₦airaland Forum

wifeypenth:
God is greater than Jesus christ, am not condemning jesus, but the truth is when Jesus was on the cross, who was he calling in heaven

The issue is not as simplistic as that. Please carefully observe where these lazy chaps are going with their roundabout arguments:

babs787:
Christians claim that Jesus was God as they quote in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". This is John speaking and not Jesus.

firdaus4us:
Stimulus if you think Jesus is God, then please give explaination to the verses below

You can see that the question being raised is calculated to deny the Deity of Jesus Christ, and then discredit Christianity and the Bible. You have to understand the mindset of Muslims when debating issues. Their basic premise is that Jesus was nothing more than a man regarded as a 'slave' of their Islamic god 'Allah'.

That is why any condescedning answers to them does not satisfy their quest to further discredit the Bible. If you tell them that "God" is greater than Jesus, is that the end of the argument? They would come back denying again that Jesus is not the Son of God!!

For all those who are happy to compromise their position and curry the drivel of Muslim propagandists, I'm not sorry to state that the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God incarnate for our Redemption. He was never created in His essential nature - and that is what John 1:1 says precisely: The Word was God!!

So, is Jesus Christ in His essential nature and existence God (the same essential nature as the Father)? I believe so. It may seem quite a problem for some who read me say that; but my faith is not based on the denials expressed in the Qur'an and the hadith of Islam. Rather, I place my faith upon the declaration of Jesus Christ concerning Himself in the Bible - and especially so in the book of revelation:

Rev. 22:12-13
"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

The Lord Jesus Christ in those verses, after reiterating His Second Coming, declared that He Himself is the Alpha and Omega, the begining and the end, the first and last - the very same appellation that the Almighty uses for Himself in Rev. 1:8.

LoveKing:
!, the topic starter

@LoveKing,

I know you're so in love with small fonts, but if that is how you offer "proof" for arguments, please read something else. I'm also interested in your disguised assumptions that the Word was created. Please humour me.

mrpataki:
Who was God speaking to when He said "let us".
God is not above Jesus Christ.

@mrpataki,

Just allow them for now. For a few days I just decided to focus on other issues; but since they're trying to prove their hypocrisy, we shall gladly help them.

Shalom.  https://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_tiphat.gif

@firdaus4us & babs787,

There's just one question I wish to ask both of you:

If you have grievances against the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, who are the "WE" (many god[b]s[/b]) that Muslims worship in their Qur'an?

Take a look at the following few verses:

"Even then WE did forgive you; there was a chance for you to be grateful." (Q. 2:52).

"WE bestow of OUR Mercy on whom WE please, and WE suffer not, to be lost, the reward of those who do good." (Q. 12:56)

"Yet when WE bestow OUR favours on man, he turns away and becomes remote on his side (instead of coming to US), and when evil seizes him he gives himself up to despair! (Q. 17:83)

You see, it is easy to attack Christianity and the Bible, accuse us of being polytheists, etc., etc. No problems, as I've said early enough that I'm not given to arguments that lead nowhere, especially of your dishonest type.

Now I want to know simply, who are the many gods of the Qur'an known as "WE" and "OUR" that say Muslims should come to "US"??

You cannot continue to throw such hypocritical assertions against Christians without taking care of your deception. If you need more verses of the Qur'an for the cover-up of Islam's disguised polytheism, ask and I will gladly serve them.

Just be sure you don't play games with your usual antics with my question.

babyosisi:
Remember when the sharia started they lied of it's limitations.

That's precisely one of the core issues on this discussion. Why would the Kano State Governor/Government LIE and use DECEPTION in propagating their Sharia code?

@nferyn,

I'm sorry as well if i sounded a bit off there, lol. Please forgive me - pressure in my office.

In any event, I might have been misread, but the point was that two wrongs don't make any right.

I wonder!! https://bestsmileys.com/clueless/1.gif

I'm already familiar with your type of rhetorics, my guy. And I'm still wondering about the deception in the actions of the Sharia Governors.

Afam:
It is always very interesting reading from Nigerians that use their limited level of understanding as a yardstick to judge what is right or what is wrong.

Any reasonable human being will agree with the statement that the Nigeria law and legal system is based on the system in Britain (A christain country) and that if a moslem nation had colonized Nigeria that sharia or Islamic legal system will most likely have been put in place.

But are we all reasonable? Certainly NO.

Use your intelligence as others to condemn the barbarity of the Kano State Governor's DECEPTION - the intelligence is free, and we don't have to pay tax for that!

The colonization of Britain did not come with laws enacted and called Christian or Muslim dress code! No one was penalized for the way they dressed.

Today, can you tell me what kind of mentality you display to applaud the situation that if I don't dress the Islamic way, then I lose my job?? WHO in the South has lost their jobs over non-compliance to a dress code?  

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
To what extent I am not sure that is the easy way out Stimulus.

Before you start applauding yourself, I don't think you're actually reading issues but are rather bent on reharshing already thrashed debates. I'm not taking any easy way out; and if you want to be my guest, let me ask you the pointed question as to why you went into exile from the other thread after my last response?

Bobbyaf:
My not knowing how long the fiery punishment will last has no bearing on your unwillingness to debate the issue. Besides, when one compares the original transcripts with some translations one would see the obvious errors. I have said it over and over again that translational errors provide the basis for a lot of beliefs today. Hence its extremely important to go back to the Greek.

And I have debated that issue of translations to with you in the other thread. You cannot offer your own baises against others when you haven't demonstrated any basic scholarship of the original languages. If you did, then you should know how long the punishment would last before offering your own ideas into the text where they do not exist!

Bobbyaf:
As far as I recall you were the one who responded to my post. If you think now that the whole discussion on my part was a rehash then why did you bother to bring up what you already discussed in another thread? You were the one who jumped in.

What are you drivelling about here? In the first place, I'm not aware that there's a law on the Forum that wherever the name "Bobbyaf" appears, no one is to respond to your post? Secondly, the topic was not started by you; and your whining here is irrelevant. And third, did you not jump in to the discussion of another? I really don't see why this childish gritting.

Bobbyaf:
I urge you to stop making up stuff.

After you - throw your "stuff" in the bin, and you won't have to lose sleep over my replies.

Bobbyaf:
I didn't identify the earth as the lake of fire. I said in response to another's query about hell fire being uniquely an event, as also being located in a place. I went on to say that the earth is that place. You then brought up the issue of the heavens which I explained was the immediate surrounding of the earth which is pretty obvious

Right then, after the rephrasing, can I also repeat my question:

If the EARTH is "that place", are the HEAVENS also "that place"?

As long as the text you offered mentions the HEAVENS in the same connection as the EARTH, why is it such a polemical issue to address my question succinctly minus your forced interpretations?

Bobbyaf:
You keep asking me the same question. Not sure what you're trying to prove. The question is wrongly constructed. You are making a comparison by your use of the word "as" as seen in bold. The lake of fire is not a place in and of itself. Its not a special spot on the earth. The whole globe will be on fire, including the atmosphere and stratosphere which the bible refers to as the heavens. Hence the earth will become the place. Stop trying hard to make it look as If I am saying that the earth or the heavens is the lake of fire.

I keep asking the same question because you keep making the same wrong inference by locating the position of the earth as the lake of fire. In that respect, I called your attention to the text you quoted to point out that BOTH the heavens and the earth were mentioned there. Some people have used that text to figure that "the earth itself" is the place as the lake of fire - and I don't see it so, and that's why I keep asking what they do with the "heavens" mentioned in that connection.

Bobbyaf:
Well, please see my above explanation.

I have - it still hasn't addressed the issues raised.

Afam:
I live and work in Lagos and the day Lagos state wakes up and decides to implement laws that I do not want I will either abide by the laws or relocate to another state.

We are used to partisan talk like this, which again confirms that the hidden agenda of the Muslim North is calculated to divide Nigerians.

If the Kano State Government enacts a "law" and pronounces that is affects ONLY muslims, at least, I should be proud that my NATIONAL identity as a NIGERIAN is preserved.

But when that "law" translates into imposition and trampling upon the rights of non-Muslims, not only is it DISHONEST and FRAUDULENT, it is deep-seated COWARDICE and ILLITERATE!!

Afam:
Will not be ready to engage in any blind arguement here.

Female students being mandated to cut their hairs in secondary schools and primary schools is not new neither is it strange and of course erring students are either suspended or expelled from the school.

Rubbish! The reason why anyone would consider that a blind argument is because they refuse to see with their eyes peeled. That is why I offered those options to make it easier for you.

You guys appall me with this roundabout doublespeak, which does nothing more than confirm the al-taqiyya in the Muslim North! So, anything that is not Muslim automatically becomes CHRISTIAN in your eyes, yes? What has the politics of Britain's colonization have to do with issues affecting us as a collective people under one identity as Nigerians?

nferyn:
And that's a reason to accept the idiocy of Robertson?

Excuse me, where did I say I [b]accept[/b]ed it?

Afam:
If the schools in the South (read christians) ask female students to cut their hairs even in the primary and secondary schools and no one sees anything wrong in it then Kano state has the right to oblige schools to follow a particular trend it feels ok with, simple.

I'm interesting in just one thing: the argument of a "haircut" in the south - which of the options below does that come under:

(a) a State Government's "directive" to all schools to "ensure" that female students
comply with the ISLAMICChristian dress code;

(b) a State Government's "directive" as such based on the SHARIAGospel
legal system?

Which one of those "female" students in the South has had to segregated or lose their jobs as nurses for not cutting their hair??

sage:
The Sharia Law; what do you think about it

The Kano State Government has started to implement the segregation of men and women. Some nominal Christians are complaining that they are also beign compelled to follow Sharia law. What do you guys really think about the Sharia law and its segregstion of males and females?

At first, they said it would affect only Muslims. Two years later, the segregation and "compelling" directives are still being interpreted by most as a matter of "preserving our culture!"

In other words, in order to preserve another man's culture (in the Nigerian context), my rights as a citizen within my country should be submitted over to another man who's afraid his culture is on the brink of a collapse, or possibly extinction.

We dey wait to see what's ahead; and God help us as a nation.

Chxta:
There are some who are calling for Muslims to help confront the problem of extremists in their midst who have perverted teachings to the point of terrorism. But if you take that argument seriously, you could easily say there's an equal argument for many Christians to equally confront people who profess to speak for their religious beliefs like this idiot.

Right, after the televised speech of "this idiot", the terrorists on the other side are still with us today and multiplying - NO??

Government come, Government go!!

After the dust settles, there'll be another elephant project for us to keep us noisily busy.

Chxta:
See, the constitution as a document recognises our differences, and seeks to take care of those differences, not to divide us, which sad to say is what those Niger Delta youths seek.

It is only a matter of time that we shall see the real moves of the northern politicians as "they take care of those differences", not to unite us, which sad to say is what the recent moves seek - e.g., the Sharia discrimination against non-Muslims in the north, NO?

Okay, elections over: now we know why OBJ

will not,

has not,

was not designed to be,

. . . probed by his own creation!!

It's only a matter of time before we see the brainchild of the incumbent Presido!!

@Danmasani,

Oga, no vex; but your being a 'xtian notherner' apart, please take a look at the following article on Wikipedia and tell me what you think:

Excerpt:

'''Hijab''' or ħijāb (حجاب) is the Arabic term for "cover" (noun), based on the root حجب meaning "to veil, to cover (verb), to screen, to shelter"

In some Arabic-speaking countries and Western countries, the word hijab primarily refers to women's head and body covering, but in Islamic scholarship, hijab is given the wider meaning of modesty, privacy, and morality. The word used in the Qur'an for a headscarf or veil is khimār (خمار).

Source: Wikipedia on Hijab


Certainly, I know that there are other concepts of veiling in Islamic cultures, such as the Niqab. But here again, I'll let the BBC article on this explain the difference to us:

Excerpt:

This has led to a distinction between the hijab (literally "covering up" in Arabic) and the niqab (meaning "full veil".

Hijab is a common sight among Muslim women, a scarf that covers their hair and neck.

Niqab consists of covering up completely, including gloves and a veil for the face - leaving just a slit for the eyes, or covering them too with transparent material.

Source: Why Muslim Women Wear the Veil (perhaps the pictures there might help your understanding of either concepts?)


A reminder yet again:

On Friday 29 August the government of Kano State issued a directive that all girls attending schools run by the State Government should wear the Islamic headscarf, or hijab as it is known. This directive applies to all girls whether they are Muslim or not.

Source: Project Open Book: NIGERIA

_______________________________

Now, what's the point in all this? First, here's your argument:

Danmasani:
Davidylan, tell me exactly where Shekarau decreed that a Hijab must be worn by every school girl rather than a veil!!!!!!

https://bestsmileys.com/clueless/1.gif Can you please tell us what is the difference between a HIJAB and a VEIL?? From the foregoing, could it be that both Wikipedia and the BBC were colossally wrong in making the inference that a hijab is nothing short of a veil (perhaps because neither Wikipedia nor the BBC understands your culture)??

Danmasani:
Please can u specifically show me anywhere or any evidence where Shekarau is forcing someone to wear a hijab? Do u even know the difference between a hijab and a veil?

Unless the English language has been reloaded to another matrix that we can no longer understand, what do you understand by the word "forcing", and how does it differ from the word "compelled"?? Or, pray tell, what is the meaning of the following highlighted words in the statement by Shekarau:

"All private schools in the state are hereby directed to ensure their,
pupils observe the dress code in accordance with the tradition and
beliefs of our people," Kano governor Ibrahim Shekarau. " We do not
expect all private school in this state to fail in this regard."

If there is or has not been any concept of "force" in the actions of the Kano State Government, we can applaud the al-taqiyya tendency of the Muslim North in this report:

"In Kano State, all girls – including Christians – attending state run
schools are to be compelled to wear the Islamic headscarf. Meanwhile
in Azare, Bauchi State, 12 nurses have been sacked for non-compliance
with a dress code based on Islamic law (shari’a)."
Source: Project Open Book: NIGERIA


Oga Danmasani, na wa for unu culture!! https://bestsmileys.com/thumbs/4.gif

@davidylan,

davidylan:
We all know the difference between a hijab and a veil is that between 6 and half a dozen.

https://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ani_tiphat.gif I salute you for attempting to educate our friend about his al-taqiyya. What I do know is that you cannot be sure of anything in the culture of the Muslim North, not even when truth stares them in the face.

@Bobbyaf,

I would have obliged you the 'favour', but we have been there before. Your answer to my question as to How long exactly you think the lake of fire will last received a reply of "How would I know?" There's just no contest there - because if you don't know, what would be the use of arguing or debating the translations and original manuscripts with you?

You're trying to reharsh the debate that has already been tired-out in the other thread on this subject; which is not taking us anywhere, and I'm least interested in that.

My concern in this present one is simple: If you use II Pet. 3:10 to identify the EARTH as the LAKE OF FIRE, then my question is:

Are the HEAVENS also the same location as the LAKE OF FIRE?

Why leave out the heavens that are mentioned in the same connection with the earth as is evident in verses 7 and 12? People who have been holding on to the idea that the earth is the place of the lake of fire are reading their own thoughts into Scripture. And if I was greatly mistaken, then I wonder why they really haven't been able to deal with the mention of the heavens in the same connection.

Danmasani:
Davidylan and all the rambling hullabaloo in this forum, Respect my tradition and way of living before you match words with me. This is not about discrimination against women or anything. It is a culture we Northerners have imbibed and practised for years. What is wrong if we insist to preserve our culture?

From the word go, you gave yourself away as a camouflage "Xtian northerner!" Did you really have to make claims to accentuate the al-taqiyya of the Muslim north? https://bestsmileys.com/wow/4.gif

@mazaje,

mazaje:
Please lets not all be misinformed here, there was no were it was said that all students including the non muslims should wear the hijab. it only stated that both government and private schools female students ought to wear the veil . the statement did'nt state categorical if the wearing of the hijab includes the non muslims..

Okay. So, both government and private schools female students are ONLY muslims, ba? If they do not include the non muslims, pray tell, where did these news agencies get their reports from?


[KILIL 5 NEWS] http://www.kilil5.com/news/8960_nigerian-state-extends-islamic-d

Excerpt:
KANO, Nigeria (AFP) - Authorities in the most populous state in northern Nigeria have made it compulsory for pupils in all schools in the state to abide by an Islamic dress code. "All private schools in the state are hereby directed to ensure their ,  pupils observe the dress code in accordance with the tradition and beliefs of our people," Kano governor Ibrahim Shekarau said late Thursday in the state capital.

"This is in line with our resolve to bring about a positive change in the attitude of our students and to strengthen their morality," Shekarau told a large crowed of veiled schoolgirls. "We do not expect all private school in this state to fail in this regard", Shekarau said without giving details about penalties.


[YAHOO NEWS] http://p232.news.mud.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070504/wl_africa_afp/nigeriaislameducation

Excerpt:

KANO, Nigeria (AFP) - Kano has become the first state in Nigeria to make it compulsory for all pupils, both Christian and Muslim, to wear Islamic dress.

Mustapha Ibrahim, a Muslim who runs a private school with both Muslim and Christian pupils, said he was still awaiting official notification of the new regulation from the education ministry.


[Islam ONLINE.Net] http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&=1178193292316&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout

Excerpt:

KANO, Nigeria — Authorities in northern Nigeria's most populous state of Kano have made it compulsory for students, Muslims and Christians, in all private schools to abide by an Islamic code of dress.


Basically the same thing is reported in the following:

[Middle East Times]  http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070504-070126-6147r

The Peninsula

It might interest you that some of these al-taqiyya games have been well observed in some States:

[Project Open Book: NIGERIA] http://www.domini.org/openbook/nigeria20031010.htm

Excerpt:

In Kano State, all girls – including Christians – attending state run schools are to be compelled to wear the Islamic headscarf. Meanwhile in Azare, Bauchi State, 12 nurses have been sacked for non-compliance with a dress code based on Islamic law (shari’a).

On Friday 29 August the government of Kano State issued a directive that all girls attending schools run by the State Government should wear the Islamic headscarf, or hijab as it is known. This directive applies to all girls whether they are Muslim or not.

Bankole01:
Just in case any one misses the line, the man said he would change time and make Nigeria a top 20 nation five years ago. (year 2002) somebody please wake him up me think de man is lost in la la land!!!!!!!

I knew that was not a typo!! Lol. . . no olopa in di land can arrest that! Up Naija: we don really advance gan!!

mrmayor:
He does have things you don't have, cash and lots of it.Donated every day by members of his church

https://bestsmileys.com/clueless/2.gif

I don't think the issue is as simplistic as the topic suggests. Question here is: What are the underlying motives of the Kano State Governor and his ilk in the imposition of these codes?

It is more a question of politics than of morality. If a similar enactment is made in the South in flavour of ordering that the veil is NOT worn, I don't suppose that there would be any stir.

How is the wearing of a veil to conform to Islamic tenets ever going to minimize the occurences of sex-related crimes and offences? One need hardly asks of make a wild guess. The thoughts in a man's heart do not automatically go to sleep when his eyes fall on a woman - veils or no veils. No matter how many robes she adorns to cover even the eyelashes, the perpetrators will do what's in the thoughts at the slightest opportunity.

It is pathetic to note that even in the Islamic countries of Afghanistian, Pakistan, and Iran, women are raped and the rape victims are punished by Islamic laws for what is not their fault. No, I'm not making this up; and for anyone interested, they can try to figure this out from articles on the following links:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1874191,00.html

Excerpt:
For Sharma Zia, another victim in the safe house, it is unlikely the fear of being raped again
will go away. 'I know I can't stay here for ever,' she says. 'My home town isn't that far away,
but I can't return. The men who raped me live close to my parents and even they took the
side of my rapists. My allegations only brought them shame. Sometimes I feel like I only
bring people shame. I wish I could leave, go abroad, but I know that will never happen.'


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/6e5c7b5b4e7369144f7ac0c41be6798b.htm

Excerpt:
(New York, November 14, 2006) The Pakistani government must honor its pledge to amend
the controversial Hudood Ordinances by removing some of its most discriminatory and dangerous
provisions, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch urged the National Assembly
to table the Women's Protection Bill in its current session. The Pakistani government of General
Pervez Musharraf has said the National Assembly will soon consider amendments to the Hudood
Ordinances, which criminalize adultery and non-marital sex, but the government has repeatedly
reneged on such assurances in the past.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/pakistan/mckenna_pakistan.html

Excerpt:
But this is the key problem in Pakistani law: both rape and adultery fall under the crime of Zina,
meaning illicit sexual relations. "This has to stop. Rape is rape and adultery is adultery. They're
not the same thing," Mai says. The Pakistani religious laws regarding rape and adultery are called
the Hudood Ordinances. "The Hudood Ordinance is defined by God and his Prophet. It has
been outlined in the Qur'an and no parliament, no intellectual and no man has the right
to amend it, add to it, or remove anything from it," al-Haq says. Religious conservatives wield
a lot of political power in Pakistan. Many women wear veils or cover themselves completely with
a Burka because conservatives insist on a strict interpretation of the Qur'an. Seventy per cent of
Pakistani women live in the rural areas, where the conservative view is dominant. "We are an
Islamic country and these are Islamic laws," Bakhtiar says. "So to change something which
has been brought about in the name of religion you can imagine is not easy in Pakistan."


This idea that people should be subjected to Islamic codes of dressing, walking the streets, or whatever else, should be seriously challenged and put to the grave once and for all before it becomes another HUDOOD in Nigeria.

nigeria1:
Yar Adua have one spirit that I have notice by what he did before the election, Which I do not want to share before the internet, that thing shows that he as an humble heart, that he is willing to learn and change,

Na so! Is it not all the same brush and canvass? I can't remember any one of the Presidents who didn't rehearse the "humble heart" cue ab initio. We dey wait and pray, hoping for the best!

Bankole01:
ha ha ha, when you tie a bell around a cat's neck, he can never shake it loose. Yar'adua will never be able to loose his white elephant (Obasanjo)

Great observation.

olawa20:
it is rather unfair to judge a governor especially in the northern part of nigeria for not tackling the almajiri. just like it has been noted you have to view it in a broader framework; there is the issue of migration from neighboring countries. then you also have neigbhoring states to contend with. it's just like a single state attempting to eradicate highly infectious diseases like polio in isolation, it won't work, you simply get reinfected by your neighbours.

I really can't understand your point here. If a man has been unable to take care of a single room, on what grounds would you judge him competent to take care of a 5-star hotel?

Okay, Nigeria is not a hotel; but I trust you get my drift? If Yar'adua has not been competent enough to handle issues of just one out of the 36 States of the Federation, on what grounds would one adjudge him competent to deal with NATIONAL issues?

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
Heavens as mentioned there is really the immediate atmosphere surrounding the earth that has been defiled by man's activities. I will hasten to say its not the heaven of heavens where God dwells. I asume you already know that.

That is hardly the sense meant there at all. The apostle Peter was not giving us any idea that translates into the immediate atmosphere defiled by man's activities. Reading II Pet. 3:4-5 clearly indicates what the apostle was pointing out: it was none other than the heavens mentioned in the same sense that we read of in Gen. 1:1.

Bobbyaf:
Let me repeat again. No one is saying that the earth or heaven is the lake of fire. What I am saying is that the fire that falls from heaven as recorded in Revelation 20 will cleanse both the heavens (atmospheric and stratospheric) and the earth.

That is a queer way of reneging on your earlier assertion. You had clearly stated:

Bobbyaf:
The whole earth will be engulfed in fire, and if the whole earth will be engulfed then it means that the earth itelf would be the place".

. . . and on that assertion my queries followed. I do not see it taught in Scripture the way you are trying to persuade readers to think.

Bobbyaf:
I am also saying that this experience is both an event and that the place where this event will ocurr is the earth. Hence the whole globe and its surrounding atmosphere will be engulfed in fire as Peter described.

You haven't made any new statement other than rephrased the same thing stated earlier to interprete the EARTH as the same location as the LAKE OF FIRE. That idea is not taught in the Bible; and the apostle Peter's epistle does not teach that.

Bobbyaf:
The same can be said of those who see the word "unquenchable" as being indefinite.

Which still does not carry any weight in the idea of an "UNTIL" that does not exist in the verses you cited.

Bobbyaf:
Thank God that is your opinion and not the bible's.   besides no one is suggesting that God isn't free to pour out His wrath on evil, because you're exactly correct on that point. However, allowing evil to exist indefinitely according to your theory doesn't make sense.

I nowhere suggested the idea of "allowing evil to exist indefinitely", so please don't bring in a cheap misconstruction where it does not exist in my responses.

Bobbyaf:
In other words does God need an indefinite time period to destroy evil? How would that solve the sin problem? How would He re-create a new heaven and a new earth if He allowed sin to linger? The fact that God, assuming thats the case, allows an indefinite burning of sinners suggest that the sin problem would never be solved as long as the redeemed are reminded of it happening.

Now, who finally is suggesting that the sin problem would never be solved??   Trying ever so desperately to misread issues never helps you argument. I did NOT suggest it, and good for you if that's what you've been holding unto; but that is nowhere taught in the Bible.

Bobbyaf:
Jesus taught that the meek will inherit the earth, and John reminds us that God will dwell on the earth with the redeemed. If Peter says that the fire will engulf physically sinners, and the earth, how can it be even remotely believed that this fire will burn indefinitely, if we are expected to live with God on the earth made new?

If you can explain that paradox for want of a better word, go ahead.

Again, please go through your responses before posting them. My query is about your assertion that the EARTH ITSELF would be THE LAKE OF FIRE. Now if that is the idea that the apostle taught (which clearly was not), then my next question followed:

Are the HEAVENS also the same location as the LAKE OF FIRE?

I don't see how you've answered that question, other than circling round it in order to make Peter say what he did not say in the first place!

@Bobbyaf,

I suspected you would quickly reference II Pet. 3:10 in your reply. However, if we're going to read what it says without favouring a partial view, here's another look at the context:

(a) that verse mentions the HEAVENS as well the EARTH.

(b) reading from verse 7 shows clearly that the HEAVENS also will be on fire:

"But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store,
reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

(c) See verse 12 as well:

                             "Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God,
                              wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved,
                              and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

To those who are quick to quote II Pet. 3:10 to argue for the earth being the lake of fire, my question is:

           Are the HEAVENS also the same location as the LAKE OF FIRE?

You cannot quickly use that verse to teach that the EARTH itself is the lake of fire, whereas vs. 7 mentions the HEAVENS in the same connection as what is stated in verse 10.

Bobbyaf:
Whatever verse that utilises the word "unquenchable", in other words the word used means that no one will be able to stop the fire from doing its work until its work is complete.

I do not find the word 'UNTIL' remotely suggested there; and those introducing that idea are doing so simply to force their own interpretation into Scripture.

Bobbyaf:
Most christians including you, are likely to use the word un-quenchable as meaning an indefinite burning, when in truth it means nothing of the sort when it is lined up contextually.

That being the case, I do not see the idea of an "UNTIL" even when read contextually.

Bobbyaf:
How would I know?

Since you do not know, try not suggesting what Scripture does not teach.

Bobbyaf:
Can't recall ever using the word slight in my response. What I recall explaining is that God's love and justice cannot allow Him to unduly punish sinners.

I figured you would tow that line of response. God's love and justice does allow Him to pour out His wrath on evil; and any idea of euphemizing His indignation is simply humanistic reasoning.

Bobbyaf:
See the above response for the same question you already posed above.

I repeated my question for your repeated assertion.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
However the place is not somewhere under the earth, but the whole earth itself. The whole earth will be engulfed in fire, and if the whole earth will be engulfed then it means that the earth itelf would be the place.

Where in Scripture does it say that the earth itself is the lake of fire?

Bobbyaf:
No one would be able to stop the fire until it does its work of cleansing the earth of sin and sinners.

Where in the verses offered does it say: "UNTIL"??

How long exactly will the lake of fire last - one day, two weeks, a month??

Bobbyaf:
God is LOVE. He is also a God of righteousness and justice. He cannot give greater punishment than is necessary

Does the Bible present the punishment with the lake of fire as a slight punishment just because God is LOVE?

Bobbyaf:
Besides, if this fire is allowed to burn indefinitely, where would God establish the new earth? If the earth is allowed to burn without end how would the meek inherit the earth?

Where in Scripture does the Bible say that earth is the lake of fire?