₦airaland Forum

OLAADEGBU:
Hello Pilgrim.1!!!,

You are welcome back to this forum, those of us who love the truth have missed your well balanced and informed exposition of the Word of God. I hope and believe that you are winning in all your endeavours, thanks be to God who always make us to triumph in Jesus Christ. You have been a blessing to many of us on this forum and may the good Lord continue to bless you more abundantly. Amen.

@OLAADEGBU, may God bless you and the many whose prayers have been well answered and brought on seasonal harvest of grace! I have missed a lot on the Forum, no doubt. . . but I continue to enjoy the refreshing that the Spirit of God provides through Christians living and sharing God's wonderful and life-changing truths. You are truly a blessing, bro. . . and more grace added to you in Jesus' Name.

PS. where is my sister OlowoT?

@Chrisbenogor,

I must say that you're one of the rare gentlemen I've come across who discusses issues on the Biblical faith with some decorum. Please keep it up.

Now let's see a few pointers in your reply:

Chrisbenogor:
Hello, thanks for the insight on "implosive" statements. I get the drift of what you were saying about holiness but here is the point where the bible and science meets, if the bible makes a statement that is about holiness say for example that Jesus is the son of God or that adultery is a sin then on that note it would not be wise to judge that based on science that would be totally wrong.

Indeed, I believe indeed that the Bible and science have a healthy romance at some point. The points of seeming departure is only a matter of interpretations, which again leads back to the question of what approach of enquiry the investigators are employing. A fundamental principle that guides my thinking is found in 1 Timothy 6:20 where we are urged to not waste our time arguing on what is falsely called "science". Not every ideology bantered everywhere is actually science, and not in one instance have I come across a derogation of true science in the Bible.

Chrisbenogor:
On the other hand if the bible makes a statement that can be verified scientifically then science becomes a yardstick to judge if that statement is right.

I don't have a problem with that.

Chrisbenogor:
An example is time, if the bible says the earth was created some thousands of years ago ,it has crossed the threshold of faith and ventured into an area where that can be put to test by scientific means.

Here again is the reference point in my discussions with people on grounds of "reason". Did the Bible infact say that the earth was created some thousands of years ago. . . or that idea is what has stuck with so many of us based on our own prejudices?

My point is simple, really. There is a world of difference between what the Bible actually states, as against what many people assume it states but which they cannot find on its pages. Interpretations to texts are as important as what the texts state categorically; yet, one cannot hold up a flag simply because they assume what is not there.

Chrisbenogor:
I have taken the time to read the different techniques used to date the earth and I must say even if they are off by some years( which they would willingly admit) it would be a couple of million years, I urge you to take a look at the techniques.

I'm quite familiar with a lot of dating theories.

Chrisbenogor:
So like I was saying if the bible says for example that its man's sin that makes things fall back to the earth and that the reason why it would fall at a different rate at the poles of the earth is because the sin less there or more it has ventured into the science world again who will cry foul play and explain to people that it is because of gravity and the rates at the poles are different because the earth is a bit flattened there.

While I appreciate your illustration, I am yet to find that it is stated in quite that fashion in the Bible.

Chrisbenogor:
I don't know if I am making sense to you.

Absolutely.

Chrisbenogor:
In summary the meeting point for both of them is truth on physical matters

That is only half-truth. Beyond the physical realm, I believe that there are other aspects of the reality of life that cannot be quantified by physical properties. . . and that is where we cross into another threshold commonly known as "philosophy".

Not many people are mature enough to understand that a proper understanding of "science" or the reality of our observable world is not purely naturalistic or physical (here, I'm speaking in general terms and not putting you on spot). On the surface, we have to grasp the simple fact that science is not a subject studied in a box, and thus therefore necessitates what today is a legitimate field of enquiry on its own: the philosophy of science! On the understanding that the basic quest of life does not end on simplistic enquiries of "what" exists, it is only by a firm understanding the working principles of the philosophy of science that the questions of "why" they exist that one can begin to make sense in this kind of enquiry.

You may have come across the normative idea that science does not critically investigates the question of "why", but more critically the question of "what". Why is it so? For the simple reason that science is basically a tool of measurement and not an end in itself. Science does not tell you everything about everything - and only by the philosophy of science that people have come to understand and appreciate that science has its limitations. One of such limitations is where we ae discussing just now - the solid subject of the reality of life from a spiritual perspective (commonly known as THEOLOGY).

Of course, there again we are cautioned to beware of betaking ourselves carelessly to the task of philosophy done wrongly:

[list][list]Colossians 2:8
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."[/list][/list]

Whether science or philosophy (which are legitimate fields of enquiry), what is often the problem is that they are often done with uncritical biases - and that is where as believers we remove ourselves. On the other hand, as believers we graple intellectually and intelligently with all sorts of enquiries - even those that raise questions on the Biblical worldview. It is not a matter of "science against religion", but rather a matter of "science and religion properly understood".

Chrisbenogor:
so using my explanation if someone says science does not understand the holy statement made by the bible and goes to jump off a cliff because he or she is righteous then he will have to deal with the consequences.

Sad, but true. . . and I'm sure that believers who understand their Biblical faith are not that extreme.

Chrisbenogor:
I think there is a bias when science debunks these myths, nobody has problems when they come up with the cure of scores of diseases or when they bring people together on nairaland but when they say the age of the earth is this or that noah's ark is a piece of engineering that would be almost impossible given the tools they had and the time frame and even the fact that it could not hold together, people start to condemn then which to their credit they always take and strive to make everything better.

You have just amplified what I stated above - science does not in itself log on biases, rather it is those who do not have a proper handle on these enquiries that log on to their biases. But there again, even on both sides of the seeming divide, who doesn't do bias at some point?

Chrisbenogor:
Finally, if the bible did not forget are you saying there were no others?( I am beginning to sound like the victims in Lost ) does that mean only those people were surviving then? Make that point a bit clearer.

My remark was simply this:

[list][list]You would first have to identify these "other" human beings, and then mirror them against your own presumptions before drawing such conclusions.[/list][/list]

Your query was whether or not I'm categorically stating that there were no "others" - and I'm trying to remove the sticker and shine the glass by asking you to define what your "others" actually were.

[quote author=A_K_O link=topic=161004.msg2774432#msg2774432 date=1220955888]Never get so comfortable where you are that you turn deaf ears to everybody else.[/quote]Words on marble.

Hi Chrisbenogor,

I have tried to patiently read through some of your contributions so that I understand your philosophical outlook before inviting you to consider a few salient points. However, it seems the reason why you may often be getting these difficulties is simply because you are confusing your terms as well the contexts of your own parameters. Let me point out a few:

Chrisbenogor:
I certainly agree with you the bible is not a scientific book, so also is the quaran but if they are to be held up as holy books or book of truths they should pass simple tests that are believed to be universal its that simple.

you are making what is known in literary circles as "implosive" statements. The idea is simply this: when someone tries to negate a point and yet contradicts his premise, his conclusions suffer a "sudden inward collapse". How so? Here:

[list]If you hold that the Bible is a holy book and not a scientific manual, then it becomes only reasonable to follow and discuss that Book in contexts of its premise on holiness. You cannot claim to examine its core teachings against "universal" applications and then try to falsify a discussion on holiness on what you assume to be "science". The one question is this: how does science measure "holiness"?[/list]

When you define the meeting point between "holiness" and "science", you could then proceed on to what you could put forward as "universal" ideas. This is why when I engage people on reason, I often find a lot of them projecting into philosophical ideas and yet violating the very basic principles of that approach.

Chrisbenogor:
I personally think that for a book that is holy and is the truth to get the age of the earth wrong or to forget to mention that other human beings were on the earth highly questions it authenticity, so back to the issue at hand.

The Bible does not indicate that it "forgot" other human beings. You would first have to identify these "other" human beings, and then mirror them against your own presumptions before drawing such conclusions. Secondly, the age of the earth is variously interpreted by many people - it is all a matter of whoever is applying whatever approach they assume.

@littleb,

littleb:
Believe me, there is no muslim that doesn't believe Jesus. He is a beloved prophet of God as believe by muslims.

That is a wrong assertion to state. We have been through that very idea so many times already on this forum and what conclusions we draw is that Muslims do not believe in Jesus Christ at all. I was a muslimah and we heard that very same assertion millions of times; but when I began asking myself what it actually means to "believe in Jesus Christ", I saw immediately that such an assertion was very empty. You cannot state that you believe in a propeht and yet castigate the very core teachings by which He is identified.

littleb:
The major message he conveyed to people was to believe in one God and jesus is not but a messanger from Him.

There are many people that believe in "one God" - that doesn't mean that muslims are at peace with them. Take the Zoroastrians for example. . . then the Jews. . . and what about the Sikhs? yet in all these, the grieviance has been directly against the core teachings of Jesus Christ: because fundamental to His teaching was that He declared that God was known as FATHER!

littleb:
You can carefully search through for any muslim that has ever attacked jesus personality, I will tell you he is not a believer.

I know of several Muslims who have said very derogatory things about Jesus Christ on this Forum and elsewhere. . . would you be willing to deny them as 'muslims' as well if I pointed them out to you?

littleb:
I think Olaadegbu should buy from this rather his contemptuous attack on Islam and muslims.

Same could be said about you, my dear friend. If you don't believe that someone is sharing in some "truth", the better thing to do is put your points across without rancour.

Cheers.

1Corinthians 13:13
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

@donnie,

donnie:
Pepeye's statements have not in any way contradicted mine. We are speaking from the same body of revelation.

If the same body of revelation is producing two opposite and contradictory statements in defining a single concept, I forebear.

donnie:
Pride? Whose pride? Urs or hers? She simply made statements of fact. If i declare among native doctors that i'm a trained medical doctor, does that make me a proud person?

Don't play this childish game. Your attitude was well pointed out - and I wonder why so many BLW believers are often too quick to retort with silly antics when people try to share with them. If you're too disturbed about this, let me know.

donnie:
Jesus said to the phariees, 'i am from above' and again he said to them, 'you err because you know not the scriptures'. He also said ye are of your father the devil and the deeds of your father u will do. Was he proud? No, he knew who he was and declared same unashamedly.

I expected that, actually - the very same point I hinted at above. If people ask questions and engage BLW brethren on issues they haven't made clear, all of a sudden non-BLW brethren are of the devil, not so?

It is the same Scripture we are discussing - and if you make an unclear statement and are called upon it, why should the enquirer be "of the devil" simply because of that? Did people not ask the Lord Jesus Christ numerous questions? Did He accuse them all of being "of the devil" because they asked questions?

donnie:
I know who i am!! Greater is he that is in me than he that founded this thread. Glory!

I guess you're on such a spiritual high that the only thing you know about yourself is to denounce others as of the devil! That is truly a great thing of achievement!

Queenisha:
Jesus is indeed Lord of all
pilgrim1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


love u love love u love u with the sweet sweet love of our God.
I missed you
I prayed for you
I'm happy to see you
Glad to know that you're doing well.
I have learnt alot from you and I admire your intelligence.

Lol. . . I can only thank God for His mercies. Many hugs with plenty love O!

Thank you for your prayers O. . . they work wonders! I have truly missed everyone on the Forum, and as I have time between my busy schedule, I'll keep stopping by and dropping a few lines here and there.

Queenisha:
remember our threads with babs and olabowale

Lol. . . I remember. I'm just giving Olabowale some break and teasing him for now. When I have time to waste on him, he'll be reading plenty from me.

Many blessings.

Hi littleb,

Perhaps it may be more helpful to discuss than be so heated in your quest to seek "truth". I've been there before and can tell you that attitudes such as you exhibit are not helpful. Attacking the Bible is not new - atheists, Muslims, satanists, cults of every shade and clime have done so and are still doing so. I also did the same thing. . . until God opened my heart and eyes.

The one question I have often asked myself and still ask others is this: what do you gain from attacking this Person called Jesus Christ?

Let me advise you: seek God's truth with an open heart - and your testimony will never be the same. Blessings.

@justcool,

Now, a few comments to further distinguish between terms in your further clarifications.

justcool:
This spirit speaks to us through our conscience and our intuitive perception.

So far so good.

justcool:
The intellect is the product of the activity of our brain which a part of the physical body and therefore physical.

Not so clear here. If that was to say that the intellect is "therefore physical", it would contradict all other things you had stated.

justcool:
But when it comes to spiritual things the conscience is indispensable.

Agreed.

justcool:
Thus the right way to live is to put your conscience above all else, above your intellect. . . But putting our conscience above all, is the road to the light, i.e to Paradise. It is the road to compassion, kindness, Love, humanity, peacefullness and righteousness. All these are qualities of the spirit.

This is where my eyes were set on, actually. We cannot live by putting the conscience above all else - I would rather say that the emphasis should be on the 'spirit' instead of the conscience. But before I deal on this, let me quickly remark that God gave us our human intellect and expects us to use it even in spiritual matters. I'll expound more on that sometime later.

Now to the matter of the conscience. The reason why I'm not so keen to agree that it should be emphasised above all else is because there is a sort of dichotomy between the kinds of consciences that men have. Let's see a few of them:

[list][list][li]There are those who have a seared conscience
1 Timothy 4:2 - "Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron"[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]Some people possess a defiled conscience
Titus 1:15 . . . but even their mind and conscience is defiled."[/li][/list][/list]

Just imagine these sort of people putting their consciences above all else. . . what kind of results would one expect to develop from their lifestyles?

Anyhow, as believers we should recognize that our consciences can do either of two things, according to Romans 2:15 - the conscience produces thoughts in our minds that either:

[list][list][li]accuse us[/li][/list][/list] or else
[list][list][li]excuse us[/li][/list][/list]

It is for this reason that we are often admonished to be careful to live a life void of an evil conscience towards God and men. How, in full and intelligent submission to the Holy Spirit Himself. A life seeking to do God's will without knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing (Rom. 10:2).

The conscience of a believer is described in Scripture as capable of the following:

[list][list][li]Being purged from dead works:
Hebrews 9:14 ". . . purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God"[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]That we may no longer have a sinful conscience:
Hebrews 10:2 ". . . having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience"[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]That we may always hold a good conscience
1 Timothy 1:19 "Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck"[/li][/list][/list]

I trust these points are clear now. Many blessings.

@justcool,

Having explained my thoughts and persuasions above, let me relate to what you presented in your earlier reply:

1.

justcool:
Therefore everybody carries both the kingdom of God (The breath of God or the Spirit) within him as well as everybody carries darkness and the road to hell(physical or canarl desires) within him.

2.

justcool:
But this is not the spirit that I meant in my earlier post.  Reread my earlier post and you will see that I never used the expression: "the spirit of God." The spirit that I meant is neither of the of three contexts that I mentioned above. It is not the "Holy Spirit," neither is it "the power of God" nor "The Godly disposition." The spirit that I meant is the breath of God in every man which makes man "a living soul" or which is the truly living man.

Well, I stand corrected, but it seems that you had used the expression "the kingdom of God" (as in 1. above) to mean "the breath of God" (as in 2. above). Although in your second entry you had tried to expatiate and clarify the terms.

I don't think it is explicated in that manner in Scripture. I agree with you that every living man has a human spirit in him; but the human spirit is not to be confused with the term "kingdom of God". The reason is quite simple - the Kingdom of God (KoG) is distinct from the human spirit, because the former (KoG) is often spoken of in the Gospels as something to be experienced apart from man's spirit. A few references to see this:

[list][list][li]Matt 12:28 - "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you."[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]Matt. 21:43 - "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]Mark 10:15 - "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein."[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]Luke 10:9  And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you."[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]Luke 11:20 - "But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you."[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]Luke 16:16 - "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it."[/li][/list][/list]

[list][list][li]John 3:5 - "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."[/li][/list][/list]

Certainly, references to the Kingdom of God as cited above do not all mean the same thing in context. However, the point is that not in one instance throughout the NT was it used as synonymous with the spirit of man (or the "living soul". Even if we take the other part of your statement to define it as "the breath of God in every man", it still establishes the fact that not everybody carries the kingdom of God within him - as is clear from the verses cited above. Something has to happen (the new birth - John 3:5) before anyone would be able to experience (or "enter into" the Kingdom of God.

All the same, I'm open to see where I might have missed it again.

justcool:
In In the second verse you quotedActs 5:32), the "Holy Ghost" used in that context refers to context (2), i.e. the power of the Holy Spirit. It is this power that the apostles received during the Pentecost that allowed them to work and which the bear witness to.

(b) Acts 5:32 also demonstrates that it was not a 'disposition' or 'power' that the apostle spoke about, but the very "Person" of the Holy Spirit. The point he makes there was that the Holy Spirit was also a witness to 'these things' (ie. the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - v. 30-31), and underscores the Personality of the Holy Spirit with a subject predicate ("whom". . . ie, 'and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.').

justcool:
In the third verse that you quotedRomans 8:9), "the spirit" used in this context refers the context (3), i.e. the Godly disposition.

(c) Again, Romans 8:9 is clear in its context as referring to the Person of the Holy Spirit dwelling in the believer ("if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you". The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not to be understood as a disposition, but as a reality of a divine Person who resides in the believer.

Compare this with 1 Corinthians 6:19 where the apostle stated that "your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you"; and also 2 Corinthians 6:16 - "for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them". What separates the believer from the unbeliever is a matter of whether or not the Holy Spirit dwells in them. Hence in Rom. 8:9, the apostle unequivocally states that "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his". . . a concrete point he further develops in the verses following thereafter:

'. . . by his Spirit that dwelleth in you' (v 11)

'. . . the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you' (v 11)

'. . . For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God' (v 14)

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer is much more than a disposition - it is a concretely divine fact of the Person of the Spirit of God Himself who resides in the believer: and that is what distinguishes a person as belonging to Christ.

@justcool,

As ever I quite enjoyed your last two entries, and thanks for taking the time to help me appreciate your contexts in meanings in the terms you used, especially in the second reposte just above. Let me take them in stages so that the points in my replies will not be lost on readers.

While agreeing with you that there might've been a knot on the context of the word 'spirit' in the texts, I'm not quite sure that the verses I cited earlier would follow your meaning. let me explain:

justcool:
In the verse that you quoted, I believe that the expresion "spirit of God" used there is used in the context 3 ( Godly disposition).

(a) Jude 1:19 (my mistake earlier that it was v.17) was not pointing to a disposition; rather it was a concrete statement about these ungodly men (see verse 4) who do not have the very Person of the Holy Spirit in them. Jude tackled the insidious fact that some men creep in unawares into the Church (v.4), and unmasked them as the "ungodly" - a term contextually used by the apostles to mark out those who do not have the very Person of the Spirit of God dwelling in them.

It is only by the Holy Spirit that people can confess the Lordship of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor. 12:3 - "no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost". Now, Jude clearly shows that those ungodly men who were "denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" (v.4) were doing so for one simple reason - they did not have the Holy Spirit! It takes more than a 'disposition' to confess the Lordship of Christ; and without the Spirit of God, ungodly men will most definitely deny Him.

@Jesoul,

JeSoul:
Hey[b] Pilgrim[/b], if no one else has expressed it, you have been missed in this forum . I hope all has been well with you and your soul. Welcome back

Thank you for all your prayers - they were well answered and God has kept me strong through tough times. I missed you as well and many others who make this part of the Forum such a wonderful and interesting place to spend time.

JeSoul:
and as always you have set Alhaji straight . . .

In love and patience I'll continue to do so - and soon, one day soon, the WORD will touch him just as God touched my life!

JeSoul:
its a small wonder why he keeps on being attracted to the christian threads

It's my prayer that he will continue to be ever so attracted to Christians! The warm love and powerful Name of Jesus Christ in us cannot be ignored - it is so irrestible that Olabowale will continue to be attracted to the children of God. Amen O!

@Olabowale,

This is a Christian fellowship thread, and all are welcome - even you - in Jesus' wonderful Name! It is our joy to see you vroom away from your Muslim motherboard and constantly visit us, so that you can partake of the refreshing that the children of God enjoy!

The Bible states that there is fulness of joy in the presence of God, and that He will show us the path of life (Psa. 16:11). Although you often manifest a restlessness when you visit the Christian motherboard, I now understand why it was great to have left Islam and now become a child of God. Praise the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

As you continue to visit, God will touch you by His mercy. He is doing wonderful things in the lives of many restless souls - and they are embracing the salvation which is found in no one else but in the Name of Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). May your time come soonest to experience that joy. Bless you.

Thanks again, justcool.

There are a few things that may be hard to digest by enquirers such as outlined in huxley's queries; but I forebear for now so we could make a few friendly observations.

justcool:
Therefore everybody carries both the kingdom of God(The breath of God or the Spirit) within him as well as everybody carries darkness and the road to hell(physical or canarl desires) within him.

The above is quite debatable; but let me show you why I'm persuaded it is not what I find in scripture.

Whatever and however anyone defines as "the kingdom of God", it is clearly stated on the other hand that not everyone has "the Spirit". It is emphatically stated that some do not have the Spirit of God in them --

[list][list]"These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit" -- Jude 1:17[/list][/list]

Again, Acts 5:32 makes clear that God only gives His Spirit to those who obey Him: "And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him." Again, we remember that Romans 8:9 says that those who do not have the Spirit do not belong to Christ.

A second thing is that "the Spirit" and "darkness" cannot both be in everyone at the same time. They are mutually exclusive - as is made clear in 2 Cor. 6:14 ("what communion hath light with darkness?". . . see also 1 Thes. 5:5.

Perhaps I might've inadvertently missed your point?

Hi again Zino,

Okay, I knew I called it a day earlier. . . after this one, yeah?

Zino Ben:
To be frank, i am disappointed with your responses. I have gone through most of your last posts and i see you know your bible well and would be a formidable opponet but i wasn't expecting you to follow davidylan's style of posting by dodging issues and trying to rephrase questions with rhetorical questions.

I apologise if my style came across in a disappointing manner, although I should remark that I well respect everyone's style in replying posts.

Zino Ben:
I expected you to reply back with authorities to substantiate your claims. It is just point blank, I said god is a monsterous killing monster who kills babies and i quote passages to show that it is true. What i expect from you is to say "No god did not kill babies in that passage, in fact i am reading the wrong bible and that verse actually states  blah blah blah'

Well, the reason why I dismally failed (initially) to recommend any authority was simply because I wanted to maintain a challenge to my own ability to engage fellow discussants. Initially, you may recall that I shied away from merely reproducing other peoples' arguements - it has always been my personal convictions to offer answers that I could truly discuss should the need arise to question what I post at any level. Please forgive my detour to have been unable to follow your expectations there.

However, people are free to hold their own persuasions and interpretations about what they read - the "monsterous killing monster" a case in point. Actually, this often seems to be the default position and attitude by many atheistically inclined. Unfortunately again, they tend to be implosive statements that have a hard task reconciling the position of what is not and what actually exists. What this means is that the atheistic argument that "God IS" anything by any label  simply refutes the atheistic belief that "God is NOT" (ie., the same person who cries that God does not exist is yet stating that He "is" thus and thus). It is the classic irrational attitude assumed by people like Prof. Richard Dawkins in his "God Delusion", and who has been simply written off by several atheists as rascally and hardly sensible or persuasive.

For this and akin reasons, I often try to refrain from unnecessary polarizations so that I don't lose the kernel of the gist, and so be yet able to offer reasoned discussions with others.

Zino Ben:
.
You don't have to merry go round and dodge issues if you even choose to answer them back.

I honestly hope you could see that my repostes have not being dudgy - as in the Genesis 11 case.

Zino Ben:
For example:

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Well, I don't see what the problem would be here. Please bear in mind that the sun was not mentioned in verses 3-5; infact, verse 5 states that it was the light that was called the "day" as distinct from the night. The mistake here seems to be that people deliberately refer to the light as "sun", whereas verse 5 simply calls it the "day" ["God called the light Day"].

Zino Ben:
How is this possible because the sun separates night from day

I understand that the sun separates night from day; but as pointed out just above we understand that v.5 calls it "day" and not "sun".

Zino Ben:
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

In simple terms, the point is that many people see a chronology between chapters 1 and 2, whereas it is not so. Chapter 1 gives a simple summary of events, while chapter 2 gives the details of the events. For example, Genesis 1:26-27 does not say that God created man and woman "at the same time", rather it simply states that man (the generic term for humans) were created male and female. It is when we get to chapter 2 that the detail is given.

In other words, chapter 1 points out what was done; while chapter 2 points out how it occured. To miss this is the reason why many assume the contradiction, to say the least.

Zino Ben:
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.

Between ch. 1 and 6 we have the issues of what led to sad state man found himself. We understand that man was not created as "evil" - and indeed, in his God-given innocence, man was a delight to God's heart. However, Gen. 6:5 underscores the problem in the latter - "the wickedness of man was great in the earth". Compare this with what another reference where both sides are brought out in one line:

[list][list]"Lo, this only have I found, that ^(A)God hath made man upright; ^(B)but they have sought out many inventions" -- Eccl. 7:29[/list][/list]

Such a state of affairs would definitely not please God's heart, would it?

Zino Ben:
All these contradictions and confusion is bewildering to say the least and instead you of you to put it in a proper perspective and refute the obvious, you choose to follow davidylan's style or are you no longer dogmatic to the faith and turning into a freethinker to align with whatever doctrine or reasoning you choose to answer your questions?

I'm always willing to address issues. What is a put-off to me is when my fellow discussants assume the default position of throwing away reason in exchange for dogmatic irrationality. Coincidentally, not many atheistically inclined thinkers are irrational - and some have been swift to rebuff such attitudes epitomized in Dawkins.

Zino Ben:
Please even if you don't want to answer them for me, imagine a person who intends to choose a religion to follow and is hoping you can convert him, please don't disappoint him

I could well imagine.

[quote author=A_K_O link=topic=166753.msg2767999#msg2767999 date=1220823062]How do you people intend to build a happier world with love with people that are [size=20pt]"[/size]not on the same level[size=20pt]" [/size] as you?[/quote]I tire for you O! Dem don gee you the answer tey-tey. . . a happier world will be built on Rhapsodies and "not on the same level" with you! Wetin you wan hear again?

Enuf 4 the day. Cheers gentlemen.

mazaje:
I was once a moslem and i know very well what i am talking about, no moslem has ever knocked on my door some deeper life people came knocking just yesterday on my door. . . . .

Muslim evangelism doesn't have to be a clone of Christian evangelism - they have their own ways of both travelling and evangelizing, and that is the point. Even as a former muslimah myself, I still remember a lot of names within the Muslim circles who both travel and evangelize/preach to none Muslims (e.g., Amr Khaled on the one hand and Zakir Naik). They may not come knocking on your door, but they still have their outreaches to the non-Muslim public.

mazaje:
moslem only preach to their fellow muslims

Not true. . . see above.

mazaje:
and use money mostly to entice people to their faith

Maybe.

mazaje:
their outreach program is nothing compared to that of the chriatains who travel from place to place spreading the 'word'. . . . . . .  hence all the attention and scrutiny. . . . . . . .

I know Christian evangelism dwarfs their Muslim counterparts.

mazaje:
Pilgrim you no fit read? what the heck didnt you understand i my post? tell me let me clearify and stop misconturing my post.

Please refer and see it nah. . . abi?

mazaje:
hindus and moslems don't travel and evangelize hence people don't pay much attention to them as they do with christains.

This is not true - many Muslims travel and evangelize.

mazaje:
Pilgrim you no feed read? my post was very very clear stop grasping at straws lol, i respect you sha i must confess. . . . . . . . . . .

My respects as well. I'm not grasping at straws, just wanted you to be clear about your misconception. If religion teaches the same thing you applaud, it doesn't make good rationale to turn round with the "bane" labelling against it.

@Zino,

Zino Ben:
@pilgrim

What so hilarious about freethinking? That i don't have the right to chose and i shouldnt be so dogmatic to a belief that cannot be substantiated with conclusive evidence but to rather rely on faith?

I haven't denied you the right to choose, have I? Rather, it was quite hilarious that mazaje would be making quite an implosive statement - which I considered significant enough to call his attention to.

Zino Ben:
What good has religion done to the world? The fact that there are thousands of contradicting passages in the bible makes it so nauseating that a freethinker would do away with such nonsense and pick up the next book to analyse. The fact that i am not dogmatic to the point of stupidity over a book that provides no intelligent claim whatsoever makes me a free thinker.

Arguemnts like this are worn out, and I haven't been the least impressed with dogmatism of any sort - even of the sort being bantered by rationalist under the mistaken idea of "free thinking". There's nothing rational in the sort of language that is as dogmatic as to assume that religion has hardly done any good to anyone. . . a case in point is the rationalistic idea that loving one's neighbour could then be translated suddenly as the bane of the world!

Zino Ben:
the fact that everytime i ask a question about the absurdity of that biblical passage instead of using reasoning and logic christians resort to belief and faith.

Reasoning and seasoned discourses without the slurs was what I had held out consistently. If anything, I was more concerned that "rationalistic" tendencies are often too polarized with slurs rather than reason. It is quite queer that the several enquiries I tended have hardly been tended, and the same convenience recource to misrepresentations is all I have read from mazaje's at the least.

Zino Ben:
What is that? But when they see a shroud of physical  evidence to back up their claim, they scream to the high heavens to substantiate the very existence of it.

I'm not as irrational.

Zino Ben:
People assume that the bible contains stories which serve as moral guides to live your life by. While the bible does contain some good moral precepts, such as any ethical person could write, it contains some stunningly immoral teachings.

It seems you're only acknowledging the "assumptions" by your admittance already, regardles the decries.

Zino Ben:
Everyone has bought into the assumption that the bible is the "Good Book", but I have found that few people have even read it.

Indeed, the few who haven't read it often make the mistake of trying to misapply and misquote it, No?

Zino Ben:
How do they get their information? It is given to them from the pulpit-- by pastors and christian zealots who have chosen non-offensive, morally mainstream stories to read to their congregations.

At least, I didn't have to be spoonfed from the pulpit to point out the mistakes so far in those who take the rationalistic worldview.

Zino Ben:
The bible, both in the Old and New Testament, is morally repugnant and should be rejected by every ethical person.

I see. . . perhaps that is why we read the sudden inward collapses in the argument that loving one's neighbour is a bane.

Zino Ben:
"Talking about love your neighbour as yourself" quote of christ, none of those moral teachings are original. All of the favorable teachings of Jesus can be found in earlier "pagan" writings. Nothing good said by Jesus was original.It was all said before.

And for all that, the core values of love to one's neighbour is a bane?

Zino Ben:
Christ came, they tell us, to make a revelation, and what did he reveal? "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? That was in the Old Testament. "Return good for evil"? That was said by Buddha, seven hundred years before Christ was born. "Do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you"? That was the doctrine of Lao-tsze. Did he come to give a rule of action? Zoroaster had done this long before "Whenever thou art in doubt as to whether an action is good or bad, abstain from it."

I've often wondered if anyone who still argues this way would be able to find the endurance of the agony of the cross in Buddha and Lao-tsze. Talk is cheap.

Zino Ben:
Did he come simply to tell us that we should not revenge ourselves upon our enemies?

That is precisely what I had waited to see in a reasoned discourse from freethinkers. Is that what He came to do, Zino?

Zino Ben:
Long before, Socrates had said: "One who is injured ought not to return the injury, for on no account can it be right to do an injustice; and it is not right to return an injury, or to do evil to any man, however much we have suffered from him." And Cicero had said. "Let us not listen to those who think we ought to be angry with our enemies, and who believe this to be great and manly. Nothing is so praiseworthy, nothing so clearly shows a great and noble soul, as clemency and readiness to forgive." Is there anything in the literature of the world more nearly perfect than this thought?

Maybe not, but is that a "bane" on par with mazaje's rationalism?

Zino Ben:
Was it from Christ the world learned the first lesson of forbearance, when centuries and centuries before, Krishna had said, "If a man strike thee, and in striking drop his staff, pick it up and hand it to him again?"

Have you demonstrated the same thing you seem to so eloquently outline? Just a thought.

Zino Ben:
Is it possible that the Son of God threatened a vast majority of his children: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels," while Buddha, centuries before, was great and tender enough to say: "Never will I seek nor receive private individual salvation; never enter into final peace alone; but forever and everywhere will I live and strive for the universal redemption of every creature throughout all worlds. Never will I leave this world of sin and sorrow and struggle until all are delivered. Until then, I will remain and suffer where I am"?

Could you please tell me what Buddha's convictions were about diabolical behaviours?

Zino Ben:
What Jesus brought to the world was this: the idea of condemning someone for their honest opinion to eternal torture.

That's quite subjective - and a convenient mind-game. I believe my discources have neither been condemning towards you nor mazaje. And if we have to be honest, you were being narrowly engaging here - the same thing I often find by many who take a rationalistic view to be unreasonable to see the full picture of what they argue against.

Zino Ben:
The infinite revenge of Jesus, for failing to believe his unbelievable tales, is the most intense form of pain and anguish imaginable, and not just for a long time, but forever.

That's okay, if at all you could match the descriptive sufferings of your other heroes with the crucifiction of the Cross.

Zino Ben:
Apparently, his inexhaustible forgiveness runs out when it comes to hell.

To warn people against hell does not negate the fact that love does not refuse to deal with man's insatiable lust for wickedness.

Zino Ben:
From hell there is no pardoning-- the gates of hell are one-way only. His "unconditional love" comes with this condition: believe these unreasonable accounts or suffer so much you'll wish you had never been born. And considering that the vast majority of the people who ever lived either never heard of Jesus or didn't believe in him, and are thereby subject to this doctrine of eternal pain, the notion of infinite revenge should be enough to sicken any moral, just person.

Your persuasions are hardly moral, forgive my observation.

Zino Ben:
By the way you see freethinking as hilarious, freethinkers see christians as a group of imbecilic bunch under the deluge of hypnotism of fear of the unknown and hoping that the unknown would provide future succor for them in an utopian world filled with milk and cookies with no war, anger and rebellion, just a place where you sing praises all day and wear halos in white garments, oops i forgot the wings!

By contrast, it should stand out that freethinkers who play the moral stick of labelling others as in the bold in your quote really "love their neighbours".  

@Zino,

Zino Ben:
@pilgrim:

I have gone through your posts and i realise you werent directly talking to me so i apologize for my errancy there.

That's alright, no need to feel bad there.

Zino Ben:
Why are you just twisting the whole issue up and tying yourself into knots?
Genesis 5 says thus:

5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."


It is written there in black and white that god came to see the tower they were building. It did not say a house, tent, cage or temple. He specifically came down to see the TOWER.

First, that should have been Genesis 11, not Genesis 5. All the same, it does not state that they had built it, but rather that they began to do so: ["and this they begin to do" - verse 6]. The case of verse 5 ["the city and the tower, which the children of men builded"] is not indicative of an accomplished tense - and that is what verse 6 reminds us about.

N/B
Even when we consider the quote of that verse in yours:

5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building

. . .the point seems to be even further underscored that it was not an accomplished tense, but one that was only just beginning ["this they begin to do" - v.6]

mazaje:
pilgrim what are you saying? you no sabi read again? i said religion is the bane of this world not free thinking, i guess you have ro re-read my post. . . . . .

Oga sir, pardon me. . . I grab your diction!

Okay, jokes aside, here's what you didn't realize in your statement:

The law of loving your neighbour as your self trancends all religions, religion is one of the bane of this world.

It appears that was an implosive statement (something in literary circles described as an assertion with a "sudden inward collapse" - no offence intended) and the reason is this:

Christianity is where you find the core teaching that people should love their neighbours as they do themselves (see, for example, Matt. 19:19). Loving one's neighbour does not 'transcend' the core values of that Christian verse; and if you believe even in that, how could you then turn round and accuse the same thing as being the "bane" of the world?

Allow me, mazaje. . .

mazaje:
The law of loving your neighbour as your self trancends all religions, religion is one of the bane of this world.

Kai. . . freethinking is a terribly hilarious thing! Excuse me, dear sir, how could "loving your neighbour" be interpreted as the bane of this world?

[quote author=A_K_O link=topic=166753.msg2767275#msg2767275 date=1220815243]Simple question, no offence:

How many of the ten million plus are literate, and how many of the illeterate have been/are being empowered by the ministry?

Dont you think both should be done simultaneously?

With all the resources at the church's (generally speaking) disposal, social responsiblity should not be the sole responsibility of the government. Not in a religion-obsessed country as like Nigeria.[/quote]

donnie:
Even though i doubt if any of the last 3 posters' resources will be involved in the project, may i state for record purposes that Christ Embassy has large inner-city mission schools where children are taken to from off the streets and trained of charge. Many are fed, clothed and accomodated free of charge.
Older ones are fed, clothed & accomodated. Others are given money to start businesses. Or do u want us to show these on TV as well.

Glory be to God.

magentam:
There is no fiery furnace where Mr devil will torment you, NOTHING LIKE THAT! NADA!

Did the Bible say the Devil was going to torment anyone in a fiery furnace?

mazaje:
No wahala man, am just angry at all the FOOLS out here in naija that are always out there in the morning shouting on the voices about jesus, money,prosperity, heaven ,hell etc and interupting my peaceful morning sleep, . . .

Okay, I see why. Cheers.

justcool:
To summarize:
Heaven is a place.
Kingdom is sovereignty, dominance, or rulership of a king.
Kingdom of God is sovereignty, dominance, or rulership of God.
Kingdom of God on earth is the sovereignty, dominance or rulership of God on earth.

Well appreciated.

The point however is not simply on definitions, especially so because most English dictionaries are inadequate to enunciate Biblical terms contextually and substantially.

It seems huxley's concerns were more about the sphere of the Kingdom:

huxley:
[table][tr][td]The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
[/td][td]behold, the kingdom of God is within you.[/td][/tr][/table]

What many people are wondering about is the true meaning and import of the kingdom being "within" the believer as contrasted with the idea that we are in it, as in the quote:

People on earth who obeys the laws of God are in the kingdom of God

.

I've heard this kind of argument several times, and it would help (perhaps) to try and point out what precisely the enquirer seeks to understand. In simple terms, what huxley might've seemed to highlight could be summarized in another question:

[list][list]Is the kingdom within you. . . or. . . are you in the kingdom?[/list][/list]

The Bible gives both sides of the meaning throughout the New Testament. Only when people see this can they understand what Luke 17 was pointing to.

@Pepeye,

Pepeye:
How did you comprehend this “You are the light of the world” The salt of the earth! (matt5-13-14)

It does not mean what donnie offered earlier in defining the word "world" as the world's system. That is radically different from the definition in yours as "the place you may find yourself". I believe verse 16 makes clear what is meant by the 'world' in Matt. 5:14 - "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven".

Pepeye:
You chose to ignore that, the word world, earth was used too

I don't know if I "ignored" anything.

Pepeye:
Because as He is, so are we in this world. 1John 4-17,

Okay, and. . .

Pepeye:
And I do agree with bro Donnie, because the spiritual actually gave birth to the physical… suffice it to say that spiritual realm controls the physical aspects of life in everyway

Actually, what I meant was that whether you disagreed with donnie's definition of the word "world", because clearly you're both saying two different things.

Pepeye:
You guys will always see things differently from us, given the fact that we‘re operating from diff levels. There’s no meeting point

The point is made already above: please do not let such pride stay with you.

@Zino,

Zino Ben:
1. I didnt post any thing except from my organization's website that i actually stated i was going to post because it was too long and i was too lazy to write it all out.

I don't think I argued that you did otherwise.

Zino Ben:
So please correct that assertion that i copy and past my posts.

I didn't make any such assertions, please refer.

Zino Ben:
2.
I have quoted two sources from the bible relating to the nauseating passages about women and the issue of those that have seen god face to face. How then have i not been able to make my point about god and his issues with women?

I have tried to reason with mazaje along such lines, but I don't see where the concerns I bore out have been discussed.

Zino Ben:
3.
I don't understand this post , please clarify !

1. The Christian is not called to "defend" God.
2. So far the discussion has been about worldviews, in this case "rationalism" and "Christianity".