₦airaland Forum

Allta:
Maybe we're looking for rewards from making Christianity a religion so bigger than it was then. But let's remember, Christianity ain't a Religion, it's totally different from Judaism and the likes. Christianity is living the exemplary life of Christ!

bawomolo:
i don't think i said one group represented the totality of theism. lets not get into some extreme vs extreme argument.

bawomolo:
the ratio of atheistic groups that are dominated by dogma is definitely less than the ratio of theistic groups that are dogmatic.

I hope we can agree on that.

bawomolo:
what humanist church are you talking about? that's a fringe organization compared to the catholic church or even redeem.

esensed:
hi all

thanks pilgrim and noetic, i understand what u u mean however i wish them to prove my ontology with what seun has provided for them, that is why its so short.

jagunlabi:
No,that is not what i am saying.It was included by the catholics to give christianity a more historical verissimilitude at that time.Why are you hearing what i did not say?

tpiah:
Can you people do your homework before logging on the web.

jagunlabi:
Like the holy trinity?A lot of non-catholic christians do not mind accepting that part of the doctrine,even if it does not arise from the biblical teachings.
What about going to worship on sundays?Was that part of the biblical teaching?The easter holidays that you guys still adhere to today?Christmas day?
You this african christians should just do what you do best and continue to play SHEEP.You are not supposed to have any opinions about anything concerning the mechanisms of the doctrines of the faith.Just continue to dey play follow the leader like you have been doing all these years.

jagunlabi:
The catholics laid down the foundation of the christian doctrine,and that is what is still the base for all denominations today,whether you guys like it or not.You can deviate and reinterprete the gospels all you want,but the fundermentals of the doctrine still come from them.Besides,none of the other denominations are any better than the catholics in whatever criteria you want to judge.
May i remind you that they are still your brothers in christ?Lest you folks have forgotten.

jagunlabi:
What does that matter?You recieved the package through them.Without the catholics,you wouldn't have a single idea what was happening in that part of the world,or who the hell Jesus was.

jagunlabi:
They assembled it,officially.They chose which books were to go in and which ones were to be left out.

KunleOshob:
There is absolutely nothing wrong in drinking beer as long as it is done in moderation as far as the bible is concerned if you read the verse i quoted earlier you would discover that Jesus christ himself used to consume alcoohol regularly and the same hypocrites that condenm alcohol consumption today accused him of being a wine bibber[which means drunkard]in that passage.

jagunlabi:
Kai!You fake christians are such ingrates!
-Who made christianity a world religion today?The catholics
-Who gave you christianity that is your religion today?The catholics
-Who gave you the present version of Jesus,the gospel jesus?The catholics
-Who put together the bible that you folks cling to today?The catholics
-Who gave you the trinity concept?The catholics?

If you fake people are so in loathe of the catholics,then walk the walk and disengage totally from their doctrines and reinvent your own version of what christianity is,from ground up.Including Jesus christ!Sheesh!

jagunlabi:
The discipline of QUANTUM MECHANICS/PHYSICS is dealing with that area.You will be amazed at what progress has been made in that field.

jagunlabi:
You are comparing faxing with internet surfing?We are talking about people communicating with each other live over a vast expanse of space. Around 200 years ago that would be sorcery,supernatural.What about mobile telephone communication?What about TELEVISION?Those rectangular boxes of sorcery that live in our livingrooms?

toneyb:
What are the phenomena that scientist have been battling with for ages to give scientific explanations to? And what do you mean that more and more are beginning to recognize that there are certain issues that cannot be scientifically explained? who are they more and more?

jagunlabi:
What we are doing right now on the internet,in the world wide web,would have been termed supernatural,or downright sorcery, two hundred years ago by scientist and religious leaders alike.
Who would now think that surfing on the net and communicating live with other folks thousands of miles apart is supernatural?It is called EVOLUTION.We continue to evolve.There is no standing still.

dalaman:
The supernatural has no clear or unequivocal definition IMO.

davidylan:
sigh . . . another us vs them argument. I thought this was going to be a bible-based discussion, its turned into another parade of human philosophy, criticism, mis-representation and blaming.

davidylan:
What are "HCM adherents"? This is my first time of hearing such a thing.

davidylan:
I was thinking last night . . . the early apostles didnt have the facilities available to us today - no radio, satellite TV, no private jets, publishing houses, giant buildings . . . YET the message of the gospel of Christ took the world by storm. We have more giant temples today with record attendances every sunday YET all we have is a lukewarm church and an increasingly cynical public. We cant find miracles anymore, sinners are now welcome in our front row seats, gays can go to church and not feel an ounce of conviction . . .

davidylan:
Welcome to the church in babylon. Its all ok, we can just blame HCM adherents.

davidylan:
The problem isnt the "size" of the church, its in what is preached there.

KunleOshob:
For the record, i am not an HCM adherent. I am only instrested in whatever movement would promote the undiluted gospel and pracitcalize it.

As i said earlier i am not an HCM adherent neither do i belong to one

TV01:
It takes a certain kind of proud - unthinking and unfeeling - religious hypocrite to post the kind of disdain and abuse that you have done above, subsequently labelling or proclaiming it as love, inherently suggesting it's "Christian" love.

Unfortunately this type abounds on NL.

_{does anyone actually discuss issues or topics anymore? is anyone capable. Lord, pray  save us from the invasion of the "Institutionalised Church Drones" ICD.}

KunleOshob:
@Pigrim.1
As you stated that you are starting this thread as a fallout of a thread i earlier statrted and seeing the line of your discourse here let be correct a notion that i might have earlier put across wrongly.

KunleOshob:
Whilst i am not against large churches per se, it is how they achieve this large ness that sometimes bothers me. Though i would not like to derail this thread by stating obvious examples, in the bid to "grow" the church all sorts of false and twisted doctrines are introduced to the gatherings to encourage, stimulate, co-erce, black mail or intimidate christians to give more.

KunleOshob:
They claim they are building a house for God[which actually sounds ridiculous]. Churches go into competition with each other and the focus is eventaully lost. While Jesus was on this planet he had large gatherings which he preached to. [remember sermon on the mount] but he never turned it into a money generation issue whilst claiming he wants to use it to spread the gospel. On the contrary he fed them all when they were hungry[free of charge].

KunleOshob:
So the focus should not be whether the church is large or not but rather that the church does not succumb to wordly desires whilst claiming that they are trying to serve God.

esensed:
hello noetic and pilgrim.1

well i seem to be interested for them to state my ontology, by scientifically stating my ontology.

expecting all u athiest,

huxley2:
I think this is the post in which your introduced "empirical verification and falsifiability" into the thread, when you said the following:

If it wasn't you who introduced them into the debate, then I apologise profusely for making a false charge against you.

huxley2:
NO, I think it was in this POST , when you said the following;

Whichever, I still apologise.

I know that the reports point to the fact that the event was "real" and "undeniable". . . but why I'm not using that to push "evidence" for anything at the moment is because I'm hoping to take the discussing with atheists on this forum to more engaging phenomena that could be examined by falsifiability. I use that term in the sense of -

         '. . . the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by
          an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable"
          does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown
          by observation or experiment.'

That is the sort of 'evidence' and/or 'proof' that is often some here might have been speaking about;

Most atheist world view relies mostly on empirical evidence

Image123:
Seriously, seriously, I think the only difference between the two is that one makes more money than the other. lol. They both have real believers, unbelievers, 'good' preachers and all that.
It's a misunderstanding really. The large churches are usually also divided into HCMs and zones. The way to the Father still remains Jesus, irrespective of where one worships, small church or large church.

The house church movement is an attempt to get away from the institutional church, seeking instead to return to the small gatherings of peoples that constituted all of the churches of the New Testament era

Why the House Church?
Historical. The house church is the biblical church. All of the churches in the New Testament era were small assemblies that met in homes. While setting up institutional forms of "church" may or may not provide a way to honor God, the movement toward the institution and the human authority that tends to accompany hierarchical institutional structure are not theologically neutral.

Authority:
House church advocates reject any human authority other than the very real and present rule of Christ, who was inaugurated the king of his church at the first Pentecost (Acts 2). The house church assembles to know the will of its king through the Holy Spirit and to be obedient to that will. Many in the professional clergy, however, understand their role as a "priestly" one in which they are to be intermediaries between the Lord and His flock, being thus trusted through the ordination process with a certain degree of authority. While they seek the benefits of the vibrant Christianity that manifests itself in small groups, and work hard to make small groups a part of the ministry of their churches, many harbor a concern that the groups might become a threat to their own relevance and livelihood.

huxley2:
If you had read my comments, you would have seen me questioning the relevance of "empirical verification and falsifiability" in this post. This was introduced by Pilgrim and I thought it had no place in this debate.