@stillwater,

stillwater:
I'm sorry, this is not an insult, but I just can't understand what Olabowale writes I wonder how you guys understand

My sista, I tire! Na hard work to decode wetin the guy dey yan; and then to even make sense from the incoherence sef, na wah!

olabowale:

I believe that you are a woman, if you are even a human being, (Am sure KAG will remember me calling him whatever, yet (it) has not quit the mindset that led me to propose it.

And this is supposed the be the rational way you reason out an issue? Goodness!

IDINRETE:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-46848.256.html#msg1934829

bawomolo:

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/pagan.html

Yeah - thrashed as I said, and latercomer too!

Next!

@bawomolo,

bawomolo:

actually i'm not asking for proof of God's existence in this thread. all i'm asking is what caused the transformation of God from God of war to God of peace in the Bible.

In other words, you now surmise that God does exist afterall? See? You are doing the very same dribbling I hinted at several times yesterday - but no wahala.

As for the 'transformation' you hinted at and are still forcing tenuously, you still haven't done a good job responding to my request to clarify your understanding thereto. Perhaps it may serve you a good turn to drop the hypocrisy of excusing its application to your favoured "display of emotion" in other description while seeking to fan the transformation meme repeatedly.

bawomolo:

simple questions deserve simple answers

Excuses that have become incoherent and inconsistent in yours need to be clarified - by you!

bawomolo:

actually i'm not seeking a logical proof, i'm seeking a logical explanation for the change in God's temparament from the old to new testament.

Same issue as above. Next!

bawomolo:

how did u have experiences with God if he is beyond human comprehension and senses. how were u approached by God.

That God is beyond human comprehension does not mean we have no comprehension whatsoever about God. As to being "approached" by God, I don't know where I stated that exactly.

bawomolo:

the bohr's atomic model and "God" are both abstract beings that can easily be discussed without accepting they are real.

How do you transform a "model" into a "being"?

bawomolo:

actually u have while denying the transformation isn't clear.

You did not make your idea of 'transformation' any clearer, but have only been assuming it is. And as to the delving into the theory of God's existence, I have not - and my reference thereto was to cleaqrly state it so that you would not characteristically allege I have done so, which is what you have predictably done. Second, I referenced that as a matter of your persistent call for the "proof" of the existence of God, while now bending backwards to deny that you ever made a call thereto.

bawomolo:

personal insults aside.

Where?

bawomolo:

the calm person may express opposite of calmess but overall he is at east at MOST TIMES. God said he was the God of war at first, then strangely in the new testament, claimed to be God of peace. a state of war is drastically different from a state of peace.

The idea you're espousing does not establish the notion of 'transformation' - as if He was ever at war, and then dropping all that suddenly became a God of peace. Perhaps you have the idea that He never gave peace or knew peace in the OT?

bawomolo:

actually no, i'm not arguing about the existence of your christian God. didn't we agree to stay on topic.

I've been consistent with the topic - or more precisely, following your lead without deviating. My answers are in consonance with the queries you present; and if you never made any reference to "proving" the existence of God as a sine-qua-non factor in this discussion, you would not have read any hint thereto in my rejoinders. Care to go back and review?

bawomolo:

again didn't we agree to stay on topic.

As above?

bawomolo:

actually no. regardless of prior assumptions, hypothetical questions can be asked. i find it strange u guys are having problems involving the trinity and God's temparament.

It need not be so - that is why we have also presented queries for your consideration instead of running the risk of misreading you. So far, you haven't impressed me yet with a coherent grasp of your own premise. Do you care to set me straight on that so we know where exactly your premise lies?

bawomolo:

actually i don't need to prove God doesn't exists, since our theist counterpart haven't proven God exists either. it would continue to be a stalemate

I think reference to the existence of God has been overdone - can we move on quickly now to the core gist of your worries?

bawomolo:

it's turf not tuff.

Thanks - I meant 'tuff' - please see: TUFF - which I used as an idiomatic expression. Do I expatiate?

bawomolo:

philosophy isn't about proof but opinions. u have assumptions, i have mine. let's get back to the thread please. explain the trinity and God's transformation

You proposed philosophy as your 'tuff' (your forté or perhaps strong link to unravelling your worldview); and I would have been glad to call your bluff! It didn't seem your confidence level in your proposal could be sustained - my bad!

Getting back to the thread, I do not see a transformation; nor do I suppose it would be a fair trial to imposs that idea on any discussant. That we have our differing assumptions does not pass as a means to excuse a common grund for discussion.

bawomolo:

you are right, they were put to test, because of these tests, we had the maxwell equations, differential equations and multi-variable calculus was born. the application of newton's work, proved calculus was correct.

Glad you finally saw that! Ha! To think I had to take the trouble to infer that we look at the applications of Calculus!

bawomolo:

all mathematical theories have limitations. nothing new here

Thank you, gentle sir. Next!

bawomolo:

sociological experiments aren't classic excuses. the experiment showed the need for God is through socialization and not natural.

Which shouldn't necessarily always be a resort to "kids" as the first port of call for same excuses.

bawomolo:

those books actually solidifed my stance about atheism. i had doubts before reading books. why dodge the topic bro. simple questions, simple answers.

I haven't ducked the topic - remember, I'm following your lead and would rather keep to that! In any case, that people have read books which solidified their stance about atheism could again be argued that others have read books that helped to open their prejudices and lead them to consider theism. A no-thoroughfare there.

However, my question was in reference to what you had categorically assumed earlier; which is why I asked: "What about the reference you made to "books" as the mast to post your flag of belief in God?"

bawomolo:

circular reasoning won't get u anywhere.

I apologise - but that is not even a tool I would consider for my defence as I read in yours!

bawomolo:

this coming from a guy that posted five philosophical "proofs" for the existence of God. oh the irony

Which confirms my pun to your circular reasoning - it is n't taking us anywhere; and I'm glad that I'm not the only one who noticed!

Roger me?

bawomolo:

there are atheist societies that function well, china is one.

Excuse me, what are your parameters for measuring societies that "function well"? That China is intolerant to her own religious chinese citizens should be an index of your measurements?

Your excuses these days are becoming even more childish! Care to sign in another username?

bawomolo:

christianity by the way was influenced by egyptian by greek paganism.

If you're still hellbent on circulating that idea after it has been thrashed, then a hearty welcome to your latecomer adventures!

bawomolo:

the same can be said for the bible

Did you lose your password to "bawomol". . or you simply were too insecure to hold your philosophy class in the previous discussions?

@olabowale,

The insignia of 'almost' does not apply to the Christian being describe as atheistic. It is alright to try to force the idea upon us, for obvious reasons including that you have an unreasonable disaffection towards everything related to those belonging to Christ (Christians).

Nonetheless, as Christians, we are not ashamed to state our unwavering faith in Jesus Christ the Son of the living God. We have been through your idea of ascribing sexual connotation to the confession of God as 'FATHER' - and up until now, you have been too scared and too shy to face up to the invitation I offered you and babs787 several times to discuss that very issue. Knowing God as 'Father' has nothing to do with sexual inuendos - and there's no denying the fact that I.slam has fixated the idea of a lewd Jannah in the minds of M.uslims.

At any rate, the challenge is still open as at the first:

stimulus:

What do you understand by the term "atheist"?

Trying to force your 'almost' on Christians when you have no clue what the term implies, really shows your mind as working overtime in the wrong store.

therationa:

Every christian is an atheist too.

So, how far now? Share with us why or how you came to that idea!

mukina2:

O servants of God, there are many reasons why we should fear.

Just a question: what does it mean to 'fear'?

dafidixone:

Hurry Up!

I'm trying. Like others, question #8 just jammed my gear!

Very interesting question. And thank you to all who have enriched my understanding with the foregoing contribution.

In addition, faith is trust in God.

I believe that in includes a few of the qualities already expressed, for faith is:

 durable

 intelligent

 reasonable

True, some things seem to be 'unreasonable' to so many people; but faith understands that the dealings of God are intelligent, dependable, and sound when it comes to satisfying the deepest longings of man's heart.

SysUser:

How disingenious of you,

olabowale:

KAG, unless you are disingenious,

Please, please and please. . . you guys take it easy, abeg una! Can't we reason along without reference to terms like that?

I know - we may not agree and find it difficult to see the other person's point of view. I've been following the various contributions - interesting from all sides. But it doesn't help to read all the slurs directed at just the same person again and again. May be I'm getting it wrong somewhere, but help me follow along by sharing amicably as much as we possibly can manage, yes?

Thank you plenty-plenty!

@therationa,

therationa:

I think I have been proven right in that the religious do not care about intellectual honesty and development.

I wonder how you have been "proven" right if that was a reference to your own intellectual dishonesty. Pardon my forthrightness, if you may; but it seems that any views which have not placated your seething ridicule of the religious becomes written off as 'intellectual dishonesty' so much that it helps your unsubstantiated accusation that "the religious do not care" about development.

There are viable ways of honestly assessing the decay in our universities; and a very ready (and unfortunate) manifestation of that decay is to point accusing fingers at the object of your derision (the religious) - not because you have taken an honest look at the real problems of University decays; but because you are looking for every excuse to slave your idea on a false premise.

I wonder how the problem of illegal sale of 'handouts' in many of our Nigerian universities is a direct index of the "religious" concern? I graduated from a Nigerian Univeristy and actually saw brilliant students being failed deliberately by lecturers who levied such students with the unthinkable - for males, you had to bribe your way through with cash or face the 'F' grade; for females, you either had to sleep with the male lecturers and have a 'pass', or turn down their advances and see your score as an 'F'. These matters were repeatedly played out by folks who were quite averse to religion!

That is only a minute problem in our universities - and pointing the finger of accusation where you haven't done an honest assessment of your grievance does not demonstrate "intellectual honesty" on your part.

therationa:

The person of Jesus stands apart from the written stories about him.

That's a new one. Care to share this 'Jesus' who stands apart from the written accounts about Him?

@yemmydavid,

yemmydavid:

u ar e more confused than u are.

Many thanks.

yemmydavid:

ignorance is a disease.

May God bless you.

yemmydavid:

d fact that u do not want to accept that u don't knw makes your case even worse.

How have you demonstrated that you do know?

yemmydavid:

keep basking in your thot of d bible being a complete book.

Have you sought to reason things through - or you had to wait this long to convince me you were leading your argument to a brickwall?

yemmydavid:

u are ON YOUR OWN

May God lead you. Amen, blessings!

therationa:

4HIM,

Please, could you refrain from ad Hominins. I am making my point without being insulting to you. I thought you were a christian.

Is this quote below your idea of being polite -?

therationa:

So for this to work, one of Jesus's parents would havehad to be 600 years older that the other. How BIZARRE.

vassilli:

there is everything wrong wit african religion
its barbaric, fetish and irrational

Well, I used to think that there are many African religions rather than one - and the few that I've perused do not fit exactly into that description. I think we should endeavour to be fair in our assessments.

therationa:

How BIZARRE.

Isn't it queer that that you've been so desperate to crude all along? What's biting you, dude?

yemmydavid:

in your view how complete is d bible and y?

It all depends on what you mean by 'complete'. There are so many arguements that have been advanced as to why people feel that the Bible is not complete - and yours here is one of them (reason: because Jesus made a promise of the Holy Spirit).

A few other allegations have been put forward in this allegation which are different from yours - some saying that some "books" mentioned in the Bible are not found today, like the book of Jasher (2 Sam. 1:18 ), the book of Jehu (2 Chron. 20:34), and the books of Nathan the prophet and Gad the seer (1Chron. 29:29) among a few others.

Ordinarily, I don't try to waste my time answering such allegations for the sake of endless arguments! But once I had to take up the challenge and discuss it in another thread (here) because that is what Mus.lim apologists have often used in derogatory attacks against the Bible.

Yet again, while browsing some other sites in my spare time, I came across other allegations that are entirely different from the ones highlighted above. I registered in one of this fora to discuss the issue - but I didn't get anywhere because it became pretty much obvious before long that the debator was just seeking an opportunity to let lose his blasphemous venom rather than discuss his allegations.

I could point out so many such allegations and the types of accusations that have been advanced for them: but I've learnt never to pre-empt issues and rather let a discussant demonstrate the ability to reason thoughfully and sanely, before entering into dialogue with them.

Now to answer your question, I've come to hold the Bible has having coherent and satisfying answers to the deepest questions of my own heart. I don't know about you or anyone else; but when I begin to seek answers to the deepest questions of my own heart, I have found the most satisfying and most coherent answers to my spiritual hunger in the Bible.

yemmydavid:

your village name DEY BIBLE?
if its complete, it shld be dere

That again is an example of what I just discussed above - it shows me where you're leading your discussion: whether you really want to discuss and find answers to any genuine queries, or you typically want to reduce your thinking to a mere match of ribald arguments.

If you can give me the names of every single village in the world, perhaps I'll be willing to show you the answer to your question in the Bible. But you'd need to first priduce a list of every single village in the entire world. Care to do that?

He-ha!

Guys, I could anticipate where he's coming from - I just could be a bit prophetic about this. There's a group of atheists now that are trying to help us see the other side of the argument - not by acknowledging the dictionary definition of the word 'atheism'; but by asking us to go back to the etymology of the term as comes from its use from ancient Greek thinking - like this one.

In any case, after all the arguments on the etymology of a.theism as "no god" or "godless", we still have to come back and ask therationa what to do with the definition of the word by atheists themselves who speak of it in terms of "the non-existence of god"!

The logic he is desperately seeking here even falls flat on its face when closely scrutinized. But I'll hold my peace for now until his fatwa is issued; then I'll lead him back to the gaps of the ideas he's been harvesting from other sites!

4Him:

Perhaps therationa might be interested in doing some real "research".

Well therationa, would you be willing to look into this offer?

yemmydavid:

please can u explain to me d effect of the Holy spirit then.

its like saying the CHEMISTRY textbook is complete.

It is not like saying "the CHEMISTRY textbook is complete" just because you had hoped there would be no promise of the Holy Spirit in the Bible. That which makes the Bible incomplete is what you had hoped would make it complete. Has you own idea suddenly become difficult for you again?

If I'm going to help you here, then I'd need to ask you a pointed question:

How does the Bible become an incomplete Book on account of having the promise of the Holy Spirit recorded in it?

The effect is not what you had proposed; and until you deal with the above question, you're not making a sense at all.

There are threads already on the experiences people have tried to enunciate in their relating to the Holy Spirit; but your worry here is that the promise of the Holy Spirit being found in the Bible therefore renders it an incomplete Book. That is what I would first ask you to deal with - and failing to focus on that would mean that you're not seeking to get to grips with your own thots in the first place. Yes?

@4Him,

Thank you very plenty!

oldie:

Is there a hell in other religions too?

I'd be gobsmacked if you didn't know!   I.s.lam speaks of Hell in so many verses of all its revered scriptures - the Q.u.ran and H.a.diths!

oldie:

I need answers to my first question from the experts!
Seriously

Okay, I'm not an expert - and when I find the cut-off mark reduced, then I can proffer answers.

yemmydavid:

sorry o mr knw all, y then did jesus promise us d HOLY-SPIRIT if all we need to knw is in d bible??

Sorry O, mr know-dot! Does a lack of the promise establish the completeness of any book?

therationa:

Every christian is an atheist too.

E don do! You're beginning to spin out of your center of gravity already! What do you understand by the term "atheist"?

therationa:

Nowhere in the genealogies of Luke and Matt is Mary so much as mentioned. I challenge you guys to show me a reference to Mary in Luke and Matthew's genealogies.

In other words, Mary was in no way connected to Jesus in His ancestry? Or, we are to assume now that the new challenge is that Mary was not His mother?

Is that the new desperate excuse? Whatever happened to the initial comments that have been offered already which you have tersely evaded?

@toluxa1,

toluxa1:

If also helps us to understand that Christ did not come from the lineage of the Kings of Judag

Actually, if you carefully study the genealogy, you will find that Christ descended from the lineage of the Kings of Judah. There's one verse which should help you in this:

For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda;
of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Hebrews 7:14

This is why those who worry so much about a seeming "contradiction" in the genealogies have never taken the time to look at the contexts of those two accounts. This question has been recycled so many times and answered so many times on Nairaland, and that's why I just did not bother trying to refer to the various links to the threads where the answers have been offered. Rather, my initial brief answer was to invite the OP himself to seriously think for himself instead of recycling the ideas of others who cannot think for themselves.

therationa:

The first thing is to combat gullibility, credulity and belief in superstitions with educations in scientific rationalism. That would dry up the pool from which these venal individuals draw.

You don't sound half as educated as the very thing you propose.

Next!

yemmydavid:

d bible is not complete. if it was, Jesus wont promise us the Holy-spirit. If d bible was complete then our names shld be in it too

Another desperation at work! If your idea of a complete Bible should mean that Jesus should not promised the Holy Spirit, I can well understand your uneasiness. Come taste of His power to bless your life and then you'll know why your incomplete desperation here is a laugh.