₦airaland Forum

this thread still dey? all catholics should have converted by now Jesus dey wait with outstretched arms (that's of course if you're not already within his embrace).

@pilgrim,
i really admire your patience and commitment. reward dey come plenty. E ku ise naa (you can use google to translate, i think you know what its all about, lol).

@Atam,
i think you should try to read what's been going on in the thread - apart from some few disruptive folks that came and left, the tone of this discussion has been rather civil, except of course, for the occasional namecallings which haven't really amounted to anything.
If i were neutral on the issue (i unfortunately am not) i would still say the same thing.

Cheers all.

KAG:
I don't know it can't be defended, especially if you consider the fact that several fossilised eggs predate chickens by millions of years.

Have you, consistent with your mindset, critically examined the dating methods and the underlying assumptions, not to mention the numerous inconsistencies?

drrionelli:
It is undeniably evident that the egg came first. Long before there were chickens, many animals laid eggs.

Undeniably evident? its easy to make statements that can't be defended.

Lol . . . . the bible hasn't (it's a finished document ); we're just trying our own based on the clues contained - am not sure, but i think the miracles mentioned in verse 6 are unique to certain people. But then again, we could be wrong - i personally still don't fully understand a lot of things in that final book. Cheers .

Ndipe:
Col. 2: 16-17 should be read by all who condemn religious worships outside the Sabbath day.

Most definitely. And also, for balance, Rom. 14.5 for all.

@OLA,
nice questions!!
just curious; what makes you think that those witnesses are Enoch and Elijah
Methinks verse 6 gives a clue;
#[/b]shut up the sky so it does not rain - Elijah
[b]#[/b]turn waters into blood and strike plagues - Moses
Moreover it was [b]Moses and Elijah who appeared with the Lord on the mount
However i believe there's a deeper meaning to that verse (apart from the surface one) - Moses signifying the Law, and Elijah, the Prophets. just my thought.

as per your kweshun,
since the bible didn't say all men from every nation tribe etc. but just men from - it's safe to say they came to where they were. If their location is jerusalem (verse 8 ) then that is very plausible - people from all over always go there on pilgrimage. Cheers.

Backslider:
@THE TRUE HOLY BRETHREN

Dont waste your time casting the pearls to these people they will only waste it and ridicule you. In the Army of Heaven people choose the Platoon they belong to.

Now coming to you, Backslider, yours is a very special case. Its very obvious you've chosen your Platoon and the placard carried by the leader of that platoon is very clear.
I am happy i don't fall into the category of 'THE TRUE HOLY BRETHREN according to Backslider' - i would have had to have a serious heart-check (not that i'm taking a swipe at those you're referring to). I wonder when the Lord made you the judge of who is holy and who is not. Last time i checked, it is the Lord who knows those who are his. I chose not to reply to your numerous inflammatory posts, choosing rather to pray instead; but if others hadn't commented, i probably would have. Someone especially gave a very good descriptor, i wouldn't repeat it here.
As regards 'the pearls', Jesus is the one that gives pearls (2Cor. 4:7) and he still sells some valuable items today (Rev. 3;18, Matt. 13:46) - i don't get my pearls from men. Perhaps you could also try out his costly items - they are free (Is. 55;1). Cheers.

@ Veracious,
You didn't reply me quote for quote, that would have been better. I don't have a problem with you, or your convictions, in fact i enjoyed the way you stood your ground in the face of many contentious people. However, i had a problem with a statement you made that is unjustifiable, and i'm happy you haven't directly tried to justify the statement - however you brought up a lot of peripheral issues.

Veracious:
@ ricadelide

it may interest you to know that am a member of DL.

Why would it interest me? i knew about your being a member

If you are not so convinced God wants you to be there(DL) then there is no way you can keep the doctrines which also are biblical doctrines.

I was never a DL member - i attended DL (for a retreat), and that was almost a decade ago. Again, you keep saying what you can't justify: 'which are also biblical doctrines' - which doctrines exactly?

the truth is people want to hear good things always when they come to church.

Do you go to church to hear 'bad' things? Has the meaning of the 'gospel' changed? His yoke is still easy and his burden still light (Matt. 11;30). However i know what you mean so let me not push it, lol .

they see a church that preaches  holiness and purity in all areas of life as too old fashioned or too restrictive,because they want to do some things other folks are doing in other churches

thus, the 'other churches' do not preach 'holiness and purity in all areas of life'? I would really wonder what your definition of holiness and purity is. B.T.W, true NT christianity can never be 'old-fashioned' - the church should and will always remain relevant even in the midst of changing times.

Serving God is not just going to church and being a worker there, more is involved, as you need to be really born again and be sanctified without this in place there is no way you can serve God in spirit and in truth.

I hope you're not trying to imply somethings in the second half of your statement, lol. My arguement have never been about what 'serving God' means or requires. Believe me, i can talk a very lot about that. This is beside the point and even tends to make it seem like you're still holding on to the thought that other christians are not 'really born again and sanctified'.

coming to the aspect of T.V viewing, wearing of trousers,perming of hair,making up

good. make i listen.

have you read in the bible about women of faith in bible times perming their hair or making up their faces or even putting on male apparel?

unfortunately when we try to use the bible to justify the rules of men, we'd have to resort to arguments like these. Have you ever read of women of faith in the bible times typing on the internet? I really don't engage myself in these kinds of arguments. If you really think this is biblically justifiable i'll leave it to the Lord to help your understanding. However as an aside, ladies that wear trousers aren't 'wearing male apparel'. If a lady was to wear a male's trouser believe me even you wouldn't like the sight - oops, my bad, you already don't like it. anyways.
(i wonder why the male apparel thingy doesn't apply to T-shirts and shirts - afterall males wore them first? - whatever happened to blouses? )

besides its not only DL you see such doctrines being held high, we have so many other denominations who avoid such practises and yet they don't get critisism in return from people.

Now you resort to the 'i am being criticised' label. when did i do that? Rather it was the other way round; you criticized others of not being 'really born again'. However, then again, the issue still remains; 'what is the biblical justification for such rules (or as you say, doctrines)?

you and i know that what we view goes a long way in influencing our thoughts and actions;turn on your T.V set and what you see each minutes can be left unimagined. you see a little child of about 1-2yr already taking some dance steps and singing some songs that you as an aldult could not do when you were at that age,even now that you'r an adult.just look around,what do you see? children who given the next ten years would turn their generation to something else.

Now i really need to ask myself what's wrong with the channels i'm watching. CNN and MSNBC as well as HGTV and the Food Channel ( ) need a complaint letter from me.
(a naughty part of me really wonders how you knew that, and i, who watch TV, never came across that 1 or is it 2-year old?)

For those who are not members of DL am not in the right position to judge your righteousness

Now you're talking, and perhaps now i can see a biblical statement (Rom. 14:10) (apart from your earler statement about serving God)

as some acclaimed righteousness could be filthy rags in the sight of God

oh? was this what you meant? Guess i jumped the gun.

all what i would say is study your bible in all sincererity not minding what people would say about you when you start living the life God wants you to live. serve him in spirit and in truth,and i tell you "when you are really serving God that way you would know within you, as the spirit will bear witness to it".

I couldn't agree more. Like the Lord said, "go and do likewise". Cheers

OlowoTee:
@Ricadelide

I think there is difference between Bible Doctrine and Church Doctrine/Stand. The Deeper Life Church believes the Bible and teach its Doctrine undiluted, likewise some other Churches who believe in the 22 doctrines of the Bible. But I think where the problem of youth leaving the Church lies is when they are not ready to abide by the Stand of the Church on some Bible Doctrines.

It's true that it's not expected of any DL member to watch TV, perm the hair, have unnecessary make-up etc. These are the Stand of the Church and it's based on their Understanding of the Bible Doctrine.

All other Churches do have their Stand/Doctrine aside the Bible Doctrine and as long as you are a member of that Church, It is expected of you to follow suite and Obey your leader in the Lord. It is also expected of every Church to believe and Preach the whole Doctrine of the Bible, But Church Stand could diver

Let's not take the Bible Doctrine for the Church and vice versa

Thanks!!

Nicely put! I didn't mix them up, in fact i did quite the contrary. However, i have to question that reference to 'the 22 doctrines of the Bible'. I don't think that is biblically justifiable - except its another 'Church stand' lol.
Cheers.

feelgood:
@ricadelide
would you be kind enough to mention some of those unscriptural rules in Deeperlife so we can amend our ways & get back to godly paths.
As an aside, would it be ok for me to drink beer esp as the bible did not mention beer drinking? No offences meant please

As regards the first line of this post, i think i've addressed it in my earlier post - it serves me no good to list unscriptural rules in DL, if the people are so convinced, then i gain nothing but only make things worse by unsettling their conscience. However, I would only say a few things:

[list][li]disputable issues of personal conviction should not be made into general rules for all to follow - as the bible teaches, they should be between the individual and his God.
[/li]
[li] that an individual decides to consecrate himself to doing or not doing a particular action does not mean other people should follow suit eg. (i don't want to say this) while in university i made a consecration not to wear jeans (very funny eh - don't ask me why i did so ) however it would have been extremely wrong of me to say those who wear jeans are sinners or are wrong in doing so [/li]
[li] lafile's point - that i don't like something does not mean it is wrong; we should distinguish between our own conscience issues and what the bible expressly teaches[/li]
[/list]

If however you want to actually find out the other side to many of those specific rules, especially as they relate to the bible's teaching, I could provide a link to the women trouser debate (that is just one example) https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-71063.0.html. IMO, Pilgrim handled that debate excellently.

Now, to the second statement you made, i would be the last person to argue that if something is not mentioned in the bible then it can't be addressed or it's ok. That was not my argument; however, to be fair, you didn't give a very good analogy - beer drinking can be easily addressed from the bible (the bible might not use the word 'beer', it uses other words) Here's another link https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-10902.96.html. IMO, 4get_me did a good job there. I don't drink beer, but the funny thing is that some christians do not consider light beer drinking wrong. I remember a story i read about a missionary who went to Germany (i guess, i'm not sure, the story is a bit fuzzy now) to preach. He decided to pay the local missionaries a visit, and they set a beer before him. He did not used to drink beer but then he realised that that was their culture and in the spirit of 1Cor. 9:19-23 he complied.
A better analogy would have been cigarettes - while the word 'cigarette' isn't mentioned in the bible, there are enough other instructions to help us address it. So the right approach is to see the issue and weigh it against all the scriptures that relate to them. If you want to do so with the issues you mentioned, no problem.

Now, i'm not trying to preach a gospel of permissiveness, far from it, there are many things that have clear boundaries. Afterall, the bible says "abstain from every form of evil" (1Thess. 5;22) But with many other things (which are not intrinsically evil) i've also discovered that its not only black and white - finding the right balance is worth striving for. Cheers.

feelgood:
Do pray veracious forgive me for the mix up. Your points are noted @ ricadelide. Quite a number of us, Deeperlife or not, do have personal convictions on the evil of tv, among others & I believe I'm a Christian - & God would be displeased if I keep same in my house.
@topic
youths leave Deeperlife for varied reasons just as other youths come to Deeperlife for diverse reasons. Ephesians 4:1-7, 17-24; (also 25-32).
Let us all note Ephesians 5:1-17

I'm so in agreement with you. I never did reply to the original thread because i do not feel i should speak against another person's convictions especially when the issues concerned are those trivial issues the bible refers to as 'disputable matters' (Rom. 14.1). Lafile has really explained in detail about this. Like the bible admonishes, 'let everyman be fully persuaded in his own mind' (Rom. 14;5). It only became an issue for me when Vera made the statement about other people not being 'really born again'. That statement cannot be justified in any way. It's so much of an issue for me not to push this because i realize that, even if i were to try to convince you otherwise, if you still had any doubts on the matter and decided to heed my advise, i would have, by my argument, made you sin against God (Rom. 14:23). So rather than try to convince you, like Paul said, i'd rather say "whatever you believe about these things, keep between yourself and God" (14.22). That is what the bible teaches - such issues of individual and personal convictions should not be made into rules for other christians to follow, neither should counter-rules be made against such as well (if you understand what i mean). Thus, the problem would arise if someone were to see me not following their convictions and then say I am sinning, when i'm fully convinced that i'm not - just as Paul was fully convinced about food in Rom. 14.14 - then one would want to respond. However, sometimes, when you know that such trivial issues affect your fellow-brother it wouldn't be hard for one to drop the issue so as not to affect another person's faith negatively (Rom 14: 15 -16). You see what baffles me is that, although Paul was convinced that 'no food (was) unclean in itself' (Rom. 14;14), he still did not try to convince the people he was teaching . These were people he had authority over, and could readily have convinced. Yet, he didn't deem it necessary. That really scares me, and makes me really wonder how much we (modern day christians) respect other people's convictions, because our behaviour (especially those of us who are of the inclination that those things do not really matter) does not really line up with Paul's. But then i realise that, he did not try to change their minds as regards this (and other similar) issue(s) because they weren't really germane to the faith - they are trivial. When (and if) there was a doctrinal error as regards the core issues of the faith, then Paul never did keep silent (and we must not either). A notable example is the case of the Galatians.
I would want to say a lot more on this, but i'll rest here.
Like Lafile said, I am not more of a christian than a (genuine) DL member . . . . . and the reverse also applies. Cheers all.

NB. i really recommend that we all pray and study Rom 14 (as well as 1Cor 8 and 9). It would really help.

@feelgood,

feelgood:
@veracious
it may interest you to note that there are a great many churches - some are in Nigeria too - that don't support television. Pastor M Daoud, an American evangelist calls it the devil's box. He also does not listen to radio (don't know if he's still alive).

i guess this was directed to me - since i mentioned television in my post. However, sincerely i don't understand your position. IMO, to put it breifly, the fact that many churches or preachers don't support it does not mean it is not right to watch it nor that it is taught in the bible to discountenance it. Perhaps i'm misunderstanding you in some way.

feelgood:
Deeperlife doctrines are clear and bible based - perhaps u can point out the errors

Actually i didn't say their doctrines aren't bible-based. that's why i distinguished between their 'extra requirements' and their basic teaching or doctrine. Here was my statement;

However, by your statement 'far too much' i guess you're referring to the 'extra requirements' for being a DL member rather than DL's basic teaching about salvation and all?

As far as the doctrines on their website goes, i agree that most are bible-based (i disagree with some - its hard for two people to agree 100% - i don't even agree 95% with my pastor ); however those 'extra requirements' i gave examples of aren't stipulated in the bible. There are many of them in fact, not just the ones i mentioned. Unfortunately they didn't list them on their website (at least, i didn't locate them) but i've read many of their magazines (eg the women's mag) and tracts and even fellowshipped there before to know those things.

Obviously i wont discourage anyone who's so convinced from fellowshipping in DL - i've done so and i was blessed when i did. However its good - if possible - for one to grow beyond the level of one's local church. I mean one can always feed beyond that which comes from the local church pulpit alone. That common wrong statement that: people who don't do certain things that one does are not really born again - especially things that can't really be justified in/by the bible (said by veracious) is what made me rouse from my silence. Cheers .

Infidel:
spot on ric, thanks for playing the devils advocate in that piece, thoroughly enjoyed it to an extent

Lol . . . . it has to be 'to an extent': i wasn't playing 'the devil's advocate' in order to please you (or anyone) - far from it. (If you notice, i did not respond to nor second any of your posts) Rather it was so that the Truth will not be misrepresented. Everyone, christians inclusive, needs to be careful about what they teach. Anyways, i'm out of this thread .

I really hope this doesn't come across as being rude. Not to be pedantic in any way, however, as much as possible, it is good to be clear and unambigous with one's statements.

$$Rhino,
although i can fairly get what you meant to say, your statements can connote a lot of interpretations that you probably didn't intend. Let me play the devil's advocate here and play with your post a little;

[quote author=$$Rhino link=topic=79465.msg1509312#msg1509312 date=1190159109]God is not a being,[/quote]How do you mean? Do you rather mean to say 'God is not a human being'? For surely he is a being; a spirit being.

[quote author=$$Rhino link=topic=79465.msg1509312#msg1509312 date=1190159109]God is one that has never been anywhere[/quote]How so? Is that a definition for God or a description of God? If its the latter, do you really mean God has never been anywhere? Is God nowhere? Does he not have a location? Or do you rather mean to say that he doesnt have to go to a place in order to be in that place (for He is already there)? Or are you saying something rather deep: that God is not bounded by space - as space and time are physical attributes?
Furthermore, if it is a definition, that statement on its own (without the second clause) can readily be misinterpreted to mean that anyone who has never been anywhere is God.

[quote author=$$Rhino link=topic=79465.msg1509312#msg1509312 date=1190159109]there is no time for him[/quote]Has he run out of time? Of course there is no time with Him; but there are lots of time for Him. He created time! Everything is for him (Rom.11:36 - Darby) - time, alongside every other thing, cannot 'not-be' for him (another way of saying: everything has to be for Him). Yes, He is not governed by time; time - with its attendant finiteness - cannot 'contain' an infinite God.

[quote author=$$Rhino link=topic=79465.msg1509312#msg1509312 date=1190159109]nothing created Him[/quote]Hmm . . . can i then say he was created from or by nothing? ie is 'nothing' the raw-material that was used to create him? or that the state of nothingness spontaneously resolved itself in and by the creation of God? (for example, as my limited understanding of the big bang supposes with regards to the universe?) Or on the other hand, if you say nothing created Him then what did?
The Creator (capital C) by default and by definition is uncreated. That is why He calls himself "I AM". My point is: God can never be an object for the verb 'to create' - it doesn't work. In other words, 'nothing' can (not) be placed as the subject (_{what does that even mean?} ) with God as the object and the verb 'create' interjected.

[quote author=$$Rhino link=topic=79465.msg1509312#msg1509312 date=1190159109]God is such an awesome father.[/quote]Finally, i agree with you 101%. Indeed, with all these descriptors, the word 'awesome' cannot be flawed. I love this song (especially the lyrics) by Amy Grant "Nothing is beyond you" it gives a minuscule glimpse into the awesomeness of God.

NB. let no one take this seriously (including Rhino). I know i definitely did not make sense (however, i have a slight feeling some might appreciate my concern). Cheers .

@Veracious,
not to 'crucify' you, i see you've had a hard time on this thread, but your last post brings up lots of 'issues' that can't be allowed to slip by

Veracious:
youths who run away from Deeperlife are yet to be really bornagain

ehn ehn Vera don't even go there rara. When did remaining in Deeperlife become a criterion for being 'really born again'? Is it not about remaining in Christ? Or is it impossible to remain in Christ outside DL? If they run away to go to the world or into sinning then that statement is justifiable. But if they decide to go to another congregation whilst still remaining in the Lord have they stopped being bornagain? Or do you think it is impossible to be 'really bornagain' outside DL?

Veracious:
or it could also be that the doctrines are far too much for them to comply with.

closer to home. However, by your statement 'far too much' i guess you're referring to the 'extra requirements' for being a DL member rather than DL's basic teaching about salvation and all? If I'm correct then i don't really like that term 'doctrines' in this case; it gives the false impression that those extra requirements have a foundation in the Bible. Perhaps 'rules' would be a better term. Those rules are in the same bracket as the things the bible refers to as 'doctrines of men' (eg don't wear trousers, don't watch TV etc.) They are not biblical doctrines; in fact they go against the doctrine of Collosians chapter 2.

Veracious:
and also they have not really made up their mind to serve God that way,because it takes the grace of God to serve God in Deeperlife.

It takes the grace of GOd to serve Him anywhere you are; from the choir to the rehabilitation home for prostitutes. If you mean that it takes the grace of God to obey the lots of rules required for being a DLCF member, then we wont crucify you too much we'll just wonder if those rules serve any spiritual purpose warranting God's grace. Cheers .

Now its not wrong for one to consecrate him/herself to doing or not doing something, however such personal issues between an individual and his God should not be made into requirements or rules for spirituality for all to follow - even those who aren't so convinced. I could expatiate on this last point if you so desire. Cheers.

cgift:
Infourmer!

Kai. NEPOIS or wetin you call am? Na only you go tell us the meaning of that word because i no see am for wordweb

Lol . . . . cgift . No fear; the word never enter webster for now. I guess the word 'nepios' is greek for "infant" or "babe". I wonder the need for that though since this is an english forum

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=22923.msg1507473#msg1507473 date=1190120385]

If you know and you don't act on what you know,you are a NEPIOS

I thank you plenty . . . I'm saving all the name-callings people have given me on Nairaland; and yours is also in the "mild" chapters. Thank you again O! [/quote]Lol Pilgrim . . . . that inventory of appellatons isn't to be envied  . I'm guessin its only orobo 's catalogue that has gone beyond the 'mild' eh ?
Methinks infourmer was making a 'general statement' in this case though. Perhaps phrasing would have helped: "if one knows and doesn't act on what one knows then one is an infant (greek: nepios)". Or something like that
(but then we all know that this is indirect yabis - the implication still remains _{- no be me talk am oh} )

anyways, u guys should fire on !

@idinrete

IDINRETE:
In answer to your question in bold yes, I beleive in one jesus that cried "me! me! why has thou forsaken me"

that is the interpretation I can give that passage that I read from the Bible, if I were to beleive that there is a biblical god

Do you know it was because of you he experienced that which he was crying out about ?

and why, if i may ask, do you not believe in the biblical God (considering that you believe in Jesus)?

LOL . . . . . talk about stiff-neckedness _{Acts 7:51}
Scary!

@alabi,
[quote author=@labiyemmy link=topic=79465.msg1502334#msg1502334 date=1189998478]whatever you call yourself.

You have only exposed your doubts and your doubts are not enough proof that our dear loving God doesnt exist[/quote]its called argument from personal incredulity. The OP obviously does not consider it fallacious; and his 'intelligent' mind finds it rather justifiable.

nferyn:
I must say that there is a positive evolution among Christian denominations towards more tolerance. Still a long way to go though

there isn't any 'positive evolution' in the requirements for christian living especially as it relates to making peace with all men; there might be an evolution in some quarters as regards their aligning their lifestyles to that which is written

nferyn:
As nothing has changed as far as Christian apologist answers are concerned, my anthem hasn't either.

sure, we have to change and not you.

nferyn:
A logically coherent argument based on commonly agreed upon premisses.

common premises such as a naturalistic explanation of everything that comprises the universe (including, i might add, ethics and morality);
as well laboratory tests for and scientific approaches to finding God? (inferred from your next line)

nferyn:
This is nonsense.

Indeed.  Maybe if i paraphrase it you could understand it better. Quoting someone "No one who has prejudged an issue can be convinced of anything contrary to what he wants to believe". And yes; wants to believe (would reply you later in the other thread).

nferyn:
I can accept a claim as long as it can be operationalized and falsified and that, after testing, there is a statistically significant outcome. A God that cannot be operationalized is meaningless.

of course it has to be on your terms. I'm guessing it took you not so long a period of testing to analyze your own logic. Or have you not falsified it yet?

nferyn:
I disagree. If God has an effect on the natural world, he is in principle falsifiable through that effect. Only a deist God cannot be falsified. The problem is that most theist don't want their God to be subjected to scientific testing or don't accept the results of that testing.

And i'm guessing you cannot see your assumption that the natural world can be seperated from the influence of its maker, such that at a certain timepoint of self-manifestation he must needs 'have an effect' on it?
anyways that's a much broader topic that i wouldnt want to go into. at its base level, the statement 'there is a God' is unfalsifiable

nferyn:
A possible test could be on the effect of prayer. If e.g., after a rigorous double blind study, we were to find out that e.g. Catholic prayer results in a 25% higher recovery rate of the patients than with other kinds of prayer, then we're on to something. This could be considered evidence for the validity of the Catholic God concept.

take another road friend. this one would lead you nowhere. you're only fulfilling my earlier statement. you can't observe a prion with a hand magnifying glass. you can't travel the equator and hope to get to alaska. your not finding alaska does not mean its non-existent; it means you're looking in the wrong places. we could tell you where to look, but you'll refuse - so, back to square one. False analogy? who cares; the point is: its a wrong approach.
(this flaw of approach is apart from the fact that your experiment in itself is flawed with various worng assumptions and misconceptions about God and prayer)
but of course there are many scientific findings that strictly necessitate a God, a Designer; but it depends on who's looking

orobo 50cl:
No bother yourself de argue with that winch pilgrim o! Na so she go de use catholics de catch trips till you sef tire for am. Just make am de do hin " I TOO KNOW" I.T.K. de go and discuss with better people. Leave am o! Na first class kolo. Every thing you de talk about catholics na hin she go de make you resemble fool. She no de go any other forum but go just de siddon for religious threads to de wait for catholics until you yan d thing wey go make am mess you well well.

obviously this post betrays 'issues'
no wonder you can only resort to argumentum ad hominem rather than offer logical arguments
(especially when the so-called logical arguments are (or have been) thrashed.

nferyn:
If you live around Christians, of course the major expression of God-belief will be Christianity and that's why most atheists focus more on Christianity. Also, Christianity in general is 'slightly' more tolerant of unbelievers that Islam. The consequences of openly professing to be an atheist in Muslim countries are far from appealing.

Lol . . . . the 'slight' difference might just be the difference between life and death; _{come to think of it, in some cases, it is quite slight} .

nferyn:
In the end, all of that doesn't matter at all, as nearly all religious claims have no foundation in reality anyway. I am still to meet the first Christian that can come up with the semblance of a coherent argument in favor of the existence of God without resorting to special pleading or anecdote.

we hear again the nferyn anthem (j/k)

The real question should be: what sort of argument or how much of evidence are you willing to accept? it is a double-standard for one to make no allowance for the possibility (or plausibility) of a concept in the first place whilst still demanding that such concepts be proven.

(unfortunately for both sides (or perhaps one), its an unfalsiable concept )

lafile:
Poverty sef na wa o! why person go carry im leg go see pastor wey call himsef SIGN FIREMAN

you no know say for the pastor church the God of SIGN go answer MAN by FIRE??

_{May God help us!}

@octopus,

Octupus:
I agree with you that Agassi was the most VERSATILE player to handle the tennis racquet because he is the only person to have won the grandslam on all FOUR different surfaces.

I guess you meant all THREE different surfaces. He is not the only one to have won all FOUR grandslam tournaments though, FOUR other people had done that before him, but it was on grass and clay (no hard courts) then.
Hopefully, FedEx will soon become the first man to win all four in a calender year; that's if The Rafa allows him

@theopops

theopops:
I had to sign in. Christians, what is the problem? Donnie you clearly made a statement or two and pilgrim 1 called you out on them and the best you can come up with, is you are not led? What is wrong? Where did the Church fall apart? How would it have affected you by admitting your statements and standing by them? Led by the spirit to lie? What do you think the spirit does? Men, this is really sad. God help us all!

You spoke what was in my heart; the real bother is "Is it really that hard to admit that you are wrong?" Being corrrected is a good thing .

@Donnie,
Like you yourself have indicated, there's no basis for infant baptism in the bible. The logical conclusions that can be drawn from the premises (or preconditions) you yourself presented is against what you're arguing for. However there are some tangential points you raised which i might address later. Cheers.

@Ivvie

Ivvie:
Harper Collins is the author of New International Version. Harper Collins is also the author of the satanic bible and the joy of gay sex. The NIV is another bible of it's own and makes abominable references to the deity of Christ and encourages homosexuality. I don't understand how people decide to marinate themselves in such. In Isa 14.12, the NIV declares Lucifer as Jesus. This is flat wrong and cannot be made right.

Other translations are not exempted. A version says David did not kill Goliath. The TNIV is even worse. Funny enough, all bibles are copyrighted except the KJV.

Harper Collins is NOT the author of the NIV. Yes, HaperCollins now owns Zondervan which publishes the NIV and thus you can rightly say that they publish the NIV, but they did not author it. The NIV was translated by the International Bible society. Here's a quote;

"The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. It had its beginning in 1965 when, after several years of exploratory study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Associations of Evangelicals, a group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and concurred in the need for a new translation of the Bible in contemporary English. This group, though not made up of official church representatives, was transdenominational. Its conclusion was endorsed by a large number of leaders from many denominations who met in Chicago in 1966"

source: http://www.ibs.org/niv/background.php

Zondervan was founded by christians, and its acquisition by HC is only a fairly recent event, as at the time the NIV was made, it was not owned by HC. Your statement is also true that an imprint of HarperCollins publishes the Satanic bible. However, although we might not really like that, it does not undermine the validity of the translation in itself; as far as i know, there have not been any changes made to the 1978 edition of the NIV. Just an aside; many of the present day Ivy League universities were originally founded by strong christians with a good, albeit secular, vision. However now the place of the Judeo-Christian God in such centers has been largely relegated - that is usually what happens with christian-founded, secular organizations - the trend is usually away from the original vision of the founders, especially when the visionary founders pass on.

You make assertions about the NIV encouraging homosexuality and stuff? Can you bring any evidence for such assertions? As per the Isaiah 14;12 quote that is simply untrue.
"How you have fallen from heaven,
       O morning star, son of the dawn!
       You have been cast down to the earth,
       you who once laid low the nations!" (Is 14:12 NIV)

While the KJV renders the hebrew 'heylel' as "Lucifer" other translations render it as 'morning star'. There is really no justification for rendering it as 'Lucifer' other than that that was the common understanding at the time. That scripture still retains its double-reference; overtly to the babylonian king, as well as, by inference, to the 'prince of this world'. This rendering is however to be distinguished from the rendering in 2Pet 1;19 which also mentions morning star. They are unrelated. Jesus calls himself literally the 'bright Morning Star' Rev. 22.16.
(it would be good if you check the hebrew and greek words and perhaps the septuagint in these references; i don't want to quote them here)


The NIV is a fairly accurate translation. However it is still not without its mistakes. The KJV is a good translation, especially for its poetic language, and easy-to-learn-by-heart lines. However, personally, I find the NIV of more advantage than the KJV cheifly because it is written in contemporary english; and you can avoid errors stemming from archaic versus present-day english eg. "suffer the little children to come unto me" etc However apart from this, some clear errors in KJV were eliminated eg "easter" in Acts 12;4, "robbers of churches" instead of "robbers of temples"  in Acts 19:37 and many others. By and large, the point really is: there is no one ONLY-APPOINTED translation; for me, the more the number of accurate versions, the merrier.

Hope that helps. If HC however decides to edit some things in the NIV version (like for example the editions by the Jehovah's witnesses in their New World Translation) we can then decide to discard it. Cheers

*I wasn't going to post anything on here until at least the weekend, but i just had to show up*

Bros the Law,
How far? I read a few lines of your post (sorry i'm usually too lazy to read long posts) and i just had to say there's no need to get all so demure all of a sudden. It's nice you piped down a little from your earlier posts but obviously you're still missing the whole point.

I notice that you seem to think this that this debate is all about 'my church versus your church' (and hence you rightfully felt the need to rise up to the defence of the organization you've identified with all these years).  However, you're wrong. Nobody is out here to preach a particular church, or even to tear down any particular church (at least not for me) but to reach out to individuals with the Truth. I believe it is possible to have people within the RCC who have a relationship with the Lord (although personally i'd really wonder what they're still doing there, sorry to say) and on the converse, there are people who identify themselves as 'protestants' or even 'pentecostals' who are still living in their sinful habits. Like someone said, there's no denomination in heaven. Hence it can only be an individual issue. However, it definitely helps if one is not in a place (either catholic or protestant) where he's being decieved. And, with the same vigour with which i'd condemn anti- or non-biblical practices in the RCC, i'd do so with any other organization identifying itself with the name of Christ. Like i indicated earlier, i used to be a member of the RCC myself and it really greives my heart when i see innocent and generally good folk being led astray all in the name of church. I remember arguing a lot with my friends back in high school and always thinking i was right and all, until God began to open my eyes. And till date i still appreciate the spirit of my friends who engaged me back then cause i was sincerely wrong.

The problem with having debates such as this (a reason which makes me often shrug from them, especially those involving my atheist friends,) is their potential to be seen as mere intellectual 'who's-a-better-arguer' contests, rather than being seen as an opportunity to actually learn and grow. The person that wins an argument is not necessarily the 'right' person, i've 'won' many arguments which i later found out that my assertions were wrong. So its not about winning or losing. I remember arguing with my friends back in high school that it was a lie that Solomon had hundreds of wives (to my questioning mind it seemed ludicrous - and being a catholic, and sorry to say this, i didn't really read the bible then). Eventually they led me to the passage and showed it to me and i had to shut up. There's nothing tedious in admitting one was wrong; even here I (and many others) have done so. It doesn't have to be done in a patronizing manner either.

I'm personally a very busy person (as i guess you and everyone here is) and many of us are mature, professional people. Like normal conversations, we could employ banter to lessen the tone a little, however the weight and merit of the issues still remain. My goal for coming here (and i believe the goal of many here), besides just as a form of relaxation and chit-chatting, is to actually help others with the little help that i've received in my own life one way or the other. Specifically, help as regards getting people to actually have a RELATIONSHIP with the Lord, to get people to seek something beyond the superficial routine of mere religion, unto attaining the life-transforming power that can only be gotten through (knowledge of) the Word. I really do hope that goal is still acheived in this particular case.

Anyways, just had to set things in their proper perspective so we don't lose track. If you want to discuss more, press on. If you have any questions you don't want to post on here, you can shoot me a mail. Cheers all

nb - sorry if i came across too comical in my previous posts; it wasn't intended

@ First Pilgrim
[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=75657.msg1476483#msg1476483 date=1189265161]You nearly make hypertension catch me there! But good crack you gave![/quote]I anticipated that! (not the hypertension part though)
Actually i need to apologize cause i was too lazy to read the 1st two pages of the thread, i just barged in and saw the first line of your post and decided to throw in a joke. In so doing i decided to provide my response to the issue; not knowing you had already addressed the implications of that accusation albeit comprehensively.

I'll take it that my contribution was a necessary summary for lazy, time-challenged folks like me .

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=75657.msg1476483#msg1476483 date=1189265161]That's true with regards to "telos" (τελος), but I didn't want to bring out my study tools in my previous posts (as some have expressed how uncomfy it makes them to consult study tools for clarification on any subject).

All the same, thanks for weighing in and helping to make good sense in a succinct manner. Me and my 'long epistle' sef, na wa! [/quote]Obviously, I really haven't been following things on here as i should have. 'Long epistles' are good though; afterall, the writer of Hebrews had, after 13 chapters, only written a 'short letter' (vs 22)
Cheers

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=74061.msg1476565#msg1476565 date=1189266675]

Mary is a channel of grace but not the  source of grace. . .

If Pilgrim is living a life of Christian virtue, I hope that she too thinks of himself as a channel of grace. God works in and through us by the power of His Spirit. Thus, we are all “channels" of that grace, bearing witness to Christ and bringing people to the truth. This is why Paul calls us “God’s co-workers" (1 Cor. 3:9). As channels of grace, work together with God in building up His kingdom.

How do you explain your tenses between '("she" too thinks of ("himself"'?!? It's just simply another fantastic plagiarism from Salza :

[list]"If Mr. Blackaby is living a life of Christian virtue, I hope that he too thinks of himself as a channel of grace. God works in and through us by the power of His Spirit. Thus, we are all “channels" of that grace, bearing witness to Christ and bringing people to the truth. This is why Paul calls us “God’s co-workers" (1 Cor. 3:9). The word for “co-workers" (Greek, sunergoi) literally means “synergists." This means we, as channels of grace, work together with God in building up His kingdom[/list][/quote]Yeepa  . Out in the open!
Oga Lawyer, you for try small at least to change all the pronouns now; you no learn lesson well from Plagiarism 101? Abi you dey argue for that class no come pay attention? There are always options; present your own arguments. Or if you aint got 'em, better yet, acknowledge your sources.

n.b. - when lawyer comes back, he must to apologize to pilgrim o, i believe it was she himself that exposed her or is it him?

_{i've laughed too much for one day on nairaland - gotta run}

@pilgrim,
[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=75506.msg1476400#msg1476400 date=1189263612]A-ha!! Oga pata-pata ricadelide!! Where wert thou all this years? [/quote]You don come o - oga ke? pata-pata? Haba!
Don't mind me - i should be here (considering i spent the first fourteen or so years of my life in the roman catholic church - before Baba rescued me), however i kind of get spurts of free time to show up. Hopefully soon i'd be less choked. However, reading is less demanding than posting so i'm usually still around.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=75506.msg1476400#msg1476400 date=1189263612]Hehe. . . simply consider that as "signs of the times". Actually, I really like to tease lawyer. . . because (oh gosh, I'm laughing soooooo hard! ). . because he was really being mild! I only wanted him to quote the verse where he read that the bible said "they will be like roaring lions roaming the earth looking for who to devour"! Which translation or Vulgate be that?!? [/quote]Lawyer's faulty argument translation (LFAT) 

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=75506.msg1476400#msg1476400 date=1189263612]I no fit laugh finish! Maybe I should log out first and then come back to tease him more![/quote]Unfortunately for me, my teasing abilities tend to border on the sarcastic, hence i have to refrain ever so often to keep from being labelled as spewing "rascalities" .
_{Oh God, help, i've done it again}

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=75506.msg1476400#msg1476400 date=1189263612]I hope he who has ears to hear with use them well! (Okay, that's my own paraphrase O! ).[/quote]Don't worry i wont assail you 

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=75506.msg1476400#msg1476400 date=1189263612]How bodi? Trust all's well.

Regards.[/quote]Very well actually. And you? Enjoy your weekend. Cheers

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=74061.msg1476421#msg1476421 date=1189263982]Where you dey go? Abeg sidon look drama - even if na for sidelines. I go take my time to loosen up this solicitor, no be small! [/quote]OK, sidelines here i come

yeepa! Longest post on nairaland award!

_{pilgrim oya forward march , me i don run}