₦airaland Forum

@jagunlabi,

Your website and scholars failed woefully to establish a real sense of balance, and I'm surprised that you'd appeal to their sloppy research to push a false agenda. You're trying to force the idea that Yahweh is a separate "God/god" from the Most High - you're dead wrong. First, let me show you what they failed to see:

1) Deuteronomy 32 is poetic and the whole passage speaks of only one God. The LORD (Yahweh/Jehovah depending on reading), the Most High, the Almighty, are all appellations of the same one and only God. Verse 44 shows that the preceding verses were the lyrics of a Hebraic song; and in typical style of the ancients, people could speak of the same Personage in various appellations or designations.

2) Niels Lemche and scholars like him know nothing about the Hebrew or Greek languages - because the construct of the language in Deut. 32: 8-9 does not range Yahweh among the sons of the Most High. It was simply an emphasis indicating that the same God saw Israel as His special people - the ones to whom He specially revealed Himself and gave the covenants under Moses. Neither do the LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls portray Yahweh as separate from El (God) and as a member of the divine assembly surbodinate to Him.

3) Other examples where this emphatic peotic style of addressing the same divine Being with various appellations abound. Notice in the following that there is only one God spoken of, and not two:

# I went out full, and the LORD (Yahweh) hath brought me home again empty:
why then call ye me Naomi, seeing the LORD (Yahweh) hath testified against me, and the
Almighty (Shaddai) hath afflicted me? - Ruth. 1:21.

# Surely I would speak to the Almighty (Shaddai), and I desire to reason with God (El).
- Job 13:3

# For he stretcheth out his hand against God (El), and strengtheneth himself against
the Almighty (Shaddai). - Job 15:25.

There are loads more of verses that have this poetic style of speaking about the same one God in various appellations. However, you can see as in Job 15:25 that God is not a separate deity from the Almighty.

I'll take time shortly to outline where you've gone wrong and hope that you'll be able to see the difference instead of mixing things up based on just Deut. 32:8-9.

jagunlabi:
Read this link,http://mormanity..com/2005/10/deuteronomy-328-9-many-implications.html

And your point is? Yes, I have read the link, thank you. But what does it say about your assertion that -

jagunlabi:
A lot of people misinterprete the bible by erroneously thinking that the creator is the same deity as Yahweh,the deity of the biblical jewish people.This is erroneous interpretation,because the God of israel is NOT the creator of all things.There is a higher deity than Yahweh mentioned,even,in the bible.This supreme deity is what i really call THE ALMIGHTY,the true GOD,because he/she is the only universal and neutral deity that exists,

Two things you've stated there that I'd like you to show me from the Bible -

# the God of Israel is NOT the creator of all things

# There is a higher deity than Yahweh mentioned, even, in the bible.

I'm glad someone has finally asked - because I've been wondering where in the Bible "there is a higher deity than Yahweh mentioned". Yes, please do, jagunlabi: show us.

@jagunlabi,

Never mind the misnomer of "literalist christian apologetics" (the noun is "apologist" - and I'm not one). I asked a question, you answered with "boatrockers". What's the issue that I must stay away from?

jagunlabi:
So what happens when the grace of christ or/and God is mocked or taken for granted?The law of Karma kicks in,or the culprit gets forgiven all over again if he/she pleads(again) repentance?

The Law of Karma does not kick in, because it does not operate in the Christian faith in the first place. Karma is tied to re-incarnation, and I've discussed what this means in another thread, showing there the reasons why the Bible cannot be used to justify belief in re-incarnation.

When a believer sins, God gives warnings aimed at bringing such a person back to His love - either through exhortations (Heb. 3:13) or through  chastisement (Heb. 12:5). The result is forgiveness, cleaning, and restoration to fellowship with Him where such a person repents (I John 1:7 & 9).

If, however, such a person is decidedly mocking God, the Bible is firm on this: "How much worse punishment, do you think one will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God, regarded as profane the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Heb 10:29).

jagunlabi:
How does "multiple repentance" affect the grace,by the way?A lot of christians do it.They see the 'grace' as the perfect immunity against 'karma',and various churches seem to encourage this grace flounting with their doctrines.
So,what gives?Will multiple repentance guarantee the joy of heaven?Sin during the day,repent before going to bed,7 days a week,the whole month?

I understand your concerns. However, what you decry is actually not taught in the Bible; so you have a point - there is no "multiple repentance" in the Christian faith. Rather, people come to Jesus by a one time act of repentance and faith. This is underscored by the following verses:

"For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death." (2 Cor. 7:10)  "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Rom 6:1-2).

However, Christians also can sin if they are not careful in their living nor depending on the power of the Holy Spirit. There is a sin leading to death (that which is committed in abject disregard to God's authority and power) as well as a sin not leading to death (see I John 5:16-17 - "All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death".

A true Christian is marked by a hunger to live godly and righteously. One who loves to sin even with a claim to being Christian is doubtfully one. Like I said earlier, a believer has Jesus as his/her propitiation; but the Christian life is not about sinning and repenting 7 days a week the whole month.

I don't think anyone is waging a war here. . .lol. If verses are quoted from the Bible to justify re-incarnation, my reply was made to refute the idea by quoting and explaining the verses in mine. Where's the war?

Peace.

I don't live in Nigeria, but have visited it several times with a few of my friends. To me, it seems that most people in your country do either of two things:

# they spend their lives attacking other people's faiths

# they blame their crises on religion, especially Christianity.

Whatever a person feels like, one thing I noticed is that some of those doing the attacking are first to use racist and hate speech (and in some other instances, they will be the last to give it up, if ever they do). You come across to me as a guy who manifests a special virulent disavowal against Christianity, following your posts.

Let's look at it this way: do you think I would be correct in my perception if I wrote every Nigerian off as a fraudster (from President to policeman to pressman to petty trader to pauper and what have you) just because a few Nigerains gave me a surprise and rough deal of the popular "419" saga at the airport in Lagos in my summer holiday of 2002? Oh, I became the wiser for it; and maybe I would have really thought you were a 419 as well without having met you, had it not been that I met (and am seriously dating) a Nigerian Christian?

So, hope you get my drift? There's no use being vexed against Christianity as a faith just because you don't like it. You may be opposed to fraudsters playing Christianity (and in some very bad cases, they play God!) - and who do you think in Christianity would not be equally upset? The point is, slurring the faith of other people is not an intelligent and gentlemanly way to reason with them, neither does it tell well about who you are as a Nigerian (if I'm not mistaken).

You don't need to keep up trumping just about anything against Christianity simply because you're not one and don't like the faith. Most of the things you post are mere speculations and you borrowed them in such a manner as if they hold any substance. Jesus Christ is not responsible for the evil perpetrated in His name; and one day He will judge the sad fellows in their games. The Christian faith is a living faith, and using hate speech and acrid language against Christians is a very unintelligent thing to do.

Here's what I think as a Christian:

There are several definitions of Karma:

In Hinduism and Bhuddism, it is the idea that an individual's actions determine his fate in each successive existence (re-incarnation). As this Gnosis weblink article says: "Everything good or bad that we have done in any of our lives will bring good or bad consequences for this or coming existences."

Further examples in clicking this link.

I don't think the Law of Karma applies in Christianity, even though certain elements seem to be juxtaposed. Karma in philosophical thought and other religions is rigid and no one escapes it - you cannot break the circle of re-incarnation, whereby one has to come back to earth in any number of things to make up for previous losses. Whereas in Christ, forgiveness is a very powerful resource for the believer which changes the destiny and life of those who repent and come to Jesus by faith.

This does not mean that our lives are not affected by our choices when we become Christians. Gal. 6:7 clearly says that people will reap whatever they sow, because God cannot be mocked. When a person abuses the grace of Christ, he/she mocks God.

The Law of Karma presupposes many existences before someone can attain to perfection through re-incarnation. On the other hand, Christianity is based on only one existence in this life and the fact that God sees every Christian as accepted and perfected through Christ's own perfection (Heb. 10:14 - "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

We all shall be held accountable for our choices and what we do in this life (Christianity); not by the events of a previous life/existence (karma and re-incarnation). Bad choices people made before becoming Christians will affect their lives to the degree of the damage involved. An accident, obesity by bad eating habits, looting and stealing (corrected by restitution), injuries to others, are some realities that people face up with even after having become Christians; and bad debts don't simply go away by faith if people made reckless financial choices. However, none of these things will deny anyone the joy of heaven if they came in true repentance; for in God's presence there is perfect restoration.

The law of Karma is intricately tied to re-incarnation, and this is quite a different thing taught in the Bible. There is only one existence, no previous one, and our choices today affect our eternal destinies when Christ returns at a one time event.

Believe in what?

It's not new. Anyone seeking to give the impression that they practise a godly faith can prove it many times by their words and attitude to others. Every religion and philosophy have had ugly sides to them. It's up to the individual to show others what his/her faith is like - in word, attitude and deed.

@jagunlabi,
Boatrockers abound everywhere. It's just hilarious to see them use words like "hate" at everybody who's not in their camp. There are multiplied "directions" you can face - no qualms. Thank God for Christ.

@Reverend,
Please, sir. Breaking news is that those and other rules on Nairaland don't apply! If they do, the moderator is not doing his job. Hate speech and abusive lingo are no longer moderated on the Forum, and those three articles you outlined do not interest our moderator anymore. I'm not in support of the funny state of affairs, but perhaps you should preach to the moderator first before expecting fruit from Nairalanders.

@jagunlabi,
There are frauds in every system - from religion to science to philosophy to culture and what have you. Hating people does your vexed soul no good. Christianity is no fraud, and if there are fraudsters in Christebdom, that's not new: they were long prophecied, and one day God will expose them.

@ la_vivi,

Let's have some real woman talk, dearie.

In the Christian faith, there is nothing like re-incarnation; though some other religions and philosophies (like Bhuddism) believe in it. Re-incarnation (coming back in another body) is different from resurrection from the dead. Of course, resurrection speaks of being raised from the dead in glorified bodies (Phil. 3:21); but that will happen only once for all at the coming back of the Lord Jesus Christ. Further, resurrection is not the same thing as re-incarnation because Christ's resurrection is called the "firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Cor. 15:20), and those who believe in Him are waiting for the redemption of their body when He returns (Rom. 8:23).

Now to your question: "Can Somebody Die and still Come back to earth again?" Certainly, for the dead have been raised by the power of prayer (Acts 9:40; 20:9-10). The question is not simply if the dead can come back to earth, but how do they come? Reincarnation believes they come in some other person's body than theirs; but resurrection says we come back to life in our own very bodies, rather than in someone else's. If you read through the Bible you find that all those who were raised to life came back in their own bodies rather than in other people's bodies or in other bodies than theirs.

Your advice that one should "Live your life as if this is your last 'life Chance' for Salvation" may sound good, but it does not sound anything like Christian salvation. When someone trusts Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and lives for Him, all self-effort ceases immediately because one is no longer living as if things may go wrong and a re-incarnation process starts all over again; rather, the believer who lives in the power of the Holy Spirit knows that all's well and settled in Jesus already.


Re-incarnation is mention and suported in the bible - NOT!

John the Baptist was not the re-incarnation of Elijah. When the Jews asked John if he was Elijah, his emphatic answer was: "I am not." (John 1:21). So why then did Jesus say in Matt. 11:14, "And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come" in reference to John? The problem is cleared in Luke 1:17, which explains that John would carry out his ministry "in the spirit and power of Elias" (KJV, or "Elijah", NIV). The references in the Bible about John the Baptist and Elijah were not about re-incarnation. Rather, in their prophetic significance they simply pointed to the fact that God was prophetically speaking in symbolism in Malachi 4:5 and the significance is explained in Luke 1:17.

Another thing to note is that the disciples knew John the Baptist; but on the mount of transfiguration when they saw Elijah (appearing with Moses) they did not mistake him for John the Baptist (Matt.17:3-4). Elijah did not resemble John the Baptist, and that's because they were clearly two individuals. When the Bible speaks of John going in "the spirit and power of Elias" our attention is being drawn to the typology of their ministry, not re-incarnation.


Jesus Did Not Teach Re-incarnation in Matt. 16 and Mark 8

The verses there do not teach that Jesus consented in anyway to re-incarnation. When He asked His disciples what people thought of who He was, their answers were merely opinions - some said John the Baptist, others said Elijah, and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets (Matt. 16:14). This does not mean that Jesus was the re-incarnation of any or all of these; neither were the people supposing a re-incarnation had occured. They knew of the rising from the dead (Mark 6:16), so they could not have been thinking about re-incarnation. Of course, "Christ still did not say there is no Re-incarnation" simply because there was no need to discuss that since no one was thinking about incarnation at all. It would have been an off-topic if He had mentioned anything about re-incarnation.


Lazarus: Physical Death or Spiritual Death?

Lazarus' death was physical - that's why he was put in the grave like a corpse and was supposed to have been decomposing after four days there (read the narative in John 11) Jesus clearly mentioned that Lazarus was dead (verse 14), so the "sleep" He referred to in vs. 11 was not a stage of transition as in the belief in re-incarnation; but was rather pointing to a state of the blessed departed - for the New Testament does not speak of the dying of a believer, but rather the sleeping of those in Christ (see 1 Cor. 11:30 & 1 Thes. 4:13-14). John 11: 13 clearly explains that Jesus was speaking of Lazarus death.

Hebrews 9:27 - "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."
This immediately rules out re-incarnation, because this verse does not promote the idea that when a person dies, he/she may come back many times to achieve perfection. Christianity and the Law of Karma are two different things, because the Bible says that men die once and there's no second chance or re-incarnation before the judgement.


Summary[color=#770077][/color]

No, Re-incarnation and the Resurrection are not the same things. Biblical Christianity says "that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust" (Acts 24:15) so that each person will stand before the Judge in that Day to receive for whatever each person has done in their lives on earth. This resurrection is only once, not several times like re-incarnation; and it will happen when Jesus returns.

Hey gents, I've watched this debate with some quizzical interest. I've noted earlier that whether we like it or not, this will sooner than later degenerate into debates about positions than about issues. I don't think the topic seeks answers to the meaning of life, so darkmanzero don't waste your time inferring it is.

There you go again, jagunlabi. Everyone at one point or the other who points accusing fingers at others without checking himself/herself out is the biggest fraud. I have a Nigerian boyfriend who says there's a Nigerian adage from the south: "Whenever you point a finger at someone, three are pointing back at you, and your thick little thumb most likely is pointing at God!" I think that makes sense. You do not understand the Christian faith at all, and it has shown in almost every one of your posts in the Religion Forum. What do you really have against a faith you cannot stop or slow down? What has your vexed soul done for you with all your virulent slurring of a faith you really have no inkling about?

@everyone,

Let's see it from this angle: it basically has to do with the nature of man. Even outside religious discussions, we know of people from socially well-to-do families who have messed up: politicians, financiers, academics, top government officials, and several others. If it's not the sons or daughters, it's either the husband, wife or in-laws.

Now about kids of pastors and other leaders of the Church, no matter how hard a minister tries to bring up his family, it all rests on the condition of heart of the PK (pastor's kids). Long ago, God had told us that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked (Jer. 17:9). Everyone's heart before they came to a living faith in Christ is wicked, and that goes as well for those who know nothing better than to attack the things of God. However, this evil tendercy of the heart was manifested in several kids during the Old Testament times, so that it became a by-word in Israel (Ezek. 18:2), and then God revealed that a individual (young or adult) is fully responsible for his/her own sins - "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (Ezek. 18:20). QED.

The fact that my parents are Christians does not automatically guarantee that I'm a Christian - I'm no better than anyone else, unless I come to a personal faith in Jesus - and thank God, I already have. And if my parents were ministers in the Church, my choosing to do drugs and drag the name of the Lord into disrepute should not be blamed on my parents - it should be squarely blamed on me. . . because my actions are personal and reflect my own choices!

For those kids doing all they can to win public sympathy by ridiculing their parents who are in ministry, may God be merciful on them. The bigger issue is not the blame on their parents - it's more about answering to God for the disgrace they bring to His name!

Mr jagunlabi,

I notice that you always take the slightest opportunity to vent a personal grievance at the Christian faith. May I ask you what all your attacks have accomplished for you personally?

And BTW,
@nferyn, I'm not personally against you - issues are my primary concern. I hope I've been objective enough to present myself thus, but my apologies if you don't read me so. It's rather a bit surprising that you can't keep calm and would hurriedly use words like "disingenuous" and "misinformed social scientists" in debates. Whatever. Pal, be cool - the world's a big place.  

Sorry folks, been in class and just got back to base. Besides, I was only searching for materials for an assignment which I just turned in. Reason why I decided to drop a few lines was an observation that people are more ready to deviate from the main issues of any discussion so as to defend a position, which often happens in so many weblogs.

@xkape,
Thanks for calling my attention. I actually went through over 178 entries before I turned to the previous page and saw yours. Indeed, you made some good sense (at least, to me), which you've summarised just above again.

@KAG,
My interest is more in issues than in positions. You're free to defend anything other than issues, and I'm not obliged to be scholarly about that.

@4get_me,
Hey dude, haven't seen you lately on the Forum - would like to see a follow up from you on this if you're in the slightest interested to do so. (I noticed you're not the type that stretches an argument when people make little sense to you; but my interest is informed by your mentioning the very core question that happens to be the main concern of modern evolution thinking). Might send you an email - maybe I could learn more from you about the questions you raised.

@everyone,
You're all great folks and we can agree to have different perspectives on any issue at all. Take it easy and less redeyes and hotheads.

KAG:
Dan Barker may have been a minister, and it was theological enquiries (amongst other things) that led him to change from his previously held worldview from christianity, to atheism. *shrugs*

So, what's your point - that we're debating between theism and atheism? nferyn was of the view that science is ultimately superior to other fields of enquiry (which is not the case), and my reference to Anthony Flew is that Philosophy is as legitimate a field of enquiry as much as what is called science. In other words, Philosophy is a science; thus, it was scientific enquiries even within Philosophy that led Prof. Flew to change his worldview, because the ultimate question as to origin and existence still remains unsatisfactorily answered by the theory of evolution. That Dan Baker became an atheist does not read my point here at all, unless you're further confirming my suspicion that people sometimes fail to look at issues and veer off instead at defending a position.

@nferyn,
I saw and read all those underlines, and indeed offered you to make an objective search yourself. Two things I would like you to pay attention to from the Wikipedia quote:

1)

In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are rarely used in scientific circles

First, the word has been modified so that it has a connotation in modern times different from earlier times.
Second, it does not mean that Evolutionism did not exist as you earlier stated.
Third, that it is rarely used does not mean that it has never been so used in scientific circles.
So, what's your question?

2)

However, all three of these terms are commonly used by anthropologists, sociologists, and other scholars outside the physical and life sciences

That they are now commonly used by anthropologists, sociologists and other scholars does not mean that the physical and life sciences are superior to the former. If you're persuaded that the former are inferior to the latter, you're not doing science.

3)

Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific study.

That scientists (as if there are only the physical and life sciences) object to the term is understood for the reasons undergirding their object; but that does not mean that any other researcher using the term evolutionism and evolutionists is necessarily a creationist; otherwise, you perhaps would be telling me that all anthropologists and sociologists are creationists.

My observations are based on the half-truth assertions you made earlier, and my first post was to the effect that you were wrong on both counts - evolutionism as a term exists, and it is not a label used by Creationists as if to say that it is only Creationists that use that term. You can solve this problem for yourself this way: do an objective search and find out if Evolutionism is never used even by the physical and life scientists. You may discredit all others and take only what helps your arguments (we all are guilty of doing that, really) but I offered the non-religious simple online definition that is commonly used in many fields of life sciences in this link, and it reads simply:

   Noun: evolutionism
          1. (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals
              - theory of evolution, theory of organic evolution.

We may all see things differently. Debating issues is a different matter from debating positions. You may disagree with what you read, but what's all the red eyes about? 

Hi everyone,

I was searching the web for articles for an assignment and stumbled across this weblog. It happens that there are good entries from a lot of folks on this Forum, but I'm sad to say that a closer look at the issues reveals some people are so impassioned about defending their cause that they lose sight of the central theme.

@4get_me,
Please don't be offended, but I think you asked a very legitimate question (the question of why in the grand scheme of things) and made good sense, and a huge one at that. The problem predictably was that you were a bit too technical for nferyn (and maybe for some other folks), and as it turned out, he lost direction.

@nferyn,
Again, I beg that you don't be offended, but to me (I may be wrong) you were running around in circles. Intelligent though you seemed to be, but anyone with good sense will agree that intelligence leaves personal agenda and face issues. Unfortunately, you detracted and flew off the handle into something else. How? Let me explain -

As a student, what we don't want to see is half-truths and prejudiced opinions. I don't know where you ever got the idea from that "Evolutionism does not exist, it's a label used by Creationists." Really? The point is that you're doubly wrong.
  (a) Evolutionism actually exists as a field of study
  (b) It is not a label used by Creationists, but rather by the scientific community.
I expected you'd have done a search first to ascertain your statement, but perhaps you failed to do so. And what if indeed Creationists use the term - that becomes too much for you to handle? That kind of attitude smirks of prejudice. It is almost like what many atheists do today: they come off trying to redefine atheism and claiming that only theists define atheism as the belief in the non-existence of deity/God. That really isn't balanced because the people making that sort of claim just don't know the reality of what they're talking about.

I'm not trying to pick you apart, but when you earlier stated that "Maybe why isn't even a valid question in the grand scheme of things", I wondered if you were kidding - please take a look at reality and be very aware of what is currently happening: modern science is having to deal with this very question more than ever in the past. And that is the propelling force behind many enquiries - scientific, philosophic, religious, political, cultural, . . . and even plain fiction.

It seems to me that you trailed off discussing the Theory of Evolution and meandered into atheistic evolutionism. It does not appear that your concern was more about ToE, but rather the discrediting of other legitimate fields of study which you virulently classed off as "arrogance. . . non-sense, a mockery of science." Please be informed that science is no Cinderella all by herself - you don't have a monopoly on science in order to pride yourself as one defending science. Philosophy is as legitimate a discipline as what is called science, and so is creationism. Anthony Flew may have been a philosopher, and it was scientific enquiries that led him to change his previously held worldview from atheistic evolutionism to deism.

In all, you made some valid inputs - as did everyone else; but you flawed your position seriously by your unbalanced assertions. For a peep view of evolutionism as actually existing outside the confines of Creationists enquiries, please follow this link or do a balanced search of your own. Wikipedia offers an explanation of the term from a historical perspective as well. Fact is, you're wrong; and the term actually exists.

@simmy,
Many thanks for your inputs. I think some of our readers need to take a careful and objective look at issues here.

Closing remarks:

Evolution remains simply as a theory, and is yet to provide a satisfying answer to the basic questions of origin and existence. This is the fundamental questions that informs the debate between Creationism and Evolutionism. Faith in creation should not be rubbished on the premise that science is superior to any other field of enquiry, because scientific enquiry is far too constrained in providing answers to so many questions in the natural world. We all see things from different angles and interpretations; but that shouldn't be grounds for anyone to be arrogantly assertive with half-truths on either camp of the debate - whether Evolutionism or Creationism.

Thank you.