₦airaland Forum

shadeyinka:
God knows that some people will choose to remain in their state of sin nature.

Is it right for God to force you to be with Him eternally?

Make your choice!

That's the point.

i didnt have to believe in adam or anything for me to be in danger of hell..but i have to believe in jesus to absolve it...
Its not right for God to force me to be with him...but somehow it is right for him to condemnn all mankind for something they didnt do....forcing me to bear the stuff of someone else
you still dont see the conditioning?

---

keep in mind---they/i(us) didnt ask to be created?
*thats a side stool tho*

shadeyinka:
I believe you know something's about genetics. Just as it is in the physical, so it is in the spiritual.

You don't have to do anything to inherit good or bad things and traits from your parent
BUT
You have to do something to change undesired traits.

For salvation! What you have to do is TOO simple BELIEVE! It doesn't cost you anything does it?

You just still butressed my point...

TomHagen:
The danger of a single story- Chimamanda Adichie.

how?
Did you listen to adam's side?
Or eve's?

TomHagen:
None of these verses can be translated as ''all-loving'' and ''all-compassionate''. Perhaps we differ on the meaning of these terms; ergo it would be helpful if you defined them as you understand them.

*scoffs*
if you're going to redefine love and compassion on the spot same way you guys redefine murder when god orders the murder of kids...count me out

TheSixthSense:
No, Paul was not wrong. Original sin not as you describe it. Babies are not born with inherent sin. Jesus Christ wasn't born with inherent sin neither was Mary His mother. The original or 'first' sin committed by Adam and Eve, Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is death, only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin. However, Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt of that sin and worst of all that the consequences of the original sin are hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve’s.

if a child is born blind deaf and dumb..and has an accident has an accident at age 1...and is confined to the hospital for life...and later dies at an age of reason....without beliving in christ...will that child go to heaven?

TomHagen:
Not invalid perse. Incomplete is more like it.

Good..since its not invalid...
Then what exactly is the issue?

KingEbukasBlog:
Abeg shut up jare .

I'm very certain you don't know what reductio ad absurdum is but mentioned it of course to purport smartness.

You always commit this logical fallacy - argumentum ad lapidem - a lot . What is wrong you ?

Please abeg mbok show me where reductio ad absurdum was committed , so we can scrutinize it .

really?
You didnt see it?
Honestly?

TheSixthSense:
Your question is rhetorical and your intention isn't pure but there is no original sin. The god you describe here is the one of atheists that won you guys over.

paul is wrong?

TomHagen:
What are the downsides of ''distributing compassion'' to everyone? Do you know?

what are the downsides of ''distributing condemnation'' to only adam?

Remember the op....

TomHagen:
I haven't seen ALL LOVING in the Bible. Show me if you have.

1 john 4:8,16---all loving
psalm 145:9----all compassionate

DoctorAlien:
This post reeks of ignorance. Typical of atheist arguments, anyway.

The concept of original sin is not biblical. A child is not born a sinner. Man only inherits sinful nature i.e. tendency to love sin rather than GOD. A baby has no knowledge of sin, and if it dies, it will rest in the grave till our LORD returns when it will go back to its Maker.

Jesus Christ was born too. He was not a sinner. He never sinned. And if birth could impart sin, Jesus would have been a sinner. He can't be one, anyway.

It's just that a human being, left alone, would naturally follow sin. Jesus is there, thankfully, to deliver us from sin, and to set us free from its shackles.

It would really do all these nairaland "atheists" much good if they read the Bible thoroughly and understood it, before coming to present intellectually nauseating arguments.

uh...did you slowly read the op?

ValentineMary:
And his compassion lies in believing? how is that compassionate so no matter how kind one is as long as he does not believe, he is condemned? how is that compassionate

And worse still we now know thag belief is based on geographical location. So salvation is based on luck and no sort of good works whatsoever. smh

unconditional love....wiith conditions

TomHagen:
Common bro you are better than this. This verse could be interpreted as 'I ''act like humans'' when I please and act otherwise as I deem fit'. Yes?

does it make my interpretation invalid?

TomHagen:
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord (Isaiah 55: 8 ).

---

Is this the 'assumption' you speak of?

is it not the same guy that acts like humans in the bible?
The same bible that said he doesnt change/repent because he is not a man..but still repents in the bible?
There are verses supporting my op too..

TomHagen:
How do you know what ''an actual compassionate God'' is capable of if you haven't met one before''? Why do assume that such a being must do things the way you'd do them?

it's its bible that made the assumption..

juicydiceyjoe:
True.
A lot doesn't make sense.
But then, His ways are higher than our ways!

it doesnt make sense because its a joke!

juicydiceyjoe:
True.
A lot doesn't make sense.
But then, His ways are higher than our ways!

it doesnt make sense because its a joke!

Scholar8200:
Is that appropriate? Would you take your bath in front of your house on a sunny afternoon and expect to be considered sane?

would a man who drinks/takes alcohol to the church be considered sane?...No..but doesnt make it invalid...
Same way not having s*x in church makes s*x invalid..

Not just Paul, the Bible condemns it!

deut 14:26?
Proverbs 31:6-7?

Scholar8200:
The issue here is incomparable with something that must be done in private eg bathing.

Jude's description of such folks show their sinfulness and how they defile the Church by their presence hence calling them spots. It was better they stayed away, this is the uniform position of Paul and Jude.

we've seen cases of married people s*xing on the streets in the road...so its not distinctively a private issue...
And i'm talking about paul..not jude..lest i quote other bible authors..
Did paul say taking alcohol is a sin?

4everGod:
So you still refused to open the link I sent you and prefer this your ignorant argument.

Drunk was not isolated in the scripture. ....

Proper expression that would support your argument would be in this manner...

WHEN MEN HAVE WELL DRUNK AND GOTREN DRUNKEN.....this would show that the drunk meant drunkeness specifically. ..

But descriptively as a statement in Past participle it says...WHEN MEN HAVE WELL DRUNK THAT WHICH WAS WORSE YOU HAVE KEPT THE GOOD WINE FOR LAST....

This shows their comment was based on the action of drinking and not the act of drunkeness. ..They were appreciating the groom while scolding him a bit...

The exact words were ...PEOPLE NORMALLY BRING OUT THE GOOD WINE FIRST AT SUCH OCCASSIONS BUT YOU HAD TO LET US FINISH THE BAD WINE AND NOW YOU BRING OUT THE GOOD WINE...

Its simple English. I know some of you struggle with English as if it was Chemistry but I dont....

we are talking about it(the wine) being alcoholic oo..
In titus 1:7..''addicted to wine'' is stated..the word use ''oinos''(drv)
Can one be addicted to juice?

I said...when ''oinos'' is used with the word ''methu'' it always implies that the wine was ''alcoholic''..
In cases of your ''participle stuff'' other words like ''pino'' etc were used...
Or can you provide a case or passage in the bible where the word ''methu'' for ''drunk'' meant your wayo participle something?
Wait so there is Good fruit juice and bad fruit juice?

Scholar8200:
No, he wasnt.

Those in corinth were used to the orgies and drinking in idolatrous worship and , like human nature is wont, some were already abusing a solemn Christian practice as though it was a substitute for what they were before. Paul then was saying something like, '' if you choose such a sinful course of life spare the Church the shame and return to your own houses!''

Jude alludes to such people,''These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear Jude 12a

How would Paul advocate something clearly condemned in Galatians 5?

You know indulgence is different from just taking right?
In Gal.5 it seems to be indulgence he is referring to.....
And by saying ''do it at home'''..its like saying..although s*x between married couples is not a sin in christian theology..but it is inappropriate to do such in church...
Catch the drift?

Or are you saying paul was saying its okay to sin at home but not in the church?

4everGod:
Eyehategod and raphiemontella is it that English is not your strong point?

John 2 vs 10 spoke in Past participle just like when you have DRINK DRANK DRUNK ...Drunk there is not referring to intoxication but its referring to a past act of drinking and not drunkenness.

Gosh you guys need help in english comprehension

No. No..in those days drunk was drunk(alcohol) while in pertaining to water and your wayo past participle and co ''drinketh''[pino] was used..
The word used in john 2:10 for drunk is ----''methu''
from which ''methusko'' is derived...
And ''methusko'' means ''being drunk,,intoxicated''...
words derived from ''methu'' like methosos, etc all mean being drunk,,drunkeness,, etc

2..in ephesians 5:18..drunk is used as an adjective...not a verb
which shows that drunk with wine...is drunkeness

4everGod:
Raphie you can see the Oinos is a generic word that can be used for wine but forbidden to be used for Shekar which is the alcoholic wine but when Oinos is being translated into English its still referred to as wine but in direct context its not the alcoholic wine since Shekar which it does not represent is used specifically for alcoholic wine.

sir...oinos is used with drunkeness..
If oinos used with drunkeness does not imply that the wine in the passage is alcoholic..
What then does it imply?

Im talking about the untranslated manuscripts and what the original author had in mind...not our present day translations..

4everGod:
You see why I am never surprised when I see your guys lying for Atheism?

I will answer you and Desepiero in one fell swoop and also attach a website guide to hebrew and greek transltions of the word WINE and where each greek or hebrew translation was gotten from and end all this nonsense you guys are spewing and if you still wish to ignore this and still argue blindly then goodluck.

Carefully read and may you have understanding. Which would relieve you of your ignorance


Link https://www.cai.org/bible-studies/hebrew-and-greek-words-translated-wine

Oh..crap..is it that you dont understand what i wrote sire?
Please visit here...
The original manuscripts of the new testament
the word used there is ''oinos''..
And whenever ''oinos'' is used with ''drunk''(being drunk/drunkeness), it means the wine in question is alcoholic...
As shown in ephesians 5:18..
And john 2:10 is a parallel to ephesians 5:18(oinos and drunkeness together)..

Or do you need more verses like eph 5:18 in corroboration with the truth i posted?

hopefulLandlord:
must be "grape juice"
lmao, these apologists bring some laugh to my day

lol..its clear to see.. I can even post the original words warefa..

---

scholar8200... 1 corinthians 11:20-22.. Was paul not advocating alcohol there?

Deicide:
Joh 2:10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk then that which is worse: [but] thou hast kept the good wine until now. [/b]

Stop lying for Jesus bro

any honest person here knows you've nailed it...
For them to be drunk..it must have had alcohol..
4everGod...The word translated as wine in that passage is ''oinos''
from which the word ''oinopotes'' is gotten..
And ''oinopotes'' means drunkard[matthew 11:19]
itts the same ''oinos'' thats used in ephesians 5:18..so it clearly signifies that whenever ''oinos'' is used with being drunk..then the wine is alcoholic..and other bible verses corroborate with eph 5:18

Mediator97:
This is 2016 years after the death of Christ.

seriously??

Lennycool:
See this Christians. Do you know how many pagan religions are rolled into Christianity. The very fact that you go to church on Sunday rather than Saturday is because of a pagan tradition. The new testament as well as old has traces of numerous pagan religions.

set by constantine...

hopefulLandlord:
keep telling yourself that lol
someday, you might start believing it

fantasizers bro! I expect nothing less..after all their religion is a religion of fantasy...

DeSepiero:
The bible always lay emphasis on believing.

its really a bigoted attempt by the new testament writers

oglalasioux:
I still wonder why people falling under the spell of chemicals on a handkerchief is a miracle yet we cannot acknowledge a greater miracle; the cell phones we use to share the dubious news.

m just laughing at christians

ok...