₦airaland Forum

lawyer:
Remember the bible said " they will be like roaring lions roaming the earth looking for who to devour".

Bros the Lawyer, how far now ? Even though i've not participated in this thread, i don't think the devil has either (at least not in person). None of the people i've seen here (on both sides of the debate) fills the criteria for being indirectly referred to as the devil. Abi you don forget the subject of that quote (1Pet. 5:8 )? Na the devil naa, abeg Pilgrim and co no be devil o bros.

lawyer:
Remember the magic word IGNORE!

While it is good not to indulge in unprofitable arguments, i think it is also wise to note that there are some things one should NOT ignore. Please, no matter from which direction the Word of God is coming, as long as it is His Word, one must not ignore it (Balaam's case is a noteworthy example). You can ignore insults (if there are), you can ignore taunts or whatever but please don't ignore Baba's Word.
Like Paul said; "If (anyone) ignores this (Word), he himself will be ignored." (1Cor.14:38 - words in parenthesis mine). So whilst you are preaching ignorance, sorry, ignor-ing, don't let yourself by ignored.

If your purpose is to restrict this thread to a catholic-only thread, no qualms. However, people must engage and be engaged with the TRUTH. Debates must continue. Cheers .

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=75657.msg1471099#msg1471099 date=1189112721]I had one mission in the present discourse: to demonstrate that the Lord did not break the Law at any point[/quote]Actually Pilgrim Jesus did break a few laws here and there;
Matt 14; 25-26
And in the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea. 26 When the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” And they cried out in fear.
the law of gravity

Mark 6;41-46
And He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up toward heaven, He blessed the food and broke the loaves and He kept giving them to the disciples to set before them; and He divided up the two fish among them all. 42 They all ate and were satisfied, 43 and they picked up twelve full baskets of the broken pieces, and also of the fish.
the law of conservation of mass/matter

etc etc

Hehe  actually that was just to lighten the mood in here a little - i know you are referring to the Old testament Law.

On a more serious note though, it is a wonder that we have to even have such a debate, especially among us christians. Have we really considered the implications? Maybe we could try to run through the implications.
If Jesus, who was born under the Law (Gal 4;4), were to have broken any law, what would that have made Him? If the Son were a lawbreaker, can we still say he was 'without sin' (Heb 4;15)? Or on the converse, what would that have made the Law? Unimportant? For a Jew that isn't what the bible teaches; as he himself indicated by his statement as regards fulfilling all righteousness. For, He being under the Law, breaking the law would have been sin. And saying He was 'without sin' does not only connote his sinless nature (He having not inherited the sinful nature of Adam), it also implies that he did not sin in (any of his) action(s).

The bible clearly says that the Law is holy (Rom 7;12, 14). The reason the law did not 'help' its subjects under old testament dispensation is because of the weakness of sinful flesh (Rom 8;3) - the requirement of the law still stood (verse 4). Even Paul who had a sinful flesh did not have a hard time saying "legalistic righteousness? Faultless" (Phil.3;6).  How much more the Lord who was without sin? As for him, he was not weak (in his members) in fulfilling or living up to the law as would have been the case with us. However, even though he had a sinless nature, he was still tempted (Heb.4;15) and thus, he had to resist the urge to sin in any way; which might of course have included (sinning by) breaking the law. For as innocent Adam's sin produced a nature of sin, likewise a sinful action would have brought him under the same - for "whoever sins (even once) becomes or is a slave of sin" (John 8;34). So the question then is: would the Son then had become a slave of sin? The prince of holiness, a partaker of unrighteousness?

What then would have been the basis for his being a sacrificial lamb? Would he still have been 'a lamb without defect'(1Pet.1:19)? Would he have been qualified to bear our sin, if he were no different from us? On what basis then, would he have 'nailed to the cross the ordinances that was against us' (Col 2;14) if he himself could not live above the said ordinances? Would the Son then, the Messiah, the one who came to 'save his people from their sins' (Matt. 1;21)  also have been doomed to the same fate as the lost objects of his good tidings? Like Paul would say; God forbid!

Yes he did partake in their human nature; yet, he did not share in their fallen nature. Yes, He did eat and drink with them, yet He did not indulge in their rapacity. For, like the writer of Hebrews says; "such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens." (Heb. 7:26)

Jesus did fulfil the law, but in doing so he came to raise the bar even higher; above that which can be attained by sheer legalism (Matt. 5;20). This is best illustrated in Matthew 6 -8. The law can only take one so far, a life in the Spirit however takes one to the holy of holies. This is what was responsible for the seeming acts of breaking the Law by the Lord (which in every case was the ceremonial laws introduced by the pharisees themselves or improper understanding of or interpretation of the Law). The Lord had a fine task; on the one hand, meeting the law's requirements whilst, on the other hand, still demonstrating the need to operate under a set of codes that is not based on what is written but what is inscribed in the heart by the Spirit. Jesus obeyed the Law, but he was operating by a higher law - the law of the Spirit of life. That is why the statement by Moses "The man who has practised those things shall live by them" (Lev. 18:5, Rom. 10:5) does not apply to the Lord, for even though he did practice those things (and even more), He did not live by them. He lived by the Spirit.

Jesus did not break any part of the law; rather he came to fulfill it (Matt. 5;17-18) so he could usher in a new dispensation; a dispensation of grace. "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." (Rom. 10:4 - emphasis mine)
_{n.b. - the greek word for 'end' in that verse, telos (τελος), is, in my opinion, a good word to study}

"For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (John 1;17). Praise Him ever more. Cheers .

There really is nothing to think about. this is probably the most braindead argument ever invented in favor of God-belief. Shame on Blaise Pascal for ever coming up with his wager.
1. You cannot choose to believe. Belief is a consequence of exposure to data and conditioning. You don't have a direct control over what you believe.
2. Assuming you could choose to believe, the choice isn't really a 50/50 affair. There are literally thousands of mutually incompatible paths to different or the same god(s). The chance that a particular set of beliefs you choose is the correct one is really incredibly small if you put it in the form of a wager
3. You can take the consequences of that assumption even further: you can also conceive of a God that rewards intellectual honesty and punishes faith (i.e. belief without evidence)
4. It assumes that you have nothing to lose by belief, which doesn't even survive a cursory review. The average believer invests a significant amount of time/money/effort in his belief, resources that could be spent on far more productive activities.
5. The argument completely negates the negative psychological and social consequences of belief. History is rife with examples of people engaging in the most horrendous acts while being 'inspired' by religion. Belief also regularly acts as a sort of social sedative, making people passive and accepting of societal injustice

@nferyn,
More free time now. How was (or has been) your summer?

The reason why the wager might not work is because both sides have reached their conclusion ab initio. Of course, if you are right (and there isn't a God) it isn't worth it. But if the other side is right, then what? the real question then is not whether the arguement holds water, but rather which side is right. The wager is wanting because it wrongfully assumes that it is impossible to know for certain either way. In my experience, it is possible to know with certainty.
However that said, and even though the argument put up might not have been the best, your defense is really wanting on many points.

1. Not true. Belief in the probability of a futuristic event taking place, for example, is usually subject to choice. I can choose to believe that i will be the president of the US and another person can choose to believe that he wont - and both of us may be endowed with the same gifts and be exposed to the same circumstances. Beyond that, many times, you can't dissociate the actually fulfillment of that which was believed from the belief itself, ie you can't, in general human experience, rule out the influence of faith on the outcome of things - in this case, your choosing to believe can dictate what takes place in your circumstances.
Belief in something you're not aware of is also within the realm of choice. A guy can choose to believe that his wife was faithful to him even when evidence points to the opposite; and his belief might not be false, 'because the evidence (arising from the way things may sometimes seem to us fallible creatures) is not always right. Another person might, in the face of similar evidence, presume the wife guilty. There is the subjective side to faith - its not a wholly objective matter. For example, wrongfully convicted felons whose lawyers had faith in their innocence and where eventually able to provide a strong case for their release - obviously the prosecutors didnt share that faith, and they might have been exposed to the same evidence.
I'm sure there are other instances where belief isn't devoid of  the influence of man's volition.
Of course, if you believe what is false, it wouldn't necessarily become true, and if you don;t believe what is true, it wouldn't necessarily become false. Just as the absence of faith in God on your part has not prevented him from continuing to work in the circumstances taking place in my life
But anyways, you already gave an allowance for the possibility of that premise being false in your second point.

2. So because the probability is incredibly minimal, then the possibility is nil? You are not off-point though, that statement could readily be inferred from scripture (Matt. 7;13-14, 1Pet 4;18) Aside that, the question of 'Is there a God?' is different from 'Which God?'. Like you usually say, the TOE doesn't have to explain abiogenesis. Logic demands that issues be addressed in proper sequence; when you deal with the first issue, it would be easier to address the second. Morever, the same creator we talk about has made a promise to reveal himself to whoever diligently seeks Him - and, praise Him,  that was the case with me (Psalm 16;11, Deut. 4;29) And in some wonderful cases, he does reveal Himself to those who do not seek Him (Is 65;1). So really, it isn't that hard.
Morever, its not really the same or an equivalent weight of evidence that points to the different 'gods' - eg. Santa Klaus can readily be dismissed, but the Judeo-Christian God not so readily, leaving us with rather few realistic options.
_{N.B. - i'd address the objections to the latter deity you posted elsewhere soon.}

3. One can keep concieving different such propositions and excuses when one is not interested in finding out the truth - or when one has convinced himself even before trying that there is nothing to be found out. If scientists used this approach (of just concluding that since there are different possibilities for the knowledge that would be found in a particular course of research then it isn't worth searching or there's no truth to be found) i wonder if we wouldn't still remain in the dark ages.

4. there's a lot to lose by belief - a lot of negative things. Ok, let's even say there's a lot of seemingly positive things like money etc to be lost. And i really wonder who defines what 'productive' in this sense should mean. Can you even try to imagine the possibility of those 'losses' actually being a gain to the seeker or believer? (Phil. 3;7-11). I have lost a lot of things, but by losing a lot of 'things' i have found a lot of better things that i couldn't have otherwise come about. Its like the case of the child that refused to let go of the coin in its hand, when the parent was dying to place a diamond in it. Losing the coin is bad if it didn't get the diamond, but when the diamond is gotten the coin that was lost becomes irrelevant (Matt. 13;44-46) And the wonderful thing is that we get the treasure right here before we die (2Cor 5;5) - so we know we're not losing, but rather have everything to gain.

5. Untenable. A lot of people who lack belief can quite easily succumb to those qualities you raised. A lot of people have committed horrendous acts while being 'inspired' by their unbelief. I beleive, and last time i checked my major crime would be trying to convince people i love of their need to cross over Unsubstantiated generalizations are never justified. And as far as i know, the only people of faith who might fall into such pits of moral decadence are the ones who've only answered the first question, who've concluded that there must be a God, but who haven't been fortunate enough to find the True Holy and Loving God who is forever praised. The behavioural fruits that characterizes or is manifested by people who have truly found the right path is grossly inconsistent with those scenarios you painted - if anything it only illustrates to people like us their lost state.
Furthermore, social injustice is not something that can be solved by rejuvanted or heightened human commitance to the cause; the mere fact that we fallible humans are in charge of the criminal justice system should make it obvious that some people will always slip through the system (that isn't pessimistic, just plain reality); and should ordinarily necessitate the notion that - if there is truely such a thing as Justice and Fairness - ultimately, a greater Judge, who is not limited by the fallibilties of man, can and will deal rightfully with those who outsmart the imperfections of their fellowmen (Heb 10;30, Rev 22;12). We are not living in Utopia, we are living in the real world, and this is how it works (or should work) in the real world. Some get their due here, and some (or perhaps all) in the hereafter. If fallen man attains perfection (which will never happen) he can then disregard the Righteous Judge. As for us, we say 'Maranatha!'
Cheers.

Oga ke?! I be pikin o
Actually even without my having a break, the way you handled the debates there was hardly any "space" left, lol. It was easy to sit on the sidelines and cheer on. Keep it up!

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=34125.msg1436218#msg1436218 date=1188224736]Hmm. . would that be Revelation 20:4?[/quote]Spot on!

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=34125.msg1436218#msg1436218 date=1188224736]Which King had the shortest reign in Israel?[/quote]Zimri, the seven-day ruler?

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=34125.msg1435579#msg1435579 date=1188216575]If Psalm 119 is the longest chapter in the entire Bible, which is the longest chapter in the New Testament alone?[/quote]Luke 1?

Which is the longest verse in the new testament?

Orisirisi

Nice debate
Now we can recieve free greek lessons, lol

Kuns:
These people parading themselves today as Jews in Europe are impostors and impersonators (liars). They used the teaching of Paul to justify their lies and to deceive the world world of their true identity.

AND

Horus:
Those people in Israel today are[b] not the real Israelites[/b].

Horus/Kuns,
Do you actually want us to believe that it is mere coincidence that makes u (guys) come up with the same weird ideas all the time? I mean, what are the odds?

@domino,

Oh i see! Yeah Pastor Obed and his wife are still there.

I attended UI as well and used to attend GT once in a while back then as well. Good to hear that they're still doing good.

Horus:
They are "born again" to become "sinner again".Just look at the growing number of childrens that have been sexualy abused by priests.

brother horus I'd assume you are referring to roman catholic priests - when did they start referring to themselves as being 'born again'?
However, even if they did, JeSoul has already given a succint answer.

It's objectively incoherent and takes a lot of mental gymnastics to give it a semblance of coherence. But then again, what can one expect from a book that is collected from several authors over more than a millennium.

more like subjectively incoherent, because some of us - rather, many of us - do find it very coherent - so obviously the problem doesn't lie in the bible itself (except our minds are decieving us )

You're sidestepping the issue, whether or not the Bible can be made 'consistent' with our current knowledge is not what I'm arguing for. I only wanted to expose that the claim that christianity is all you need to know is rather silly, if not outright idiotic.

you said,

Go and cast out some demons and - above all - never rely on the germ theory of disease when you get ill, because you know that christianity tells you everything you need to know.

Perhaps i shouldn't have assumed; from your statement, especially your emphasis, you seemed to imply that the bible teaches that diseases are caused by demons; and if you read my post well you'd notice that that was what i was arguing against.

Of course the bible is not all you need to know. Why do we go to school and study? If that was the issue at hand then why would i even bother to reply? everybody knows that. The bible is very specific in what it address, albeit via different perspectives and through different contexts; the issue of God and his relationship with his people. I assumed you had a more saline (or perhaps, subtle) point - ie the issue of the bible teaching that demons caused every disease - and that was what i tried to address, and if you noticed, i said Luke was a physician - did he become one by reading the old testament? Of course not. Some other scholars are found in the bible, Daniel, Job's friends, Paul (religious scholar) etc, they didnt rely only on biblical information.

Apart from the fact that 'prophecising'  the germ theory of disease at that point in history would have done far more to establish the validity of the Bible than any of the other vague prophecies it touts, the only possible cause of disease the Bible came up with at that moment was demonic or otherwise spiritual possession.
It's quite obvious that the Bible really doesn't contain any practical (scientific) knowledge that could help to advance the lot of humankind in this day and age

again, all the reading yet not arriving at any new knowledge. From what i addressed, it should be obvious that the point was that He is able to heal any/every disease regardless of the cause. the cause was not important as long as the people get healed. the emphasis is on his power, rather than whatever the cause was.
To your mind prophesying the germ theory of disease might seem to be something of importance, however to God and to folks that mind the things of God, he couldn't care less because the goal is not to glorify the cause, but the ability of the healer. The bible is not about the creation and anything in it (which science tries to study and understand), it is about the creator - Jesus himself. Scientific knowledge has little or no spiritual value, that is why the bible is not a science textbook. NB - The issue of the 'advancement of the lot of humankind' might be something we could discuss later on more specifically. I seem to be interested in that.

It seems you're using a more sanitised version of the Bible than the KJV. Anyway, fever is a symptom of disease, it doesn't say anything about the origin thereof. Every time the origin of disease is discussed it's either demonic possession or other spiritual problems that are discussed. One could conclude that the Bible doesn't really contain much useful information at all concerning disease.

I don't use KJV. I use NIV and other newer translations; i don't speak archaic english . Like i have said, my arguement was to show you that the bible does not teach that demons cause all diseases and your post kind of gave me reason to infer that. And again, like i have said, the cause is not important, what is important is getting healed.

So, what was the cause and how does that make the Bible 'the only thing I need to know? Your defense of the indefensible is astonishing. Why on earth did you study to become an MD when the Bible is 'all you need to know?'

for goodness sake! (j/k) - reading my post would have shown what my arguement was. OK, Let me formally apologize; sorry for misreading you. we seem to misread each other. the last time it was you, now its my turn This point ('the only thing i need to know') was so simplistic, it didnt even come across to me as an issue worthy of a discussion. And I doubt if that was the insinuation of k0be as well (like he explained in his rejoinder).
NB - i'm not an MD, i'm a DVM (the difference lies in the number of species studied, and the importance placed on the said species, lol)

Funny that there are far less demon possessions than in Biblical times. It's a bit comparable to the declining quality of miracles. no more parting of seas anymore. Maybe the real reason is that the medical profession and medical research have found the real causes of disease instead of ignorantly boasting of demonic possessions like during the heyday of Christianity. Why on earth did Pasteur even come up with his idiotic theories if 'christianity is all you need to know'.

I never did say 'christianity is all you need to know'. If i did, in my own endeavours, i'm already living contrary to that. And no, there aren't 'far less demonic possessions than in biblical times' there might be far less diagnosis, and the cases thereof might warrant far less media attention, but they go on nonetheless. And genuine quality miracles still continue to happen.

Troubled spirituality? Is that the current newspeak for demonic possession? It's similar to collateral damage or maybe pacification. Anything to make it sound 'acceptable' to modern ears. Christians of old thought those demons and spirits were quite real physical entities, but those times have (luckily) long gone. Whatever it takes to salvage the word of God, no?

First, i didnt say; 'troubled spirituality', i said 'troubled spiritually' (there's a considerable amount of difference) and i had spiritually in quotes, for the simple reason that you don't accept nor believe in spirit realm nor in spirits. I thought i was being polite; perhaps it didnt help. I try to put myself in the position of the person i'm addressing as much as possible. But i was not trying to belittle the reality of the situation in any way; they are still thought to be real entities by christians today, including me. There's nothing to be 'salvaged', what needs to be done is to help people understand things better. I have witnessed cases like that first-hand, so i'm not rehashing hearsay.

There was definitely someone that wrote the gospel of Luke, who it was, nobody can say with any level of confidence.

Although the writer of Luke-Acts did not mention his name, I have a lot of reasons to confidently assume that Luke wrote that gospel. I never did expect you to agree, like i insinuated in my post. Cheers .

@JohnFOM,
thanks for your insight. really nice post. cheers.

@pilgrim
LOL, i decided to repay him in his own coin, just to show him how ridiculous his assertions sound.
And you even took it to another level - now we know that both horus and kuns 'left their make' (sic) in the bible!!
hopefully, he(they?) would get the message

michelin89:
I think it's concieted of humans claiming to understand how the mind of a supernatural being works!

that's not necessarily true; humans who have the spirit of God can understand the mind of God.
1Cor.2;11-12,16
"11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. "
"For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ."

davidylan:
when did that become a part of the al quran?

Lol, she's not a muslim, she's a 'cross-bearer'. I think they also use the bible (in addition to the grail message)

Everyone (people of other races) knows this, except the negroids ,  If we go to Psalms 46 we can clearly see where William Shakespeare (William Tynsdale) left his make.


  1: God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.
2: Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea;
3: Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. Selah.
4: There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High.
5: God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved: God shall help her, and that right early.
6: The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: he uttered his voice, the earth melted.
7: The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.
8: Come, behold the works of the LORD, what desolations he hath made in the earth.
9: He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire.
10: Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
11: The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah

In bold you can clearly see the name William Shakespeare

Everyone (people of other races) knows this, except the negroids ,  If we go to 1 Kings 10;28 we can clearly see where kuns (Kunle Orejobi) left his make.

"Solomo[b]n's[/b] horses were imported from Egypt and from Ku[/b]e —the royal mercha[b]n[/b]t[b]s purchased them from Ku[/b]e"

In bold you can clearly see the name [b]kuns (ku + ns) (he even wrote it twice in one verse! )

toshmann:
that's true. but i agree with darfur to a great extent. not all the televangelists, but majority of them find it hard to be humble.

i actually agreed with most of what he had to say as well - that's why i just zeroed in on the place i felt he was not on point ie generalizing.
the fact that many are like that does not mean that all are - and that usually causes a lot of problems because you tend not to give anyone a benefit of the doubt once you've formed your conclusion already based on the performance of the many (even before meeting or hearing the few who are exceptions). cheers.

darfur:
there is no iota of humility in any of them. holiness is debatable.

bros, generalization is not a virtue. cheers.

LOL, thanks. I'll drink 'calm juice' from now on, lol.

@pilgrim,
you caught me!
Actually its more like 'irritated'. But i'll modify the post now so i dont come across too strongly and thereby put him off - i just dislike falsehood with passion.
cheers.

The back brain is also physical and spiritual as well.The back-brain is the seat of the spirit,it is through it the spirit make itself known in the gross material world.

Bro, you didnt answer my question. How can a matter be spiritual and physical at the same time? Dont they belong to two different realms? i don't know what analogy to use but this one comes close - can something be in the gasceous state and physical state at the same time? what is intrinsic to the back brain that makes it pocess this wonderful ability to be both spiritual and physical; does it have special nerves? what 'intrinsically' gives it this ability over other parts of the brain or even the body? what i mean is - why the hindbrain? or the spirit just happened to choose the hindbrain above other body parts? but then if you say the hindbrain is spiritual in itself then it can't be a product of choice, it has to be intrinsic.
i really want you to think about this because it is very fundamental - and that is where the problem begins.

The back-brain also know as the cerebellum is connected to what is known as the solar plexus,and it's through this solar plexus the spirit make itself known in pictoral forms which is the being transferred to the back brain only in pictures.

the more i listen the more l'm convinced that this is an agglomeration of truths mixed with falsehood from different belief systems. this particular element stems from hinduism - and it is completely unscientific and untrue. the solar plexus (or the coeliac plexus) is a network or junction for autonomic nerves supplying the upper abdominal organs. It doesn't not carry information in the form of pictures, but rather transmits signals such as pain from these organs.
As far as i know, there is no connection between the spirit and a network of nerve cells in the abdominal cavity.

Then the frontal brain which is in charge of controlling the physical body, the arms, the legs, the eyes, etc then now translate the pictures it can see from the back-brain into physical deeds.

Again, not true - except you want to say the abdominal organs are/is the spirit.

But the bridge that will allow the normal process to happen has been cut short due to negligence on the human part.

what bridge?

Due to the over-cultivation of the human intellect(i.e focusing only on material things) it's has now over-developed more than the back-brain, and anything that happens spiritually must have a physical manifestation, and that results to the great differences in their sizes.

As far as i know, the differences in size is from embroyonic development; can we then infer that a newborn child has already 'over-cultivated' his intellect whilst still in the womb? here again, you restate your presupposition that the hindbrain is spiritual or is spirit.  Do some people then have smaller spirits than others if there are differences in size? and do those who turn to the message then pocess a larger hindbrain than their forebrain or a larger hindbrain compared to others(because they have now learnt to cultivate it)?

And you still didnt answer the other questions;
The hindbrain comprises the pons, the medulla oblongata and the cerrebellum. Do you know what the functions of these brain parts are?
How do the tested scientific functions of these parts of the brain correlate with a spiritual function of 'knowing' things accurately?
no matter how you try to say it, the spirit is not part of the brain. Spirit is spirit, flesh is flesh.

But still yet the spirit still make impression but the intellect can't undertstand it.

Now, reading my replies you might think i don't believe that there is a spirit or that we can learn from our spirits, i do. But the spirit does not directly communicate with the body, nor does it use physical means to attain or disseminate its knowledge - because they belong to two different realms. Like Jesus said 'that which is flesh is flesh (ie physical), that which is spirit is spirit'. And no, the renewed intellect can understand the spirit - that is the function of the mind, to understand.

And that is no matter the help being sent from above, majority of human species will never understand the messages.and thats the root of all evil.
Except we human spirits start to learn anew,i.e turning our gaze away from the earthly matters and start to look above.Any spiritual things will still rermain like the book with seven seals.

i see a lot of similarity here again to the scriptures (Col 3;1-2), but yet again truth mixed with error. which book with seven seals? revelations?

And thst's simply what the GRAIL MESSAGE is all about, it's directed at the human spirits who is willing to drop all that he's learn and accept a new way of thinking.

a new way of thinking based on what? falsehood? what is the basis for the message? where did the author recieve his inspiration? I notice you guys always allude to the bible; where does the bible stand in relation to the message ( i mean in terms of importance)

"With my Message I now open the Book of Creation for you! The Message clearly shows you the Language of God in Creation, which you must learn to understand so that you can make it completely your own." words of ABD-RU-SHIN author of the GRAIL MESSAGE

I really have to wonder which God and which book of creation. I'm guessing its not the one mentioned in the bible though.

Anyways, hope i didnt come across too strongly. Cheers.

nferyn:
Are you talking about the collection of incoherent fables commonly known as the Bible?

Your opinion. Everybody is entitled to his. Just because it is incoherent to you does not mean it is incoherent to everyone.

nferyn:
Go and cast out some demons and - above all - never [/b]rely on the germ theory of disease when you get ill, because you know that christianity tells you everything you need to know.

I like your passion, but it gets overheated sometimes. I wonder where you got this notion from; i'd assume from the 'incoherent' scriptures. However, yet again, you are misinformed.
Luke 4;39
"Then standing over her He rebuked [b]the fever, and it left her; and she at once rose and waited on them." (it didnt say he rebuked the demon)
I don't think its asking too much of him not to have used the term 'germ' - considering when the term came about.
Another example;
Luke 8;44 "Came after him and put her hand on the edge of his robe, and straight away the flowing of her blood was stopped." (Not 'the demon left')
Yet again,
Luke 4;40-41 "While the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various diseases brought them to Him; and laying His hands on each one of them, He healed them" (NOT; 'he cast out the demons').
In healing people suffering from sicknesses, he might have encountered people that were demon pocessed (spiritually sick) and they also encountered his healing as stated in the next verse there:
"41 Moreover, demons came out of many people," ie In addition, (signifying something extra), they came out of many, not all.

Now i'm not saying the bible doesn't mention instances of sicknesses caused by evil spirits, it does (and i don't expect you to agree with that). But that is just some; the bible doesn't teach that all sicknesses are caused by demons. The bible in luke talks of 'various kinds of sicknesses' (Luke 4;40) - some could be as a result of demonic affliction, but many are caused by other things.
Luke 6;18,19
'who had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases. Those troubled by evil spirits were cured, 19 and the people all tried to touch him, because power was coming from him and healing them all." [Regardless of the cause of their sickness - (my addition)]
the emphasis on 'those' there showed that its just some. And like i earlier said, it is possible to assume that he referred to those troubled 'spiritually' and not necessarily physically - but that might not be necessary (and is not always the case).

BTW, the writer of Luke was a physician (Col. 4;4) (if you care to accept that he even existed). Cheers.

thanks somze.

I got that 'testimony' in a mail from my brother; let me quote the rejoinder he had as regards it.

'Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits,whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world'
(1 John 4:1)

As much as I do not doubt the supremacy of God's power or His limitless capacity to save and deliver His own, it is important as Christians to investigate what we hear or read to find out if it is in line with the Holy Scriptures. A lot of fraud disguised as miracles from God is being perpetrated out there. Besides, some unscrupulous individuals take advantage of the ignorance and gullibility of many. One must therefore be careful. It is interesting that the author kept referring to papa/mama and daddy/mummy Oyedepo during his unhappy ordeal. There was even a period he heard Mama Oyedepo's recitation of one of her books. We are not told that he remembered or recited any Bible verse. We are even told that his daddy in the Lord appeared to him and asked him about 'mummy' Oyedepo. Is this scriptural? Is God glorified here or man?

', Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief'' (Mark 9:24). May God help us all.

Best wishes,

goodguy:
P. S. It is completely fatuous to cast aspersions on churches, based on hearsay's and sentiments. Please let's be sensible and mature when passing comments.

based on hearsay and sentiments, YES. Based on how they do not align with the word of God, NO.
And casting aspersions might not be the proper term (or thing to do), rebuking and correcting where they do not line up might be better.
Cheers.

In my opinion, every Christian is sort of "faking" Christianity.

that is the genesis of your problem and it goes downhill from there. this is the same thing i addressed in my last post.
What evidence do you have for this statement? By what yardstick do you determine if they are faking it or not? How many christians have you met before making sweeping generalizations?
Again, that's just your opinion. I for one am not 'faking' christianity - that would be the most foolish thing; and i know a lot of people on this forum and elsewhere who aren't. However everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
Of course i understand why you have to assume this. if the contrary is true ie they are not 'faking' it, then you'd have to acknowledge that this thing we are talking about is REAL, and there are consequences, the very thing you don't want.

Perhaps I I should have been clearer and less abrupt when I dismissed the Bible. What I meant was it doesn't matter what the Bible says in regards to how people believe and why they believe because, especially in this instance, it is trumped by factors that it couldn't have taken into account or would have discounted anyway.

You don't have a point here; it isn't trumped by any 'factiors it couldn't have taken into account'. What factors? the bible accounts for every single facet of the faith with spot-on detail. Every important issue/factor that was to be addressed was/is addressed; i still marvel at this in my own experience. the bible CANNOT be discounted when discussing christianity - it is no surprise that you didnt get the whole gist of the faith if you think the word that describes the elements and nitty-gritty of the faith is of no importance.

There are instances when quoting the Bible is useful in a discussion; however, I didn't think it useful in that instance.

sorry, i thought we were talking about the christian faith (pardon my sarcasm)

considering that you think the bible is inconsequential as regards christianity, i really can't be surprised. If you just said 'people', i wouldn't be so concerned although i wouldn't agree. But when you add 'christians' then i have to wonder.

Not quite. I think the Bibel is inconsequential - in a sense - when it comes to the questions of why people believe, how they believe, and the influences their beliefs wield.

we might not concede many things in this argument, however i don't think its hard for you to concede that you don't have a point here. the bible might be 'inconsequential' to the hindu, it is NOT inconsequential to the christian and to christianity.
You are wrong for two reasons, the CONTENT of the belief matters (which is addressed by the bible) and the TRUTH of the belief in question also matters (which is addressed by experience).
You are making an assumption that the process of faith for different religions and belief systems work the same way or are at best similar, and can be detached from the peculiarities of the faith in question - and  you are wrong there. First, people do not believe the same things. Second, the elements that play into different belief systems aren't the same elements - my own belief system, like i've tried to elucidate here, is not isolated from the object of my belief ie Christ. So its not just about me, its about the PERSON (or being) that i believe in (if that person does indeed exist and pocesses the characteristics he claims to pocess).
No matter how much someone beliefs that if he jumps from a skyscraper he will float, if the premises on which he bases his faith is not true (ie that there is no such thing as gravity) his experience will prove him wrong. its the same with christianity - what we believe in matters and the bible is the one that explains WHAT we should believe in; if someone claims to be a christian and believes something contrary to what the bible teaches, his experience will not validate his belief.
Now you can disagree with the content of the bible ie the existence of God (upon which our premises lie) however, you cannot discountenance the importance and relevance of the bible to obtaining the christian experience. And without the need to spell it out, if you do not share the premise (in this case, God's existence) then there is no way you can have the experience - so little wonder you did not find God to be true; you never did give him a benefit of the doubt.

First, the beliefs we hold are usually what affect our actions and behaviour; ergo, a new belief, strongly held, can and has brought about significant changes in the way one thinks, behaves - basically significant changes in the nature. There are untold accounts of people who, on embracing a new religion or philosophy - it matters not which, just that they join a new religion, turn their lives around and become better people. The reverse is also true.


Second, they are Christians because of the beliefs they hold. Think, for instance, of how you classify people of other religions and philosophies. A follower of Athena isn't an Athenian believer because, as one follower has claimed, because She touched his life and has made a big change for the better in his disposition, it's because of the beliefs held.

Third, no they aren't lying, they are most likely mistaken.

Finally, not all Christians believe Jesus is God.

i've addressed the first point partly above; the other part of the reply is that the CONTENT of our beliefs differ, we are not referring to the same kind of 'change in nature'. I too, when i used to be a catholic, had a 'change in nature' but i was no where near where i am now.
Second point i've addressed before using the bible. if you don't agree no wahala.
third issue, your opinion.
Finally, like i've shown many times, you don't know what the term 'christian' means (if you did, you'd see the inherent inconsistency of that statement, 1John 5;10).

.

But again, since I hold the scriptures important to christianity, let me justify my statement. Phil. 1:6, 2;13 (just 2 of very many scriptures that teach this)
"For of this I am confident, that He who has begun a good work within you will go on to perfect it in preparation for the day of Jesus Christ."
"for it is God who works in you both the willing and the working according to his good pleasure"

I see your point but, again, it isn't the magic touch of a God that makes one a Christian.

Let me help you with phrasing; 'although your bible teaches so, i don't believe.' Shikena. Thats a better way to say it, if you had said that i probably wont budge. It is not your own opinion that detemines what makes one (me) a christian; in fact, your opinion is inconsequential to my faith. I did not believe in you; i beilieve(d) in Jesus.

Um, I don't think I said anyone was/is lying.

ok, you didn't say they are lying, you said they are hypocrites - i wonder which is better. (In case you've forgotten what you said, see 1st quote above)

The only problem is; are you even interested in the possibility of there being a God, and in meeting him if He is? the answer to that will determine a lot of things.

I'm not not interested in the possibilty of a God - I've just found the idea for and evidence of one lacking. Basically, I don't see a God existing.

Now, why didnt i ask this question first. Oh well. You've settled the matter in your mind - good. I've settled the matter in my mind and in my spirit as well - IMO, the only place God might not exist is in your mind and the minds of other atheist folks.

Do you know what a Messiah means? Do you know why there needs to be a messiah? the term messiah is not just a title, it is also a responsibility. There is a work that the messiah had to accomplish on behalf of every individual. Do you know the work of the Messiah? Have you experienced that work in your life and reaped its benefits?

Yes

what do you mean 'yes'?

NB; Just to put the whole thing in perspective because i probably won't continue the argument and so many words detract from the central issue;
the whole point of the argument was this; what makes one a christian? you said;

I disagree that it has anything to do with God making anything in the spirit - it's, in my opinion, linked with what beliefs you hold.

AND

Christians - aren't changed because of the actions of any Gods or Spirits, they are most likely changed by the beliefs they adopt and hold strongly.

I've showed you that the bible teaches the contrary. And i've argued that the bible is the determinant of the christian faith because it defines 'what to believe'. However, since you don't agree that there is a God, you disagree.
I don't have any problem with you disagreeing, but i have a problem with you trying to tell me what being a christian is when it is CLEARLY in contradiction with what the bible teaches. You can stick to your own convictions or lack therof but quit making sweeping statements about christianity especially when you cannot back those claims from the bible - like i said earlier, it is not your own opinion that determines what christianity is or should be. Cheers.

I would just want to advise our christ embassy friends that they should try to study the Bible for themselves rather than swallow hook, line and sinker what thier pastor tells them. Please, the berean christians are a model to follow (Acts. 17;11). there have been so many errors i've seen in this religion section that stem from these folks not cross-checking what their pastor has to say with the scriptures.
I know you guys love your pastor, but please, love the Truth more. cheers.

For our friends who say the Lord Jesus was not manifest in the OT, please do check Gen 18 through to Gen 19;1
Just a few lines:
in verse 2, it says Abraham saw three men. that means they appeared in the form of man, just as angels usually did (as well as how the Angel of the Lord usually did).
vs 22, the men turned away and left, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord. (Here the bible doesn't specify the number of men that left to go towards Sodom)
vs 23-32, Abraham intercedes before the Lord. (verse 27 shows that he is definitely not talking to an angel but to the Lord)
vs 33, says the Lord departed.
19;1 says 'the two angels'. Linking this with 18;22 clearly shows that there were two angels and the Lord that appeared as three men in 18;2.

Clearly that reference is not to the Holy Spirit, and neither is it to God the Father. The Lord clearly appeared in the form of man (18.1-2).
Again, just a few lines; i thought the scriptures was very clear so i didnt need to argue much. There's no basis for the false teaching spewing forth from the embassy. Cheers.

24 aces to 1 for Federer. that ultimately proved the difference.

dinozzo:
when is the us open anyways?

probably september

davidylan:
the aces certainly saved the Fed today, if only Nadal could develop a serve like that he'd be virtually indestructable. Even the greatest do have weaknesses and hey thumbs up to Nadal, up to this point Roger hadnt even won a grandslam and Nadal has 3.
something tells me its adios for Roger after this yr, Nadal will be number 1 by the end of 2008.

the reason he doesnt serve with so much power is because he is using his left hand to play even though he is naturally right-handed. i'm thinking with time he'd develop more power on that serve though.

Nadal will regret those two 15-40 games at 1-1 and 2-2.
Anyways, he's coming back next year.