₦airaland Forum

@Zino,

Zino Ben:
I love seeing christians squirm whenever they are boxed into a choice of explaining a passage either literally or metaphorically.

Either way one chooses to read the passge in question, I think you are making a case and arguing against it yourself. How? here:

1. You seem to decry that the passage should not rest on references to dimensions (I stand corrected):

Zino Ben:
All of a sudden the tower of babel story now squarely rests on the height and width of the building which no pastor had alluded to until this very moment.

2. And then you tried to underscore that idea by the emphasis on "tower":

Zino Ben:
P:S: I just looked up the word tower online and this is the defination i got:

. A building or part of a building that is exceptionally high in proportion to its width and length

However, if your emphasis rests on the dimensions ("exceptionally high in proportion ", it still does not seem you have carefully followed the passage. It does not say that they had built it, but that they began to do so. . . which is what debosky was trying to point out to you.

@Zino,

Zino Ben:
Even if they are copy and paste, why don't you copy and past a valid defense instead of gloating endlessly in another manner, pssff!

Actually, it is quite unhealthy in a public forum to schlepp on the ideas of others and recycle them endlessly without having the ability to reason for ourselves. This is why I have tried to wait patiently for mazaje with the few questions I have offered him amicably. . . and so far I haven't seen how the idea of rational thinking has been demonstrated here if all we would rather be occupied with here is the rank-xeroxing at large exercise.

Zino Ben:
bottom line the question is hell is a bundle of lies, prove otherwise!

It's easy to allege it so - but even those who have tried to quiote endlessly from the same source (the Bible) have not been able to make a concrete point in their interpretations.

@mazaje, please refer to the same simple query earlier on this issue.

Zino Ben:
If you can't defend your god that you swear to to defend in church and during your midnight prayers, you have no right to claim your a strong christian, rather your a weak christian hiding behind a computer.

Defending God is not what a Christian is called to do. Rather, if ideas are put across with reason, it becomes more defined in itself as to what the discussion so far has been about: worldviews.

Mazaje, if indeed freethinkers are "moralists", would you say you fit your own theory? Just a thought.

Zino Ben:
Most freethinkers consider religion to be not only untrue, but harmful.

I wonder why this recycled idea still holds sway in the minds of those who haven't checked it out carefully. That is what "most freethinkers" consider about religion (and often they mean "Christianity". I just wonder that even the professor of public understanding of science in Oxford failed to understand that Oxford University was founded by Christians. That surely must be harmful!

Pepeye:
The word world in that particular context is actually an adjective used to qualify the place you may find yourself, could be your Office, school, classroom and neighbours.

In essence, you disagree with donnie?

mazaje:
Here are the substance God’s episodes of murdering innocent individuals for the faults of their leaders, fathers, or other ancestors are not uncommon in the Old Testament.

Thanks, mazaje. I'm waiting for simple answers to the questions I offered.

Enjoy your work, donnie. Thanks for the compliments, but let the Holy Spirit Himself evaluate what He does in others who do not come under your canopy.

mazaje:
The 1st century normads created the hebrew god in their own image and likeness, they and him are one and the same just as mohammed and his cohorts created allah in their own image and likeness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Can you discuss at all without the slurs?

You haven't made any sense at all if your arguements are misdirected.

mazaje:
My words or accusation you call it   your hebrew god is no better than hitler, sadam hussien, george bush, musulini, osama bin laden etc he has killed  and ordered his footsoldiers(prophets) to kill innocent people so many times in the bible.

These are tired exculpations that have been circulated by those who play the convenience game. I'm trying to see if infact you have any substance to your assumptions apart from the typical slurs.

@mazaje,

mazaje:
. . . . . that is not the answer to his question and you know it lair

Actually, Zino asserted it could not have been the case; whereas, it really is - which was why I pointed it out earlier with the case of Jeremiah 13:22, and following same in post#46. No?

Anyways,

mazaje:
you see you are now using your own understanding of things to imply that that was what the hebrew men god was talking about.

On the contrary, not. It's easy to see that if something is said which was not intended by the authors, there could be no prolonged arguments otherwise. Which was the reason why I often try to clamly ask questions, as at the beginning of our discourse (see again post#39).

mazaje:
do you see it as acceptable for women not to enter the temple of god when they are menstrating?

Yes - for the simple reason that was provided in the same chapter you quoted but did not carefully examine in its context.

mazaje:
i believe you still go to church even when you are having heavy flows as long as the flow doesnt make you sick.

I do - and that is because I'm not a Jewess, which makes a whole world of difference.

mazaje:
what do you mean that child birth is not deemed foul to the hebrew god? the hebrew god clearly showed his contempt to menstrating women and women that have given birth by ordering people to ostracize them and not touch them or anything they have touched.

Again, He did not demonstrate any "contempt" for anyone.

mazaje:
will you accept if people refuse to touch anything you have touched or ostracize you just for menstrating?

Trying to inject the idea of "ostracizing" anyone in that chapter simply begs the question - for that again was not the case.

mazaje:
by the way what have the two innocent doves done that requires their sacrifice to an all powerful and all knowing god?

How does the rites of doves depreciate His omnipotence and/omniscience?

mazaje:
why does he love blood so much?

Where did He state it so?

mazaje:
these are not the words of an all loving, all knowing and all compassionate god but the words of 1st centuary normards who had little respect for women at that time.

If you say so, why then would you direct your accusations against God Himself since they are not His words? Perhaps one could say that your arguement is misdirected against the nomads but you would rather apply them to God. So which is which, mazaje?

donnie:
We are a global ministry with millions of members and an ever widening network. We have strong influence in the media, education, politics, entertainment and so on and this influence will increase.
We refuse to let satan have control over the minds of people for whom Jesus died.
Keep talking and criticizing and leave us alone to work for the master. . . the time is short and the Lord is doing a quick work.
The world will hate us because we have believed God's word and are following his plan as little children. They are of their father the devil and they carry out his will and do not understand the wisdom of God except it is granted them. And we are appointed to reach them with the gospel.

@donnie,

The above is a very unfortunate attitude - it fosters pride, something which is directly opposite to the virtues of spiritual fruit. I don't mean to be judgemental; but you did not even make the slightest attempt to follow through with simple answers. Rather, you seem to have reached a dead end and conveniently excused the answers.

Just wondering: why is an attitude of deliberate misrepresentation the default position to assume against the Biblical faiths?

@mazaje,

mazaje:
as we all know menstruation is a natural occurrence in the lives of most women.

I don't see where it is argued otherwise in the reference you gave.

mazaje:
However, the God of the Pentateuch despises this biologically necessary bodily process and gives instructions on how to deal with these treacherous circumstances.

Again, He did not describe those bodily processes as "treacherous circumstances" - it seems apparent in your quote above that you intended to call it such. Second, He did not "despise" the process, as is clear in the whole chapter of that reference.

mazaje:
In fact, the same goes for anyone who touches something that she previously touched (Leviticus 15:19-30). All this uncleanliness is resolved by needlessly killing two doves. Admittedly, there are similar laws for male ejaculation, but men can actually suppress these events to some extent.

The recommendation was not exclusive to women - men were to present the same two doves to the priest (Lev. 15:14). The "uncleaness" is defined in verse 31 properly in issues that had to do with approaching the tabernacle.

mazaje:
Childbirth is another natural event that God deems foul.

Childbirth in itself was not deemed to be foul. The issues around childbirth was the focus, not the childbirth itself. Qv (". . .according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean". Verse 4 of Lev. 12 reinforces my point earlier that the focus was on rites associated with the tabernacle (or 'sanctuary').

mazaje:
In addition to God unfairly designating women as filthy individuals following childbirth . .

Women were not designated as "filthy individuals" following childbirth.

Zino Ben:
Lol, see as they are attacking my fellow freethinker without any support.

Perhaps you should be willing to admit that mazaje himself has calmly admitted that he had misapplied some references to say what they do not mean. Is that your way of "supporting" freethinking?

@donnie,

donnie:
What we are actually taking control of by the Spirit of God is the system of this world which we seek to influence and dominate with love before the rapture.

I quite appreciate the fact that you stated in clear terms what you meant by "world" as pointing to: "the world's system". However, it still (probably) does not give substance to your persuasion - and this is where I seem to share the same concerns along davidylan's question.

If Satan is the god of this "world" (ie, a "system", is there any reference in Scripture that highlights the idea that Christians should b "taking control of" that same system? My inquiry is underscored by the fact that the Word says we have been delivered out of this world (Galatians 1:4).

Just a thought.

@mazaje,

Sorry about my slow response . . . I wuz reading through another lengthy thread. Anyhow. . .

mazaje:
i very much agree to that i will try to understand the meaning of the passage before i post next time  to avoid misapplication,

Appreciated.

mazaje:
now back to the topic of discussion i believe that hell is a bundle of lies and i want you to prove me wrong. . . . . . . .

Well, I have tried a few times to read the previous entries so as to appreciate each person's perspective on the subject. My style is not to try to "prove" anything to anybody, even though the Biblical teaching about Hell is not a bundle lies.

What strikes me is that the argument falls either way on just one premise: the ability to grasp the substance of the subject in its varied contexts. The first thing that caught my attention was the OP:

james1:
God is a God of love and the only thing he made clear was that such person(s)will suffer eternal damnation or that they will perish!

If "Hell" was a lie simply argued away on the basis of some "fear", does james1 not clearly see that he was contradicting his own arguement by linking "love" and "damnation" in one breathe?

It is simply laughable for some to denounce the idea of a scary damnable place called hell - and yet, they can be comfortable enough to speak about "eternal damnation" without qualms. Tell me, what's the difference between one's man's damnation and another's "eternal damnation"? None. . . for both are on the same boat! In other words, the OP was swallowing the same thing he tried to denounce! As davidylan said earlier: "such "topics" are meaningless when you can't depend on the protagonists to be straightforward." True.

Okay, on a serious note, I'd like to ask one question for starters:

Matthew 25:41 -- "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"

Does the term "everlasting fire" mean the same thing as a "grave"?

Interesting discourse: "Re: On Religion And Rationalism".

However, while appreciating both sides of the divide, my concerns are on whether both intellectuals have a good handle on their arguments. Ogunlesi poses this question:

anonimi:
I now ask the question: does the fact that religious people "risk letting their relationship with their imaginary friends and beings get in the way of their relationship with real people" mean that 'religion' in itself does not "make sense"?

Going one step further, I suppose Jide Akeredolu was playing a convenience game of words. Did anyone wonder who were the likely candidates for his "real people" list?

@mazaje,

mazaje:
some may have been misapplied but that doesnt justify all the killing's, pillage, enslavement that the hebrew god and his footsoildiers(prophets) carried out against innocent people in the bible.

Well, misapplying verses to say what they do not say actually does not justify your arguments.

mazaje:
@pilgrim i will really like to dailouge with you in an amicable manner to that if you care to engage me. . . . .

I'm learning everyday to be open to people and engage them in reasoned exchange of ideas. So welcome anytime.

@huxley,

huxley:
Can any of Jesus's pronouncements be so confusing and misleading as the above statement. In fact, all of Luke 17 is one of the most confused of jesus' s supposed speechs.

What was confusing you in the verses you quoted above?

@mazaje,

I was actually looking forward to a dialogue so we could have reasoned things through in an amicable manner.

I actually looked up the verses you quoted before asking the initial question in my reply: it so happens that the one verse I cited infact did not say what you confidently asserted. That you believed it might have been so, was the reason I asked that question. From davidylan's repostes above, it is obvious that the verses you cited were misapplied.

Anyway, do have a wonderful evening.

Lol. . . mazaje,

I asked a simple question. If you could not answer, simply say so.

Olabowale,

olabowale:
If there is no sexual intercourse, then the idea of beget/begotten is therefore a fantastic fantasy of lies.

The prophets do not have to bend to your sex-driven mindset before they could speak about covenant relationships. I made clear that they used terms such as "beget/begotten" without referring to "sexual intercourse" - the simple thing to do was to find where they actually did so, since you have alleged it so. Have you found that reference yet? NO.

This is the funny thing with your arguments: your penchant to force your deliberately misdriven mindset (often lewd) into everything. That's not a virtue - it's a vice. I feel very concerned that you ask others to "speak the truth". . . but I keep my fingers forever crossed to see you do the same.

olabowale:
Whats devine in a relationship and sonship that is shrouded in blatant lie?

Should I interpret that as the usual Islamic and Muslim thing of accusing the prophets to be "lying" when you can't find "sex" in their teachings? Sad. I pointed out that the terms were used by the prophets (even giving several examples - Moses, David and Ethan). To allege that what they taught are "blatant lies" only confirms that you do not believe in the prophets, no matter how loud you may shout "sexual intercourse" till the end of age.

I'm quite satisfied to say that I believe what the prophets taught - and no, I am not going to accuse them of "blatant lies", for they did not teach what you have alleged. May God deliver you from this sad state of affairs.

olabowale:
My point is this, relationship and or sonship that is mislabeled or misdefined, begs reality and the honesty of the matter.

But it is clear that you are the one doing the "mislabelling" and "misdefining" - afterall, was it not you who forced "sexual intercourse" into the prophets' teachings where they never defined their teachings as such?

olabowale:
Jesus also declared in Mark 12 Verse 29 that God and Lord, he has is the same as what his audience has.

Deviation. Please don't divert your attention into spinning unrelated arguements.

olabowale:
In surah Nisaa, Allah declares, further, in verses171 and 172, thet the Christians, as a people of the Book should speak the truth and not lie about God.

Well-well. But WHO has been lying all along apart from you, dear sir? I asked you to find where the prophets spoke about "sexual intercourse" in all the examples I offered - and up until now I am still waiting for your answer!

You see how you keep quoting what you do not believe in - and yet turn round to accuse others of your own allegations.

Take it easy, Olabowale. Let's learn to speak the truth as we find it.   

noetic:
huxley

olobowale

pilgrim1

Thank you. . . thank you. . . thank you. But I certainly do not qualify by your criteria.

Hi mazaje,

It's interesting to read through your concerns. My concern, however, is if infact you sincerely have examined your own assumptions or were simply xeroxing another man's vexations. Let me give you an example:

mazaje:
Some examples of God’s actions not previously covered include the giving away of people’s wives (Jeremiah 8:10), justifying a woman being raped (Jeremiah 13:22), . . .

Could you show how Jeremiah 13:22 was "justifying a woman being raped"?

toluxa1:
@pilgrim. Can you tell me then what 1 Peter 4: 17 teaches?

In simple terms, it teaches that God's dealing with issues in the Church - but this is not to condemn it, but rather to purify it.

There is a diference in this type of "judgement" in the house of God. It points to the positive and constructive connotation that brings about holiness in our lives. It is not "judgement" in the sense of condemnation; for God has not appointed the Church to condemnation or wrath (see 1 Thes. 5:9), although as believers we suffer many things ("afflications" - 1 Thes. 3:3). In some other instances, God disciplines His own children (Heb. 12) so that they are mindful to maintain a holy lifestyle.

1 Peter 4:17 therefore must be understood in its context rather than snatching it in isolation to arrive at ideas that are far divorced from its surrounding verses. The apostle warns against isolated self-interpretation of verses (2 Peter 1:20); and that is why we should read that verse in consonance with the whole epistle itself.

Note that Peter was speaking of issues as affecting his own day (as well as ours) - "the time is come". . . not "the time shall come". Now, if 1 Peter 4:17 was to be understood to mean that God had finished with the churches, the apostle would not go on to urge his readers to still believe in God and cast their cares upon Him (1 Peter 5:17).

God has not finished with the Church. The teaching that He is done with the Church was a late 18th century heresy (as far as I can remember) among some extreme groups who misapplied the Word to say what it does not teach. That is why they do not understand that the Church will remain until the Second Coming of Christ - and only when He returns shall the Church be caught up to be with Him (1 Thes. 4:17).

The simple question to ask such people is this: has the Lord Jesus Christ returned for the Church or not? How do you answer?

Blessings.

Hi toluxa1,

I hope you had a very refreshing Sunday and had the time to worship the Lord Jesus Christ. Many thanks for gently replying my question: I do hope that my reposte would come across to you in kind so you don't feel persecuted in any way.

toluxa1:
The most dangerous place one can be now is in ANY church. Forget about how big that church maybe or how popular the pastor maybe. If they are still i the church it means they are under the judgment of God. They are the tares that remain even as God is gathering the wheat from the tares in our day.

Let me assure you that the safest place one can be now is in the Church, the Body of Christ. To disregard it in any way is to disregard the definitive voice of the Spirit of God, for it is He Himself Who forms the Body and adds members to it as pleases Him (please see 1 Cor. 12:13-14).

[list]13. 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.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.[/list]

Indeed, men can form churches here and there with many denominations - and that's not what I'm looking at. Rather, I believe that the Word of God is quite clear that the Body of Christ was formed by the Spirit of God - and it is He alone that maintains it.

toluxa1:
Note that the act of coming out of the church does not mean you are saved. But being in the church and deliberatly disregarding the word of God

Whether inside or outside the Church, one could choose to either obey or disobey His Word - we see this fact brought to us today in unmistakable terms. However, while you may have looed at one who disregards the Word even when he is "in" it, what about those who are also in the Church and also obey Him?

toluxa1:
(His warning):
Revelation 18:4 says
Come out of her, My people, that you be not partakers of her sins and her plagues, for her sins have reached unto heaven.’

When you read that verse in its context, it becomes obvious that the Church is not here being denounced by God. The verse is focusing on the sinister entity prophetically called "Babylon the great" (see verse 2) - and as one reads the whole chapter, it is obvious that nowhere in Scripture did God describe the Church as such.

I think what has happened here is that many people have made the mistake of confusing the identities of both the Church and the hideous system called "Babylon" - they are not the same. God loves the Church, and His ultimate goal is to bring us victorious whatever 'Babylon' pretends to be.

toluxa1:
So to answer your question, I don't attend any Church again. Even though my father is a Pastor and My Grand Father, an ECWA reverend. You can't imagine the persecution I face in my family. I have always been a very committed member in my church, striving hard to do God's will. But when God began to open my eyes to see the truth of the word of God, I had to Obey.

It is quite sad that you had to take this detour. My plea is that God Himself will open your eyes to see where you missed it and then return in obedience with Spirit-led understanding of HIS will. Quite often, people speak of doing "God's will" when in fact they have chosen to do theirs; and as often as is the case, they see others as the "persecutors".

toluxa1:
In Daniel 12: 9-10

He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.

This verse does not translate into the idea that God has finished with the Church. Study it in its context and it will become apparent that it is being misapplied by those who do not yet understand God's counsels about the Body of Christ.

@Olabowale,

Lol, after playing with you, it is obvious you're having difficulty with your own misplaced assertions.

The case is a very simple one - and up until now you have not been able to show very simply that the prophets were speaking of "sexual intercourse" when they used the terms "beget/begotten".

Already, I have repeatedly highlighted the fact that they used the terms to demonstrate the concept of a divine relationship and divine 'sonship' of the Messiah without connoting the idea of sex. Here again (predictably) you kept crying that someone show "explain" what they mean! Person wey no dey hear word will continue to miss simple answers!

olabowale:
I guess admirer of noble person can attach him, as a means of honoring him, with a title of being the child/son of a greater entity.

In the above case, does the "title" connote "sexual intercourse"? And if it does not, does that not negate your assumption of forcing "sex" into everything? Na wah for you!


Anyhow, just a little concrete reminder about the divine relationship where it is clear that "sexual intercourse" was not intended:

[list]"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn"  --  Exodus 4:22[/list]

That was Moses' declaration to Pharaoh. Did Moses assume your idea of "sexual intercourse" when he declared that Israel was the firstborn of the LORD? Of course not! Such an idea did not once cross the mind of even Pharaoh - because it simply was understood to mean that Israel was in a divine covenant relationship with God. That is why we read in other texts that: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" (Deut. 14:1).

This is why it is important to read contextually before nosing your ignorance.

Where in the Bible is this idea condemning "trousers"? Where did the Bible teach that "trousers" were for men?

olabowale:
Will somebody be bold enough to explain to us what is meant by beget/begotten in the Bible?

Can you be bold enough to swallow your dishonesty and read what David, Moses and Ethan said when they used the terms? WHERE did they talk about "sexual intercourse"?

mazaje:
they are they misguided ones who needs allahs mercy abi? keep on deluding your self. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interesting.

olabowale:
So who can tell me what beget means? Who can tell me that a father begets a son and he did not sleep with his mother?

Did the Quran teach that the conception of Jesus involved sexual intercourse? Are you so much at pain to go such length at confusing even what your own Quran does not teach?

olabowale:
Inshort, if there is no sex, there is no begotten!

Did you pay attention at all to the previous examples clearly outlining what Moses, David and Ethan meant in using the terms "beget/begotten"? Where did they use it to mean "sexual intercourse"? Please be as 'honest' as you can be and provide the answer.

olabowale:
Am I truly the father of the other children who were sired by others? Absolutely not.

When speaking about the Messiah or about our relationship with God, the prophets did not use the terms "beget/begotten" to mean "sexual intercourse" or "sire". If they did, please simply show where they did so.

If after several pages of your own argument you have not been able to show this, one wonders at your claim for "telling the truth".

olabowale:
By the way, no one is stopping the non-muslims from contributing in the so called muslim board.

What then necessitated the Muslim motherboard? And why then has it been so difficult for our Muslim friends to keep to what they mooted and deliberated in the first place?

olabowale:
Its a free world, with the essential element is simply, telling the truth, even when youre in disagreement.

That is a recommendation one would hope applies heavily to our Muslim friends - especially when they make allegations against the teachings of the prophets and yet are unable to square up to such allegations.