUEL HEARTLESS INHUMANE, this is very different from FEAR my dear, those actions were as wicked as they could come, we all know man is wicked too but is wickedness in the nature of God?.

[/list]

And I saw very early in this thread that though Kunle was largely unware of the fact, it was precisely what his arguments were making so many people to think. That was why I replied to the above quote with: "Is that not where (it seems) Kunle's argument is directing us?"

Kunle may not be aware that several people were actually deducing the same thing from his argument as you have been pointing out and making of God. I noted this early enough - and even though you asked him to "tell" you if you were wrong, I don't see where he has done so. If there is anything essentially that I might have edited out and then infused my own scripts into yours, please let me know - my apologies upfront if that is the case. If not, I'm still bemused.

Cheers.

Chrisbenogor:
Why do you Believe in God?
What is the nature of the God you believe in?

It would be interesting if you could share your answers to those two questions.

KunleOshob:
This brings us to the issue we are arguing on another thread. How do we know which scripture is from God and which is not. (There were over 600 books claimed to be scripture by the 4th century AD.)

Now Kunle, you were asking about who would have been worshipping the same God as Abraham did. This was what you were mainly concerned about:

KunleOshob:
There is no record in the Bible or in history that i am aware of that another group of people apart from the Israelites were worshipping the God of Abraham.

You were convinced that there is no record, either from -
- the Bible
- history
that others besides the Israelites were worshipping that same God. Now, in the last two replies, I have shown that there were. If that would not do, I really don't know what you're hoping me to assert beyond "Bible" or "history".

Cheers.

@Kunle,

KunleOshob:
Chris as stated his opinion which does depict mine.

There Chrisbenogor - it was not mine to assert, but his.

(edited: I don't want to misread you, Kunle, but I saw that part before posting my reply. I guess it was meant to read "does not depict" mine; but if I am wrong, I acknowledge it so and would not define your position or opinion for you).

KunleOshob:
I know you are just being mischivious though cause i am quite certain that you know chris and i don't have the same religious convictions.

I have not said anywhere that you both hold the same religious persausions - nowhere at all. Besides, I was not being "mischievous" (no insults meant) - if I had made the assertion he made as proposing that as your position, I would once again have been accused of being rude, or bullying, or malicious, or insulting someone. That is why I have refrained from posting anything and only allow you guys to define for yourselves what exactly you would like the public to hold about your "points".

KunleOshob:
The fact that we agree on a point or two does not men we share the same beliefs.

I never said so.

KunleOshob:
Sentiments like this is what we get when man's flawed word's, opinions and biases are presented as the "undiluted word of God" and that is essentially what i am trying to warn fellow christians about. And i have no qualms about it because if you sit down and think about it, the bible as it is today was not sent to us from God but written and compiled by mortal men with human fallacies. How do i then hold God responsible for their mistakes?

It is not so much as who you hold responsible for whatever. This is what is said to be "part of" what you were pointing out:

Chrisbenogor:
If there was not, then God is not a JUST and FAIR God, which will clearly contradict some parts of the bible which is part of what Kunle is pointing out.

Chrisbenogor:
I do not question your openess or your humility to come back and apologise for things that were misread. I personally think you get "carried" away sometimes not that you mean to be malicious, but you have to know that its a two way thingy, I or others may not be able to tell all the time that you are not being malicious.

I am not malicious to anyone. Granted that people misread me many times; but if there's any concerns they raise on the forum or off the forum (YIM, emails), I have always tried come back to apologise or correct misconceptions. But being "malicious" is not one of them - if that is to be forced upon my person and style, no worries.

Chrisbenogor:
I think if we all step back and look at this issue we will find the real underlying concerns, and from my list they are
1. The nature of God
2. The effect of translations on the bible
3. The motives of those that chose the books to be put in the bible

and maybe more. I am saying if one really considers the above, certainly discrepancies would be found in the bible.

Discrepancies et al - I have decided to take a back bench for now and not run the risk of defining anything for anyone henceforth. This is why I have been asking questions and allowing the man himself to shed light on what you pointed out as being part of what he has been about.

@Kunle,

KunleOshob:
From written accepted scripture and NOT the bible that was compiled over three hundred years later. My dear it seems as if you don't know the differnce between the bible and what is referenced as scripture in the books of the bible. I can come up with several books considered as scripture by the early christians (with evidence)that were not included in the bible today. So scripture is not necessarily = to the bible.

You have already called us "ignorant", and since you assumed that we are ignorant, that's why I asked this question : "Now could you help us point to the parts of the OT and NT which have not passed under the same rule of thumb?" Thanks.

Chrisbenogor:
@Jesoul
Plus you would see me using the word JUSTIFY, which is showing a sense of Justice, Was there and Justice whatsoever in those killings? Show me please. If there was not, then God is not a JUST and FAIR God, which will clearly contradict some parts of the bible which is part of what Kunle is pointing out.

Okay, Kunle - Chrisbenogor has said the above in highlight is part of what you have been pointing out. Perhaps you could show us more that the God you serve is as aptly described as Chris has stated above.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
Then just maybe you should check why people keep saying that, its happened before pilgrim and even when I told you it was being rude you did not see it until a friend pointed it out to you.

One thing you will find about me that is consistent is my openness. Often, it is misread, but then I do not mind. When "friends" have pointed out something to me, I have never been shy or ashamed to come back and post what they point out - by chat on YIM or email - and offered my apologies. If I was not being open, why should I even have come back and done so? The thing is that so many times, those who cry victims of "bullying" and "insults" are very much at ease to complain about others, but never about when they use slobbers against others. They are congratulated for their complacency to such, but when I come back to point out what is of concern from friends, immediately everyone starts complaining that its either i'm bullying or insulting or being rude.  This doesn't mean that I would stop being open, though.

Chrisbenogor:
Now this is a more polite way to carry on a conversation, simple put because most people do not really believe that it is in the nature of God to be Wicked and I think that is the real hinge of all these issues, if you can show kunle that God can be very Wicked, malicious and not to forget  mischevious then he might just be able to see that the OT killings and immoral behaviours are justified and that Moses was not acting on his own, which would make him believe those parts as the words and instructions of God( Kunle if I am wrong abeg tell me).

Now, since I cannot do your bidding, would it not be the option now for Kunle himself to show us how God is as alleged in the highlight in yours?

Chrisbenogor:
In the end pilgrim, the matter no even concern me, I do not have a perfect knowledge on this issue and I am only throwing my concerns which I believe most people (kunle, pastor AIO) do. Because I doubt if people will go to church if the sermon of the day is the God we serve is a WICKED GOD.

If that is the sermon that Kunle would like to propose, I have said several times that it is not in my place to define his faith for him.

@Kunle,

KunleOshob:
I would really appreciate it if you refrain as describing me as such cuase i consider it an insult.

I wasn't insulting you - I said this earlier:

      "Now, the above is not to say that I direct syncretism as a malady to KunleOshob. .
       at best, it seems that is where he had begun to be inclined while still alleging that
       others are "ignorant". We are thankful."

All the same, no insults intended - and my apologies.

KunleOshob:
If you do not understand my point of view you can seek clarification.

I have been doing so.

KunleOshob:
the problem is that you are viewing things from a box of indoctrination.

Thank you - am grateful for your humility.

KunleOshob:
i explained to earlier that the early cristians did not use the bible as we have it today talkless of believe in it does that mean they were not christians?? Even from biblical accounts they were much better than the christians we have today. The berean christians verified evrything they were told, and that is ok>

Please, from where did the Berean Christians "verify" what they did?

KunleOshob:
but if kunle should try and verify what he reads it becomes ridiculous .

No. What Kunle has told us is that his faith is not in the Bible.

KunleOshob:
As we speak not one single query iraised as been properly addressed yet you resort to insulting me and critisizing my faith.

I asked a question simply: you don't seem to have offered a pointer. Did I come back to "insult" you?

KunleOshob:
For clarity of mind let me state my position on the bible clearl here: I beleive the bible contains a lot of the word of God and his manifestation to man, however the bible in it's present state can not be said to be the undiluted word of God:

How does that square with your acquiescence that your faith is not in the Bible? Not "some", but that your faith is not in the Bible?

KunleOshob:
cause saying that would imply that God either physically wrote every book in the bible himself or he dictated it word for word to the writers.

Could you point out how many people are saying what you are implying here?

KunleOshob:
It would also imply that he physically supervised the translation of the bible into the various conflicting versions we have today in various languages.

Again, could you point out those who make that implication?

KunleOshob:
But we know this is not true. the hand of man as been involved in the make up of the books of the bible from the beginning  till the compilation which was done under the political influence emperor Constantine.

Thank you. Now could you help us point to the parts of the OT and NT which have not passed under the same rule of thumb?

@naomijt,

naomijt:
Well. . .

I think this is where the discussion will end since we both don't agree on some key factors. I don't really know your believe about your Visions and the like.

Some things are better discussed with clear understanding of some terms, but I will leave u with this. I just hope it helps.

Well, I don't know what I said to draw this to a close. I heed your offer though.

naomijt:
Clear understanding of scriptures tell us what Peter is saying here. David defnitely wasn't talking about himself because his body has seen corruption and his spirit is in hades - place of the dead unconscious.

Okay, so afterall we know that the spirit departs from the body at death?

Regards.

Chrisbenogor:
Jesoul they were other pressing issues on that thread, one thing you should have noticed in that pilgrims defence is that giving mirror images do not solve issues at hand, we are saying is God WICKED CRUEL HEARTLESS INHUMANE, this is very different from FEAR my dear, those actions were as wicked as they could come, we all know man is wicked too but is wickedness in the nature of God?.
That should bring us to the second part of your post, are you saying that Wickedness is part of God's nature, and about morality lets not even go there.

Is that not where (it seems) Kunle's argument is directing us?

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
@pilgrim
My questions here were not meant to rehash anything but just to put an idea across and would appreciate it if you see it as that. They were in response to thisI believe this is not the first time you are hammering about the brutality of man either.

I don't think I schlepp on the brutality of man in every thread when issues that do not warrant it are mentioned or discussed. Asking me to "justify" the killings - what was that supposed to mean? And how does "justifying" any killings hinge on the same issues that Kunle is trying to impress us with?

Chrisbenogor:
I will leave the rather rude part of your reply and press on with the general Idea which is that there is no way the thoughts and biases of Man did not find its way into the bible.

I was not being rude. It seems that when I make some observations (however passionately), it has become the norm to be taken as being rude or insulting anybody. Not that I hold to that style; but if you read me so, my apologies.

Chrisbenogor:
There is not way that the bible can be perfect, we were both talking to perrito4u on the other thread and you could see how easily the biases of man can be put into the bible. If it can be found that man is bias when interpreting the bible then why do you think this bias would not be there with writing it?

Lol, Chrisbenogor, please understand here that there is something that Jesoul has called our attention to several times already. INTERPRETAION of a text or message is not the same thing as the TEXT itself. The authors and the collators are not the same people, are they?

@Kunle,

KunleOshob:
I do not reject any book in the new testament neither do i reject any book in particular in th old testament. They all contain truths( especially the new testament) how ever within some of those books, the words, opinions and the biases of men have found there way in to them.

Okay, like I said, I have not attempted to define your faith for you or your heart for you. Please don't let anyone make you feel victimised as if that was an insult: it was not. However, I've heard this refrain again and again - not rejecting any book in either the OT or NT; but still not adhering to any of those books. Do you see the dilemma for such people?

The reason why I asked was simple: if you allow me, let me make a small pointer here.  The whole issue here about the "influence of man" is about the wars, deaths, killings, etc in the Bible. That is often the case for people who take such views of a "yes and no" to Scripture. But my problem with that is this: which ones then qualify as God's Word and which are not? It was in the course of a research for something else that I bumped into the guys who were distributing that HELIX mystic (let's leave that aside).

When we speak of these problems, I can't improve on [b]Jesoul'[/b]s concise answer to the point. Rather, let me only call attention to the fact that the very things which we feel irked to read about (wars, death, killings, etc) do not impugn on God's holiness and character. The way some "Christians" try to go round this is to appeal to some sense of esoterism by which they could easily evade those very "uncomfy" reading. What they don't understand is that even in the NT, they come face to face with that same God who has declared that He will mete out judgement to the world.

Now, let's say that these same people would like to remove every such line from the NT as well - what then do they have? They no longer have a fiat to the veracity of the Christian faith they proclaim they have. Why? Not that I have defined it for them, but ask them to show us what in the NT they do not accent to, they would be vague. So that I don't risk misreading you, could you point out in general those passages in the NT which you reject (since it is not the whole books)?

@Jesoul,

JeSoul:
Chris you asked a similar question on the other thread and I'll give you the same answer here:

Oh well. . . he has asked me that question before and I gave him my answer. I wonder why people just like to re-harsh the same thing over and over again.

JeSoul:

My dear you miss the point again, my faith is not in the bible my faith is in God manifested to us trhough his son Christ Jesus. And his gospel is revealed to me in spirit and written on my heart. I see the bible as a tool which can aid spiritual growth if used correctly. The bible could also be used to perpetuate evil and deceive people if used with the wrong intentions.

wow what can be said after reading this? Not much at all.

Lol, wetin I wan talk again? His faith no dey for Bible, but still e no reject any book of the bible. I hear. See what I said earlier about syncretism? They will never tell you that the reject the Bible - but wait a lil and hear them out a bit more, and all things become clear.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
Aunty pilgrim, my style is quite simple because I believe the best way to confuse someone is to throw in so many things that do not matter into , in this instance his christian faith.

If that is a way of saying that I was throwing anything into his faith to confuse him, thank you. I wasn't doing that - thus my simple questions offered him. The questions I offered him was so he could let us know where he stood in the fiat he claims. If he does not have a Biblical faith, we do not argue or quarrel that with him: it is his own faith, and I have not sought to define it for him.

Chrisbenogor:
I might not have the right words but I will put it as simply as possible so that any and everyone can understand and to best reduce anyone reading another meaning to what I have said. What I see kunle is trying to say is that there is no way you can say when it came to the bible man was suddenly perfect, even the so called great men of God these days differ on certain sections in the bible, I think it is suspect of you Christians to suddenly believe that mans inspiration to write books made him perfect.

I really don't see how you could afford to dribble this idea in here. Perhaps you have come across so many "Christians" who make such claims - I do not; nor do I see its relevance here. That is why the Scriptures are there and open to show the honesty of such men who did not seek to hide their imperfections. What I observe has been happening some times is that people make appeal to so many irrelevant issues and use them as a fausse patte to argue what we have not been arguing - as in this thread.

Chrisbenogor:
What do you know about the lives of these people who wrote these things down? I doubt if it there was proof that paul for instance had affairs with women or men for that matter that everyone would take what he wrote down as the undiluted word of God.

And that was supposed to mean. . .?

Chrisbenogor:
No amount of justification pilgrim would make those mass murders in the old testament good, nothing whatsoever. Men killed Jesus Christ, yes they did or is that not why Jesus came, did he come to live forever no, does it make killing anyone right? NOT AT ALL. You see when men indulge in these dastardly acts we say they are EVIL and I will condemn anyone that kills innocent women and children and also holds anyone captive.

Chris, we have been through this before - yes or no? And what was my answer to this assumption? Did I seek to "justify" anything? If I did not because you would never listen, why bring it here again? The one thing that is a put off is this type of attitude where some people drag issues and use them in other threads to misrepresent my position - I take objections to that attitude: and that is why I sometimes just fold myself away from people who are not really reading but just using the same thing over and over again as if that is the new thing since slice bread.

Chrisbenogor:
But wait God also killed people without good reason does it make him EVIL, yes it does.
Did a loving God order those killings or Moses did?

Yes, "God killed" - I know that. Thank you. But does that reduce my faith in HIM? No.

Chrisbenogor:
Pilgrim, justify the killing of those people in the old testament.

Lol, Chris grow up. I already answered that question before and I will answer the same way: I do not justfy anything. Does that therefore make me call God "evil"? No.

Pastor AIO:
This thread gives the perfect example of why I no longer use the term christian for myself.

I just want to give Kunle some encouragement from where I am sitting. No one can tell you what is in your heart. This is your own personal journey. Don't be bullied by their doctrines and aggressive orthodoxology.

I have not defined for him what was in his own heart - my asking him to go and study his own heart for himself should not be misconstrued as "bullying" him or anyone. Things have been said to many people - which Kunle himself has been happy to use without qualms - did that make them stop using the term "Christian" for themselves?

KunleOshob:
Those this sound likethe word of God to you? Or does it sound like what Jesus christ who is one with the father would instruct? You be the judge.

We are not turning a blind eye to any passage of the Bible - and I for one would answer with a strong YES, that passage is the Word of God to me. A lot of people today are looking for some esoteric form of "god" whom they have made in their image and then sit uncomfy when they read such passages or about the wars in the Bible. I know - human nature is today to complacent to stand in the face of such issues, and while fingers are being pointed at the same God, none of you stops for a moment and wonder about the brutality of man in crucifying the very Son of God on the Cross. WHY is that a part of the Bible you would like to believe in while worrying yourself to death over the parts on slavery?

Please tell us, Kunle, which book in the NT do you reject?

@Chris,

Chrisbenogor:
Now this is actually a really cool topic , at least one raised by a christian( if others still agree he is).

Kunle has a very big point, and he allowed himself to be drawn away from the real issue at hand, which is that

The hand and influence of man is heavily manifest in the bible even if you choose to deny it.

I think the above really sums this up, the bible was compiled, these books or letters or epistles were not written with the intention of being compiled into one book. Most Christians do not realize that there was a lot of controversy surrounding how the bible was compiled some three hundred and twenty five years after Christ.

Dear Chrisgenobor, let us take that same highlighter within your quote as the main gist of the concerns raised in this thread - barring every other, yes? Now what have we been looking at?

I don't think anyone has argued against these two facts:

    * the Bible was written by the hand of man

    * man was also involved in its canonization

Has anyone been arguing against those two? The thing is not so much to even argue against them, but what implications those two issues point to. If those who question the veracity of the Bible have any substance to their own argument, which text in the Bible was not written by the hand of man? And which of the books was not compiled to be included in the canon by the hand of man as well?

See, we don't think there's any substance to that highlight, because we have addressed that as a non-issue. But even if someone would want to make an issue of it, then we have asked: does the OP have a Biblical faith or not? And he has told us plainly that his faith is NOT in the Bible. We thank him for that open confession - is there anything there again to argue? The point here from that very confession is not whether or not the OP accents to or consents to some of the Biblical texts - the huge question is: which one? If others are suspect, which ones then are not suspect by the same rule? And if all or none are suspect, then again, where is the rational for his defence of a fiat he holds in the Christian faith? Here, it is not a "yes and no" adventure - for the same rule he applies in one should apply to all. WHERE does he stand? The answer has been given already - which makes the highlighted quote within yours to be unnecessary.