₦airaland Forum

Bread of Life
_{John 6:35}

Son of Man . . . _{Matt. 8:20}




Son of God . . . _{John 1:49}

LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS
_{Jeremiah 23:6}

He Is Emmanuel. . .




. . . - "God with Us"
_{Matt. 1:23}



*_{Isaiah 7:14 - 'Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.'}

Who Is He?

. . . the LORD JEHOVAH
_{Isaiah 12:2}

olabowale:
Olaadegbu will never stop pedalling his 3 gods! But I wonder which one of them he will hope to rescue him from the blazing fire of hell, where the stern Angels will make sure he is punished in the manner that is just!

It is clear that you are peddling tritheism - and that is not what the Bible teaches. He that wishes others to be punished in blazing fire of hell is a ripe candidate himself: afterall, that is what allah promised Muslims.

olabowale:
Will he run to the son god, who will respond to him that he does not know him, as Olaadegbu is saying to him " I did good work in your name, !"

Mark 9:41 - "For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward."

olabowale:
Will he run to the ghost god, who he will discover is no other than Angel Gabreil, who has no power, except what God Almighty, who created the Angel allowed him, Gabreil!

Muhammad hated the Jews because when they tested him on who the Spirit was, Muhammad had no clue.

olabowale:
Or will he now run to the father god, who he will discover that there is not son possessed by God Almighty Creator. Hence to have called Him father was a mislabelling, worthy of just punishment!

The one who denied that God is Father has already made himself a false prophet. Moses and the prophets following on from him knew God as "Father" - if Islam never knew the Father, it was because they rejected Him.

olabowale:
The muslims are firm on the resolve that God, Allah the Almighty is the One who can expose the fakery of His creations.

Good - and all the fake stuff and denials have been exposed. This is not news.

You're once again welcome to fellowship in the Christian board if the Muslim one continues to disappoint you. Please stay long enough to enjoy the love of Jesus Christ.

below. .

@littleb,

littleb:
Why do we have the Gospel according to Men(Mathew, Luke, John) in the new testament.

It is the same Gospels that Muhammad was familiar with in his day - and it is the same Gospels that Allah claimed he sent down. Not in one page in the Quran did Allah ever try to condemn that same Gospel. Not one line. If you find it, I'D be pleased to consider it with you.

However, what is even more remarkable is that the same Quran claims that Christians who read the same Gospels have nothing to fear. So why are Muslims ever trying to quarrel with Christians and Jews?

littleb:
Where is the original Gospel given to jesus, can you please site it from the bible.

You can find it in the Bible. Muslims who claimed that the original Gospels have been lost are simply lying. I have argued that out with them before, and I urge you not to clap that same fallacy up again.

littleb:
The concept of calling God father is a tradition people misinterpreted.

At least you cannot deny that Moses and the other prophets referred to God as Father. You see your problem? What you don't know, you deny - and that was one of the things that led me out of Islam. If we can afford to speak the truth without overblown claims that have no substance, this argument would long have ended.

littleb:
If God is called father does it make Him share part of human attribute.

No, and I have shared this same thing with Olabowale endless times. The thing to note is that when the Bible refers to God as our Father, it is speaking of covenant relationships without the idea of sex. The idea of sex was injected by Muslims - and that is why it has become so difficult for them to find where the prophets ever used the word to refer to sex.

littleb:
It is just the concept of ownership and provider.

Thank you. If you agree that God is known as Father and interprete it as "concept of ownership", that is alright. But what you don't understand is that there is no place that God is known as Father in Islam. Please search out any reference where Islam ever referred to God as Father. Just one reference will do.

littleb:
Allah is an arabic word if you translate to Aramaic is Eloi or El-lawh and Elowah-Hebrew with similar "Allawh" in pronunciation

Please don't engage in what you don't understand. The word "bad" in English simply means something that is not 'good'. . . but "bad" in Swedish is spelt and pronounced the same way and yet it means bathroom! This "Allah" migrating between languages is a fallacy, and if you want to check it out, I could help you see where Muslim scholars engineered that fallacy. It appeals to simpletons who don't know any better.

littleb:
and jesus said "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani?" Mark 15:34.

Do you speak Greek or Aramaic? I speak Greek, but not so much Aramaic. If I present a test of translations, would you be willing to test out your claims?

littleb:
You will quite agree with me that you know your life father differ from Father, the creator.

I do.

littleb:
I believe God will never revealed a confussion.

He did not reveal any confusion. Please find out if it was the prophets that used the idea of "sex" when referring to God as Father - they never once used it that way. But I am so ashamed for Muslims who keep trumping up that obvious falsehood against the prophet and claim that Christians have a confused revelation.

littleb:
Definitely not. Quran uses the perfect word to describe GOd almighty as pronounced by Jesus, Allah, no plural.

Oh please.   The word 'allah' in Arabic has gender and plurality. It is not a name but a common word among the pagan Arabs before Muhammad founded Islam. Besides, Jesus did not use the word "allah" but spoke of God as "Abba" (Father).

littleb:
Godfather, gods, areafather etc. Can you see the transformation and misrepresention in the trend; Mankind had denigrated the beautiful concept of of the loving Father in Heaven to being the Father of the "only begotten son" - to being physically like a human being, because begetting is an animal act, belonging to the lower animal functions of sex.

Like I said, the word "son" and "beget" in context of the Messiah did not include sex - it is Muslims who derive that idea, because that is what they often think about! The day I saw it in the Bible that our mullahs lied to us, I drop the Quran and began to read the bible for myself. I was in total shock to find that what the Muslim scholars said against Christians and Jews are mostly false. Please check the Bible yourself and find me where the prophets used those words to include sex. Please just find the references. Thank you.

littleb:
_{thanks with love}

Many blessings and shalom.

@littleb,

Thank you for your response, and I'll quickly go through your concerns.

littleb:
Have you ever learnt that muslims are mandated to study and call the attention of jews and christians to a common words amongst them.

Since you're suggesting that may not be the case, what are you and Olabowale always doing in Christian motherboards that you find it so hard to live up to your own convictions?

littleb:
You see, I think my God is right.

Typical - this is the real issue with Islam: the internal struggle to "prove" that your god is right. I have news for you: that assertion is simply proving to me that you're contradicting your own Quran. How? Since you claim that you God is "right", it also means that the God revealed to Jews and Christians is not the "God" you worship, No?

littleb:
If a person sees another suffering from a fatal disease, and he firmly believes that he holds the cure for the disease, and he also claims to have sympathy for the human race, then how is it possible for him to intentionally turn away when called upon to provide a remedy? Then, where is the unbalanced attack and who is the ignorant?

Attacking the Biblical faith (the very thing Muslims love to do above all else) is not the same thing as "remedy". It is an illiterate illusion, and I don't mean that as a personal attack on your person. The point is that one's attitude is as important as the so-called 'remedy' that is offered. People can dialogue without the unnecessary attitudes we often read on the Forum.

littleb:
Who are the so Was the original text revealed to the prophets not mystifyed by men?

At least, that would be saying that Allah never revealed it to the prophets. I have been through this very discussion with Muslims before you arrived on nairaland - trust me, they filled pages upon pages and evaded as much they could, and for all that they had no answers to simple questions I offered them.

littleb:
Nobody is accusing all the beloved prophets of God.

I have read Muslims who deliberately lay the accusations.

littleb:
Moses, David and others were all right.

Good to know. So why are you guys always trying to correct the prophets if you claim they were right?

littleb:
People distorted the truth after their demise.

That is a claim that suits the Muslim interest at best. If I asked you to provide the original texts of what you belief to be the teachings of the prophets, I'm sure you will argue forever without being able to bring just a page of that text.

littleb:
The Jewish claim some part of the old testament as their Torah given to moses.

Muhammad also claimed the same - what's the argument there?

littleb:
Was Gospel(injil) you read were given to Jesus.

By who?

Food for thought.

Father, in the Name of Jesus Christ, we commend Bisi Olofinyo into your healing hands.
We ask You to heal this wonderful young sister of all her ailments -
the blood vessel
spinal chord
and head injury
- there is no name above the Name of Jesus Christ, and all these problems are healed.

We praise You Father for Your love. We thank you for Your mercy and faithfulness.
Glory to Your wonderful Name. Amen.


- - - - - -

Dear debolay, Bisi will continue to be in our prayers. Be confident in God and keep your heart at peace. Grace be with you in Jesus' Name.

debolay:
Bisi Olofinyo needs your prayers now. Please Pray for her. Thank you

Father, in the Name of Jesus Christ, we commend Bisi Olofinyo into your healing hands.
We ask You to heal this wonderful young sister of all her ailments -
the blood vessel
spinal chord
and head injury
- there is no name above the Name of Jesus Christ, and all these problems are healed.

We praise You Father for Your love. We thank you for Your mercy and faithfulness.
Glory to Your wonderful Name. Amen.


- - - - - -

Dear debolay, Bisi will continue to be in our prayers. Be confident in God and keep your heart at peace. Grace be with you in Jesus' Name.

olabowale:
When Bible fails you, you can always pick up the Qur'an to rescue you.

The Quran failed its own test, that is why I became a Christian. There doesn't have to be a shouting match about that. . . and the restlessness in the failure of the Quran is why you are always attracted to the Christian motherboard. You are always welcome - one day you will also experience the love of Jesus Christ.

olabowale:
Contradiction of christian God versus Jewish God must be considered, however!

There is no contradiction between what Moses, Isaiah and Jesus called God - they all knew God as "Father". Is there any reference where Muhammad ever referred to God as "Father"? Even Arab Christians today confess God as did Moses, Isaiah and Jesus - they call Him "Allāh al-Āb (الله الآب) "God the Father".

I have news for you: do not be deceived anymore - go and search your Quran and you will find where Muhammad himself said he doesn't worship the same God as the Jews and Christians. The moment you see that, you will understand why your endless arguments against the God of the Bible will never satisfy your restlessness. If you have never seen it, then it is no wonder you keep coming to the Christian motherboard to display what Islam cannot give you.

Anyhow, you are always welcome to enjoy fellowship here. We don't need your motherboard - and that should be clear to you by now.

olabowale:
@~Lady~:« #51 on: September 08, 2008, 09:37 PM »
Please apply the same logic to your supposed death of Jesus. Was it not possible that God stopped all the enemies of Jesus to be able to detect that all his vital organs are still working? Since they tortured him all the way to the place of supposed crucifixion. And their intensed hatred of seeing that his soul is accurse. They even did a litmus test to be certain that he is dead, by trusting a spear or sword into his side! They realised that he did not yell or cried out any longer, because he had done so when he complained about been forsaken by his God! But the side wound let out not coagulated blood. BUt to them, since he did not cry, it was a sign that he was no more alive!


We now know today, that some have been declared even clinically dead, but yet still came back to live. Are these people therefore to be titled the same way as the christian titled Jesus? Are the observation in modern medicine in pronouncing death more reliable than just to trust a wound in the side and because the victim did not make any sound, he is perceived to have died? Yet today, the people still come back to live!


Who knew what begin to happen to the body of Jesus, immediately, that is not perceived by human senses, except God Almighty alone, who had promised that He will not shame Jesus? In the Qur'an it is very clear because God said that He will protect Jesus from his enemies. Finally, God said that they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him. But is made to look so. And those who have no knowledge (lacking belief in God's capablity) jump into conclusion and they differ in their conclusions.




If Adam was the first man. And Eve was the first woman. If they have the first children, then tell us where do you get your other people on earth? I am sure that you know people is the same as saying human! I am sure that the christians have not observed that before Adam, there was no human being, ever on earth or in heaven! What is your source of the other people? When Bible fails you, you can always pick up the Qur'an to rescue you.




Give the correct answer, please. If you don't know, just say so. Thats a noble idea.





Full of conjectures. Always saying things that she is not sure of. Maybe, is a word which gives sign of uncertainty.





Contradiction of christian God versus Jewish God must be considered, however! We also read that the God of the Jews, and by extension, that of the Christians, is constrained into a specific schedule in His creation of things process, because He rested after the sixth day! I hear you talking about historical facts, please let us have what you are talking about. It is easy to accuse, but the burden of proof is upon the accuser!



If the Jewish God was not a magician because what happened to Jesus is perceived by you as real death, please tell me here an now what was the same God doing, making an ordinary stick turning to Snake, so that it can swallow the fake snakes of the Magicians of Pharaoh's court?



The reality is that you do not know! God controls all the capabilities and possibilities of everyone of us! Your sight and thinking ability, others, each of them is limited! If God does not wish you to have a knowledge of something, you will never have it! Today, the medical community is capable of bringing a "dead" person to life! You must have heard of the term, "Shocked back to life!" If human can bring a single person who has been determined dead based on the machine that record the heartbeat going flat, then can you imagine how easy for God Almighty to bring anybody back to life, especially when it is only human beings, alone who perceived him dead!




Is it recorded in your Bible that God said to Jesus, "son, I will make the Jews kill you. Then after 3 days that you hav been truly dead, and not in a comma, or some undictectable state, will bring yu to life, so that the people can know that you are my son and even that you are Me!"? Sometimes, you write a terribly compelling argument agaist yourself! Jesus did not have a coagulated blood throughout! Now tell me how is that possible if he was dead? And your argument will be when does God need to conform to the knowledge or condition of man. I will use the same against you. When it is the role of the people who deitified mere human to restrict God Almighty away from what is unique to only Him?



Must He be a father or human or needing human/god/son blood sacrifice before He can total forgiveness? Wayo, woman! If your god is not a deceiver, why does he have to be raised to heaven by Bigger and more Powerful God, before he talked back to the earth, not to any of his earthly 11 disciples that remained after the death of Judas. But a complete stranger by the name of Saul, who in the long run, was allowed by render useless, in real term, the whole of Moses Torah and and all of the laws and prophets? Have you heard the term, the law was nailed to the cross!? Abeg go study. Just don't let all of that beauty and brain waste without letting some Oga enjoy it and some babies share from it!

Queenisha is sharing all her acutrements with her Oga and babies! At least she is successful on earth. It is the after earth/life success that she must worry about, now!

This is what amazes me about the Muslim mindset - endless pages of empty talk and underscholarship! Repetitions ad hominem like one who is hard of hearing, even after the same issues have been dealt with several times! Is recycling the hallmark of the above?

@nwakaibe, many thanks for your understanding. God bless you O!


@Africankel, grace to you for your wisdom.

When you sit in front of your PC keyboard in 2 days' time, 'Kilby' is a name that should cross your mind. That is because 2008 is the 50th anniversary of the first integrated circuit, demonstrated on 12 Sep 1958 by its inventor, Jack Kilby, to his supervisor at Texas Instruments.

Although the integrated circuit was first conceived by Geoffrey W.A. Dummer (a radar scientist), he was unsuccessf in his attempt to build such a circuit in 1956. The integrated circuit was independently co-invented by Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments and Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor around the same time. Kilby won the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physics for his part of the invention of the integrated circuit.

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit

obinna5000:
We cannot allow this to happen. Nairaland members lets stand up against this robot revolution coming.

Lol. . . relax: it's here already. I'm not a spoiler, but these things must needs happen first and then the panic will ensue. For those who care, they have a choice to either allow themselves to become robo-sapiens, or choose to remain homosapiens. But it is inevitable that robotics will dominate our millenium.

Hi uchkochi,

A few comments so we don't get carried away by an unhealthy sense of 'righteousness' -

uchkochi:
You will not go to heaven because you are saved….

It is because people are saved that they will go to heaven.

uchkochi:
When you stop feeling sorry for your sin you are about loosing your salvation.

Not true. God's Word declares that the believer once purged should have no more conscience of sin - Heb. 10:12. We are not to grovel under the burden of a sense of past sins when we come to experience the saving grace of God.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=161925.msg2776034#msg2776034 date=1220973937]A few other things that are getting people excited already is the work on a project to fabricate an "invisible coat". The process is founded on the principle of bending light rays so that at a critical angle whoever wears the coat would appear invisible to others. This is for real.[/quote][list][list]Cloaking Device One Step Closer to Science Fiction

This development could help form the basis for higher resolution optical imaging, nanocircuits for high-powered computers, and, to the delight of science-fiction and fantasy buffs, cloaking devices that could render objects invisible to the human eye. These two breakthroughs are in the development of metamaterials - composite materials with extraordinary capabilities to bend electromagnetic waves.

Applications for a metamaterial entail altering how light normally behaves. In the case of invisibility cloaks or shields, the material would need to curve light waves completely around the object like a river flowing around a rock. For optical microscopes to discern individual, living viruses or DNA molecules, the resolution of the microscope must be smaller than the wavelength of light.[/list][/list]

Source: http://www.ucop.edu/sciencetoday/article/18515

Now let me move on quickly through the other part of your concerns:

justcool:
In summery: God, Jesus(Christ), and the Holy Spirit cannot live inside every believer.

On the contrary, the Word of God categorically says that God dwells inside the believer through His Holy Spirit.

justcool:
No human being irrespective of his belief can carry a part of God literally within him.

Throughout the Bible, the fact is stated repeatedly that the Spirit of God dwells in those He called to serve and have fellowship with Him.

justcool:
This is like saying that believers are part Gods. NO!

The Bible did not lead us to that inference.

justcool:
Man can only carry the words of Christ living within him. Christ's words are really living!

If Christ's words are really living (as surely they are), then why is it difficult to believe simply what the same words teach about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer?

justcool:
By Living in the words of Jesus, you figuratively live in Jesus; and by carring his words living within you(conviction), you figuratively have Jesus living in you.

That does not deflate the fact that God's Spirit lives in us - He said so, He meant us to understand it so, there are no ambiguities in the references where He declared them as such, and the contextual meanings are not difficult to see.

justcool:
It is true that God is omnipresent. Omnipresence means that God is accessible or reachable from any where. God is reachable from earth, even from hell. Anybody can reach God through a pure prayer. But this does not mean that God is literally on earth and on hell. Like I said earlier, the whole universe cannot carry God, indeed the earth will simply incinerate in God's presence.

This is only looking at it from a human point of view. Indeed God can be reached through prayer. But what about God reaching out to us?

You see, the religions of the world are stuck with the same concept of man trying to reach God. The understanding that God has come to reach man is difficult for them to grasp, and even blasphemous for them to read that God lives within the believer.

justcool:
But His power and His will is every where in His creation, in this also lies His omnipresence. Nothing can escape His will, It guides and controls all things. Even the laws of nature are expressions of His will. Every power belong to Him. Only Him can produce power, and this power reaches everywhere in creation. Every creature is welcome to use this power, but each creature bears the responsibility for what he(the creature) does with the power. On this power do all creatures depend. This power can be found literally everywhere. You use it everyday, and you see it everyday, i.e you see the application of it.

There is a difference between living in God's power and God Himself living in man. Both sides of that truth are revaled in Scripture; unfortunately, man often struggles with the second part of that truth while assuming it is so easy to handle the first part.

justcool:
The Bible is a spiritual book filled with figurative, pictorial, and metaphorical language. He who tries to take it literilly is bound to make mistakes.

Dear justcool, this is where the problem truly is! The Bible has metaphors, but it is also replete with literal truths to be believed in. Is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ a literal truth? Certainly. Are the miracles of Jesus literal as well? You bet they are! Is the Gospel to be believed literally? Is the return of Jesus Christ to the earth ("rapture" a literal truth? Most certainly!

So, if I take the above examples in a literal sense, would my mistakes by multiplied? It would be interesting to see how so.

justcool:
Only the spirit can sense the Truth that is in some passages of the Bible, an intellectual interpretation of the Bible is totally wrong. The intellect cannot sense what is spiritual.

This is another problem with so many believers. Dear brother, God who gave you your intellect expects you to use it! Why would God Himself invite us to "reason together" (Isaiah 1:18) if He never gave man his intellect. . . or if He expected us to bury it when He speaks to us?

No. Rather God expects us to engage every faculty of our being in our spiritual living - the heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12:30). In my former religion, you're not expected to ask questions. But living in the reality of Christ is truly satisfying - because God invites and welcomes our questions, as well as provides the answers.

justcool:
Thanks and remain blessed!

God bless you.

@justcool,

I understand the difficulty that many people struggle with on issues like this. Before I became a Christian, it seemed to me that the idea of God living in someone was a blasphemy (try and engage a muslim about such and you'll see what I mean). But my whole life changed when I actually experienced for myself what it means to have the Spirit of God living in me.

justcool:
If you take those verses (the verses that you posted) literally, then what do you make of this verse: John
:56

"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him."
(New American standard Bible)

"Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood live in me, and I live in them."
(Gods words Translation Bible)

"He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."
(King James Version)

If you believe that God literalily lives in the believers, then do you also believe that believers literally live in God? You know that they don't. Lets take you for example: You are a believer right? Do you literally live in God? I know that the answer is no because you literally live in London.

Of course, there is a difference in Biblical expressions regarding our relationship with God, when properly understood in their contexts. The verses you cited are examples of "fellowship", however, and the ones I gave earlier refer to "residency" of the Spirit of God in believers. When studied in their contexts, it is not difficult to see.

Let me give you another example of contextual meanings of words in the NT using the term "baptism". We know that it has at least 4 different meanings:

[list][list][li]suffering - "But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" [Luke 12:50]"[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]water baptism - "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." [Mark 1:4]"[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]Spirit baptism - "I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." [Mark 1:8]"[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]members of the Body - "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." [1 Corinthians 12:13]"[/li][/list][/list]

As is clear above, the common denominator is the concept of baptism, and that word has several connotations and not just a linear idea.

So it is with the word "dwelling" - one can understand when it refers to mutual fellowship that believers have with the Lord (as in the examples you gave in your reply). However, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer is quite a different matter altogether and refers to the Spirit taking residency and living within the believer! There is no going round this very fact, and I'll just quote the references again to demonstrate the point of this meaning:

[list][list][li]Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? [1 Corinthians 3:16]"[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? [1 Corinthians 6:19]"[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us. [2 Timothy 1:14]"[/li][/list][/list]

There is no other way to understand this fact that the Holy Spirit clearly says that He dwells within the believer. This is not metaphorical language, but a divine statement of fact.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
I need to digest the info on the philosophy of science I don't want to talk about what I do not understand. Some other day we will continue on the issue, you made some good points.

No rush, bro. . . no rush. I'll be avaialble to continue when the time comes.

Chrisbenogor:
About the age of the earth, even if we add 2 million years to the age of the earth it is not still as old as the human fossil that was discovered in ethiopia to be 5.8 million years old or the dinosaur
Fossils that date back to almost 240 million years how does one fit that into the biblical creation.

There are two things I have both learnt to do and not to do:

(a) I refrain from trying to "fit" anything into the Bible, the Quran or any other book. What I often try to do is patiently seek to understand what is presented and how to understand it in its context. (Luke 10:26 -- "He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?".

(b) secondly, I try to carefully define my terms and be consistent in what I present or discuss. As such, I'm careful to make the distinction between the age of the earth and the age of man. I'm sure we can agree that the Bible never gives the idea that the age of the earth necessarily means the age of man, and thus we cannot mix them up and try to measure the history of the earth by the history of man on it.

Chrisbenogor:
This has been one of the issues that formed the crux of my refusal to believe in God ( if he exists) from the biblical perspective. When that fossil was discovered I took the pain to read about it and the dating techniques and it did not sound like foul play to me.

Well, I can well sympathize with your views; but as long as it is clear that the Bible did not teach that the earth is as old as man, we cannot make that assumption on God's behalf.

The second thing here is that when I read a recent report about a fossil named 'Lucy', it was quite light minded to read that it turned out to be something else than what anthropologists and earth scientists formerly held. Hardly surprising to me, to say the least; but you could imagine how long many people held that belief against the Bible, until the Lucy theory was falsified.

Did that incident make me lose confidence in science? Not at all - rather, it affirmed my faith in God as declared in the Bible as well as reinforced the meaning of 1 Timothy 6:12 to my understand: being careful about the "oppositions of science falsely so called".

Chrisbenogor:
I reckon if the bible should delve into the issue of the creation of the earth and putting actual time frames only for it to turn out to be wrong that it highly questions the authenticity of the book.

The problem is that we are the ones putting categorical time frames on the Biblical texts - and that is where we run into various difficulties.

Chrisbenogor:
If 240 million year old animals can be discovered then I am afraid it invalidates some thousands of years old.

The invalidation occurs even in some cherished "scientific" theories - but does that invalidate science as a whole?

Chrisbenogor:
Life would have been a lot easier if the bible did not leave dates just that it was created some time ago.

Life isn't any easier for those who have tried to date the earth - it only becomes even more seriously compounded and complex. However, as regards the actual age of the earth, the Bible doesn't give us an exact date. . . and yet, we know that in itself doesn't make it more complex for simple understanding of issues.

Regards.

@Queenisha,

Please don't be upset with me. I didn't try to ignore your warm welcome. Infact, I first thot of nwando or babyosisi when I read of Queenisha. . . maybe I'm wrong, but that's because I was long too gone from the forum to have caught up on updates. As it is, I missed you as well and I was really warmed by your love and prayers.

@Queenisha dearie,

Queenisha:
pilgrim 1
I welcomed you back in another thread and you just ignored me
I've been rebaptized since we saw last

No be so. . .

please forgive me. .

I replied O. .

please visit here. . .

and see it

God bless you!

[quote author=tonye-t link=topic=169302.msg2777630#msg2777630 date=1220991647]what is SALVATION?[/quote]Hold on first. .

must greet Queenisha. .

then you continue. . .

what d'ya say?

[quote author=tonye-t link=topic=169302.msg2777608#msg2777608 date=1220991410]kick her out?[/quote]Not at all!

You wan try?

@mazaje, how body?

---

@Gamine,

Gamine:
I think when we talk of the Abuse of Science, its something plain to see,
But when we talk about the morality of something, what are we saying
Once upon a time, it would have been frowned up to have organ transplants
now its generally accepted.

Well, the issues of moral responsibility among scientists is by far broader than what many of us think. I would like to very quickly outline a few pointers in terms of carefully calling our attention to definition of concepts.

What we often mean by "morality" is not the same thing among scientists. A few quotes from Wikipedia:

[list][list][li]1. "Issues of ethics, such as bioethics and scientific misconduct, are not generally considered part of philosophy of science. These issues may be studied in ethics or science studies."
source: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science)[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]2. "Ethics is a major branch of philosophy, encompassing right conduct and good life. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is simply not satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than moral conduct"
source: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics)[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]3. "Bioethics is the philosophical study of the ethical controversies brought about by advances in biology and medicine. Bioethicists are concerned with the ethical questions that arise in the relationships among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, philosophy, and theology"
source: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics)[/li][/list][/list]

From the above, we can easily see that moral responsibility in handling science stretches far beyond theological concerns. Its practitioners actually want an inclusive approach into scientific advancements where certain implications for the total conduct of scientific researches are scrutinized and standardized.

Gamine:
Does Morality point out Abuse?

I believe it does:

[list][list][li]"Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in professional scientific research. A Lancet review on Handling of Scientific Misconduct in Scandinavian countries provides the following sample definitions:[/li]

[li]Danish Definition: "Intention(al) or gross negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist"[/li]
[li]Swedish Definition: "Intention(al) distortion of the research process by fabrication of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher's manuscript form or publication; or distortion of the research process in other ways."[/li]
source: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics)[/list][/list]

Gamine:
Does it really matter?

It really does. Just imagine if a nuclear botton sits under the thumb of a crazed religious or political madman!

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
Let me give you an example of what I am saying
With this conversation,
Chris: pilgrim something happened today
Pilgrim: "what" happened
You can see that in the occasion of an event the sensible thing to ask first is "what" now let me go on,
Chris: well the sky changed and a clear liquid started falling down, we found out it was water.
Pilgrim: really did you guys find out "why"
I hope this simple conversation conveys the point I am trying to make that we have to understand "what" is then we can go on to understand why.

Simple as the illustration is, it still fails to grasp the rubrics of the philosphy of science.

One may "explain" a lot of things about the water from a blue sky - questions would be asked as to "who, where, what, how, why, when and. . . which". But fundamental to scientific reasoning is how to investigate and offer adequate explanations about the particular enquiry. This is where we come over to "assumptions, foundations and implications", and thus are looking at the various ways of scrutinizing that enquiry.

Let me make it simple: putting the assumptions on well-founded theories, one may "explain" the established norms of the water circle (how we understand "rainfall". From that principle we can then apply its theoretical framework to understand other types of "rain" - from acid rain to orographic drifts.

So far so good. But what has been said about another kind of phenomenon that departs from the ordinarily established norm - such as "fish rain" (fish falling from the sky), or "frog rain" (frogs falling from the sky)? See "Weird, Weird Rain" for instance: (http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa082602a.htm). Yes, a lot of people, while not categorically denying the existence of these phenomena, yet they "specualate" upon these things - and some even "explain" them away with an unscientific dismissal.

In such kinds of 'departures' from the norms of "scientific assumptions", how does one go about actualy establishing a well grounded scientific law on such matters?

Chrisbenogor:
Next to the age of the earth, the biblical age of the earth is about 10000 years old this in itself is not a statement in the bible as you rightly put it but can be calculated from the bible, are you saying you agree with this? What exactly is your stand on the age of the earth?

I cannot fault you (or anyone) outright on any age. While some may calculated a figure just under 6,000 years old, others hold a 10,000 year old earth (both are usually under the purview of the school of thought known as 'Young Earth' scientists/creationists). Whether the earth is older than 2 billion years is a subjective derivation of interpretations.

It's my view that the earth dates back to over a hundred thousand years. How did I come to that conclusion? Again, mere "speculation" - and my reasons are basically within the reading of references in the Bible itself. I would not here bore anyone with long theses on this aspect of our discussions for the moment, but let me quickly make a few pointers:

While some people arrive at a certain dating for around 10,000 years or thereabout, I feel it is because they try to base their thinking on the genealogies recorded in human ancestry in Genesis. And that's okay if it suits them well. However, for me it is rather another reference than Genesis that gives the clue to my assumptions: the book of Job. There we read, for instance:

[list][list][li]Job 38:4 - "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."[/li][/list][/list]

When you pause on that question and then carefully read down through the creatures described in the surrounding verses, one cannot but be awed about the creatures mentioned in that book - which many people (earth scientists included) have been unable to decipher. There maybe conjectures, but the point is that the question in the above verse shows that when God laid the foundations of the earth, many was hardly on the scene to witness the details of each event.

This is why I like to sit back and listen to others make their assumptions about the age of the earth. But assumptions (based on whatever theories) are just that: assumptions.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
Thank you, I love civil discussions and even if we do not agree on some things we both learn a thing or two, in the very least find some common ground and thats a good place to start.

As ever, I've continued to enjoy your reasoned discourses.

Chrisbenogor:
I would like to start from the philosophy of science, Aristotle believed the universe is finite and spherical with a stationary earth at its center. Enclosing the whole universe is the sphere of the Prime Motion turned by the First Unmoved Mover. Inside that were transparent spheres containing fixed and unchanging stars, planets, moon and sun. Aristotle was also a renowned philosopher. Clearly you can see that even as respected as he is as a philosopher he was handicapped without accurate knowledge of science,

The interesting point here is that the "Philosophy of Science" is a grounded discipline today and quite distinct and different from what the early thinkers did philosphy. Briefly, what today can be said about 'Greek philosphers' of that age is more inclined to speculations about the reality of our observable world. Of course, they tried to understand the "what" of their world (and ours) - but it was often stating the "what" about the existing world, which was mainly descriptive.

However, Philosophy of Science today is much more intricate and refined (I found this article a good starting point, source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science, although the field in itself is much more profound than that). After all is said and done, the basic questions that science as a tool is employed to investigate are the "what" and "how" of the existing world - and not the "why" of the reality of life issues.

Chrisbenogor:
my point is are you not putting the cart before the horse,

Not necessarily so. From the context of the sourced article on the Philosophy of Science above, one can easily understand that philosophy as a scientific enquiry today is looking at the various approaches in investigating our observable world - the "study of assumptions, foundations, and implications of science".

For example, why are some assumptions held about our world today? What theoretical framework(s) produced the foundations of certain worldviews? And what are the underlying currents that lead to certain implications of scientific enquiries? Notice the first question I asked was "why" assumptions are made; but that is radically different from asking the why question of the reality of our dynamic experiences about the real world - that is something that we have to be careful in understanding on teleological grounds rather than on theological assumptions. On such a ground, science in itself is not an adequate tool of investigating the why about our experiences about the reality of the world.

Chrisbenogor:
I think a thorough understanding of "what" should be there then we can go on to understand why, science in itself is not and end but it does answer most of the "why" questions after understanding what.

True, science is not an end in itself but rather a tool of investigation. As such, it has its limitations and the philosphers of science thereby take the position that science is inadequate to explain the encompassing dynamics of the real world.

@toluxa1,

toluxa1:
Now I don't have anything to say here. All I know is that all over the world, I read and hear of people who are facing great problems with family and friend who have obeyed the command of God and left the Church.

There was never any command given to them by God to leave the Church. None whatsoever. If people are leaving the Church at any rate, the Bible simply says that we should understand that as a sign of their "falling away". It is a grievious thing indeed to the heart of God for such folks to assume that God commanded them to depart from the Church; the only thing that the Bible states clearly about such departure is that they have taken a sad position fall away - and that is a very hard place to find oneself. Let me demonstrate this by referring to God's faithful Word:

[list][li]Luke 8:13 -- "They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away."[/li][/list]

[list][li]2 Thes. 2:3 -- "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition[/li][/list]

When people fall away from what God has called them to be and enjoy in Christ, they search in vain for some so-called "commandment" of God asking them to depart. I have often asked them to find me that verse, and I never hear from them. It is my prayer that will not be your experience.

toluxa1:
But I came accross this interesting passage in the bible.
Mr 13:12 Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death.

I know Mat. 13 has a lot to say about the End of the Church age. So I beleive V. 12 is talking about this.

Talking about Mat 13. It has a lot to do with Mat. 24:

Mt 24:1 ¶ And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
Mt 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Mt 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

In all the texts above, there is not a single verse where God asked anyone to depart from the church.

toluxa1:
Here again we see a picture of Jesus Departing out of the temple. The Temple was the External Representation of the kingdom of God Just as Israel, Zion, Judaea, Jerusalem were all used as a picture of the external represention of the Kingdom of God. So also the Church was used as an External representation of the Kingdom of God. So he departing out was a picture illustration the End of the Church age. When the Holy spirit will depart from the Church and Satan will take His seat shewing himself that he is God.

If anything at all, you missed it all. The Lord Jesus Christ never at anytime indicated that He would depart from the Church. His word clearly is that He would be with the Church UNTIL the very end (Matthew 28:20 - ". . .and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world". Now my question is simple: has that promise ever failed, toluxa1?

toluxa1:
PLEASE I WANT YOU TO READ 2 THESS. 2

I did - and it did not say the same thing you assume.

toluxa1:
I also found something interesting about the mount of Olives: Take a look at Zechariah 4: 14

Zec. 4:14 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

This description tells us that Mount Olives is Against (positionally) Jeruasalem. What does this tell us? I think when we compare scripture with scripture, we can understand this.

None of those scriptures tell us to depart from the Church or even that God has finished with the Church. Care to expatiate?

toluxa1:
1 Thes. 5: 9 does not say God has not appointed the Church . . . It say . . . not appointed US. . .
I really think I should stop here because this is getting too long. But I hope you and others will take time to check these things out yourselves.

That verse says that God has not appointed us to wrath. If God had finished with the Church, that verse would have said that the Church was appointed to wrath.

toluxa1:
It would be interesting for you to know that I'm just an 18 year old boy and sometimes I can't understand why God has had mercy on me to understand these things, and thats why i think I should share the little I know.

May God give you the grace to mature in His truth as you grow older.

toluxa1:
May the LORD richly Bless you all. Amen

Same to you.

@toluxa1,

toluxa1:
Wao. I didnt know this thing was that long. Sorry oh.

Great to read your replies again, no matter the length I'm willing to patiently listen.

toluxa1:
Now I discovered that when it comes to thwe matter of the Church, but most especially the matter of salvation, majority of people do not understand the way God uses the word ALL. Now God uses the word all in two ways and we can only understand it according to the context of where it is written and then compare scripture with scripture (1 Cor. 2:13)
Lets take one out of many examples:
1Co 15:22- For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
The first all (even though they are the same greek word) is the 'normal' all we know meaning through Adam, all died. But the second all is talking about the TRUE BELEIVERS. Does who God has saved.

So far so good.

toluxa1:
So is you take the all in "we all baptized into one body" in 1 Cor. 12. 13 as the Church, then you have not done your home work well.

I believe the context is clear as to include all who are true believers in Christ. But if you think otherwise, I'm willing to read from you.

toluxa1:
Now the word of God concerning the end of the Church age is not a matter of One obeying the word of God or not. The End of the Church age has been in the Celender of God since the foundation of the world.

So, when actually did the "End" begin?

toluxa1:
Honestly I have come accross more than 50 places (just in the old testament). where I beleive God was professying about the End of the Chruch age (sometimes I don't even know where to begin), its all over the bible, but -
Da 12:4 says: But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

But that does not say that God has finished with the Church as you alleged.

toluxa1:
I'll suggest you study the parable of the wheat and tares more carefully, prayerfully, and humbly, maybe God will help you understand.

Care to share how that also states that God has finished with the Church?

toluxa1:
Yes you're correct- God didnt say the Church is Babylon. But he also said it. And then sealed it up. We can only understand this when we comapre scripture with scripture.

Okay.

toluxa1:
Now lets take a look here:

Somewhere in I think Ezekiel now or Jeremiah (sorry I can't remember), God represented King Nebuchadnezzar as Satan as Lucifer. Now King Nebuchadnezzar was the King of Babylon.

It will be interesting to read it when you find it.

toluxa1:
Now:

2Th 2:3 ¶ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

We all know that the Son of Pardition, the Man of Sin here is satan. God called him MAN here. And it was written that He will take His Seat in the temple of God (which is the Church). The word Seat here talks about Taking control, ruling over. When we tie this together with Revelation 18: 4, we see that even though God didnt literarily call Babylon the Church, that is the way the bible was written.

Not so. First, the man of sin is not Satan but the antichrist (see Rev. 19:20 that identifies him as distinct from the devil in Rev. 20:10). The "temple" in 2 Thes. 2:4 is not the Church but rather the Jewish Temple that will be rebuilt in the time described as "Jacob's troubles" (see Jer. 30:7). However, the Babylon spoken of Revelation is not the Church - you can compare this with Rev. 17:5 where the sinister Babylon is called "the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth" . Before you accuse the Church of fitting that description, you would have to identify history with the Church to see if your presumptions hold any substance.

Gamine:
I'm Sure Scientists hardly have "morals" in their minds

Believe me, there are a lot of scientists with good moral principles in handling science responsibly. And I'm not limiting my thoughts to Christians who are scientists: my list would include many scientists of other faiths - I know of several muslims who are scientists and have made a mark in the corridors of scientific enquiries.

But there are also non-theistic scientists as well who share this sense of handling science responsibly. For them, while science is not a question of religious enquiry and its effects on our hearts and consciences, they nonetheless hold very mature and responsible views on what science could be applied to and how it should not be abused.