₦airaland Forum

In questions like this, two simple answers usually pop up in my mind:

1.

Ndipe:
One of the narrators in the novel was of the belief that the idols and gods that the people served in the land were 'representatives' of The Supreme God. While the foreigner disputed those beliefs.

The 'dispute' may be understood simply on this: "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent" (Acts 17:30).

2.

Ndipe:
. . but I do wonder sometimes, did our forefathers believe in the existence of the Supreme Being?

They may have had a consciousness about Him and addressed Him variously. However, the second verse that comes to my mind is: "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." (Acts 17:23).


Anyhow, Ndipe. ,  how body?

huxley:
Did JC come back today?

Would that not be violating the same thing you indicated by the topic of the thread: "Beware of a Simplistic Interpretation. . "?

Well, could you expatiate on the particular area you wanted me to examine?

huxley:
Is teaching kids at schools about gravity, electricity, germ theory, plate tectonic brainwashing?

Lol. . . how do those compare with these:

simmy:
so teaching kids at school about evolution isnt brain washing?
telling kids that its ok to be gay isnt brainwashing?
telling your kids huxley, that God (or in your case god) doesnt exist isnt brainwashing?

Darwin's evolution theory is many times mistaken as a synonym for atheism. The point to note is that atheistic arguments have been built around that theory to confuse the whole issue and make it support ideas that were not intended by that theory. This is why even atheists who try to interprete Darwinian evolution theory are not always in concensus (a case in point: late Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins). As the gist of Darwin's ideas are often not quite understood by many, it is often the case that a few people mistake "evolution" for atheism. They are not the same, just as we know that atheism is not science.

Another problem resulting from such arguments is the idea that theism rests on blind faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. We note that theism is not science as well, but rather a worldview that tries to investigate, understand and interprete experiences in our world which most scientific models of enquiry are unable to decipher.

"Science" if properly understood should be appreciated for what it is and not stretched to be a tool for elasticised debates between worldviews such as theism and atheism.

Hi Chrisbenogor,

Lol. . . your insight has always been a delight and I understand you weren't putting me on spot at all. My apologies were tended because of a few emails from friends who expressed a bit of concern and misread me as trying to overwhelm you. Although we both understand the current/spirit between our discourses, it wasn't quite clear to those friends - and you could imagine the flood of emails that followed after reindeer's first line in his response late yesterday! Anyhow, I'll be more cautious and warm in sharing my views. . . at least, for their sakes.

Now let's look at your reposte:

Chrisbenogor:
I like to say here on nairaland that I am not here to try to change what anybody thinks but to put to test that which I believe in, and in the process learn more. ( eh abeg people that was for pilgrim alone oh she go understand ).

Apt. I learnt long ago that discussants will always have their own biases and prejudices in any discussions, and it doesn't matter whether they are religious folks or rationalists who bend to atheistic interpretation of issues. But like you, I've made every effort to go one step further and challenge my own views first, before presenting them for a wider audience so that at the end of the day my weaknesses may be eliminated and my convictions further strengthened. (bo, I understand you perfectly o jare! )

Chrisbenogor:
That said I am glad we both agreed on something at least, but I will like to stress once again that freewill is not for only doing evil and I know. The onus is on evil because it is what makes man have a flaw.

There's no doubt that freewill is not only for doing evil: I've always tried to indicate that it applies to choices both good and evil. However, I'm not so sure that the onus would be on evil. Man does have a flaw; but the question to note here is that he was not made/created that way. There's a difference between what man was, and what he became.

Chrisbenogor:
I am also still trying to fully understand why you will say am automation process is not a good analogy and even though I do not agree I respect your position.

Like I said, the automaton analogy does not fit the experiences of the real world in which man finds himself. The difference is that man is able to make choices, whereas an automaton in terms of a 'robot' is unable to exercise freewill and hence does not make choices.

Chrisbenogor:
Again let me reiterate on the first set of premises again, I get what you mean about responsibility, man should be responsible for his choices so to say. But the point I am trying to make is really simple, its a shame I cannot draw a diagram it should have made my point clearer and instead of yaping away at this point let me ask you simply, are you saying there is no relationship whatsoever between the creator and Man's choices both good and evil?

I see a relationship between the Creator and man, which I've defined in terms of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. However, the point here is this: where do we place that relationship and how is it defined? It does not appear that sovereignty is predicated on man's choices - because to assume it that way would immediately eliminate the question of man's responsibility; and I think that is what has been so difficult for many to grasp.

Isaiah 54:17

No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.

Father, another day - we are thankful for all blessings granted upon us by Your hand
We praise Your holy Name and magnify Jesus Christ over all our affairs
We rejoice to uphold Bisi and her brother ('debolay') in Your love
May their testimony be blessed and be a blessing unto others
Thank You for a successful surgery and for healing Bisi
All glory and praise and honour are Yours
In Jesus' name. Amen.

Cayon:
Personally I can't say if Jesus was circumcised and I have not read a bible verse on it.

[list][list]Luke 2:21
And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. [/list][/list]

Blessings.

DeepZone:
Since christians are obliged to be circumcised, was Jesus also circumcised?

Christians are not obliged to be circumcised. Where did you read your assertion, please?

You disagree yet?

Jesus loves you.

Do you disagree?

Jesus is Love.

@Olabowale,

Your reply didn't surprise me and only plays the same tune of a personal disturbance. That is why I asked you what it is really that Christians have done to you that you are never at peace with yourself and yet seeking to accuse them of the very same things that Muslims are openly practising?

Even though you may claim that you have never referred to Muhammad as 'Lord', that's okay - I never accused you of doing so. Rather, the one assertion you made that called my attention to set you straight was this --

[list][list]You had asserted that Muslims never refer to Muhammad as "Lord".[/list][/list]

That has been the gist of our discussions so far; and my replies were to show you that there are so many muslims who actually call Muhammad "Lord". You asked for evidence from websites, and I served just a very few of them. If you endeavour to do a few more searches, I'm sure you will find so many of them openly posted by Muslims themselves!

Now, the point actually is simple: not in any instance so far have you ever tried to refute the plain fact that Muslims have been referring to Muhammad as "Lord" - not in one instance! So, my simple question is this: WHY are you so bothered about Christians referring to Jesus Christ as Lord if your muslim brethren are doing the same thing that worries you to death? Is that not hypocrisy of a queer sort on your part?

Every other reply you have so far tendered are evasions of this one single thing - and all that is left now is to eat your own words and simply stop making empty noise. You have demonstrated that you have no clue about what is happening in the Muslim world.

Regards.

Hi Backslider,

Backslider:
Pastor Chris has attacked the Old time religion in his messages and he ridicules the righteous men that have lived in the past.

The better thing to do is not to attack him in return. It is not a spiritually healthy cause to attack anyone simply because we don't agree with their messages. 'Phoney' is a very big word that could be used by people on this thread.

Peace.

@bindex,

bindex:
@ pilgrim
Why must it be you that postulate and propagate God's positions?

It must not necessarily be me - I've only been trying to share my convictions in consonance with what I can defend and hold to well founded.

bindex:
I personally find it a bit funny, that an imperfect creation of a supposedly perfect God is stating his thoughts and positions on how he should be understood and perceived.

Well, what I can confidently affirm is that one's imperfections do not mean at all that he/she could never understand anything about God. I do not know everything about God; nor have I tried to argue that I know Him better than anyone else for that matter. Again, nor am I trying to postulate how He should be understood (apart from how He has been pleased to reveal Himself to me in the Christian faith).

However, if you could refer again to my last recent reposte to Chrisbenogor, you would find the substance of my biases. Cheers.

@reindeer,

reindeer:
Pilgrim 1, i do get your point but you always come accross as if you are an insultive person and this almost ruins your message to the point where reading any further is hard, i guess its just one of those imperfections in human nature and im sure i carry my own flaws around too,

Lol. . . I once again tender my unreserved apology(ies) and make no excuses for my brashness. As I stated in my reply to Chrisbenogor, many times people are bound to misread me because they feel that most of my expressions were directed against them on a personal level. It ought not be so. But I'm glad you are able to rise above my tawdriness and endeavour to catch the gist in my contributions.

reindeer:
Agreed everyone here comes into the forum with a bias but you must know thats not always true.

I cannot argue against your persuasions about it; but it's hard to find any entries in such discussions that are not biased one way or another.

reindeer:
My bias now more than ever tends towards how i think the world can be a better place for all hence my musings over why the ruler of the universe seems uninterested in our affairs.

well, I respect your convictions although I am not persuaded that deism is an easier and more cogent worldview that could be defended.

Happily yours, pilgrim.1

huxley:
Learn how the religious have exploited the gullible in America and worldwide in the article appended below.

Lol. . . atheistic rationalism is simply not science. That is the first lesson that should be learnt.

Chrisbenogor:
For one to be able to do something evil or something good the individual exercises that freewill, good and evil are synonymous with free not just evil as you asserted.

I'm glad we have reached the same pointers at this juncture. It is impossible to properly handle this enquiry if due correspondence is not accorded to the problem of "choice" emanating from man's freewill. However, I think my application of man's freewill was expressed in terms of both good and evil.

Chrisbenogor:
If man doing evil is a flaw, and man has the ability to choose evil then obviously man is flawed!

Not necessarily so - and to infer that as the emphasis to make man "flawed" is simply once again to apply the question of freewill particular to evil. That was not my position, as I had demonstrated that "freewill" was not given to man to engineer the propensity to do evil. Man's choices point to his responsibility; God's creation of man points to His sovereignty. To make man a flawed being on the basis of simplistic deductions as in the case of the analogy of the "robot" simply makes him an automaton - which is far from reality.

Chrisbenogor:
Which we all know, I am tempted to ask if really you are looking at issues without bias

Admittedly, I am biased about these issues and remain very unapologetic about it. Let me explain:

Everyone who enters upon this discussion is actually going to come up with a set of presuppositions. Whatever analogies we present to bolster our individual persuasions, the one thing that remains at the end of the day is to ask ourselves how close we are to reality. Now, the reason why I present my own biases in this way is because I see man, not on any level to be reduced to an automaton, but rather as a being endowed with intelligence to be himself and act responsible in the face of choices between life's alternatives.

Now, if someone presents his/her own biases, I should be careful enough to appreciate the persons point of reference - but at the same time, it is my privilege to critique his biases by eliminating his poorly formulated factors as points of his references. What should result from that will only bear the weight of what we have made out of man, whether we truly represent man or otherwise reduce him to what he never was intended to be!

That is why, while admitting to my biases, I endeavour to propose a rigorous undertaking in my presentations and replies, such that the true nature of the subject is never lost sight of. To this end, you may have read me several times opining that people sometimes leave the real questions of the day unattended while projecting very simplistic alternative points of references.

Chrisbenogor:
How about the popular "No man is perfect"

My take is that man "became" imperfect after the creation, and not while he was being created. The reference to perfection and imperfection do not stand at the same needle point - imperfection describes the Fall of man, and not the origin of man. These two things are, unfortunately, often lost sight of!

Cheers.

Lol. .  @Chrisbenogor,

No vex - I didn't mean it the way it came across. I should learn (and I am learning) to put my points in such a way that even though I'm quoting certain posts, my replies or entries would not be mistaken as directly on the person whom I'm quoting, lol. A case in point was my last reposte you referred to - I apologise.

Anyhow, good points you raised; but let's discuss a few highlighted lines in yours:

Chrisbenogor:
Ok let us break this down, you say man was not created imperfect lets xray that statement first.
1) God created Man
2) Man possesses the ability to choose good or bad
3) Being bad makes man imperfect
From the following I can deductively say that God's creation is imperfect.

I don't quite share that view for this simple reason: the deduction is not quite connected to the inference. The third (3) point you raised already assumes man's choice to turn out bad should be blamed on his Creator. This simply scuttles round the fact of God's sovereignty and man's responsibilty. Man's choice to abuse his privileges does not denigrate God's sovereignty.

Chrisbenogor:
You further assert that man's choice to do wrong has nothing to do with his creator and again I think that is untrue.

Okay.

Chrisbenogor:
If I create a robot that should turn left or right at every junction and this robot on getting to a junction and turns left or right we can say that is in line with its design and since I am the designer there is a relationship between me and the choices the robot makes.

See what I mean? Did I not say somewhere that man was not created as an automaton? This is usually the inference that many people often make, and I antici[ated that was the difficulty in your persuasions that was leading to that strain of thinking.

The analogy of the "robot" does not satisfy this equation. Why? Because when you look at man, we understand that:

(a) he was not designed as a "robot" (or "golem"

(b) using that analogy of a robot reduces man to an 'automaton'

(c) man viewed as an automaton could not be said to express 'freewill'

(d) inability to express freewill eliminates the idea of 'choices' (in as much as robots do not express choices)

(e) eliminating choices violates the basic principle of sovereignty and responsibility.

My dear bros, in love I had to outline the above and share with you my deep concerns for the default rationalistic idea that many people hold about this matter. When the deductions are made in the untennable order of "man is imperfect equals an imperfect God", my one humble question is this: what really has the enquirer reduced man to?

Chrisbenogor:
Now if turning left makes me not happy I would simply redesign my robot not to have the ability to turn left!

If you had to apply that in the real case of man's experiences, what kind of "man" would he be? It seems already it brings us back to the violation of the basic principle already highlighted above.

Even if I were to grant your thoughts for a moment, I should have to ask myself a basic question: doesn't this redesigning stipulate that the end product would also be "imperfect"? I have no other persuasions than that it definitely would be such; because at every turning left, the elements of choice, responsibility and sovereignty are disregarded altogether.

ayinba1:
darkness hates light

Christ is Light _{John 8:12}

Africankel:
I've read from the cover of my bible to the back I've not seen any portion that says "Fight the Devil", Do we call these activities by christians ignorance?

It all depends on what is meant by "fight the devil". Just as some people look for doctored statements in the Bible to pepper some ideas, so the case could be made that no portion of the Scripture explicitly states the opposite such as "Do not fight the devil'.

We may understand, however, that in Christian warfare, the call is made to do the following:

[list][list][li]we are to "resist the devil" - and he will "flee" - James 4:7 [/li][/list][/list]
[list][list][li]we are not to give place to the devil - Eph. 4:27[/li][/list][/list]
[list][list][li]we are stand againt the wiles of the devil - Eph. 6:11[/li][/list][/list]
[list][list][li]we are to be vigilant and steadfastly resist the devil - 1 Peter 5:8-9[/li][/list][/list]
[list][list][li]we are to overcome the devil by the Blood - Rev. 12:11[/li][/list][/list]

It should be clear to us that the highlighted portions are descriptive of the type of spiritual warfare Christians are called to betake themselves to.

huxley:
Scientists such as Kroto, Sir Richard Roberts (another UK Nobel winner), and Richard Dawkins look with horror upon the spread of faith schools

They should, and the 'horror' is only just beginning. When will thinking people begin to understand that atheism is not science? How many real thinkers would agree with the overblown assertion of men like Dawkins who is known to posit the idea that all "real" scientists are atheists? Does that measure up to intelligence?

The words we use bear contextual meanings. People often fall into the mistake of assuming what the Bible never teaches - for the basic reason that they do not and have not carefully studied what they enquire about.

Such is the case with the word "temptation". It does not bear a linear meaning but has varied applications in context where they are used.

Deuteronomy 4:34 - "Or hath God assayed to go and take him a nation from the midst of another nation, by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?"

The word "temptation" in that verse does not bear the idea of seduction to sin, evil or wrong doing. This is clear when that verse is compared with other verses where the thought is in connection to difficulties of a very tough situation. Deauteronomy 7:19 reiterates this, and it is the word that word that describes difficult trials in life's experiences.


Matthew 6:13 - "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

Here the thought is about being seduced to evil or wrong doing. God does not desire that His people take seduction to wrong doing lightly - others actually delight in such a lifestyle, and often it is the case that people who profess godliness in their lives may be led to easily assume that there's nothing wrong with allowing oneself to be seduced into sin.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
Let me explain what I mean by a perfect God having imperfect creations.
We all know that human beings have a weakness, which is the tendency to do evil, if God is perfect why is his creation imperfect and then if punishes them for being human beings.

Well, the answer is in precisely what has already been stated earlier. It involves two basis assumptions: creation and choice.

From the Bible itself, we know without question that man was not created "imperfect" - in the sens that many people assume the word 'imperfect'. Man was not created as an evil being; rather, he chooses for himself to be evil. Ecclesiastes 7:29 demonstrates this two sides clearly:

Lo, this only have I found, that -
(a) "God hath made man upright"
(b) "but they have sought out many inventions"

Secondly, I think it is wrong to assume that God punishes people for "being human beings". Nothing could be further from truth. Compare this with Psalm 106:29 & 39 and see the real reason behind the thought in this regard.

Chrisbenogor:
There are many possible answers ranging from the possibility that God is either not "omnimax" and capable of mistakes to that he enjoys watching the battle going on within us everyday.

That is quite an untennable reasoning, because it circumvents the fact that even though God made man without the supposed flaws, He would not force man against his choices. We were not made as automatons; and man is fully responsible for the choices he makes despite God's benevolence. To blame someone else (whoever else) for the choices we make in life - especially the choices to be deliberately evil - is not halfway close to viewing reality intelligently. Man's choice to be "evil" has nothing to do with who created him or how he was created.

Chrisbenogor:
Popular among there is the concept of freewill does not hold water, being a Supreme being he should have known the effect of what giving human beings freewill will be only to punish them for exercising that which they did not ask for.

Neither this thought of descriptively subjective idea of free will has no substance, actually. Free will is not a licence to evil choices. To blame free will on "effect" of what you described above is like saying that free will is synonymous with bad choices! Lol. . . what you should actually be thinking of are two things: God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.

To connect "free will" the way you described above altogether misses the point; because free will was never meant to be something in man that engineers evil choices. What then about the same free will to make choices on moral grounds apart from evil? By this, of course, I have in mind the reality that people have often exercised their freewills for moral (rather than immoral) choices? Freewill was not given to man to cause an "effect" that would later be blamed on the Creator.

Chrisbenogor:
Then the remedy to save becomes sending his only son to remedy the situation by dying for his creation, death is the way to appease a supreme being.

Wrong, again my dear. Jesus' death on the Cross was not to rectify (or remedy) man's freewill. To assume it this way is to have missed the real gist of the Cross.

Chrisbenogor:
The truth is either way one cannot totally prove the existence or the opposite of it, so just believe in whatever gets you through the night.

To believe in "whatever" is a violation of your subjective description of freewill! Hehe. . here's the reason: in real issues of life, many people make immoral choices (again with their freewills) as the only logical basis to get them through the night. What about the morning?

I've heard people suffering from addictions of substance abuse categorically state that such a situation is what they "believe" will get them to the morning. The distinction I often make is a simplistic one: that in issues affecting our freewills of such nature, there's a great divide between the addict and the pervert. The addict will readily receive whatever help is being offered to set him free from his problem; whereas, the pervet knows that his choices are unhealthy, but he deliberately and absolutely rejects any offer of help!

If you have ever tried to help a pervert, you know the difference from trying to help an addict.

olabowale:
@A_K_O: Deleted, I'll Quit!

Why so early?

olabowale:
Just imagine for a moment you were never at any time a muslim, could you have been able to clean after yourself the way you do now, after using the toilet? Absolutely, not.

Hahaha. . . so it is only in Islam that people are supposed to learn how to clean after themselves from the toilet?!? Lol. . . alhaji, you're sounding really desperate now! All this repertoire simply because the evidence has been given that Muslims have always referred to Muhammad as "Lord"?! Ha, o gaa o!!

olabowale:
I still hear a taint of Christianity in the way my mother prays for me.

Thank God. . . the savour of Jesus Christ is not easy to be forgotten. Enjoy o jare!

olabowale:
Just the other day, i had to correct a former Christian who assumed that he/she is a child of God!

Dear me. . he/she must have reminisced on Pickthall's 1919 sermon! How come you seem to be the only grown up muslim who is largely unaware of that widely circulated sermon sef?

olabowale:
Finally, the deviances go to the truth of the prophet's ahadith about divisons of 73. Then about copying the people of the Books even if they imitate them as they enter something like the hole of a lizard!

Oh comon, dear sir! Before Muhammad passed away, it is well known that he borrowed so many concepts from the Biblical faiths. What about the second coming of Jesus Christ - where did he get that from? And where did he get the concept of the "trumpet" in that second coming? Haba. . rank-xeroxing has a long history!

olabowale:
And Allah talks about the Monafiqun of islam. How does a person justify calling anybody a lord, or god or both apart from Allah the Almighty Lord God the Creator,

I also wondered about that; and for the life of me, I still can't figure the contradictions of this very issue in the Quran itself.

olabowale:
except he/she is a big time Munafiq! I know already that all of the other religions are Kufar and Mushrik.

Lol. . the fact remains: Olabowale, you are the one who made noise that you have never heard any muslim refer to Muhammad as "Lord". After reading the evidence to the contrary, I have not seen you refute them. All that has happened is this interesting piece of drama where you're now calling other muslims "deviants". Why now?

Anyhow, remain blessed. . . in Jesus' Name.

@Olabowale,

How is your Sunday? 

olabowale:
Marmaduke, Shiah, Sufi, and Tripoli? Thats the best you can do? These are deviants!

The many established Muslim scholars, councils and institutions that cut across all these names might as well be deviants, No? Those were merely samples found on the internet in consonance with your request - I have not given you a list of other veritable Muslim publications to send you ona  panic trail.

The basic noise you have ever made was that Muslims never refer to Muhammad as "Lord". Since it was my persuasion that they actually have been doing so, I only gave you the above examples to verify for yourself. Typically, you have not refuted the fact that Muslims actually do so, but your rage is confirming the fact among Muslims. You and your lawyer friend could deny it from now till the end of the millenium, but the fact still remains irrefutable that Muslims have been referring to Muhammad as "Lord". Whether they are deviants or not is left to you to berate them as much as you care; afterall, they are your brethren.

olabowale:
Should they not have their deviances?

Should muslims have their deviances?

olabowale:
Islam started in Makka and was completed in Madina! You can't show me a group in these two places that are deviants.

That does not negate the fact that Muslims actually refer to Muhammad as "Lord". You are not even in Makka or Medina. . . and your Islamic Supreme Council of America is well aware of the Great Mosque in Tripoli. For these two giant institutions to be practising this same thing about calling Muhammad "Lord" should not be any worry of mine. All you have demonstrated in response to the irrefutable evidence of the fact is to berate them, not refute the evidence.

olabowale:
Marmaduke was a Christian before he became a muslim!

Marmaduke was not rejected by Muslims - they welcomed him, heralded him, sat under his sermon and promoted his teachings. No muslim I know to date has ever denounced Pickthall; rather the muslims of repute who sponsored his work even appointed him to work as headmaster of a muslims boys' school. Not only so, they even acclaimed his translation of the Quran as ranked among the finest English translations. Nobody complained about his sermon of 1919 which opened with referring to the prophet of Islam as "our Lord Muhammad" - that is why they published and praised his sermon, translated it into several languages and even put it on the internet for wider circulation.

Where is your learned friend the 'lawyer' - has he lost his onions of self-denial yet? I hope he would affirm your brigade of berating muslims who do the very thing that you noised ignorantly without evidence?

olabowale:
The residual effect of christianity lingered with him. Is just like you. I am sure the cleaningness that you got from Islam still linger with you!

There was no residual of Christianity with Marmaduke, so refrain from this silly dubious theory. That is why I asked you to go read the transcript posted on the internet by muslims and check out what he said about referring to "the idea of Allah’s universal fatherhood".

You muslims are a very funny sort!   After several decades of heralding Marmaduke as a reknowned Muslim, all of a sudden you guys woke up to see the reality of his sermons. . . and in your small world and two-man brigade, the same Marmaduke has suddenly become a "deviant"?!? My-o-my!! Egbon, what is biting you?

Hi Chrisbenogor,

I'm doing quite well this morning and have enjoyed the very early morning service. I hope to attend another in the evening to honour a friend's invitation. I hope you doing quite as well and enjoying your day.

It's been quite an interesting discussion, I agree. And again I agree tentatively that our experiences in the reality of life is comprised of both 'ordered' and 'random' indices or points of reference. Here it seems that the element of "choice" has been introduced. . . but let me pause for a while to allow you develop the thought further.

@reindeer,

reindeer:
Mr pilgrim,sorry about the error, it was a typo.

No worries, guessed as much.

reindeer:
Can someone tell me why a perfect God will love israel more than other nations when he made all of them and put his likeness into each and every human?

The real question is not so much about those whom God loves - that could be stretched beyond just merely Israel. If you have carefully studied even the Biblical texts themselves, you would understand that there were other nations besides Israel who knew and had fellowship with God long before the nation of Israel was born.

The case of Israel is one of a covenant relationship - and God Himself reminded them that it was not about anything special in themselves that qualified them for His love; but rather because He established His love with them based upon His covenant with their progenitors (see, for example, Deut. 4:37 and 7:7-8). Further on, He reiterates the fact that their special privilege was not based upon what they might have claimed as their righteousness, but rather because of the wickedness of those who preceded them ("^(a)Not for thy righteousness . . . ^(b)but for the wickedness of these nations" - Deut. 9:4-5). If one is to examine your line of argument for a perfect God, it is simply a well established case that a perfect God will detest wickedness in any nation.

However, because people often tend to be simplistic in their idiosyncrasies in discussions of this nature, I often wonder if they are asking the real questions of the day. If you have your own concept of "a perfect God", it would only be sensible to share that knwoledge with others and then let them weigh your presuppositions. The argument against the convictions of other people while proferring no alternatives is simply a lazy and intellectually dense attitude in discussing any matter.

Now, the question is this: what is your own concept of a perfect God, and have you found that god for yourself?

The silliness of the whole argument is quite unfortunate. It is as much as proposing to find "a perfect man", and if that man fails to qualify by a set of preconceived and biased assumptions, then we berate the entire human race! Just in the same vein, one might wonder if you have knowledge of a "perfect God" to assume this theory of assumptions. This is not about whether God exists or not; rather, the case seems to be polarized now about the quest to find your idea of a "perfect God". The simplistic case of arguing on the basis of God's love for Israel demonstrates how narrow people tend to think, especially when they haven't carefully examined the Biblical texts for themselves and examined the backdrop of the issues they intend to query.

reindeer:
the analogy of perfect parents just doesnt do it, men are supposed to have 'choice' and do either good or evil right?lets say thats ok by me but i would then wonder,did God have a choice as to the type of creatures he made?

God will not make a choice for you to do evil - if that is your choice. You're poorly drawing your inferences by pretext rather than context. The result of man's choice in doing evil does not question the idea of God's choice in the "type" of creatures He made. What has your choice (good or evil) got to do with your origin (being created by God)? One's choices to do evil has nothing to do with who created him or how he was created.

In the broader scheme of things, we know how many people care less about spirituality or religion, and yet do not wait to be educated about their choices to do evil. Yes, they choose to be "evil" for no religious reasons; and that reality is with us in every country of the world. However, not many people are asking questions about that reality.

reindeer:
im still bothered, i need real answers.

I can understand why these issues may be worrisome to you - and you're not alone. No one should disparage you for your concerns. However, a more helpful way of looking at issues and finding answers is to ask the real questions. The question of God's love and man's choices are interpreted variously; but the real question begins to emerge when one considers the veracity of each worldview that is being proposed.

@Chrisbenogor,

Very sorry I logged out abruptly - had some very important guests arrive on me suddenly. Anyhow. . .

Chrisbenogor:
One thing I will always be is honest, I am here to know how others see things. I know we are not dealing with reality, I too have anticipated some of your answers(and I was right on this one )

That's cool to note. . . warms the conversation where we can accommodate and anticipate one another to some extent. And yes, you were right in anticipating me on this one (I may not be so generous in future, lol).

Chrisbenogor:
but lets not spill our carefully set up experiment now.
We said "if" everything were random it would mean no force are in control, do we agree with that?

By prognostication, I would agree tentatively with you on the above. . . so I could see a bit further down the road how you develop your thoughts.